Illegal immigrants could be granted US amnesty within 8yrs

Page 4 of 4 [ 60 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

Telekon
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 16 Feb 2011
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 411

20 Feb 2013, 2:42 pm

visagrunt wrote:
Well the aggregate household spending (HFCE) in the US is just over $10 trillion, or $29,822 per capita. So let's be conservative, and suggest that the per capital spend for undocumented aliens is roughly $15,000 per capita--about half of the national average. That would put consumer spending at $180 billion dollars, somewhat over 1% of GDP. Remember, too, that at low household income levels, a higher percentage of household spending goes to necessities of life: food, clothing and shelter. This is spending that disappears when the household disappears.


It only disappears if you assume that supply and demand are independent of one another. Consumer spending is a consequence and not a cause of economic prosperity. People can only demand what they produce, or help others to produce. If there is presently a demand for the services illegals provide, the demand would still exist if the illegals went home. IOW, if they are able to consume $180 billion of goods and services, then someone else is able to demand $180 billion of their services. Their wealth is a product of someone else's wealth. So your claim that $180 billion of spending would disappear if illegals left the country is sophistry. It is true, but only trivially so.



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,128
Location: Vancouver, BC

20 Feb 2013, 3:51 pm

Telekon wrote:
It only disappears if you assume that supply and demand are independent of one another. Consumer spending is a consequence and not a cause of economic prosperity. People can only demand what they produce, or help others to produce. If there is presently a demand for the services illegals provide, the demand would still exist if the illegals went home. IOW, if they are able to consume $180 billion of goods and services, then someone else is able to demand $180 billion of their services. Their wealth is a product of someone else's wealth. So your claim that $180 billion of spending would disappear if illegals left the country is sophistry. It is true, but only trivially so.


You seem to be confusing "consumer confidence" with "consumer spending."

Since consumer spending is over 70% of the United States' GDP, you wind up in a very circular argument if you pretend that consumer spending is a consequence of economic prosperity. In the United States, consumer spending is driven far more by monetary policy than it is by economic indicators. If the money supply is easy, consumers spend. When consumers spend, the economy grows. Tighten up the money supply, and the economy shrinks, because consumer spending falls.

And your argument fails to allow for consumption. There is economic activity where the end user is the end of the line, economically. Once you have bought food to feed yourself, there is no further economic activity. Take 12,000,000 consumers out of the demand for groceries, and what happens? The remaining people aren't going to eat the surplus food, now are they? How many fewer jobs would there be in agriculture, transportation, wholesaling, distribution and retailing as a result of a 3.5% decline in the US population?

As for the supply and demand for services, I don't disagree that demand would continue to exist. The question is, could that demand be filled at a price that would allow the services and goods produced to remain competitive?


_________________
--James


Telekon
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 16 Feb 2011
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 411

20 Feb 2013, 5:32 pm

visagrunt wrote:
Telekon wrote:
It only disappears if you assume that supply and demand are independent of one another. Consumer spending is a consequence and not a cause of economic prosperity. People can only demand what they produce, or help others to produce. If there is presently a demand for the services illegals provide, the demand would still exist if the illegals went home. IOW, if they are able to consume $180 billion of goods and services, then someone else is able to demand $180 billion of their services. Their wealth is a product of someone else's wealth. So your claim that $180 billion of spending would disappear if illegals left the country is sophistry. It is true, but only trivially so.


You seem to be confusing "consumer confidence" with "consumer spending."

Since consumer spending is over 70% of the United States' GDP, you wind up in a very circular argument if you pretend that consumer spending is a consequence of economic prosperity. In the United States, consumer spending is driven far more by monetary policy than it is by economic indicators. If the money supply is easy, consumers spend. When consumers spend, the economy grows. Tighten up the money supply, and the economy shrinks, because consumer spending falls.

And your argument fails to allow for consumption. There is economic activity where the end user is the end of the line, economically. Once you have bought food to feed yourself, there is no further economic activity. Take 12,000,000 consumers out of the demand for groceries, and what happens? The remaining people aren't going to eat the surplus food, now are they? How many fewer jobs would there be in agriculture, transportation, wholesaling, distribution and retailing as a result of a 3.5% decline in the US population?

