Well at least the progressives don't have a hidden agenda in immigration reform

[WhipperSnapper]

Back people into a corner and then claim they are criminally violent?

They broke into this country illegally. This is not a self-defense issue; they do not have any legitimate right to be in this country to defend. If they have it within themselves to be violent when we try to deport them, then that is all the more reason to want to deport them.

It's similar to arresting a burglar. If he brandishes a gun and starts shooting when the police arrive, that is all the more reason for us to want to throw him in jail.

 

[heyheybooboo]

I think the general consensus is what was 12 million is now a little over 10 million (and declining) so this 'talking point' is losing a great deal of steam..

And IIRC there is an overall 'public' cost but it is minimal in a $14 trillion economy (and the public cost is dwarfed by the profit generated by the private sector employment).

I LOL at the 'stealing our jobs' mentality because a lot of the illegals are doing the grunt work that most Americans just won't (or are physically incapable of) undertake. And of those jobs I suspect a good many of them won't be bouncing back --- at least not in the US.

I'd say you can kiss the poultry farms and processing plants good-bye; along with any other excruciating physical labor jobs in manufacturing. Construction work won't be rebounding any time soon.

Domestic agricultural products requiring substantial manual labor are already 50% more in cost than what we can import so if you run all the illegals off we become more dependent upon our international suppliers. But those onions from Peru will cost much less, huh? No more Vadalias for you.

I suspect there is a good bit less 'yard maintenance' going on so that most likely is where the competition lies in the 'illegals job market'. Nothing like good cheap 'domestic' help these days, huh?




--

 

[n yusef]

I think that the progressives' "hidden" agenda, while not as devious or political as the OP imagines, is just as unsavory. It is an arbitrary fact that a child born in San Diego is American, but if she were born in Tijuana she would be not be. Same for Budapest, Manila and Lagos. If one considers each child equal (as progressives are wont to do), it follows that the arbitrariness of nation-states and the privileges inherent in their citizenship is injustice. This injustice may be mitigated by other facts, such as the strain caused on America and Americans by illegal immigrants. But without citing and inevitably debating the evidence, note that this mitigation still gives many progressives pause; it implies a priority of consideration--Americans, then foreigners--that is untenable if one believes us all to have equal worth.

This position is literally "un-American."

 

[EagleKeeper]

I think the general consensus is what was 12 million is now a little over 10 million (and declining) so this 'talking point' is losing a great deal of steam..

And IIRC there is an overall 'public' cost but it is minimal in a $14 trillion economy (and the public cost is dwarfed by the profit generated by the private sector employment).

I LOL at the 'stealing our jobs' mentality because a lot of the illegals are doing the grunt work that most Americans just won't (or are physically incapable of) undertake. And of those jobs I suspect a good many of them won't be bouncing back --- at least not in the US.

I'd say you can kiss the poultry farms and processing plants good-bye; along with any other excruciating physical labor jobs in manufacturing. Construction work won't be rebounding any time soon.

Domestic agricultural products requiring substantial manual labor are already 50% more in cost than what we can import so if you run all the illegals off we become more dependent upon our international suppliers. But those onions from Peru will cost much less, huh? No more Vadalias for you.

I suspect there is a good bit less 'yard maintenance' going on so that most likely is where the competition lies in the 'illegals job market'. Nothing like good cheap 'domestic' help these days, huh?

--

How many of those jobs were filled before the illegals came and undercut.

Americans and legals were doing those jobs.
As the economy boomed people transitioned away to higher paying/less strenuous positions. This left a vacuum that he illegals were able to enter.

Everyone was happy and made out.

Now that the economics have shifted; the middle level positions are no longer plentiful. You are left with an underemployed middle class that unemployed poor class.

When you make it so the poor class can obtain employment (like before); they can contribute. Presently the illegals are only contributing via the unskilled labor.

Using the number of 10 million illegals and assuming that only 20% of them are actually working. Ignore the prison and gang populations.

That is 2 million jobs available to be filled with the proper economic incentive.

 

[Vic]

I like how you think defending our borders is too great a task.

I didn't say that.

 

[werepossum]

How many of those jobs were filled before the illegals came and undercut.

Americans and legals were doing those jobs.
As the economy boomed people transitioned away to higher paying/less strenuous positions. This left a vacuum that he illegals were able to enter.

Everyone was happy and made out.

Now that the economics have shifted; the middle level positions are no longer plentiful. You are left with an underemployed middle class that unemployed poor class.

When you make it so the poor class can obtain employment (like before); they can contribute. Presently the illegals are only contributing via the unskilled labor.

Using the number of 10 million illegals and assuming that only 20% of them are actually working. Ignore the prison and gang populations.

That is 2 million jobs available to be filled with the proper economic incentive.

It's worth saying that there are no jobs Americans won't do. There are only jobs Americans won't do for the wage the resource owner would prefer to pay.

As far as the wall - sex is an ancient idea as well. It works, it's practical, and it's still damn popular. Build the damn thing already.

 

[Vic]

Could you please elaborate on that? How is it the "biggest big govt agenda of them all"?

Wouldn't reducing the number of people who need welfare, tax-payer-provided emergency medical care, public education, and criminal justice costs be more of a "small government agenda"?

How do you propose to tell apart the legals and the illegals? Tatoos or embedded microchips? Or will we have retina scanners like in Minority Report?
I would think this would be fairly obvious. You're talking about empowering govt with the right to determine who gets rights and who doesn't. You may not realize it, given that your intent here is job protectionism, but that is the end result of your agenda.

And perhaps you should elaborate? I find it highly unlikely that the anti-immigration agenda would accomplish any of what you mentioned here. For one thing, it never has in the past. That dead horse isn't going to get up and run just because you beat it some more. No matter what we do, the illegal immigrants aren't going to stop coming here until Mexico stops being such a shithole country.

 

[Vic]

They broke into this country illegally. This is not a self-defense issue; they do not have any legitimate right to be in this country to defend. If they have it within themselves to be violent when we try to deport them, then that is all the more reason to want to deport them.

It's similar to arresting a burglar. If he brandishes a gun and starts shooting when the police arrive, that is all the more reason for us to want to throw him in jail.

Who are "they" and how exactly do you propose that we find and deport all of "them" without infringing on the rights of any legal American citizen in the process?

I see the error in your thinking now. It isn't a burglar. It's 12+ million burglars.

 

[piasabird]

Russia built a nice wall and then killed everyone that wanted to leave East Germany. This is what communism gets you. The Government only insures people are treated equal under the law, it has no mandate to treat people equally, only to protect their rights. Capitalism is about making money, the competition it brings is what makes improvements possible. Competition is what makes America work. This is freedom.

 

[Vic]

As far as the wall - sex is an ancient idea as well. It works, it's practical, and it's still damn popular. Build the damn thing already.

Will the wall be for keeping them out or keeping us in? Or both?

 

[werepossum]

Will the wall be for keeping them out or keeping us in? Or both?

It will be for keeping the illegals out, as there are plenty of legal ways to leave the country. The only people who cross the southern border to leave are illegals going back for a visit and criminals on the lam.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

And IIRC there is an overall 'public' cost but it is minimal in a $14 trillion economy (and the public cost is dwarfed by the profit generated by the private sector employment).

But much of that profit could still be generated if American labor did the work at American free market wages. What makes you so certain that the costs of any welfare, education, health care, and criminal justice costs in addition to any environmental and population explosion costs from having the illegals are offset by whatever profits are generated in the private sector? Those are not insignificant costs!

I LOL at the 'stealing our jobs' mentality because a lot of the illegals are doing the grunt work that most Americans just won't (or are physically incapable of) undertake. And of those jobs I suspect a good many of them won't be bouncing back --- at least not in the US.

Let the American free market dictate the wage and Americans will go back to working construction and meatpacking jobs. The illegals displace Americans from those jobs and depress the wages. It isn't as though we don't already have tens of millions of impoverished Americans in this country who could work those jobs and who we are already supporting with welfare, education, and health care.

I'd say you can kiss the poultry farms and processing plants good-bye; along with any other excruciating physical labor jobs in manufacturing. Construction work won't be rebounding any time soon.

Construction used to be a middle class job for Americans so it would be good if any construction work could be done by Americans. I don't see how expelling the illegals would reduce Americans' demand for poultry products.

Domestic agricultural products requiring substantial manual labor are already 50% more in cost than what we can import so if you run all the illegals off we become more dependent upon our international suppliers. But those onions from Peru will cost much less, huh? No more Vadalias for you.

If necessary we can bring in a limited amount of Mexicans on work visas specifically for agricultural purposes in an orderly and regulated fashion. If illegals are currently working the agriculture jobs then note that American produce is more expensive than it appears because we also have to pay for the invisible back-end costs of any welfare, education, and health care brought about by the illegals.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

If one considers each child equal (as progressives are wont to do), it follows that the arbitrariness of nation-states and the privileges inherent in their citizenship is injustice. This injustice may be mitigated by other facts, such as the strain caused on America and Americans by illegal immigrants.

Borders are needed in order to have a government that can enforce laws that promote economic prosperity and a civil society. If there is injustice in these regards the cause is not the mere existence of nation states but perhaps the failure of certain nations and their societies to enact laws and a government that promote freedom and economic prosperity.

If the U.S. adopted an open borders policy, the freedoms and prosperity of the U.S. would soon disappear as billions of impoverished people flooded into the country.

So, instead of blaming the injustice of a child's being born to a poor family in Mexico on the existence of nation states, why not blame it on the failure of Mexico and the Mexican people to establish a good government and good economic and social policies?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

How do you propose to tell apart the legals and the illegals? Tatoos or embedded microchips? Or will we have retina scanners like in Minority Report?
I would think this would be fairly obvious. You're talking about empowering govt with the right to determine who gets rights and who doesn't. You may not realize it, given that your intent here is job protectionism, but that is the end result of your agenda.

Perhaps the embedded microchip idea wouldn't be so bad if it were designed and used only to determine citizenship. Being able to determine who is and who isn't in the country illegally would probably pay for it itself. How does the government determine who is and who isn't an American citizen now and what is wrong with that system as it is even if it sometimes mistakes a couple illegals for Americans?

And perhaps you should elaborate? I find it highly unlikely that the anti-immigration agenda would accomplish any of what you mentioned here. For one thing, it never has in the past. That dead horse isn't going to get up and run just because you beat it some more. No matter what we do, the illegal immigrants aren't going to stop coming here until Mexico stops being such a shithole country.

We could end the illegal immigration problem if we really wanted to. Employers that knowingly, recklessly, or purposely hire illegals could be severely punished to provide a deterrent. We could erect a huge fence across the Mexican border (which could probably be paid for with donations from Americans and with donated labor from eager volunteers). We could also shoot people who try to cross the border illegally, providing a large deterrent.

I'm not saying that we should go to those extremes or that we should start shooting illegals. Rather my purpose is to point out that there are a lot of things we could do that would be effective.

What is your solution? Do nothing? Grab our ankles and continue to take it in the rear?

 

[Vic]

Perhaps the embedded microchip idea wouldn't be so bad if it were designed and used only to determine citizenship. Being able to determine who is and who isn't in the country illegally would probably pay for it itself. How does the government determine who is and who isn't an American citizen now and what is wrong with that system as it is even if it sometimes mistakes a couple illegals for Americans?



We could end the illegal immigration problem if we really wanted to. Employers that knowingly, recklessly, or purposely hire illegals could be severely punished to provide a deterrent. We could erect a huge fence across the Mexican border (which could probably be paid for with donations from Americans and with donated labor from eager volunteers). We could also shoot people who try to cross the border illegally, providing a large deterrent.

I'm not saying that we should go to those extremes or that we should start shooting illegals. Rather my purpose is to point out that there are a lot of things we could do that would be effective.

What is your solution? Do nothing? Grab our ankles and continue to take it in the rear?

Take it in the rear from who? Lazy nativists who think we should spend countless billions and sacrifice all our rights and freedoms so that govt can protect them from hard-working immigrants? 'Cause that's all I see here.

 

[Vic]

If the U.S. adopted an open borders policy, the freedoms and prosperity of the U.S. would soon disappear as billions of impoverished people flooded into the country.

Yes, because that's what happened during the 150+ years when America did have an open border policy.... oh, wait.

And I like how you claim to be protecting American freedoms in the same thread where you agree that using microchips to prove citizenship would be a good idea. Way to go, guy!

 

[Xellos2099]

Yes we had open border policy back in the ages when there is no such thing as: Welfare, free education for children, free medical for people. Times has change, mate.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Take it in the rear from who? Lazy nativists who think we should spend countless billions and sacrifice all our rights and freedoms so that govt can protect them from hard-working immigrants? 'Cause that's all I see here.

If the U.S. government isn't going to look out for the economic welfare and economic rational selfish interest of the American people then what good is it?

