- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 41,104
- Reaction score
- 12,202
- Location
- South Carolina
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Forget it, it ain't worth the ban!
j-mac
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?
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.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.
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.
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.
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'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.
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.
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 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.
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....?
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.
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.
People would go back to doing their own lawns (i.e. force their kids to do it)?Short term, removing all illegals may cause landscaping to rise to $350 a lawn cut, or apples to $10 per lb. Long term? Dunno.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I actually agree, which is why I believe that there would be no increase in jobs for legal residents by removing illegals.
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.