• 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!

Net job growth since 2000 went to immigrants

Lord of Planar said:
I'll bet that is coming from the point of view that capitalists are conservatives only, and that conservatives are republican.

I wonder if you understand the argument, switching from republican/democrat to liberal/conservative.

They are not synonymous you know.


Yes it would, but the liberals continue to stop any regulations to do so.


I'm sure there are those who do not appreciate your racist bantering by using the term "wetback." What other racial slurs do you use? Does that somehow many you feel superior to some of my friends?

The illegal immigrant is generally guilty of little more than wanting to provide for his family. The employer however in my opinion should loose hos business license if a private contractor. Corporations should be highly fined or broken. Those responsible for choosing illegal employees over those with the legal right to work are dispicable, regardless of political leaning.


I completely agree with jailing those who knowingly employ illegals, or who do so by turning a blind eye.

Note:

Your bigotry is not appropriate.
Click to expand...

I agree with all that you said, but in bold. What you are asking is for those in business and or a person hiring a gardener or house keeper to do the work of our government. How about the government doing it's job and enforce our existing laws and secure our border. Then you don't have to rely on a person hiring an illegal house keeper, which is not their job to do all the screening for our government. Now the worst part, our government is letting millions of illegals walk across the border and when they do they look for a boarder guard to take them to safety in the US. And you expect john Doe to not hire an illegal that has no clue if the person is illegal or not and has no means of proving either way an illegal from a legal person.

You want to excuse our government from doing it's job and push the burden of our illegal problem onto employers. No, stop the illegals at our border and all the rest goes away. Further there is no way in hell our government is or can police each and every business or person to investigate if they hired an illegal, especially when our government and state governments and police etc can't even ask for proof of citizenship.
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
Is it? How come you didn't acknowledge that Vietnam veteran? Is that how you envision our immigration system?
Click to expand...

Too many illegal, lifetime dependent Hispanics already here have created the problems faced by that Dutch immigrant Vietnam Veteran that you care so much about. Don't you agree?
 
Ray410 said:
Too many illegal, lifetime dependent Hispanics already here have created the problems faced by that Dutch immigrant Vietnam Veteran that you care so much about. Don't you agree?
Click to expand...

Illegal immigrants made it harder for him to become a citizen? How so?
 
Deuce said:
Probably because our legal immigration system is completely absurd. The apex of bureaucracy. Lengthy, convoluted, expensive, and for a lot of people who don't fit the right criteria literally impossible without winning a random lottery.
Click to expand...
What would your criteria be?
 
Deuce said:
Willing to put in a hard day's work at a job most Americans wouldn't take? Great.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't we be better off as a nation if we made it more beneficial for Americans to take these jobs?
 
Grand Mal said:
Of course, but I'm willing to bet that most employers of low-price illegal immigrants are conservative.
If the US is serious about stopping illegal immigration, wouldn't you think the easiest way would be to simply stop employing them? How hard could that be? Who's the villain in the scenario, the wetback or the guy who employs wetbacks? Toss a few hotel operators and golf course owners into Joe Arpaio's tent city and see how quick that works.
Click to expand...

You make a point, but honestly do you understand how ****ing derogatory the term wetback is? People who use the term look like racist douches and if you called someone that to their face you'd likely get the holy living hell beat out of you and I'd be cheering them on.
 
The article cited in the OP was really pretty well done I thought and completely non partisan, and it makes perfectly good sense. It cited legal and illegal immigrants as included in those stats. And others have made a good point that often new immigrants are just happy to be here and they are willing to do the jobs in the service industry that the native born Americans might not be so eager to take before the unemployment and other benefits run out. So almost all the folks working in restaurant kitchens, as janitors and housecleaning services, in construction grunt jobs, hotel and motel maids, and similar lower paying service jobs are going to be mostly immigrants in many areas of the country.

But if the government cuts off all that extended unemployment insurance and other government benefits, then native born Americans will again be taking whatever employment they can get and, with usually more education and better language skills, the immigrants won't be able to hold onto such a strong monopoly in those jobs.
 
Winchester said:
You make a point, but honestly do you understand how ****ing derogatory the term wetback is?
Click to expand...

Apparently I don't. All I can do is quote my reply to another poster... It was a literary device meant to juxtapose the poverty and marginal status of the illegal immigrant and the cynicism of the businessmen who use them.

People who use the term look like racist douches and if you called someone that to their face you'd likely get the holy living hell beat out of you and I'd be cheering them on.[/QUOTE]

I'll be more careful.
 
Deuce said:
How would you propose we do that?
Click to expand...
"More" can be a relative factor. Make getting social benefits contingent on working these jobs nobody wants. Make it so it would be less benificial not to works, even these jobs nobody wants.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I do like the work ethics they have. However, it is because they don't get the same social benefits south of the border we give. They appreciate the exchange of labor for pay. Perhaps people should realize we are too generous as a nation, when we have people not willing to work, so that a workforce ends up needing to be imported.
Click to expand...

Or maybe employers need to raise pay and they'd get 'native born' workers to apply and do the jobs. It's no surprise that 'native born' workers expect a bit more than grinding poverty for a full time job. In Mexico, of course, there is starvation as an alternative.
 
One other thing about the OP, the fact that job growth has gone mostly to illegals is a damning comment about the economy more than anything. We've killed millions of good jobs, with job growth only at the very bottom of the wage scale where a Walmart job is a significant step UP from the bottom.
 
Lord of Planar said:
"More" can be a relative factor. Make getting social benefits contingent on working these jobs nobody wants. Make it so it would be less benificial not to works, even these jobs nobody wants.
Click to expand...

Ahh, coerce poor people into doing it. Because picking fruit is a good way to end that cycle of poverty that welfare entraps people in, right?
 
JasperL said:
Or maybe employers need to raise pay and they'd get 'native born' workers to apply and do the jobs. It's no surprise that 'native born' workers expect a bit more than grinding poverty for a full time job. In Mexico, of course, there is starvation as an alternative.
Click to expand...
Employers shouldn't have to raise wages anymore than what is needed to get a good work force.

The problem is we have an excess of low skilled labor. Allowing illegals to work adds more to the low skilled work force.
 
Deuce said:
Ahh, coerce poor people into doing it. Because picking fruit is a good way to end that cycle of poverty that welfare entraps people in, right?
Click to expand...
At least they would be productive, instead of being a couch potato.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Employers shouldn't have to raise wages anymore than what is needed to get a good work force.

The problem is we have an excess of low skilled labor. Allowing illegals to work adds more to the low skilled work force.
Click to expand...

You said we have a workforce 'not willing to work.' I don't think that's true, more accurately we have a workforce that expects more than grinding poverty as the reward for work, which is natural for a wealthy, developed nation.

We just have a different opinion on what the core problem is. To you, it's a workforce that doesn't want to work, and to me it's that the wages being offered are too low to provide incentives to work. But, sure, if we remove safety nets and it's "work OR starve to death" we'd have no problem filling jobs at $2 an hour or $3 an hour with native born workers.
 
JasperL said:
You said we have a workforce 'not willing to work.' I don't think that's true, more accurately we have a workforce that expects more than grinding poverty as the reward for work, which is natural for a wealthy, developed nation.

We just have a different opinion on what the core problem is. To you, it's a workforce that doesn't want to work, and to me it's that the wages being offered are too low to provide incentives to work. But, sure, if we remove safety nets and it's "work OR starve to death" we'd have no problem filling jobs at $2 an hour or $3 an hour with native born workers.
Click to expand...
I'm not for removing the safety nets. I'm for removing the long term subsidies.

Big difference.
 
JasperL said:
I am too, and the way to do that is through higher wages.
Click to expand...

Yes, but how do we get there without being authoritarian?

Do you suspect that if we reduced taxes on employers, that they could compete better globally?

Do you suspect that if we added tariffs to imports, we could manufacture here again?

Do you have a better solution?

Most people think we can tax or mandate higher wages to solve the problems. These cause other problems.
 
Lord of Planar said:
At least they would be productive, instead of being a couch potato.
Click to expand...

Trouble is the majority of those people you're talking about already have a job.
 
Deuce said:
Trouble is the majority of those people you're talking about already have a job.
Click to expand...
And why is it societies responsibility to subsidize them if they cannot make enough?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom