Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 52

Thread: HPD won't screen for immigration

  1. #41
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: HPD won't screen for immigration

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    Fact: Illegals do take jobs away from legal folks. By deporting illegals it would free up jobs so that those that are here legally could get a job and have more money to spend. It also lowers the umemployment rate since illegals are not counted when officials figure out the unemployment rate.
    Most illegals work for below minimum wage at jobs where the work would simply not be profitable at minimum wage. For example, a huge percentage of illegal aliens work as migrant laborers picking fruit. They need to move regularly to follow the work, they make only $15 a day or so, they work 12+ hour days, and they only work a few months out of the year. At minimum wage (in CA where the largest number of migrant laborers are), 12 hours work would cost the employer $90. When you factor in the costs of land, irrigation, planting, seeds, waste, transportation, marketting, etc, fruit farmers are only making pennies for every pound of fruit they sell. If it only costs you $15 to get 12 hours worth of fruit picked, it remains profitable, but barely. If you have to pay $90 to get that much fruit picked, it simply is no longer possible to compete with imported fruit from countries without minimum wage.

    And, even if it were profitable, I honestly don't believe you'd find citizens willing to do that kind of brutal work, move every few days, live in shanties, for 2 months of minimum wage.

    So, those jobs wouldn't exist in the US anymore without illegal immigrants. The fruit industry in the US would go out of business. And, when they did, we'd lose tons of legal jobs. The truck drivers, accountants, managers, marketers, executives, warehouse staff, secretaries, etc, etc, would all be looking for work. That's where the stat in the study I posted about losing 8.1 million jobs comes from. That's the number of people employed in industries that depend on illegal immigrant labor to remain profitable.

    Also, many illegal aliens act as day laborers. If citizens wanted that work, they're free to line up with them now. Realistically most people that hire day laborers would probably hire the citizen before they'd hire an illegal. But even with the economy in the state it is, I have yet to see a single white guy standing out there with the day laborers looking for work... And I drive by two different day laborer corners pretty much every day. If citizens want these jobs, nothing is stopping them from taking them now. We don't want them.

    I'll grant you all the costs for social programs and whatnot spent on illegal aliens would go down. I've heard an estimate that if you take the total spent on illegal aliens and subtract the sales and income taxes we collect from them directly, we're losing about $40 billion nationwide between state and federal supporting illegals. That's not a good thing, but it's a lot smaller cost than the impact to our economy of losing the cheap labor. IMO the solution is to figure out a way to get them paying taxes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    Fact: With no illegals there would be no murder, rape, theft etc etc commited by illegals. Which means those illegals that commit these types of crimes would not have been able to commit those crimes in the US. Which means more civilians would be safer with no illegals around. And really...how do you put a price on a persons life or raped body?
    Technically you're right that the total number of crimes would go down if all the illegals were gone. Of course, that would also be true if we got rid of all the left handed people or all the people who have owned poodles in their lives. Any group of people commit at least some crime.

    But, all indications are that illegal aliens commit far fewer crimes per capita than citizens, excluding the obvious crime of breaking immigration law. Immigration and crime - The Boston Globe

    That doesn't necessarily directy refute your point, but it does put it in perspective.
    Last edited by teamosil; 10-18-09 at 10:26 PM.

  2. #42
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,858
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: HPD won't screen for immigration

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    If that were true that he was profiling only amerindian hispanics, why would that mean it wasn't profiling? Or am I not understanding your argument?

    Here is some info on the case the ACLU picked up against him for racial profiling if you're interested- American Civil Liberties Union : Lawsuit Charging Sheriff Arpaio Illegally Targeted Latinos In Maricopa County Can Go Forward

    There are tons of cases against him, but that's the highest profile one because the ACLU picked it up.
    All that Arpaio needs to win this case is one person that he stopped that wasn't latino where he asked about immigration status.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  3. #43
    Student
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Seen
    01-29-11 @ 01:30 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    151

    Re: HPD won't screen for immigration

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    Raising the cap gains tax would reduce the pool of investment dollars, and that is bad. But, high taxes on wages reduce the pool of consumption dollars, and that's bad too.
    Raising the capital gains tax doesn't necessarily reduce the pool of investment dollars unless you get to the point where people decide not to invest at all. I don't think we are close to that point at all. People might grumble, but they would still rather see the possibility of 10% return taxed at 25% versus plunking the money in a savings account with .04% return.

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    In 1996 the cap gains tax rate was 28% and we slashed it down to 15% over the next few years. Ever since then our economy has been characterized by stock market bubbles. What used to be considered an insanely unacceptable price to earnings ratio doesn't even make people blink anymore. Tons of companies that have operated at losses for years and years saw their stock prices charging upwards on highly speculative investing.
    That's true... but you've also selected a very unusual period in our nation's economy. Everyone saw the internet and knew it would drastically affect how businesses interacted with each other and consumers. Investors knew wealth would be created practically out of thin air. That's why investing was so speculative - people had high hopes of returns and there was nothing like this in the past from which to ground expectations or make comparisons. Natural optimism overtook good sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    Those bubbles always burst because in the end. If a company just doesn't sell enough widgets sooner or later people are going to lose faith in the high stock prices. What we need is not more investment dollars to drive stock prices higher on still weaker fundamentals, we need more consumption to actually buy the stuff those companies make.
    At some point though, more investment dollars don't drive bloated prices even higher. The market resists that and instead shifts the added capital to other companies. Companies that wouldn't have received the needed capital now have that opportunity... which leads to additional jobs, factories, widgets, and growth. The pool of companies is not limited and investment dollars are not bound to a few companies. Although this isn't exactly the same, we saw in the early part of this year what happens when the wheels of our economy are not properly greased with enough capital - the entire thing grinds to a halt.

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    It's a balancing act. When the economy is short of investment capital and overflowing with demand, you should theoretically lower cap gains and raise income taxes.
    Why? Why not let the market find its own equilibrium? Why should we impose restrictions and influences on the economy that will certainly have unintended effects?

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    When the economy is flooded with investment dollars but lacking in actual earnings, you should theoretically lower income taxes and raise cap gains taxes to keep things balanced. Right now we have high income taxes and low cap gains taxes, and we have loads of investment capital sitting around in gold and t-bills and whatnot because the consumption is so sucky.
    If, according to you, we have too much investment capital in gold and t-bills, how will raising the capital gains tax help at all? I can see the point of lowering the income tax to increase consumption. However, note that increasing consumption will increase the demand for production. When the demand for production increases, the demand for capital to fund expansionary practices increases as well, which should affect the glut of capital.

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    So, what makes the most sense to me as a long term policy is to keep cap gains and income taxes matched. I don't like the idea of the government constantly tweaking the balance, since that process is so obviously corrupted by varying levels of influence from different interested parties. I'd rather just keep the two matched, which historically seems to have led to a reasonable balance between having enough investment capital and having enough consumption.
    I tend to agree, though I think that government spending should be reduced to the point where it is possible to have relatively low capital gains and income taxes across the board.

  4. #44
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: HPD won't screen for immigration

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    All that Arpaio needs to win this case is one person that he stopped that wasn't latino where he asked about immigration status.
    I don't really know for a fact, but that doesn't sound accurate to me. For example, tons of racial profiling cases have been won against various police departments purely by showing that they were significantly more likely to pull over members of one race than members of another race. I don't think they need to prove that he is exclusively questioning latinos. Is that incorrect?

  5. #45
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Redneck Riviera
    Last Seen
    07-09-11 @ 06:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,728

    Re: HPD won't screen for immigration

    Houston has been a sanctuary city for many years, and this immigration policy only dates to March of 2009. I doubt it was even enforced from March - present.