Are you advocating that we throw open the borders so that hard working people from around the world can immigrate here and essentially reduce the nation's standard of living to that of overpopulated third world status? In your view, does having a supply of hard-working, competent labor create the demand for that labor?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Yes, because that's what happened during the 150+ years when America did have an open border policy.... oh, wait.

My understanding is that immigration was restricted to low levels from the late twenties to 1965.

And I like how you claim to be protecting American freedoms in the same thread where you agree that using microchips to prove citizenship would be a good idea. Way to go, guy!

If the microchips were harmless and proved to be a benefit, would that be so bad? I don't know if microchips are the way to go; I don't really have a position on the issue; it was your idea. My point is that we should do what we can within reason to deport the illegals and prevent them from entering.

Do note that at some point we have to trust our government and the other people around us not to abuse us, such as not abusing implanted microchips. The government and society in general could do all sorts of awful things to you right now if it wanted to with or without microchips. Having or not having microchips isn't really going to change that.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Yes we had open border policy back in the ages when there is no such thing as: Welfare, free education for children, free medical for people. Times has change, mate.

We also had a lower population and a lower population density. There was even a frontier at one time. Today we are on pace to have 450 million people by 2050 and we are already the world's third most populous nation, by a large margin over the world's fourth most populous nation, right behind India and China (great company to be in, huh?).

There are people out there who believe that our nation has infinite resources and that a God will provide for us and make more land and more clean air and clean water for us regardless of how much our population grows.

 

[EXman]

8 million concentrated in just a few states isn't going to do much.

lol 8 million! They get free healthcare. Don't have to pay any federal tax. In my state of KY it is actually legal to call anyone in Canada or Mexico a dependant and they don't pay state tax either. Have a kid or kids and actually get a check from the governmet every month! They love this country! There are a heck lot more than 8 million in a few states.

 

[CitizenKain]

No they don't. They may have pay sales tax and rent, but they definitely work under the table and WAY under minimum wage, thus no income tax. You got no case.

If it is up to me, I would give the police the power to question anyone with no ID, if met with resistant, shot on sight. We got at least 12 million illegal here, if government spend $2,000 on each of them yearly, it cost us... $24,000,000,000. No secrets, gentleman. NOW this is what we need to stop spending on.

Whats that, a rightwing nutjob in favor of a police state, what a non surprise.

 

[Darwin333]

No, it's not, crazy person.

I see generational welfare first hand on a daily basis. I personally know a very nice lady who has lived in public housing for decades, 3 of her kids have their own place in the same public housing building and at least 2 kids of the kids have their own as well. All of them have young children living with them, while none of fathers live there and most have no or very little contact with their fathers.

These people aren't inferior in anyway, they are all relatively intelligent and physically able people and they aren't lazy people either. The school system spends an insane amount of money per child but I have found that few people in that situation believe they or their children actually need a good education.

The real tragedy is that there is a very good chance the children will end up the same way. How could you blame them, its the only thing they have ever known. Some have never traveled mire than a mile or two from their housing units. They are provided everything they need for life and they often do side jobs for some extra pocket cash, the lady I know "Mamee" is responsible for adding at least 5 lbs on me from her insanely good baking and makes one of the best gumbos I have ever had.

The real tragedy is the children. They have literally had their motivation stolen from them. I don't think any of it was intentional or nefarious but the end result is the same. Now I don't think we should throw people out on the streets or let them starve but we have not helped these people, we have in fact harmed a good number of them.

I don't have good answers to the problem but don't pretend that some of this isn't intentional, or perhaps its just coincidence that we put all the poor people in one place and it has nothing to do with us not wanting them living next door to us. I wouldn't call it slavery but its real damned close for a lot of people who have known nothing else.

 

[Craig234]

Darwin, we can talk anout the problems of how to help the poor and the dependancy issue with assistance, but what's there to talk about with crazy people who equate assistance and slavery?

We have made choices in our nation. People can no longer go get a free piece of land on which they farm for their living. We're not that country anymore. We have made choices about our type of economy, and a structural unemployment, along with choices for centuries that have harmed one group in particular, American blacks, depriving them over long periods of time of keeping up with the Joneses.

I'm all for doing better than the dependancy situation with assistance. I'm all for spending more to have assistance that helps them get educated and employed and do better for themselves and taxes.

But calling assistance slavery while it's not doing that and only helping prevent homelessness and starvation is crazy and offensive.

 

[cubby1223]

and their cheap labor alone greatly increases economic productivity.

You have my respect for acknowledging that labor unions are often a burden on society