Just Curious... how much has the illegal problem in California has contributed to their economic fall out?

[Socio]

Originally posted by: Evan

Originally posted by: Socio

Originally posted by: Evan
There are 2-3M illegals in CA depending on how you count, so 2.5M is probably a reasonable guesstimate. Based on legal immigrant consumption trends (let's say Mexican-only for argument's sake), an illegal Mexican family of 5 (2 parents plus 2.7 children, which was their replacement rate last I checked two years ago), illegal immigrant consumption alone would yield $7B in revenue for the state, a conservative estimate. There's also the cold, hard reality that studies show illegals have a clear net positive benefit economically:

Because of the shift in domestic production, some domestic workers, especially the less skilled ones, who had been working in industry X, may now have to move to industry Y. In addition to wage effects, immigration has "displacement" effects. Some domestic workers will be "displaced" by immigrants, in the sense that they will now have to work in a different industry.

In the simple model, we are assuming that the process of displacement is costless, in that displaced workers will eventually find employment in the other sector. This is a good characterization of the long run, but in the short run adjustment does have costs. It may take time to find this new job, with all the anxiety associated with that search. Changing jobs may mean moving out of one's neighborhood, city, or even region, with a loss of family, friends, and familiar schools and churches. Many Americans who perceive themselves to be displaced by immigrants resent having to make this adjustment. ?Perceive" is an important word in this sentence because an attribution problem emerges when it comes to immigration. Some may associate their displacement with immigrant when the real cause lies elsewhere.

Whatever it costs, more efficient domestic production is not the only gain from immigration. There is also the gain associated with specialization in consumption. Just as the presence of immigrants allows natives to specialize in production, it allows them to consume something different from what they can produce themselves. As a nation, we may be very good at producing good Y, but we really like good X. Immigration is one way we can have the best of both worlds; making what we are good at and also consuming what we like. The welfare gain from shifting production toward more valuable activities that use the relatively more skilled native labor, and the gain in consumption toward commodities whose cast has fallen.

In sum, the net welfare gains from immigration stem from two sources. By having immigrants specialize in the production of goods requiring a lot of low-killed labor, it allows us to shift our domestic production toward those goods (Y) in which natives are relatively efficient (those that need a lot of skilled labor) and away from those that can be produced more cheaply by immigrants. The second component is the gain in consumption. Before immigration (and with no international trade), we could consume only that which we could produce domestically. Immigration breaks this rigid link between domestic consumption and domestic production, allowing us to produce goods of which we are relatively efficient producers and to consume those good that conform to our tastes.

http://books.google.com/books?...NXR3ygRComdM#PPA145,M1

So overall, it's always, well, intriguing to think that illegal immigration has a net negative impact economically, but reality is a far different story, backed by statistics and observation. Any other study or data on the matter would, of course, be interesting to read. Ultimately, it won't yield anything different than what has already proven to be shown. The only issue seems to be rapid and massive overpopulation of immigrants (illegal or not), a sort of "shock" to the system, if it exceeds 15% of the U.S. population in a given area.

Your comparing legal and illegal immigrants, that is like comparing apple and oranges.

Rising health care costs

At the state and local level, illegal immigrants already cost more in public services such as education and health care than they pay in taxes, the Congressional Budget Office reported recently. Illegal immigrants make up less than 5% of the cost in most states, but closer to 10% in some California counties. In 2000, counties along the Mexican border lost more than $800 million in health care services for which they were not paid; about 25% of that went to care for illegal immigrants, according to a report by the United States/Mexico Border Counties Coalition.

Do illegal immigrants receive more government benefits than they pay in taxes?

"The average illegal immigrant family receives an average of $30,000 in governmental benefits! Yet they pay only about $9,000 in taxes per year. That creates a $21,000 shortfall that the American taxpayer has to make up. That's like buying each of the illegal immigrant families a brand new Mustang convertible -- each and every year!"

You tack on other costs like Border patrol, ICE, incarceration, (25-30percent of our prison inmate population are illegal?s), legal system costs for those being incarcerated etc?. You will find the total cost of illegal immigrants is overwhelmingly disproportionate to their benefit.

No, it's not disproportionate and if anything you just proved my point by not being able to come up with $7B in costs, which is the conservative amount illegals consume in CA. Get over it.

Your article is about immigration NOT illegal immigration!

Legal immigration is a benefit, Illegal is not; unlike illegals, legals come in we know who they are and where they are, they have jobs setup already, they get issued SS's , pay taxes and for the most part do not leech off the system, big difference.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: Socio

Your article is about immigration NOT illegal immigration!

You didn't read the article carefully. Read it again.

Legal immigration is a benefit, Illegal is not; unlike illegals, legals come in we know who they are and where they are, they have jobs setup already, they get issued SS's , pay taxes and for the most part do not leech off the system, big difference.

You didn't read the article, at all. Their consumption alone makes up for the vast majority of taxes they don't pay and social services they use. I don't want them using public services either if they're not legal, but since they consume in the billions, pay sales tax (which is 8.25% in CA), and commit crimes at a lower rate than the population, it's not surprising Californian's aren't up in arms about it nearly as much as paranoid wingnuts like yourself. It's also not surprising CA remains the largest economy with the largest population in the union.

 

[fornax]

Originally posted by: shira
Again, this report doesn't indicate how much illegals pay into the system.

In many, many cases, state income axes are withheld from the pay of illegals, but they don't file tax returns and don't get valid refunds.

How exactly, do you think, income tax (state and federal) is withheld from workers without SSNs and how is it remitted? Do you see UFOs over your house every evening too?

 

[fornax]

Originally posted by: Evan
You didn't read the article, at all. Their consumption alone makes up for the vast majority of taxes they don't pay and social services they use. I don't want them using public services either if they're not legal, but since they consume in the billions, pay sales tax (which is 8.25% in CA), and commit crimes at a lower rate than the population, it's not surprising Californian's aren't up in arms about it nearly as much as paranoid wingnuts like yourself. It's also not surprising CA remains the largest economy with the largest population in the union.

So by your logic India, China, Bangladesh, Nigeria, etc. must be the richest countries: so many consumers.

They consume in the billions because there are millions of them (but most of them quite poor). You won't consume much with $8-$10 per hour, half of it going to Mexico. I lived some years near Costa Mesa (Orange County), one of the more affluent immigrant communities. Had a few Mexican friends, sometimes went to their houses to fix a computer or some electronics stuff, and generally help. Most of the stuff in the house was from Good Will or a garage sale, very basic existence. A lot of the cash goes to Mexico (more than gets spent here). So I wouldn't really call them profligate consumers. Food (a lot of it imported from Mexico, bought mostly from their own markets), used clothes, used electronics, used furniture - that basically sums it up. A lot of cell phones though

Of course, there are quite a few affluent people, lower middle-class or above, but as a rule those are LEGAL immigrants, with a job and education.

 

[fornax]

Originally posted by: Evan
The facts and figures are definitely out there, and as I said before, you either refuse to read the studies or failed high school math if you don't come to the conclusion that, despite being here illegally, they actually end up providing a net positive economic benefit. The only study that shows illegals providing a net negative economic impact are the ones that admit that, for the most part, it's confined to areas of well over 15% illegal populations. Considering California stands at 8%, it's not really surprising the net economic benefits of illegals are agreed upon by a consensus of economists.

Except that California is not a homogeneous mass. There are (big) areas where illegal immigrants easily tops 15%. And there are areas where the only occasional illegal would be your landscaper driven from quite afar.

You display a very strange logic: it's OK to condone something against the law as long as it has net (or even some) positive result (for some people). Stretch your logic a little bit further and you have become a supporter of virtually all economic crime.


We should follow Canada's example (the bastion of North American liberalism). Every foreign (not a citizen or landed immigrant) child there needs a Student Authorization, even to enroll in kindergarten. Same goes for students, and employment authorization for workers. On the other hand, legal immigration and later citizenship are well managed, and people legally in Canada (students, temporary workers, etc.) enjoy most of the fruits of the society.

The US has become the laughing stock of all countries in regard to their immigration policies. When I was applying for a Chilean visa (I had to work there for some time), the consul mentioned in passing, "good thing you're not a Chinese or Korean, you'd need much more paperwork. We don't want to become like the US".

