Obama to order immunity for young illegal immigrants

Page 14 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
66,187
14,616
146
TBH the immunity should be more sweeping. If people are living here, paying taxes, and living better lives than some of the natives why should they not be freed from the day to day fear of deportation?

By your logic, a bank robber who was never caught, but has instead lived a productive life, shouldn't be pursued and prosecuted?

Illegal is illegal.

Let’s say I break into your house. Let’s say that when you discover me in your house, you insist that I leave. But I say, ‘No! I like it here. It’s better than my house. I’ve made all the beds and washed the dishes and did the laundry and swept the floors. I’ve done all the things you don’t like to do. I’m hard-working and honest (except for when I broke into your house).’

According to the protesters:

You are Required to let me stay in your house
You are Required to feed me
You are Required to add me to your family’s insurance plan
You are Required to educate my kids
You are Required to provide other benefits to me & to my family

(my husband will do all of your yard work because he is also hard-working and honest, except for that breaking in part).

If you try to call the police or force me out, I will call my friends who will picket your house carrying signs that proclaim my RIGHT to be there.

It’s only fair, after all, because you have a nicer house than I do, and I’m just trying to better myself. I’m a hard-working and honest, person, except for well, you know, I did break into your house And what a deal it is for me!!!

I live in your house, contributing only a fraction of the cost of my keep, and there is nothing you can do about it without being accused of cold, uncaring, selfish, prejudiced, and bigoted behavior.

Oh yeah, I DEMAND that you learn MY LANGUAGE!!! so you can communicate with me.

Why can’t people see how ridiculous this is?!”

It DOES NOT MATTER if they were brought here by their parents as children...if they just "over-stayed" their visas...they're here illegally.
 

Svnla

Lifer
Nov 10, 2003
17,986
1,388
126
Even though its been patiently and clearly pointed out what the difference between 'illegal' and 'undocumented' is, you insist on your silly counter-argument of using ALL CAPS.

Furthermore, Canada and Australia don't have third world countries on their borders. Just about the worst examples you could use.

I did provide examples of other countries beside Canada and Australia, nice try to cherry pick.

Again, can you or anyone provide a link or two of any developed sovereign countries on Earth that would give break to ILLEGALS? I did provide a few links to back me up, your turn.

And yes, I WILL continue to use ALL CAPS for ILLEGALS and LEGALS and not "undocumented" water down political correct bullcrap.

In other news, in the June 9, 2012 of The Economist, it has an article about immigration and how other countries such as Canada, UK, Australia, Singapore, New Zeland, et al are welcoming LEGAL immigrants with skills and money to improve their countries. And the US (per BO) is welcoming ILLEGALS with zero skill, unable to speak English, not very smart there.

From the article, 40% of Fortune 500 companies started by LEGAL immigrants or their offspring. Yup, we sure don't need any more Google, Yahoo, Intel, etc., we need more uneducated peasants to pick fruits, it should help us a bunch to compete worldwide in the future, right? :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
And how many children is that?
How many tax payers?
How many $/yr/taxpayer?
Education is the #1 expense for the states and they don't have enough money at the moment. If you're the one claiming that cheap produce makes up for these huge budgetary problems, the burden should be on you to back up such an outlandish claim and to do the calculations.

People will NOT want to pay $3 for a head of Iceberg lettuce, $10 a pound for ground beef (corn prices...etc etc) or $4000 for a TV.
They might pay that much for food if they had to. What would be their alternative? I'm not sure where you're going with the expensive TV. Maybe people wouldn't buy them then.

And, AGAIN, $7,000/yr (you need to show the source for that) per kid is nothing if we end up getting an EDUCATED AMERICAN CITIZEN out of it. We are not throwing that money away, which you seem to imply.
I could provide you with a source, but it wouldn't change your mind anyway so there's no point. You'd just fall back to some absurd argument that it's made up for by cheaper produce. Again, education is the biggest budget item for most states and most state budgets are in big trouble.

We have difficulty getting jobs for our own college graduates at the moment. To the extent they are not getting jobs, the investment in their education hasn't paid off so it's not as simple as saying education always pays for itself. Using your logic, it would make sense for countries to important orphans and educate them. Nobody seems to want to do that though. Probably because the investment is not at all as clear-cut as you think it is.
 

michal1980

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2003
8,019
43
91
Obama truther? Whatever floats your boat dude. And speaking of paychecks adding up, look in the mirror.

The federal government does not have the manpower to enforce a lot of laws on it's books; the laws, and any penalties are still on the books. I don't think you're advocating for much higher taxes so that the manpower can be hired.

You would have to ask the lawyers and/or advisers who told him that; I don't have access to their work product.

Again, you seem to be confused; Obama has the title of President, not King. Talk about spin. And it's not so much a matter of my being OK with it as it is that there are way many more problems that need fixing. Allowing teenagers that haven't committed any crimes to have guest visas isn't on my list of Things That Need Fixing Yesterday.

Once they're legally allowed to vote, I don't have a problem with them voting.

Nice way of avoiding the questions. Just like a politician.

What changed in law in 12 months that gave the president the power to do what he did?


By your none answer, I take it you have no problems with him coming out and saying illegals can now vote for president, because he wont enforce voting laws.
 

IGBT

Lifer
Jul 16, 2001
17,972
140
106
your obama has no wind in his re-election sails so he will be doing this and other appeasement stunts out of desperation. Next he will forgive under water home loans and legalize dope. The constitution/borders/congress/ mean nothing to the obama and his re-election attempt. He can't run on his record of ruin. He will have to go scorched earth negative and sign in to law any appeasement stunts he can conjure.
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
66,187
14,616
146
I did provide examples of other countries beside Canada and Australia, nice try to cherry pick.

Again, can you or anyone provide a link or two of any developed sovereign countries on Earth that would give break to ILLEGALS? I did provide a few links to back me up, your turn.

And yes, I WILL continue to use ALL CAPS for ILLEGALS and LEGALS and not "undocumented" water down political correct bullcrap.

In other news, in the June 9, 2012 of The Economist, it has an article about immigration and how other countries such as Canada, UK, Australia, Singapore, New Zeland, et al are welcoming LEGAL immigrants with skills and money to improve their countries. And the US (per BO) is welcoming ILLEGALS with zero skill, unable to speak English, not very smart there.

From the article, 40% of Fortune 500 companies started by LEGAL immigrants or their offspring. Yup, we sure don't need any more Google, Yahoo, Intel, etc., we need more uneducated peasants to pick fruits, it should help us a bunch to compete worldwide in the future, right? :rolleyes:


Since the vast majority of the illegal immigrants here in the US of A are from Mexico...folks should look at Mexico's treatment of immigrants...legal and illegal:

http://factreal.wordpress.com/2010/...-states-mexican-immigration-laws-are-tougher/
 

mshan

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2004
7,868
0
71
"The challenge—and the stakes—are evident in Florida. A whopping 638,000 Latinos there are eligible to vote but have not registered, according to a recent report by the Obama-aligned Center for American Progress think tank in Washington. That's enough to make the difference in the Sunshine State."*

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-immigration-shift-hit-voters-says-poll-144334585.html

"Obama’s advisers say it is more likely that the President would champion an issue with greater bipartisan support, such as immigration reform. Obama has also said that he hopes to have the time and the attention to address a more robust aid agenda for developing countries than he was able to muster in his first term. These issues will loom over his potential second term, awaiting a push from the President. So, too, will the lingering question of who Obama “really” is: an aspiring compromiser, a lawyerly strategist, or a bold visionary willing to gamble to secure his legacy.

Whatever goal Obama decides on, his opportunities for effecting change are slight. Term limits are cruel to Presidents. If he wins, Obama will have less than eighteen months to pass a second wave of his domestic agenda, which has been stalled since late 2010 and has no chance of moving this year. His best opportunity for a breakthrough on energy policy, immigration, or tax reform would come in 2013. By the middle of 2014, congressional elections will force another hiatus in Washington policymaking. Since Franklin Roosevelt, Presidents have lost an average of thirty House seats and seven Senate seats in their second midterm election. By early 2015, the press will begin to focus on the next Presidential campaign, which will eclipse a great deal of coverage of the White House. The last two years of Obama’s Presidency will likely be spent attending more assiduously to foreign policy and shoring up the major reforms of his early years, such as health care and financial regulation.

As William Daley, who served for a year as Obama’s chief of staff, put it, “After 2014, nobody cares what he does.”

