• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Los Angeles to boycott Arizona over immigration law

Forget it, it ain't worth the ban!


j-mac
 
Last edited:
Perhaps you are feeling a little "attacked" because you know the answer to the question.

You people claim "illegals" are coming in an stealing Americans jobs and that brown people are the main source of all your economic problems.

You claim that the Arizona law is working because brown people are leaving Arizona and afraid to go out to seek work.

If everything that you say is true....where are the masses of the unemployed able bodied Americans wanting to take those jobs? Have we seen them rushing down to stand outside Home Depot to take those jobs that the "illegals" had stolen from them or the migrant farm jobs that they so desperately wanted to have that the "illegals" took?

This is just terrible, terrible logic and belies a total lack of understanding of economics. Are you really arguing that the only way this law will have any impact is if US citizens start massing outside home depot, looking to build decks for $50/day? It's a bit more complex than that.
 
My own city is making me puke. This is a city that feels the pinch because of illegal immigration probably even moreso than Arizona, and we're going to boycott a city that is doing something about it? Shame on my city council. They've run this city to the ground. We're about to go bankrupt and they're going to lecture Arizona about morality?
Perhaps Arizona should round up all the illegals aliens in Arizona and else where and drop them off at the California state line and inform them of it's sanctuary status.
 
Perhaps Arizona should round up all the illegals aliens in Arizona and else where and drop them off at the California state line and inform them of it's sanctuary status.

Then this city would go bankrupt even faster. Do it. I'm tired of this ignorant city council.
 
This is just terrible, terrible logic and belies a total lack of understanding of economics. Are you really arguing that the only way this law will have any impact is if US citizens start massing outside home depot, looking to build decks for $50/day? It's a bit more complex than that.

No...what I am saying is that the rationale for WHY we need to deport all undocumented workers is flawed.

People complain about the brown-skin people coming in and stealing American jobs.

If this is true....where are all those unemployed workers that wanted those jobs that are no longer being taken by the "illegals"?

I'll give you a hint....probably still sitting in their underwear on their couch, because they really didn't want the job in the first place.
 
No...what I am saying is that the rationale for WHY we need to deport all undocumented workers is flawed.

People complain about the brown-skin people coming in and stealing American jobs.

If this is true....where are all those unemployed workers that wanted those jobs that are no longer being taken by the "illegals"?

I'll give you a hint....probably still sitting in their underwear on their couch, because they really didn't want the job in the first place.

So your theory is

1) that every economist on the planet is wrong when they say that an influx of low-wage labor will drive down wages, and
2) that that decrease in wages has absolutely no impact on unemployment?

Think this through: Imagine that strawberries are harvested exclusively by illegal immigrants for $5/hour. Now imagine that all those illegal immigrants leave the country. Are Americans going to be rushing to pick strawberries for $5/hr? Probably not, but that's where your reasoning stops. You ignore the second half of the equation.

Since there will obviously be a continued demand for strawberries, they have to get picked somehow. If there are no illegal immigrants to pick them for $5/hr, then the people who own the plantations will have to increase the salaries to a level that will attract enough workers. Assuming that's something like $10/hr, the end result will be that a number of American workers that would have previously been unemployed will now be earning $10/hr.


As a side note, the politics of illegal immigration crack me up. I'll never understand how the same people who campaign on behalf of low-income people and argue for increased employment opportunity will then turn around and get furious at a proposal that would reduce unemployment and increase wages among low-income Americans.
 
Last edited:
As a side note, the politics of illegal immigration crack me up. I'll never understand how the same people who campaign on behalf of low-income people and argue for increased employment opportunity will then turn around and get furious at a proposal that would reduce unemployment and increase wages among low-income Americans.

Absolutely baffling, isn't it? Kind of mentality that just makes you want to sit back and study it, like an animal eating its own tail or something. Confusing, lacking any logic or common sense, but you just *have* to sit and stare all the same.
 
Absolutely baffling, isn't it? Kind of mentality that just makes you want to sit back and study it, like an animal eating its own tail or something. Confusing, lacking any logic or common sense, but you just *have* to sit and stare all the same.

And who is illegal immigration even hurting? Not the rich folks out in Cape Cod, as they're getting cheap child- and lawn-care. Not me, as I'm paying .50 cents less per drink and $2 less per meal thanks to the fact that every barback and a majority of restaurant workers in this city are illegal immigrants getting paid under the table. It hurts the people who would otherwise take those jobs, people who are largely low-income, low-education, and minority - all groups that vote Democrat at a 2:1 or 3:1 ratio.
 
Last edited:
It hurts the people who would otherwise take those jobs, people who are largely low-income, low-education, and minority - all groups that vote Democrat at a 2:1 or 3:1 ratio.

Wait, if that's the type of group that's most likely to fill in those kind of jobs then according to Disneydues logic those groups of people, if they're unemployed, are so because:

I'll give you a hint....probably still sitting in their underwear on their couch, because they really didn't want the job in the first place.

So essentially Disney agree's with the stereotypical Republican view that many of those that are poor or unemployed are that way because they do not have the incentive to go out and actually try and get a job?

I never knew Disney was such a Republican.

;)
 
So your theory is

1) that every economist on the planet is wrong when they say that an influx of low-wage labor will drive down wages, and
2) that that decrease in wages has absolutely no impact on unemployment?

Think this through: Imagine that strawberries are harvested exclusively by illegal immigrants for $5/hour. Now imagine that all those illegal immigrants leave the country. Are Americans going to be rushing to pick strawberries for $5/hr? Probably not, but that's where your reasoning stops. You ignore the second half of the equation.

Since there will obviously be a continued demand for strawberries, they have to get picked somehow. If there are no illegal immigrants to pick them for $5/hr, then the people who own the plantations will have to increase the salaries to a level that will attract enough workers. Assuming that's something like $10/hr, the end result will be that a number of American workers that would have previously been unemployed will now be earning $10/hr.


As a side note, the politics of illegal immigration crack me up. I'll never understand how the same people who campaign on behalf of low-income people and argue for increased employment opportunity will then turn around and get furious at a proposal that would reduce unemployment and increase wages among low-income Americans.


That's the fallacy of the Capitalist system. Sure...it might work for something like farming where the product is perishable.
The harsh reality is that most companies are going to pay the lowest wage possible. If it means shipping operations and jobs overseas, so be it, as long as it helps the CEO's bottom line.
Capitalism works best for the corporation when there are enough hungry people around that will take the job for what the company is willing to pay.

The fact of the matter is, even in farming...if the company suddenly has to pay $10 an hour for workers, the price of Strawberries is going to double.
People are not going to pay $7 a pound for strawberries and so demand will go down. The company isn't going to take a loss, they will just cut supply and cut workers...so in the end, you haven't really created more jobs that those brown-skinned people were stealing in the first place.
 
Wait, if that's the type of group that's most likely to fill in those kind of jobs then according to Disneydues logic those groups of people, if they're unemployed, are so because:



So essentially Disney agree's with the stereotypical Republican view that many of those that are poor or unemployed are that way because they do not have the incentive to go out and actually try and get a job?

I never knew Disney was such a Republican.

;)

Don't give yourself that much credit Zyph. THAT has never been a Republican view. Many liberals have the same view.
I have ALWAYS had a problem with people in this country that want to bilk the system (as I think most liberals/conservatives do as well).

That's why I don't have a huge issue with undocumented people who come to this country because they want to WORK. I have a bigger problem with documented people in this country that DON'T want to work.

That is not to say that there aren't legitimate need for public assistance in this country. The Welfare system needs to be overhauled every bit as much as the Immigration system.

If that makes me more "Republican" than you thought....then so be it...but I don't think that this is a Republican or Democrat ideal.
 
The harsh reality is that most companies are going to pay the lowest wage possible. If it means shipping operations and jobs overseas, so be it, as long as it helps the CEO's bottom line.

Wait, but the only jobs you've given a damn about pointing out this entire time have been those "standing out front of home depot". So...yard work, roofing, and construction is going to get outsourced overseas? It'll be interesting to watch the Chinese figure out a way to put roofs on American houses from across the ocean.

Can you point to me where anyones suggested or stated that somehow its going to be a 1:1 ratio in regards to "illegal loses job" to "legal person gains job"?

If anything minimum wage laws make this almost 100% likelihood of not happening as for many of those jobs it won't even be legally possible to pay what they were paying, therefore costing them more, therefore meaning they can't hire as many people. However every legal person they hire is one more than there was employed by them prior to them no longer having illegal labor.
 
Woah woah woah, if we're going to turn this into an economic discussion, let's get some things straight. The illegal label makes them get lower wages. Why? Employers take more risk by hiring an illegal. Because they cannot get into this country legally, they are forced to take lower wages (this is all assuming a situation without minimum wage).

Secondly, you say that immigration has an impact on unemployment. Sure, in the short-term. Meanwhile, all of your products are cheaper because of more competition in the labor market. Have we forgotten that production creates its own demand? The illegals that are working are also buying. You do know that creates jobs, right?

So immigrants drive down costs, they have no impact on unemployment in the long run. Why do we cap immigration then? Because of unfounded fears based on outdated economic models.
 
So you're arguing that adding 6+ million people (assuming a low number 12 million illegals, and assuming half of them work which is likely low) to the work force has absolutely 0 impact on unemployment of legal citizens? Based on....?
 
And who is illegal immigration even hurting? Not the rich folks out in Cape Cod, as they're getting cheap child- and lawn-care. Not me, as I'm paying .50 cents less per drink and $2 less per meal thanks to the fact that every barback and a majority of restaurant workers in this city are illegal immigrants getting paid under the table. It hurts the people who would otherwise take those jobs, people who are largely low-income, low-education, and minority - all groups that vote Democrat at a 2:1 or 3:1 ratio.

I'm not sure I agree with this. There's indirect consequences. What I'd like to see done is a comparison... benefits vs. detriment.

For example... benefits of an illegal immigrant of x% who work in the U.S. illegally is that:


If illegal workers were all banished --- what would the costs be short term for things like landscaping, migrant vegetable workers and impacts to groceries / food, etc... vs. the existing cost on the geneal population, government and taxpayer to keep illegals, their family and children here in this country. What are the costs of education, health care, dentistry, government programs, housing, etc.

I'm sure it may still be beneficial to have illegals here working - if it weren't then government would have been turning a blind eye to it for all these decades but we're talking about government --- not people. Government doesn't care about people's money... the people do. So if the people finally say "enough" - it's now up to the government to tell us why keeping a slave class of people here in this country is so beneficial.

Short term, removing all illegals may cause landscaping to rise to $350 a lawn cut, or apples to $10 per lb. Long term? Dunno.
 
So you're arguing that adding 6+ million people (assuming a low number 12 million illegals, and assuming half of them work which is likely low) to the work force has absolutely 0 impact on unemployment of legal citizens? Based on....?

You are assuming that removing the illegals will automatically lead to employing legals. This is not true. Many companies would probably end up closing shop because the increased wages they'd have to pay would eliminate their profits.

Plus, legal residents expect healthcare etc, which will drive up costs even further for the business owner. In the end, most of them will simply close up rather than deal with the increased hassles for what would end up being pennies.
 
That's the fallacy of the Capitalist system. Sure...it might work for something like farming where the product is perishable.
The harsh reality is that most companies are going to pay the lowest wage possible. If it means shipping operations and jobs overseas, so be it, as long as it helps the CEO's bottom line.

And considering that the vast, vast majority of jobs performed by illegal immigrants are service jobs that cannot be shipped overseas, this is entirely irrelevant.

Capitalism works best for the corporation when there are enough hungry people around that will take the job for what the company is willing to pay.

Exactly, which is why a huge labor pool makes employers happy.

The fact of the matter is, even in farming...if the company suddenly has to pay $10 an hour for workers, the price of Strawberries is going to double. People are not going to pay $7 a pound for strawberries and so demand will go down. The company isn't going to take a loss, they will just cut supply and cut workers...so in the end, you haven't really created more jobs that those brown-skinned people were stealing in the first place.

So your theory is that 100% of the cost of strawberries comes from the labor used to pick them? Completely incorrect.

The practical result would indeed be minor inflation, but I didn't know you were so in favor of preventing inflation that you supported policies that increased American unemployment. You must be positively enthralled by Walmart's overseas purchasing habits.

And again with the hilarity: You realize that the argument you're making re: strawberries is identical to the argument against a minimum wage?

"The fact of the matter is, even in farming...if the company suddenly has to pay $7 an hour to his employees, the price of Strawberries is going to double. People are not going to pay $7 a pound for strawberries and so demand will go down. The company isn't going to take a loss, they will just cut supply and cut workers...so in the end, you haven't really created more jobs. That's why employers should be free to pay their employees whatever they want."
 
You are assuming that removing the illegals will automatically lead to employing legals. This is not true. Many companies would probably end up closing shop because the increased wages they'd have to pay would eliminate their profits.

Plus, legal residents expect healthcare etc, which will drive up costs even further for the business owner. In the end, most of them will simply close up rather than deal with the increased hassles for what would end up being pennies.

And yet even if that happened to say...2/3rds of the potential jobs that those 6 million in my theoritical took up, that'd still allow for 2 million legal citizens to have jobs that previously wouldn't.

What the poster in question is suggestion by saying it'd have no impact on unemployment is that every single one of those jobs filled by illegals would somehow cease to be should illegals not be there to fill them, or that the net effect in regards to his theoritical "jobs created based on them being here" and the loss of those would somehow come out to 0.

I can't fathom any scenario where that could be in any way shape or form true.
 
Short term, removing all illegals may cause landscaping to rise to $350 a lawn cut, or apples to $10 per lb. Long term? Dunno.
People would go back to doing their own lawns (i.e. force their kids to do it)?

Apples aren't labor-intensive, so the cost wouldn't change as much as say, strawberries. Though the cost to consumers would go up - I'll bet they'd go back to selling by the pint (little green baskets) than by the pound (large recangular containers). As it is, a third of my strawberries go bad before I eat them anyway.
 
Woah woah woah, if we're going to turn this into an economic discussion, let's get some things straight. The illegal label makes them get lower wages. Why? Employers take more risk by hiring an illegal. Because they cannot get into this country legally, they are forced to take lower wages (this is all assuming a situation without minimum wage).

Secondly, you say that immigration has an impact on unemployment. Sure, in the short-term. Meanwhile, all of your products are cheaper because of more competition in the labor market. Have we forgotten that production creates its own demand? The illegals that are working are also buying. You do know that creates jobs, right?

So immigrants drive down costs, they have no impact on unemployment in the long run. Why do we cap immigration then? Because of unfounded fears based on outdated economic models.

Do you have a link for the claim that these two forces balance out? Nobody is denying that they exist, but I think it's pretty hard to argue that the introduction of a huge, unregulated labor force into an economy will not increase unemployment among the citizenry.

I'm not sure I agree with this. There's indirect consequences. What I'd like to see done is a comparison... benefits vs. detriment.

For example... benefits of an illegal immigrant of x% who work in the U.S. illegally is that:


If illegal workers were all banished --- what would the costs be short term for things like landscaping, migrant vegetable workers and impacts to groceries / food, etc... vs. the existing cost on the geneal population, government and taxpayer to keep illegals, their family and children here in this country. What are the costs of education, health care, dentistry, government programs, housing, etc.

I'm sure it may still be beneficial to have illegals here working - if it weren't then government would have been turning a blind eye to it for all these decades but we're talking about government --- not people. Government doesn't care about people's money... the people do. So if the people finally say "enough" - it's now up to the government to tell us why keeping a slave class of people here in this country is so beneficial.

Short term, removing all illegals may cause landscaping to rise to $350 a lawn cut, or apples to $10 per lb. Long term? Dunno.

These impacts will certainly exist, but at the margins. Plenty of people already pay "full price" for lawn mowing or apple picking. The effects would be nowhere near as serious as you're claiming.

You are assuming that removing the illegals will automatically lead to employing legals. This is not true. Many companies would probably end up closing shop because the increased wages they'd have to pay would eliminate their profits.

Plus, legal residents expect healthcare etc, which will drive up costs even further for the business owner. In the end, most of them will simply close up rather than deal with the increased hassles for what would end up being pennies.

As above, some of this will certainly happen, but only at the margins, as the vast majority of businesses do not employ illegals.

Either way, the fact that something might lead to increased prices is not an argument for exempting people from laws, particularly where the people who are profiting from it are those who are breaking the law.
 
And yet even if that happened to say...2/3rds of the potential jobs that those 6 million in my theoritical took up, that'd still allow for 2 million legal citizens to have jobs that previously wouldn't.

What the poster in question is suggestion by saying it'd have no impact on unemployment is that every single one of those jobs filled by illegals would somehow cease to be should illegals not be there to fill them, or that the net effect in regards to his theoritical "jobs created based on them being here" and the loss of those would somehow come out to 0.