 

[First]

Originally posted by: fornax

Originally posted by: Evan
You didn't read the article, at all. Their consumption alone makes up for the vast majority of taxes they don't pay and social services they use. I don't want them using public services either if they're not legal, but since they consume in the billions, pay sales tax (which is 8.25% in CA), and commit crimes at a lower rate than the population, it's not surprising Californian's aren't up in arms about it nearly as much as paranoid wingnuts like yourself. It's also not surprising CA remains the largest economy with the largest population in the union.

So by your logic India, China, Bangladesh, Nigeria, etc. must be the richest countries: so many consumers.

Considering none of those countries can consume anywhere near the amount you can in the U.S., it's apples and oranges, or rather watermelons in this case. Those countries' wages and standards of living are entirely different, i.e. inferior in the extreme: GDP per capita

They consume in the billions because there are millions of them (but most of them quite poor). You won't consume much with $8-$10 per hour, half of it going to Mexico.

*Half* of it isn't going to Mexico, and you can consume plenty at $8-$10 an hour, you just can't live well generally, which is unfortunately why they have to work so many hours.

I lived some years near Costa Mesa (Orange County), one of the more affluent immigrant communities. Had a few Mexican friends, sometimes went to their houses to fix a computer or some electronics stuff, and generally help. Most of the stuff in the house was from Good Will or a garage sale, very basic existence. A lot of the cash goes to Mexico (more than gets spent here). So I wouldn't really call them profligate consumers. Food (a lot of it imported from Mexico, bought mostly from their own markets), used clothes, used electronics, used furniture - that basically sums it up. A lot of cell phones though

Of course, there are quite a few affluent people, lower middle-class or above, but as a rule those are LEGAL immigrants, with a job and education.

Hate to burst your bubble, but there are plenty of legal Mexican immigrants that live very poorly. In fact, legal Mexican immigrants don't live significantly better than illegals, and in fact legal Hispanics are one of the worst off economically just ahead of Blacks.

A transfer of goods like welfare and goodwill doesn't create wealth, true, but it's hard to argue $7B. No, half of that isn't going to Mexico.

Originally posted by: fornax

Except that California is not a homogeneous mass. There are (big) areas where illegal immigrants easily tops 15%. And there are areas where the only occasional illegal would be your landscaper driven from quite afar.

I didn't say some areas were not hit harder than others. Facts are facts though, and the vast majority of CA counties do not have illegal immigrant populations above 15%. And btw, the ones that are over 15% still grow and provide a net economic benefit, just at a increasingly diminishing return.

You display a very strange logic: it's OK to condone something against the law as long as it has net (or even some) positive result (for some people). Stretch your logic a little bit further and you have become a supporter of virtually all economic crime.

That's not what I said at all. I said there are undeniable practicalities that are ignored when people say they're committing a crime by being here. Fact is, how do you deal with 10M-20M illegals being in the U.S.? If you prosecuted them like you did anyone else committing a crime, you'd have to deport all of them. You're fringe lunatic if you believe that's remotely possible, it would backlog the court system to eternity and needlessly throw out millions of perfectly decent human beings providing a net economic benefit to the country. I don't condone illegal immigration, I simply understand that it's highly impractical to enforce this law to the point where all of them should be prosecuted, because it's totally impractical. That's just the reality. I'd like for every single one of them to become legal. I'd also like for Americans to stop people from driving drunk, but the man power to enforce each and every single instance of intoxicated drivers is beyond any practical policing power.

We should follow Canada's example (the bastion of North American liberalism). Every foreign (not a citizen or landed immigrant) child there needs a Student Authorization, even to enroll in kindergarten. Same goes for students, and employment authorization for workers. On the other hand, legal immigration and later citizenship are well managed, and people legally in Canada (students, temporary workers, etc.) enjoy most of the fruits of the society.

Canada has nowhere near the same border problems the U.S. does, is highly homogeneous culturally, and has a much smaller population. They're in the perfect position geographically, in terms of their isolated land mass, not to be bordering on a country that has so many people desperate for work. And frankly, Canada doesn't have anywhere near the same appeal or services the U.S. does. The comparison is a poor one.

The US has become the laughing stock of all countries in regard to their immigration policies. When I was applying for a Chilean visa (I had to work there for some time), the consul mentioned in passing, "good thing you're not a Chinese or Korean, you'd need much more paperwork. We don't want to become like the US".

Yes, I'm sure the U.S. needs to be taking human rights advice from Chile. Come on, is this a joke? :laugh:

 

[L00PY]

Originally posted by: fornax

Originally posted by: shira
Again, this report doesn't indicate how much illegals pay into the system.