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/06/18/120618fa_fact_lizza




* What is ominous to me, not in a good way, is an off-hand comment I believe Mark Zandi made on CNBC quite a while after discussing a monthly employment report that the whole election might come down to Miami. :thumbsdown:
 
Last edited:

Ninjahedge

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2005
4,149
1
91
Education is the #1 expense for the states and they don't have enough money at the moment. If you're the one claiming that cheap produce makes up for these huge budgetary problems, the burden should be on you to back up such an outlandish claim and to do the calculations.

the expense is not due because of the immigrants. And the cost per kid goes DOWN the more kids you have. Adding kids increases the expense, but not at the rate which they currently spend per kid.

Example: Adding 1 kid to a classroom does not require you to build a new classroom or hire a new teacher. This is not the case in all areas, but simply throwing around nubers is a tried and true way to confuse the issue.


They might pay that much for food if they had to.

But they don't. Most people would be aggravated by that. Many that support what you are saying would then start asking questions about why OTHER things were happening, only to realize, too late, that the increased expense of keeping the border "secure" combined with the increased expense of american farms was due to their rejection of immigrant labor.

When the farmers start losing their farms because it is cheaper to import.....

What would be their alternative? I'm not sure where you're going with the expensive TV. Maybe people wouldn't buy them then.

Yep, and do you think they will be happy? The point is, people SAY one thing, but when faced with what that would actually do to their lifestyle, they have second thoughts.

"Why do I have to edumacate some Mexican immigrants kids? F' Em! The Game's on..."

I could provide you with a source, but it wouldn't change your mind anyway so there's no point.

No, you don;t want to provide a source. Outside of something like Fox News, or a survey of 1000 people, or another piece taken out of context. Common internet trollage.

You'd just fall back to some absurd argument that it's made up for by cheaper produce. Again, education is the biggest budget item for most states and most state budgets are in big trouble.

"Fall back"? GMAMFB. You STILL keep dodging around the whole issue of education. You get kids and educate them to become productive members of the work force you do not LOSE anything for that INVESTMENT! if the kids got their education and left, that would be bad. If they WEREN'T educated and stayed, that would be bad, and if you tried to round them all up and keep them out, that would be expensive on many fronts.

We have difficulty getting jobs for our own college graduates at the moment. To the extent they are not getting jobs, the investment in their education hasn't paid off so it's not as simple as saying education always pays for itself.


1. Those college grads are not picking corn.
2. Those stats do not look at productive degrees like Engineering as opposed to "Music Appreciation"
3. Those SAME stats show lower unemployment the further up the education ladder you go.

Using your logic, it would make sense for countries to important orphans and educate them.

No, it doesn't. You are convoluting the argument. If you "imported the orphans" and got cheap labor because of it, it is not a total wash. You are seperating the issues to suit your argument and ignoring the bigger picture.

Nobody seems to want to do that though. Probably because the investment is not at all as clear-cut as you think it is.

You are the one "clear cutting" it to where you cry about an unproven $7,000/kid expense.

PLEASE provide the numbers that show the actual money spent to educate the kid. NOT to administrate the system, not any other expenses that get put on the bill that artificially inflate that number.
 

michal1980

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2003
8,019
43
91
the expense is not due because of the immigrants. And the cost per kid goes DOWN the more kids you have. Adding kids increases the expense, but not at the rate which they currently spend per kid.

Example: Adding 1 kid to a classroom does not require you to build a new classroom or hire a new teacher. This is not the case in all areas, but simply throwing around nubers is a tried and true way to confuse the issue.




But they don't. Most people would be aggravated by that. Many that support what you are saying would then start asking questions about why OTHER things were happening, only to realize, too late, that the increased expense of keeping the border "secure" combined with the increased expense of american farms was due to their rejection of immigrant labor.

When the farmers start losing their farms because it is cheaper to import.....



Yep, and do you think they will be happy? The point is, people SAY one thing, but when faced with what that would actually do to their lifestyle, they have second thoughts.

"Why do I have to edumacate some Mexican immigrants kids? F' Em! The Game's on..."



No, you don;t want to provide a source. Outside of something like Fox News, or a survey of 1000 people, or another piece taken out of context. Common internet trollage.



"Fall back"? GMAMFB. You STILL keep dodging around the whole issue of education. You get kids and educate them to become productive members of the work force you do not LOSE anything for that INVESTMENT! if the kids got their education and left, that would be bad. If they WEREN'T educated and stayed, that would be bad, and if you tried to round them all up and keep them out, that would be expensive on many fronts.