As for the supply and demand for services, I don't disagree that demand would continue to exist. The question is, could that demand be filled at a price that would allow the services and goods produced to remain competitive?


Yes, some of that spending is inflationary because it is bolstered by artificial credit. But consumer spending is ultimately grounded on value added production. If it all it took to stimulate consumption were expansions in the money supply, then Zimbabwe should have been the economic locomotive of Africa.

If illegal aliens are able to demand $180 billion of goods and services, then someone else is able to demand $180 billion of their services. That wealth would be directed toward other productive activities if all illegals went home. If people are no longer able to demand the services of illegal aliens, then they'll demand them from other parties willing to provide the services. Those parties may not demand the same composition of goods and services as illegal aliens.

Fewer jobs doesn't necessarily result in a loss of economic production. In fact, I would argue that illegal immigrant labor has stagnated agricultural production by forestalling investment in labor saving capital equipment. The invention of the bulldozer resulted in fewer (but more productive) jobs. Enough of Malthusian economics.



AspieOtaku
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,212
Location: San Jose

20 Feb 2013, 8:43 pm

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8lLU7XjcWc[/youtube]


_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList


AspieOtaku
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,212
Location: San Jose

20 Feb 2013, 8:53 pm

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5J9b3aABt8[/youtube]


_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList


visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,128
Location: Vancouver, BC

21 Feb 2013, 1:43 pm

Telekon wrote:
Yes, some of that spending is inflationary because it is bolstered by artificial credit. But consumer spending is ultimately grounded on value added production. If it all it took to stimulate consumption were expansions in the money supply, then Zimbabwe should have been the economic locomotive of Africa.

If illegal aliens are able to demand $180 billion of goods and services, then someone else is able to demand $180 billion of their services. That wealth would be directed toward other productive activities if all illegals went home. If people are no longer able to demand the services of illegal aliens, then they'll demand them from other parties willing to provide the services. Those parties may not demand the same composition of goods and services as illegal aliens.

Fewer jobs doesn't necessarily result in a loss of economic production. In fact, I would argue that illegal immigrant labor has stagnated agricultural production by forestalling investment in labor saving capital equipment. The invention of the bulldozer resulted in fewer (but more productive) jobs. Enough of Malthusian economics.


But that demand is not elastic. At root, a 3.5% drop in population cannot but result in a real drop in aggregate demand. The other 96.5% of people are not going to replace all of that economic activity. It's axiomatic.


_________________
--James


AspieOtaku
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,212
Location: San Jose

21 Feb 2013, 2:02 pm

visagrunt wrote:
Telekon wrote:
Yes, some of that spending is inflationary because it is bolstered by artificial credit. But consumer spending is ultimately grounded on value added production. If it all it took to stimulate consumption were expansions in the money supply, then Zimbabwe should have been the economic locomotive of Africa.

If illegal aliens are able to demand $180 billion of goods and services, then someone else is able to demand $180 billion of their services. That wealth would be directed toward other productive activities if all illegals went home. If people are no longer able to demand the services of illegal aliens, then they'll demand them from other parties willing to provide the services. Those parties may not demand the same composition of goods and services as illegal aliens.

Fewer jobs doesn't necessarily result in a loss of economic production. In fact, I would argue that illegal immigrant labor has stagnated agricultural production by forestalling investment in labor saving capital equipment. The invention of the bulldozer resulted in fewer (but more productive) jobs. Enough of Malthusian economics.


But that demand is not elastic. At root, a 3.5% drop in population cannot but result in a real drop in aggregate demand. The other 96.5% of people are not going to replace all of that economic activity. It's axiomatic.
Replace them with Chinese workers! Theyle beable to fill those gaps in a heartbeat! Farmers and agriculture? There are plenty of Chinese farmers willing to do that as well.


_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList


CaptainTrips222
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2009
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,125

21 Feb 2013, 2:55 pm

AspieOtaku wrote:
visagrunt wrote:
Telekon wrote:
Yes, some of that spending is inflationary because it is bolstered by artificial credit. But consumer spending is ultimately grounded on value added production. If it all it took to stimulate consumption were expansions in the money supply, then Zimbabwe should have been the economic locomotive of Africa.