In many, many cases, state income axes are withheld from the pay of illegals, but they don't file tax returns and don't get valid refunds.

How exactly, do you think, income tax (state and federal) is withheld from workers without SSNs and how is it remitted? Do you see UFOs over your house every evening too?

Without a SSN, someone could get an individual taxpayer identification number and pay taxes with that. Illegals have also been known to falsify SSNs or to steal them. In those cases, taxes would be withheld and it's likely no return would be filed.

If the employer is paying employees under the table, this is a problem regardless of immigration status.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: piasabirdPeople in California like slaves.

We might have one to free ourselves. If the depression becomes worse than the Great Depression, we could even have a revolution with guillotines for CEOs, politicians, media pundits, and shill economists. "Off with their heads!" Chop chop!

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
Pssst, the illegals are not just in California. This is an everywhere problem.

At my local Meijer superstore here in the Midwest, I've noticed a couple Hispanics who run the floor-cleaning machines and I wonder if they're illegals. It's probably just me jumping to conclusions, but perhaps not.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Evan
There are 2-3M illegals in CA depending on how you count, so 2.5M is probably a reasonable guesstimate. Based on legal immigrant consumption trends (let's say Mexican-only for argument's sake), an illegal Mexican family of 5 (2 parents plus 2.7 children, which was their replacement rate last I checked two years ago), illegal immigrant consumption alone would yield $7B in revenue for the state, a conservative estimate. There's also the cold, hard reality that studies show illegals have a clear net positive benefit economically:

Because of the shift in domestic production, some domestic workers, especially the less skilled ones, who had been working in industry X, may now have to move to industry Y. In addition to wage effects, immigration has "displacement" effects. Some domestic workers will be "displaced" by immigrants, in the sense that they will now have to work in a different industry.

In the simple model, we are assuming that the process of displacement is costless, in that displaced workers will eventually find employment in the other sector. This is a good characterization of the long run, but in the short run adjustment does have costs. It may take time to find this new job, with all the anxiety associated with that search. Changing jobs may mean moving out of one's neighborhood, city, or even region, with a loss of family, friends, and familiar schools and churches. Many Americans who perceive themselves to be displaced by immigrants resent having to make this adjustment. ?Perceive" is an important word in this sentence because an attribution problem emerges when it comes to immigration. Some may associate their displacement with immigrant when the real cause lies elsewhere.

Whatever it costs, more efficient domestic production is not the only gain from immigration. There is also the gain associated with specialization in consumption. Just as the presence of immigrants allows natives to specialize in production, it allows them to consume something different from what they can produce themselves. As a nation, we may be very good at producing good Y, but we really like good X. Immigration is one way we can have the best of both worlds; making what we are good at and also consuming what we like. The welfare gain from shifting production toward more valuable activities that use the relatively more skilled native labor, and the gain in consumption toward commodities whose cast has fallen.

In sum, the net welfare gains from immigration stem from two sources. By having immigrants specialize in the production of goods requiring a lot of low-killed labor, it allows us to shift our domestic production toward those goods (Y) in which natives are relatively efficient (those that need a lot of skilled labor) and away from those that can be produced more cheaply by immigrants. The second component is the gain in consumption. Before immigration (and with no international trade), we could consume only that which we could produce domestically. Immigration breaks this rigid link between domestic consumption and domestic production, allowing us to produce goods of which we are relatively efficient producers and to consume those good that conform to our tastes.

http://books.google.com/books?...NXR3ygRComdM#PPA145,M1

So overall, it's always, well, intriguing to think that illegal immigration has a net negative impact economically, but reality is a far different story, backed by statistics and observation. Any other study or data on the matter would, of course, be interesting to read. Ultimately, it won't yield anything different than what has already proven to be shown. The only issue seems to be rapid and massive overpopulation of immigrants (illegal or not), a sort of "shock" to the system, if it exceeds 15% of the U.S. population in a given area.

Translation--a higher population is good because it allows for a greater division of labor; that's the argument.

The author's simplistic argument (in that excerpt) completely fails to address the issues of population costs (increased strain on the environment and higher costs resulting from a decreasing amount of resources per capita, such as good land and natural resources). It also assumes that the nation's economy and capital will grow fast enough to accommodate the rate of population increase. It also fails to question whether the value of the immigrant labor exceeds the value of government-provided benefits received (education, health care, criminal justice) and the negative costs (some of which he mentioned) to individual Americans.

 

[babylon5]

Sure, if you're for business interests, you'd want more and more illegals to work for you. As long as they get to keep fat profit margin by paying slave-like wages, they couldnt' give a damn about the social cost.

Business interests could care less about the taxpayer cost (as we have seen in this bailout).

 

[First]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper


Translation--a higher population is good because it allows for a greater division of labor; that's the argument.

The author's simplistic argument (in that excerpt) completely fails to address the issues of population costs (increased strain on the environment and higher costs resulting from a decreasing amount of resources per capita, such as good land and natural resources). It also assumes that the nation's economy and capital will grow fast enough to accommodate the rate of population increase. It also fails to question whether the value of the immigrant labor exceeds the value of government-provided benefits received (education, health care, criminal justice) and the negative costs (some of which he mentioned) to individual Americans.

No actually, the author does address them. For one, "good land" isn't running out, and nothing suggests it will, doesn't even deserve an analysis, it's a stupid argument. Secondly, you could stop immigration altogether and you'd still have the issue of environmental strain and resource strain, since Americans reproduce well past the 2.0 replacement rate. To limit immigration would just delay the inevitable. Thirdly, resources per capita have been able to sustain population growth for 233 years, no reason to believe it'll stop anytime soon with photovoltaics and all sorts of alternative sources of energy (wind) getting closer to grid-parity cost every single day. And finally, there's no reason to believe the U.S. wouldn't be able to accommodate an increased amount of residents when the U.S. has a track record of being able to technologically feed that consumer demand. To even suggest there wouldn't be private enterprise out there capable of meeting consumer demand is to engage in unproven Malthusian hackery.

And your last point doesn't even make any sense. Much like your posts.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: EvanThe facts and figures are definitely out there, and as I said before, you either refuse to read the studies or failed high school math if you don't come to the conclusion that, despite being here illegally, they actually end up providing a net positive economic benefit.

The alleged facts and figures seem to defy logic and may have been composed by people with questionable motivations and biases. The alleged "figures" might also conveniently overlook all sorts of invisible back-end costs, such as the higher population costs that I've mentioned before.

Considering California stands at 8%, it's not really surprising the net economic benefits of illegals are agreed upon by a consensus of economists.

It's difficult to take a "consensus of economists" real seriously today since economics is essentially a social science (like the study of political science and law) and not a hard science (like physics or chemistry) and economists can be purchased.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Evan...and commit crimes at a lower rate than the population...

Are you referring to legal immigrants or illegal immigrants or both? It seems almost incredulous that this could be true for illegal immigrants who can more easily get away with criminal activity since it's harder for the government to track them and to identify them. Maybe I'm wrong, but I find it difficult to believe.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
The alleged facts and figures seem to defy logic and may have been composed by people with questionable motivations and biases. The alleged "figures" might also conveniently overlook all sorts of invisible back-end costs, such as the higher population costs that I've mentioned before.

Then come up with your own research and analysis, or link to a study that does it for you. Otherwise you're just engaging in layman speculation.

It's difficult to take a "consensus of economists" real seriously today since economics is essentially a social science (like the study of political science and law) and not a hard science (like physics or chemistry) and economists can be purchased.

Except you can't argue numbers, and the numbers say you're wrong. You can argue methodology all you want, that's fine, except you're still left with the reality that you haven't come up with a superior alternative methodology for calculating immigration costs. Time to learn to deal with that reality.

And I hate to break it to you, but physicists and chemists can be bought and it is routinely attempted. Break out of the bubble and visit your local research institution.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: EvanNo actually, the author does address them. For one, "good land" isn't running out, and nothing suggests it will, doesn't even deserve an analysis, it's a stupid argument.

So you're saying that the amount of land that we have here in the U.S. is essentially infinite? Wouldn't just about all of the most productive arable land be in use already? Also, is there some sort of an environmental value to not having all of the land being used for human activities? Perhaps we benefit from having large tracts of forests to serve as carbon sinks and for oxygen production? My other point about good land is that as the demand for land increases, so does the cost, essentially imposing a "high population" cost on the citizenry.

Secondly, you could stop immigration altogether and you'd still have the issue of environmental strain and resource strain, since Americans reproduce well past the 2.0 replacement rate. To limit immigration would just delay the inevitable.

Giving us more time to address the problem and making it more manageable.

Thirdly, resources per capita have been able to sustain population growth for 233 years, no reason to believe it'll stop anytime soon with photovoltaics and all sorts of alternative sources of energy (wind) getting closer to grid-parity cost every single day.

...And given a certain level of technology we'd have more resources per capita with a lower population. Also, overpopulation contributes to crushing poverty (low resources per capita, especially land) in many parts of the world (India, China, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Africa, etc.)

And finally, there's no reason to believe the U.S. wouldn't be able to accommodate an increased amount of residents when the U.S. has a track record of being able to technologically feed that consumer demand. To even suggest there wouldn't be private enterprise out there capable of meeting consumer demand is to engage in unproven Malthusian hackery.

Do you understand Malthus? My point wasn't that the U.S. economy wouldn't find a way to "accommodate" a higher population, just that, given a certain level of technological advance, we'd have more wealth and a higher standard of living with a lower population.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: EvanThen come up with your own research and analysis, or link to a study that does it for you. Otherwise you're just engaging in layman speculation.

Since I'm not receiving any sort of compensation for my participation in these forums, I'm perfectly comfortable with a "layman's analysis". I'm sure that I could go find research and analysis to back myself up if I felt like putting in the time and effort. I'm also sure that there's abundant "research and analysis" to support both sides of the issue. I might be interested in doing it if I were receiving compensation or writing a formal article or if it had a career-enhancing value associated with it. I suppose I could start with the work of Harvard economist George Bjoras.

It's difficult to take a "consensus of economists" real seriously today since economics is essentially a social science (like the study of political science and law) and not a hard science (like physics or chemistry) and economists can be purchased.

Except you can't argue numbers, and the numbers say you're wrong. You can argue methodology all you want, that's fine, except you're still left with the reality that you haven't come up with a superior alternative methodology for calculating immigration costs. Time to learn to deal with that reality.

The numbers are only as good as the methodology behind them and the research that produced the numbers.

And I hate to break it to you, but physicists and chemists can be bought and it is routinely attempted. Break out of the bubble and visit your local research institution.

I thought of that myself since scientists can be paid to say that tobacco doesn't have any negative health effects, etc. However, it's more difficult to do, false claims are easier to disprove and more transparent, and science is not an inherently political undertaking.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: EvanNo actually, the author does address them. For one, "good land" isn't running out, and nothing suggests it will, doesn't even deserve an analysis, it's a stupid argument.

So you're saying that the amount of land that we have here in the U.S. is essentially infinite? Wouldn't just about all of the most productive arable land be in use already? Also, is there some sort of an environmental value to not having all of the land being used for human activities? Perhaps we benefit from having large tracts of forests to serve as carbon sinks and for oxygen production? My other point about good land is that as the demand for land increases, so does the cost, essentially imposing a "high population" cost on the citizenry.

The amount of available land, even factoring out national forests and parks and the like, is so far ahead in the future that it borders on insane to suggest it will run out. We are so far off from population saturation in the U.S. that it isn't worth discussing. By the time we reach that point we could very well have the ability to teleport people and products thousands of miles, leaving no use for roads and bridges and opening up yet more land for residences. That scary future is likely how far away we are from land saturation and, frankly, you'll actually have to reference a study that says otherwise, because I've certainly never seen it.

Giving us more time to address the problem and making it more manageable.

Uh, like how?

...And given a certain level of technology we'd have more resources per capita with a lower population. Also, overpopulation contributes to crushing poverty (low resources per capita, especially land) in many parts of the world (India, China, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Africa, etc.)

Except this same poor, tired logic is no different than eugenics, i.e. population control, and that would apply to home-grown American "natives", non-immigrants (ignoring for a second we were all immigrants to this country at one point). Are you honestly suggesting we should impose reproductive limits on American citizens?

Do you understand Malthus? My point wasn't that the U.S. economy wouldn't find a way to "accommodate" a higher population, just that, given a certain level of technological advance, we'd have more wealth and a higher standard of living with a lower population.