I can't fathom any scenario where that could be in any way shape or form true.

I can easily fathom that scenario.

But I've run a construction company before. The only one's that would stick around are the one's that already have legal residents as their primary work force.

The one's that employ illegals would close shop because they were designed to undercut the bids of those who didn't hire illegals.

They'd never be able to undercut the other guy if they paid the same wages, paid for the same benefits.

As far as produce goes, people will end up buying foreign produced agriculture. They often already do.

Then you've got to have people willing to do the work in the first place. Personally, having dealt with natural born citizens quite often in construction, I have little confidence in their will to work...

And I actually paid a very good wage. I ended up hiring legal immigrants more often than anything else.
 
As above, some of this will certainly happen, but only at the margins, as the vast majority of businesses do not employ illegals.

I actually agree, which is why I believe that there would be no increase in jobs for legal residents by removing illegals.


Either way, the fact that something might lead to increased prices is not an argument for exempting people from laws, particularly where the people who are profiting from it are those who are breaking the law.

I agree with this as well.

My argument against federal immigration laws (both restrictive AND permissive federal laws) is that it is an individual State's right to determine who is or is not a legal resident of that state. The federal government only has the right to universalize naturalization laws, not residency laws.

I have no argument against State-level immigration laws. I believe that Arizona should have the right to pass even more restrictive immigration statutes than those it has already passed if they so choose.
 
Whatever. I pay the local Mennonites to pick my strawberries for me. And their prices are comparable to the grocery store's prices. Difference is, the produce is better, fresher, and lacking the toxins that other places use.

Anywho, I don't see how sending all the illegal strawberry pickers back home is going to affect much of the costs. Apparently, the local folks can do it just as cheap. :mrgreen:
 
Then I guess our experiences shall have to differ. I can not imagine that every, single, solitary, construction job for every single country over the entire united states...to a singularity...are all going to vanish and cease to exist if there were no illegal immigrant workers. Which is what you're arguing. Actually, you're not even arguing that. Any illegal immigrant working in fast food...that job won't get filled, even if its at a 5:1 ratio. Any illegal immigrant working on a farm? That farm will apparently not hire anyone new, or will just close down. I can think of half a dozen bars immedietely in a few mile radious around my house whose barbacks are most likely illegal immigrants...you're suggseting that every one of those bars is going to close up shop, or just stop having barbacks. I've worked for a number of hotels where I've been very curious as to the citizenship of a good portion of the cleaning staff...apparently every one of those hotels are going to shut down, or just stop having cleaners. And on and on.

Sorry, I understand your experience in construction...and while I can not fathom every single construction compamy in the entire U.S. that hires any illegals all just closing shop...even if we assume that's true that is hardly all the jobs that illegals make up. What you're suggesting is that all sorts of business the entire united states over is going to shut down because of this to have literally "zero impact" on unemployment...that just doesn't make sense.
 
I actually agree, which is why I believe that there would be no increase in jobs for legal residents by removing illegals.

Unless all of those millions of jobs would go undone, there would absolutely have to be an increase in jobs among legal residents, with an increase in prices that correlates to the wage gap.

I agree with this as well.

My argument against federal immigration laws (both restrictive AND permissive federal laws) is that it is an individual State's right to determine who is or is not a legal resident of that state. The federal government only has the right to universalize naturalization laws, not residency laws.

I have no argument against State-level immigration laws. I believe that Arizona should have the right to pass even more restrictive immigration statutes than those it has already passed if they so choose.

My argument is not against immigration, it's against the fact that our current laws encourage lawbreaking among immigrants and employers alike. If we as a country believe that the minimum wage should be $7/hr, then every person working in this country should be earning $7/hr+. We should not have a millions-strong underclass that is tolerated because they allow us to save 3 cents on an apple but is denied all the rest of the rights of citizenship. If we want to keep prices low, then let them all become citizens and cut the minimum wage. If we want to cut unemployment at the expense of inflation, then kick them all out. If we want something in the middle, then we should do it, rather than just let our current unworkable situation continue on.

Right now our society is trying to have its cake and eat it too, and the people who are being hurt by it are the illegals who have no security, the lower class of Americans who are unable to find paying work, and the law-abiding business owners who are losing money to their less scrupulous competitors.
 
Back
Top Bottom