If illegal aliens are able to demand $180 billion of goods and services, then someone else is able to demand $180 billion of their services. That wealth would be directed toward other productive activities if all illegals went home. If people are no longer able to demand the services of illegal aliens, then they'll demand them from other parties willing to provide the services. Those parties may not demand the same composition of goods and services as illegal aliens.

Fewer jobs doesn't necessarily result in a loss of economic production. In fact, I would argue that illegal immigrant labor has stagnated agricultural production by forestalling investment in labor saving capital equipment. The invention of the bulldozer resulted in fewer (but more productive) jobs. Enough of Malthusian economics.


But that demand is not elastic. At root, a 3.5% drop in population cannot but result in a real drop in aggregate demand. The other 96.5% of people are not going to replace all of that economic activity. It's axiomatic.
Replace them with Chinese workers! Theyle beable to fill those gaps in a heartbeat! Farmers and agriculture? There are plenty of Chinese farmers willing to do that as well.


Americans, as well. The whole thing about Americans not willing to do those jobs is a total myth.

And I like the idea of having 1st and 2nd generation Chinese descended laborers all around us. They have a much calmer, more respectful culture that places a greater value on education. And the ones I meet seem more willing to learn English.



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,044
Location: Seattle

21 Feb 2013, 3:35 pm

A. Barton Hinkle has a good piece up on this:

Quote:
Americans—conservative Americans particularly—think America will be better off if it fiercely guards its borders, allowing only a few people of the more desirable sort to cross them. They are mistaken. Not only does a generous immigration policy improve life for people already here, a hawkish immigration policy also can have serious downsides for U.S. citizens.

Economically, the case for more immigration is compelling: Immigrants are more likely than native-born Americans to start a business, more likely to launch a hugely successful one, more likely to work and less likely to commit crime. Free trade increases prosperity, and that is just as true of trade in labor as for goods. (Caplan cites research estimating that “open borders would roughly double world GDP, enough to virtually eliminate global poverty.”)


According to Gallup, 85 percent of Americans support requiring employers to verify that all new hires are living in the U.S. legally. This likely is owing to the false belief that illegal immigrants take jobs that “belong to” Americans. That belief is false for three reasons: First, jobs don’t belong to anyone but the person doing the hiring. Second, illegal immigrants often do work Americans refuse to do. Third, Americans don’t just give jobs to undocumented workers. They also take money from them by selling them food and clothing, renting apartments to them, and so forth. That commerce creates jobs for—yep —Americans.


Conservatives, especially of the Tea Party variety, should be alarmed by the prospect of having to get a permission slip from the federal government—a government they consider as efficient as the Postal Service and as compassionate as the IRS – before exercising the right to earn a living. That is just one part of the price to pay for the dubious benefit of “securing the border.”

The gutting of the Bill of Rights is another. Since 2008, the Department of Homeland Security has claimed the right to seize and search your electronic belongings—cell phone, laptop, etc. —at the border, without a warrant and without even any suspicion of wrongdoing.

But not just at the border: DHS claims the authority to conduct warrantless electronic searches within 100 miles of the U.S. border. That covers 197 million people—almost two-thirds of the American population. What constitutional authority does DHS have to disregard the Fourth Amendment this way? That’s classified, it says. While the agency has released an executive summary of its rationale, the ACLU had to file a Freedom of Information Act request on Feb. 8 to see the entire report.

Meanwhile, Homeland Security continues to put its policy into practice. Without any suspicion of wrongdoing, it has seized the electronic devices of a computer programmer involved with a legal defense fund for Bradley Manning, a researcher for Wikileaks, and others. (According to an October lawsuit filed by the ACLU of San Diego, border agents also have seized cameras from photographers who were simply taking photographs in public—which is is not merely legal, but constitutionally protected.)

That’s the trouble with taking a hawkish approach to immigration: The harder you try to keep people outside the fence, the more you’re bound to restrict the freedom of people already inside it. You can have a leak-free border—or you can have limited government that respects liberty and individual rights. Take your pick.


Whole article:
http://reason.com/archives/2013/02/19/t ... -americans


_________________
Murum Aries Attigit


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,726
Location: New Jersey

21 Feb 2013, 3:39 pm

Dox47 wrote:


As long as criminals, terrorists and folks with communicable diseases are stopped at the border I can live with just about any policy. Oh before I forget. No welfare benefits for illegal immigrants and one should require sponsorship for legal immigrants. An immigrant should not become a burden to the commonwealth.

ruveyn



Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,459
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

21 Feb 2013, 3:57 pm

Telekon wrote:
Tyri0n wrote:
4. Most of this thread is racist and, therefore, violates WP's terms of use.


How so? Illegal immigrants are not a race.


The correct term is xenophobic.



mikassyna
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2013
Age: 47
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,432
Location: New York, NY

21 Feb 2013, 4:54 pm

Dox47 wrote:
Economically, the case for more immigration is compelling: Immigrants are more likely than native-born Americans to start a business, more likely to launch a hugely successful one, more likely to work and less likely to commit crime. Free trade increases prosperity, and that is just as true of trade in labor as for goods. (Caplan cites research estimating that “open borders would roughly double world GDP, enough to virtually eliminate global poverty.”)


YES--LEGAL IMMIGRANTS!! Not ILLEGAL ones!! !!

Dox47 wrote:
According to Gallup, 85 percent of Americans support requiring employers to verify that all new hires are living in the U.S. legally. This likely is owing to the false belief that illegal immigrants take jobs that “belong to” Americans. That belief is false for three reasons: First, jobs don’t belong to anyone but the person doing the hiring. Second, illegal immigrants often do work Americans refuse to do. Third, Americans don’t just give jobs to undocumented workers. They also take money from them by selling them food and clothing, renting apartments to them, and so forth. That commerce creates jobs for—yep —Americans.


The argument that illegal immigrants often do the work that Americans refuse to do is erroneous. Having a surplus of undocumented people available to work off the books below minimum wage (cheap undocumented labor) DOES take away WORK THAT AMERICANS WOULD OR COULD DO. If those jobs were documented they would be forced to be raised to minimum wage with benefits, and then Americans WOULD take those jobs. If there is nobody to provide the cheap labor, employers are then forced to raise their wages if they want to stay in business.

Dox47 wrote:
Conservatives, especially of the Tea Party variety, should be alarmed by the prospect of having to get a permission slip from the federal government—a government they consider as efficient as the Postal Service and as compassionate as the IRS – before exercising the right to earn a living. That is just one part of the price to pay for the dubious benefit of “securing the border.”


Citizens here already do need permission to earn a living. When you're a minor, they're called Working Papers. Otherwise we get an efficient Social Security Number to track our earnings.

Dox47 wrote:
That’s the trouble with taking a hawkish approach to immigration: The harder you try to keep people outside the fence, the more you’re bound to restrict the freedom of people already inside it. You can have a leak-free border—or you can have limited government that respects liberty and individual rights. Take your pick.


Why does it have to be All or Nothing?



KinetiK
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 7 Jul 2011
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 120

21 Feb 2013, 5:07 pm

I don't think people realize just how difficult it is for a poor farm worker from Mexico or Guatemala to immigrate to the US legally, no matter how much they want to. You think bureaucracy is bad here? It's 10x worse in Latin America, and also blatantly corrupt. If you don't have money or connections then good luck.

"Well they are breaking the law and should be deported". Reminds me of when people talk about drug users breaking the law and locking them up because "the law's the law". Have you ever considered that maybe the law is f****d up? There are hundreds of thousands (if not millions) that have spent their entire lives here, learned the language, been a good person, never committed a crime, gone through school, and are systematically denied opportunities because they moved here when they were young children...or they were in a desperate situation and just wanted to SURVIVE...that's not f****d up? If not then I don't know what is. I've spent over 6 months of my life in Mexico and seen the abject poverty in many areas (and it's getting worse with the cartels). When someone chooses to hire a coyote to send them over, it's not a decision taken lightly. These people are absolutely desperate and risk murder, rape, extortion, and at the very least wasting their time and money if they make it over but then get caught. I GUARANTEE you "mooching off the American taxpayer" and "making anchor babies" (implicitly racist talking points the right love to spout) are the last things on their mind. Said mooching would also be drastically reduced if they became citizens and paid taxes.