  6. #46
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Redneck Riviera
    Last Seen
    07-09-11 @ 06:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,728

    Re: HPD won't screen for immigration

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    For example, tons of racial profiling cases have been won against various police departments purely by showing that they were significantly more likely to pull over members of one race than members of another race.
    Evidence of this? I don't think you know what you're talking about here.

  7. #47
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,858
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: HPD won't screen for immigration

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    Most illegals work for below minimum wage at jobs where the work would simply not be profitable at minimum wage. For example, a huge percentage of illegal aliens work as migrant laborers picking fruit. They need to move regularly to follow the work, they make only $15 a day or so, they work 12+ hour days, and they only work a few months out of the year. At minimum wage (in CA where the largest number of migrant laborers are), 12 hours work would cost the employer $90. When you factor in the costs of land, irrigation, planting, seeds, waste, transportation, marketting, etc, fruit farmers are only making pennies for every pound of fruit they sell. If it only costs you $15 to get 12 hours worth of fruit picked, it remains profitable, but barely. If you have to pay $90 to get that much fruit picked, it simply is no longer possible to compete with imported fruit from countries without minimum wage.
    Are these numbers off the wall? Or are they from a source (perhaps the one that you already sourced, sorry haven't looked at it as yet)? I'd like to see it if it is. If not then anyone could easily argue the point that illegals more than likely make more than $15/day. So before I go any further mind answering this question?

    But there is another way to argue it. Not all businesses that are agricultural (or any business really that uses illegals...like construction) based (even berries) use illegals. How is it that they stay in business and yet still use legals if what you are saying is true? Yes this even includes small businesses. (I know many small businesses that do the same things that illegals do yet don't use illegals)

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    And, even if it were profitable, I honestly don't believe you'd find citizens willing to do that kind of brutal work, move every few days, live in shanties, for 2 months of minimum wage.
    Anyone that wants to provide for their family would do it. I know I for one would. And I have. In fact the only jobs I've been able to get for the last 10 years is seasonal work in the fields.

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    So, those jobs wouldn't exist in the US anymore without illegal immigrants. The fruit industry in the US would go out of business. And, when they did, we'd lose tons of legal jobs. The truck drivers, accountants, managers, marketers, executives, warehouse staff, secretaries, etc, etc, would all be looking for work. That's where the stat in the study I posted about losing 8.1 million jobs comes from. That's the number of people employed in industries that depend on illegal immigrant labor to remain profitable.
    Ok so we'd loose 8.1 million jobs. But more than likely this is what would happen.

    Since those jobs would be lost several things would happen depending on the type of business lost. But lets go with agriculture. If a business lost its ability to stay open they would have to end up selling any land they had in order to first have a business to begin with. That land has a high probability of being sold to another business. More than likely a business which can compete using legal workers. Due to zoning issues it would probably be an agriculure business. That business would put that land to use. In order to do so they have to hire people to work that land.

    Same would even go for construction jobs. More areas that need construction would open up which means companies would need to hire people in order to keep up with the demand. Due to more areas opening up more money would be going towards businesses that hire legal workers..which means they could hire additional people.

    In the end while we might loose jobs, in the long run those jobs would be filled again. By legal people.

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    Also, many illegal aliens act as day laborers. If citizens wanted that work, they're free to line up with them now. Realistically most people that hire day laborers would probably hire the citizen before they'd hire an illegal. But even with the economy in the state it is, I have yet to see a single white guy standing out there with the day laborers looking for work... And I drive by two different day laborer corners pretty much every day. If citizens want these jobs, nothing is stopping them from taking them now. We don't want them.
    Personally I have seen people of other races (including white) stand on corners looking for work. But you also have to remember that those that are here legally have other avenues to look for work that are not open to illegals. Like walking into a business and asking for a job, labour department to name a couple. An illegal that is working as a day laborer can not use these resources because in order to do so you need a SS number. Most day laborers do not have these things. (not even fake or stolen ss numbers)