1. Those college grads are not picking corn.
2. Those stats do not look at productive degrees like Engineering as opposed to "Music Appreciation"
3. Those SAME stats show lower unemployment the further up the education ladder you go.



No, it doesn't. You are convoluting the argument. If you "imported the orphans" and got cheap labor because of it, it is not a total wash. You are seperating the issues to suit your argument and ignoring the bigger picture.



You are the one "clear cutting" it to where you cry about an unproven $7,000/kid expense.

PLEASE provide the numbers that show the actual money spent to educate the kid. NOT to administrate the system, not any other expenses that get put on the bill that artificially inflate that number.

we aren't talking about adding 1 or 2 illegal kids into the schools.

we are talking at over a million.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/14/AR2009041401433.html

edit.

And thats on top of the 4 million anchor kids born to illegals.

5+ million additional kids in the school systems due to illegal immigration.

And yet, you'll argue till your blue in the face it doesn't cost us any more to teach them.
 

Ninjahedge

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2005
4,149
1
91
OK, so a million kids compared to:

http://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/tables/pop1.asp?popup=true

~75 million kids is how much?

1.3%, give or take?

I know there are concentrations, but we keep dancing around the numbers. Instead of forbidding them, there should be a better way to handle them. Hell, if we got rid of the idiotic "3 strikes" rule and lowered our prison population to levels in line with the rest of the 1st world we would have more than enough money to handle this.


But again, this is not wasted money.

It is a LOT better to put in a hydroelectric plant than to keep building larger dams.

The only way to truly prevent Mexicans from coming in is to find a way to make Mexico a better place to live. If we can find a way to do that (other than throw money at them) then we would not have to spend so much cash on border patrols and the like, and we may even get more HELP from them in controlling the drug trafficking.....


But whatever, lets focus on individual points without associating them properly and feal that the boogeyman now has a Spanish accent.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
the expense is not due because of the immigrants. And the cost per kid goes DOWN the more kids you have. Adding kids increases the expense, but not at the rate which they currently spend per kid.

Example: Adding 1 kid to a classroom does not require you to build a new classroom or hire a new teacher. This is not the case in all areas, but simply throwing around nubers is a tried and true way to confuse the issue.




But they don't. Most people would be aggravated by that. Many that support what you are saying would then start asking questions about why OTHER things were happening, only to realize, too late, that the increased expense of keeping the border "secure" combined with the increased expense of american farms was due to their rejection of immigrant labor.

When the farmers start losing their farms because it is cheaper to import.....



Yep, and do you think they will be happy? The point is, people SAY one thing, but when faced with what that would actually do to their lifestyle, they have second thoughts.

"Why do I have to edumacate some Mexican immigrants kids? F' Em! The Game's on..."



No, you don;t want to provide a source. Outside of something like Fox News, or a survey of 1000 people, or another piece taken out of context. Common internet trollage.



"Fall back"? GMAMFB. You STILL keep dodging around the whole issue of education. You get kids and educate them to become productive members of the work force you do not LOSE anything for that INVESTMENT! if the kids got their education and left, that would be bad. If they WEREN'T educated and stayed, that would be bad, and if you tried to round them all up and keep them out, that would be expensive on many fronts.




1. Those college grads are not picking corn.
2. Those stats do not look at productive degrees like Engineering as opposed to "Music Appreciation"
3. Those SAME stats show lower unemployment the further up the education ladder you go.



No, it doesn't. You are convoluting the argument. If you "imported the orphans" and got cheap labor because of it, it is not a total wash. You are seperating the issues to suit your argument and ignoring the bigger picture.



You are the one "clear cutting" it to where you cry about an unproven $7,000/kid expense.

PLEASE provide the numbers that show the actual money spent to educate the kid. NOT to administrate the system, not any other expenses that get put on the bill that artificially inflate that number.

If I give you a link showing you that it costs $7,000 per kid, will it change your mind about the impact of illegal immigrants on the school system? If not, there is no point in me sharing it with you.

Your arguments are absurd. We are not talking about 1 extra kid. It's far more than that and in any case that family is still taking more from the system than they are putting back in. And what are you suggesting about food? That people will starve instead of paying more for it? Food is always going to be on the top of the list that people pay for. Now maybe they will eat less berries, but they are still going to eat.

The whole illegal immigrants is good for the economy argument is the liberal equivalent of trickle-down economics. There's no evidence for it and it doesn't even make any sense.
 

Ninjahedge

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2005
4,149
1
91
I stopped at "absurd".

You are very dismissive of anybody elses arguments that do not agree with your own. I NEVER said it did not cost money. The only thing I have said is that the sites that complain about large sums of money being spent on things like education, even of illegals, usually do not find out the actual per capita cost of adding an additional head to the classroom.

They also neglect the negative effects of NOT educating them and resort to the mantra of "Stronger walls make better neighbors" thinking that somehow, by spending billions of dollars keeping people out, that we will save billions of dollars......

Things cannot be handled independently of each other. We are LOUSY when it comes to money, willing to spend $750,000 on a gym for convicts in Gitmo but squawk about educating kids.

:p
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
I stopped at "absurd".

In that case you didn't miss my question about whether you would change your position when faced with new evidence. I'm interested in what your response is because it reflects whether you're intellectually dishonest or not.

The only thing I have said is that the sites that complain about large sums of money being spent on things like education, even of illegals, usually do not find out the actual per capita cost of adding an additional head to the classroom.

The logic behind your one additional head is pretty weak. Obviously, when you keep adding heads you realize you need a whole new classroom right?

It doesn't stop at just education either. There are tons of other infrastructure and health costs associated with these low-wage migrants. It's bad enough that they are a net loss when they're legal. When they're illegal there is no excuse.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
The whole illegal immigrants is good for the economy argument is the liberal equivalent of trickle-down economics. There's no evidence for it and it doesn't even make any sense.

So much this.

And it's from the same people who complain about how evil corporations off-shoring manufacturing is costing us middle class jobs, as if importing slave labor is any better.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Another reason that the "low-wage migrants are great for the economy" argument is absurd is that if you actually believed that, you would shocked that Mexico is a third world borderline failed state. After all, you would expect them to be living in an amazing country founded on cheap fruit and vegetables.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Another reason that the "low-wage migrants are great for the economy" argument is absurd is that if you actually believed that, you would shocked that Mexico is a third world borderline failed state. After all, you would expect them to be living in an amazing country founded on cheap fruit and vegetables.

Clearly they need to bundle jalapeno futures in a complicated derivatives market backed up with credit default swaps.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,892
55,162
136
Why is 'low wage migration' even being discussed? The people allowed to stay under this decision are not field workers, they are children who have completed school who's only crime is coming out of the incorrect vagina.

The reaction of this board is pretty interesting, btw. It shows just how nativist this place really is as compared to the public. Not only is this decision very popular with Democrats, it is enormously popular with independents as well according to polling. There are few things that muster 2-1 support in America, and it's fascinating to see something so overwhelmingly popular be received with such a shit fit here.
 

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
80,287
17,081
136
So much this.

And it's from the same people who complain about how evil corporations off-shoring manufacturing is costing us middle class jobs, as if importing slave labor is any better.

It is, when the evil "Man" loses a job and some poor helpless brown person gets it.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Why is 'low wage migration' even being discussed? The people allowed to stay under this decision are not field workers, they are children who have completed school who's only crime is coming out of the incorrect vagina.
It was brought up because "it's worth it" and "we need cheap fruit" is usually a go-to argument for people that favor unlimited immigration. Or were you asking why someone like me responded to those claims?

The reaction of this board is pretty interesting, btw. It shows just how nativist this place really is as compared to the public. Not only is this decision very popular with Democrats, it is enormously popular with independents as well according to polling. There are few things that muster 2-1 support in America, and it's fascinating to see something so overwhelmingly popular be received with such a shit fit here.
Clearly you're saying that because the popular opinion is consistent with your position. The general public was also for the Iraq war at the beginning. I and others were condemning it from the start on this board. What conclusion would you draw from that?
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
The whole illegal immigrants is good for the economy argument is the liberal equivalent of trickle-down economics. There's no evidence for it and it doesn't even make any sense.

Well it makes sense for their corporate masters though right? :colbert:
 

Svnla

Lifer
Nov 10, 2003
17,986
1,388
126
Why is 'low wage migration' even being discussed? The people allowed to stay under this decision are not field workers, they are children who have completed school who's only crime is coming out of the incorrect vagina.

The reaction of this board is pretty interesting, btw. It shows just how nativist this place really is as compared to the public. Not only is this decision very popular with Democrats, it is enormously popular with independents as well according to polling. There are few things that muster 2-1 support in America, and it's fascinating to see something so overwhelmingly popular be received with such a shit fit here.

If you mean independents with last names of Hernadez, Lopez and such, then yes but if you ask the independents of LEGAL immigrant population such as myself, I am willing to bet that most, if not all, are overwhelmingly opposed BO's decision of pandering and rewarding to the ILLEGALS/lawbreakers.

Funny how those pollers never asked these LEGAL Hispanics = http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2072110&highlight=

Sue Schwartz says she's been called a racist so many times she doesn't mind the label anymore. If wanting immigrants to enter the country legally, like her great-grandparents from Mexico, and obey the laws of the land makes her racist, then so be it, she says firmly.

OMG, she wants immigrants to enter the US LEGALLY and obey the laws of the land and she is a Hispanic? She must be a hispanic version of "uncle Tom" or "acting white" or "sold out" :)
 
Last edited:

mshan

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2004
7,868
0
71
Why is 'low wage migration' even being discussed? The people allowed to stay under this decision are not field workers, they are children who have completed school who's only crime is coming out of the incorrect vagina.

The reaction of this board is pretty interesting, btw. It shows just how nativist this place really is as compared to the public. Not only is this decision very popular with Democrats, it is enormously popular with independents as well according to polling. There are few things that muster 2-1 support in America, and it's fascinating to see something so overwhelmingly popular be received with such a shit fit here.

My guess is watching too much cable news and getting whipped up / manipulated too easily into an us vs. them type mentality (i. e. Democrat vs. Republican)




I don't know if these other immigration proposals have passed into law, but probably because there is bipartisan support and no political points to be gained with Latino voters in swing states, it is not discussed:

- immigration visa if you buy $500,000 home in U. S. state such as Florida

- immigration visa for entrepreneurs in countries like India who bring $1 million in capital / upstart business instead of having same company outside the U. S.




Presumably, these young immigrant children would be added to legal payrolls and start paying taxes, and in terms of global competitiveness in future, adding new young workers to overall population profile should enhance global competitiveness of US down the road vs. countries whose overall populations are aging more quickly. e. g.:
"Europe's population is ageing fast, and the decline of Europe's working-age population is likely to start in 2012, while the over-60 population will continue to rise by about two million people a year, according to Eurostat figures, a pace twice as fast as before 2007.

These trends are not new, and represent a formidable challenge for EU policymakers.

The first aspect of the demographic challenge is internal: demographic change means new needs, in particular in the healthcare sector, and threatens the stability of European social systems. Designed in times when life expectancy was shorter and birth rates were strong, they will have to cope with a shrinking pool of contributors and an explosion of beneficiaries. In a context of monetary crisis, a further worsening of public debt could mean, among others the collapse of Europe's economic and monetary system.

The second aspect of this challenge is external, as a dwindling population and workforce is putting Europe in a difficult position in a world where other emerging economies still have relatively younger and growing populations, which means a growing pool of future talents. In the long run, this could affect Europe's competitiveness and relevance in a world whose centre of gravity is shifting towards Asia."

http://www.europeanvoice.com/page/c...ive-in-a-gloablised-world-the-issue/3215.aspx




For us, we have the Millenial Generation coming up to offset the Baby Boomers:
"But not all demographic trends make for strong stock markets. Japan, the world's fastest aging country, is facing a problematic economic future. The country's current population of 128 million is projected to shrink 33% by 2060, according to Japan's Health and Welfare Ministry. By then seniors will account for 40% of all Japanese citizens.

Elderly can stifle growth

Just as a car won't start without gasoline, if there aren't enough young, productive workers in an economy, that economy is unlikely to go anywhere. That's precisely been the problem in Japan: a disproportionate--and increasing--amount of its economic resources are flowing to an aging population, which in turn has stifled growth there.

Japan's aging problem is nothing new; it began in earnest in the 1990s, and its economic effects have been reflected adversely in the Japanese stock market. The Nikkei Index, after reaching an all-time high of 38,916 at the end of 1989, lost 81% as of February 2009. The Nikkei has never so much as sniffed its former heights and languishes at about 8,000 today.

Italy is trapped in a similar demographic black hole, with a population that's been declining for decades. In 1964 an Italian mother bore an average of 2.7 children, according to the World Bank. By 2009 that average had fallen to 1.4 children. The Italian populace has been sinking below the replacement rate of 1.9 (the rate needed to maintain current population levels) since 1975.

This decline has taken a steady economic toll. During the 1990s, when Italy's economy began to wane notably, its gross domestic product grew on average 1.2% annually, trailing the European Union's 2.3%. Italy's labor productivity only grew 0.1% a year between 2001 and 2005, and it dropped by 0.8% annually between 2006 and 2009, according to The Economist. Not surprisingly, Italy is now flirting with fiscal insolvency, reeling from its fourth recession since 2001 and its nose-bleeding heights of public debt.

Who are millennials?

So, what's the demographic destiny of the United States? More to the point, are the economic prospects of the millennial generation in the U.S. doomed to resemble those of their peers in Japan and Italy? And if those prospects aren't doomed, what distinguishing characteristics offer hope that the millennials and the stock market may enjoy a better fate?"

...

One of the reasons baby boomers are cited as the gold standard among generations is their sheer size; they number 81.3 million, according to the most recent U.S. Census. But millennials constitute an even bigger generation, 85.2 million strong. They're the largest generational cohort in the U.S., and we share the view of Dan Wantrobski at Janney Capital Markets, who believes that millennials' strength in numbers could signal a coming boom in stocks. It wasn't until baby boomers had reached their early- to mid-30s that they truly began to make their presence felt in the stock market. The Great Bull Market of the Century was the result. Most millennials are still finishing college and haven't yet attained some semblance of financial maturity and means. In our view, as they do acquire more financial maturity and means over the next few years, as they enter their prime earning years, they will put their money to work, to the benefit of the economy and the stock market.

...

Globally, the fastest growing economies are those of emerging nations in Asia, Africa, and South America, due in no small part to their relative youthfulness. When a country's population is disproportionately young, it brings economic growing pains; a large number of dependent children tends to dampen economic growth. And conversely, when that army of children finally marches into old age, caring for them tends to diminish a country's productivity. But in the years in between, when that segment of the population is of working age, a country's economy, productivity, and living standards can rise at above-average rates. And a better economy, improved productivity, and a higher standard of living are typically accompanied by heavy investment in stocks.
In emerging nations, millennials are pumping up working-age populations. In 2010 the ratio of workers to the total populace in East Asia rose from 46.8% in 1975 to 64.1%; in Latin America, from 43.8% to 56.3%; and in South Asia, from 45.2% to 54.8%.


http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/SubmissionsArticle.aspx?submissionid=145606.xml
 
Last edited:

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Why is 'low wage migration' even being discussed? The people allowed to stay under this decision are not field workers, they are children who have completed school who's only crime is coming out of the incorrect vagina.

The reaction of this board is pretty interesting, btw. It shows just how nativist this place really is as compared to the public. Not only is this decision very popular with Democrats, it is enormously popular with independents as well according to polling. There are few things that muster 2-1 support in America, and it's fascinating to see something so overwhelmingly popular be received with such a shit fit here.

So you think those children came here on their own? Or are they the product of illegal immigration by fruit pickers? If US law promises fruit pickers their minor children will be allowed to stay here, expect an ever greater influx of fruit pickers.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,892
55,162
136
It was brought up because "it's worth it" and "we need cheap fruit" is usually a go-to argument for people that favor unlimited immigration. Or were you asking why someone like me responded to those claims?

I'm pretty sure that the research shows that low skill illegal immigrants cost us modestly more in total services/whatever than they bring in. Higher skilled illegal immigrants are usually a net benefit. (and remember, ~50% of all illegal immigrants in the US are visa overstays, not Mexicans crossing the border) Regardless, it doesn't seem particularly relevant to this issue as I'm going to guess that not very many of the people covered by Obama's order are going to be migrant farm workers.

Clearly you're saying that because the popular opinion is consistent with your position. The general public was also for the Iraq war at the beginning. I and others were condemning it from the start on this board. What conclusion would you draw from that?

I'm saying that it's interesting that on this issue ATPN diverges strongly from mainstream American opinion and I'm wondering why it is such an unrepresentative sample. My guess would be that it's because ATPN is overwhelmingly white and male to begin with, but of course that's just a guess.

Although I happen to agree with much looser immigration policy than we have now, you are most certainly correct that overwhelming public opinion does not speak to the rightness or wrongness of a policy. Still, it's interesting that this board would be so far on the fringe on this issue.