Again, you are entirely ignoring centuries of data showing a strong correlation between countries whom allow gradual population growth and that country's increased productivity and wealth. The more people are given the freedom to succeed and grow, and the better educated they are, the wealthier and more prosperous the nation. It's not even in dispute. This applies to some of those countries you listed btw, India and China specifically, who are so far better off than they were just 30 years ago it isn't even close. Of course, they still have a massive hill to climb, but they are significantly better off than they used to be.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Since I'm not receiving any sort of compensation for my participation in these forums, I'm perfectly comfortable with a "layman's analysis". I'm sure that I could go find research and analysis to back myself up if I felt like putting in the time and effort. I'm also sure that there's abundant "research and analysis" to support both sides of the issue.

No, there isn't.

I might be interested in doing it if I were receiving compensation or writing a formal article or if it had a career-enhancing value associated with it. I suppose I could start with the work of Harvard economist George Bjoras.

I'm not sure what you're doing participating in a discussion you are admittedly unfamiliar and misinformed about. To each his own.

The numbers are only as good as the methodology behind them and the research that produced the numbers.

Right, and you'll have to come up with a superior methodology to prove your theories if you want to be taken seriously. As is, your assumptions are merely that, assumptions. And based on, well, whatever comes to your head I presume?

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: piasabird
People in California like slaves.

I ain't got me no slaves!

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: Socio

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: piasabird
People in California like slaves.

Do we get to have a civil war to free these slaves?

If I could save California without deporting any illegal, I would do it; and if I could save it by deporting all illegals, I would do it; and if I could do it by deporting some and leaving others alone, I would also do that

Them leaving might not be a choice;

If the job loss rate continues to drop I expect that the US is going to get real ugly for illegal's. When they become desperate enough unemployed Americans will want the jobs the illegal are currently are occupying so they can put food on the table for their families.

It will be no more looking the other way, it will be full scale persecution.

I don't expect American citizens to get out in the fields and pick their own lettuce any time soon.

 

[Infohawk]

Politically incorrect truth: I think hispanic immigration costs more than we get out of it. Sure restaurants might be a little cheaper but they use public handouts consistently. I can't imagine that their tax contributions match what they take. I remember the day where they "boycotted" work. The highways were empty. It was great and it's not like everything fell apart.

 

[Vic]

The act of making something illegal, in and of itself, never stopped people from doing whatever it is that was made illegal, especially if that's what they had to do in order to survive. It just made some asshole pufftoads feel important about themselves.
If we were genuinely concerned about illegal immigration as an economic problem, the first thing we would have done is make it easier to become a legal citizen.

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: Vic
The act of making something illegal, in and of itself, never stopped people from doing whatever it is that was made illegal, especially if that's what they had to do in order to survive. It just made some asshole pufftoads feel important about themselves.
If we were genuinely concerned about illegal immigration as an economic problem, the first thing we would have done is secure the border then start actively prosecuting anyone who hires an illegal immigrant.

I fixed that for ya Vic.


IMO, MOST Americans don't think it should be easier to become a citizen...nor easier to legally immigrate here.

This is America...and citizenship should be the holy grail for immigrants. They have to WANT it...

Of course, I also think that the laws should be changed to prohibit dual-citizenships. If you want to be an American citizen, then give up the citizenship in your native land.
Make up your mind. American or ???

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: Vic
The act of making something illegal, in and of itself, never stopped people from doing whatever it is that was made illegal, especially if that's what they had to do in order to survive. It just made some asshole pufftoads feel important about themselves.
If we were genuinely concerned about illegal immigration as an economic problem, the first thing we would have done is secure the border then start actively prosecuting anyone who hires an illegal immigrant.

I fixed that for ya Vic.


IMO, MOST Americans don't think it should be easier to become a citizen...nor easier to legally immigrate here.

This is America...and citizenship should be the holy grail for immigrants. They have to WANT it...

Of course, I also think that the laws should be changed to prohibit dual-citizenships. If you want to be an American citizen, then give up the citizenship in your native land.
Make up your mind. American or ???

Your 'fix' is no solution, just rhetoric that completely ignored what I was saying. We have many laws that are strictly enforced, but that rarely stops people from breaking them if they are dead-set on doing so. In some circumstances, like murder and other violence, even stricter enforcement is our only just recourse. In other less serious circumstances though, like in illegal immigration or drug abuse, there is room for a less blunt and more intelligent solution to be found.