But go ahead and spend billions of dollars deporting millions of people. I'm sure Americans are clamoring to pick fruit and mow lawns in hundred degree weather for 10+ hours a day. If only it weren't for those damn Mezzicans!!11! Funny how fruit started rotting in the fields in many southeast states after they deported a bunch of farm workers, at a time when these states are facing double digit unemployment. As Doug Stanhope says, if someone that can't even speak the de facto language of a country takes your job, then you're a loser and should have tried harder.

(By the way, there is not a single study showing a link between U.S. amnesty and increased illegal immigration. Not one.
http://immigrationreheated.wordpress.co ... migration/)

Illegal immigration is clearly an economic problem that needs an economic solution. By providing amnesty, you are simply giving decent people the chance at a better life. They don't want to be a burden on others, they just want a better life for their families. One they become citizens, they now have access to more jobs, increasing wages and reducing burden on entitlements once immigrants are out of poverty. Everybody wins.



Last edited by KinetiK on 21 Feb 2013, 5:18 pm, edited 4 times in total.

ianorlin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Oct 2012
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 760

21 Feb 2013, 5:10 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Dox47 wrote:


As long as criminals, terrorists and folks with communicable diseases are stopped at the border I can live with just about any policy. Oh before I forget. No welfare benefits for illegal immigrants and one should require sponsorship for legal immigrants. An immigrant should not become a burden to the commonwealth.

ruveyn
I think this post contradicts itself you say you live with just abuot any policy and then go on to epxlian subsidies for immigrants like a welfare system are agianst it. I could give the person one penny in welfare to come here and I can always give them one more penny so there are at least a countably infinite number of policies you would not support how is that almost any when there are a countably infinite number of exceptions?



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,128
Location: Vancouver, BC

21 Feb 2013, 5:52 pm

mikassyna wrote:
YES--LEGAL IMMIGRANTS!! Not ILLEGAL ones!! !!


No, actually, the research demonstrates that the economic benefits of immigration extend to undocumented immigrants as well.

As for "legal," or, "illegal," bear in mind that that status can change at the stroke of a pen. There are behaviours that are malum in se--wrong in and of themselves. Theft, assault, battery and murder are all examples of this. But nationality and migration law in inherently artificial, and that which is illegal today can be legal tomorrow.

Quote:
The argument that illegal immigrants often do the work that Americans refuse to do is erroneous. Having a surplus of undocumented people available to work off the books below minimum wage (cheap undocumented labor) DOES take away WORK THAT AMERICANS WOULD OR COULD DO. If those jobs were documented they would be forced to be raised to minimum wage with benefits, and then Americans WOULD take those jobs. If there is nobody to provide the cheap labor, employers are then forced to raise their wages if they want to stay in business.


But you have not addressed the question about whether those jobs would exist if low paid workers weren't here to do them. Faced with the loss of inexpensive foreign labour, how many fruit farmers would simply sell out their farms to industrial agri-business? That won't create any new jobs. How many restaurants would simply fold up in the face of increasing wage pressure on already razor thin margins? How many construction businesses would fold because there's not enough money in housing starts (and the loss of 3.5% of the population means that there's a glut of housing, anyway).

The labour performed by undocumented workers in the United States is not a case of static demand. Much of that business would simply disappear.

Quote:
Citizens here already do need permission to earn a living. When you're a minor, they're called Working Papers. Otherwise we get an efficient Social Security Number to track our earnings.


Forgive my ignorance, but I have never heard of these "Working Papers" to which you refer. And as far as SSNs are concerned, you might bear in mind that I have an SSN. I lived in the United States for four years on an A1 category visa, with no permission to work (I was in the United States as a diplomat), but I held and SSN because I earned investment income during my posting. My same-sex partner also held an SSN. Neither of us had permission to work, though.

So, a SSN proves absolutely nothing about an individuals permission to work in the United States.

Quote:
Why does it have to be All or Nothing?


Well, shape that middle ground for us. Tell us how you would create a "secure" border that doesn't erode the civil liberties of your citizens.


_________________
--James