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    I'll grant you all the costs for social programs and whatnot spent on illegal aliens would go down. I've heard an estimate that if you take the total spent on illegal aliens and subtract the sales and income taxes we collect from them directly, we're losing about $40 billion nationwide between state and federal supporting illegals. That's not a good thing, but it's a lot smaller cost than the impact to our economy of losing the cheap labor. IMO the solution is to figure out a way to get them paying taxes.
    The only way to do so would be to legalize them all. We already did that once during the Regan Administration. Look what happened after that. The difference between now and then is that we have at the very least twice the amount that Regan did. IE it just encourages MORE illegals to come and do what the current ones are doing. Legalizing illegals just perpetuates the problem. Making laws against companies from hiring illegals does not good without enforcement of those laws. And even then you have to first realize that they are using illegals before you can start to investigate them. And then you have to prove it. ALL without being called racist or being accused of racial profiling. (and yes this occurs even now. I frequent a site that is about Hispanics and illegals)

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    Technically you're right that the total number of crimes would go down if all the illegals were gone. Of course, that would also be true if we got rid of all the left handed people or all the people who have owned poodles in their lives. Any group of people commit at least some crime.

    But, all indications are that illegal aliens commit far fewer crimes per capita than citizens, excluding the obvious crime of breaking immigration law. Immigration and crime - The Boston Globe

    That doesn't necessarily directy refute your point, but it does put it in perspective.
    Oh I know that illegals commit far less crime in the US than legals. I already have that perspective believe me. The site that I mentioned above practically drums that into people that visit. But like you say...it doesn't refute the point.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  8. #48
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,858
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: HPD won't screen for immigration

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    I don't really know for a fact, but that doesn't sound accurate to me. For example, tons of racial profiling cases have been won against various police departments purely by showing that they were significantly more likely to pull over members of one race than members of another race. I don't think they need to prove that he is exclusively questioning latinos. Is that incorrect?
    Not correct. How do police departments that exist in areas were the majority of people are black get away with out racial profiling suits? Or for that matter even whites since whites can still get pulled over more if there are more of them around. (surely whites can sue for racial profiling?)

    Edit note: sad that I actually have to ask that last question. :P
    Last edited by Kal'Stang; 10-18-09 at 11:20 PM.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  9. #49
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: HPD won't screen for immigration

    Quote Originally Posted by Caedon View Post
    capital gains tax
    So we don't muck up this thread with off topicness I started a new thread on this topic and replied there- http://www.debatepolitics.com/econom...post1058314394

  10. #50
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: HPD won't screen for immigration

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    Not correct. How do police departments that exist in areas were the majority of people are black get away with out racial profiling suits? Or for that matter even whites since whites can still get pulled over more if there are more of them around. (surely whites can sue for racial profiling?)

    Edit note: sad that I actually have to ask that last question. :P
    Well, ok, yeah, you can't get in trouble for racial profiling if you are pulling over more people of a certain race just because there are more of them around.

    There are two statistical models I've seen used for measuring racial profiling. One says that you look at the percentage of the population in a precinct and that the number of traffic stops, questioning on the street, etc, should roughly match those percentages.

    The one that I've been seeing used more often lately is that you look at the percentage of crime committed by each racial group and measure whether traffic stops and whatnot roughly match up with those percentages.

    If your goal is individual liberty and equal rights then the first standard makes more sense- it isn't fair that somebody gets pulled over more often than somebody else just because of the color of their skin. If your goal is the most effective law enforcement possible, the second standard makes more sense. Generally speaking, more liberal sources will use the first standard when they study racial profiling and conservative sources will use the second standard.

    The sad thing is that some police precincts are racially profiling by both standards, meaning they are profiling so agressively that they're actually becoming less effective and they're totally obliterating any sense of individual liberty.

    And yeah, of course, whites could sue for racial profiling as well, although I haven't personally seen any studies that indicated that any police departments were profiling whites. It's a big country though. I'm sure it's happening somewhere.

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •