Illegal immigrants could be granted US amnesty within 8yrs

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

Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,367
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

18 Feb 2013, 9:45 pm

visagrunt wrote:
Tequila wrote:
That's not my job. That is the job of the border services.

The usual way is to raid places of employment and things like that, and demand to see their credentials.


The policy proposals of the mental midget.

First things, first: yes, these people have no legal right to residency or work in the United States. But that point is academic. They are already there and they are already well established there. Why do they have no status? Because for years Congress has indulged its political cowardice, failing to answer the needs of employers who rely on these workers by creating some legal mechanism for their admission and their continued presence. Congress has simply assumed that by focussing on the border, and not on the interior, that they can pander to the bigots, and allow for "business as usual" in the cities.

Well states have demonstrated themselves to be first-class morons and have gone rushing in where any sensible government would fear to tread. So now, Congress' hand will be forced.

The US economy cannot survive an wholesale assault on improperly documented workers. Cities would collapse. Every policy maker in Washington is well aware that every major city in the United States operates on the basis of undocumented workers. There are entire industries that function with almost complete reliance on them. And let's not forget the amount of consumer spending that 12,000,000 people contribute to the economy.

Like it or not, these people are there, and their presence is no longer optional. So Congress can either continue to turn a blind eye to it, or Congress can finally pull its collective thumb out and take control of this policy agenda.


And what would be the effect if they were to become legal and documented, would they still work for an illegal undocumented wages? If you believe that the entire economy is built on the backs of illegal immigrants, then you probably should be strongly in favor of the status quo.



lotuspuppy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Jan 2008
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,013
Location: On a journey to the center of the mind

18 Feb 2013, 10:41 pm

Jacoby wrote:
visagrunt wrote:
Tequila wrote:
That's not my job. That is the job of the border services.

The usual way is to raid places of employment and things like that, and demand to see their credentials.


The policy proposals of the mental midget.

First things, first: yes, these people have no legal right to residency or work in the United States. But that point is academic. They are already there and they are already well established there. Why do they have no status? Because for years Congress has indulged its political cowardice, failing to answer the needs of employers who rely on these workers by creating some legal mechanism for their admission and their continued presence. Congress has simply assumed that by focussing on the border, and not on the interior, that they can pander to the bigots, and allow for "business as usual" in the cities.

Well states have demonstrated themselves to be first-class morons and have gone rushing in where any sensible government would fear to tread. So now, Congress' hand will be forced.

The US economy cannot survive an wholesale assault on improperly documented workers. Cities would collapse. Every policy maker in Washington is well aware that every major city in the United States operates on the basis of undocumented workers. There are entire industries that function with almost complete reliance on them. And let's not forget the amount of consumer spending that 12,000,000 people contribute to the economy.

Like it or not, these people are there, and their presence is no longer optional. So Congress can either continue to turn a blind eye to it, or Congress can finally pull its collective thumb out and take control of this policy agenda.


And what would be the effect if they were to become legal and documented, would they still work for an illegal undocumented wages? If you believe that the entire economy is built on the backs of illegal immigrants, then you probably should be strongly in favor of the status quo.

Unless the policy attracts more illegal immigrants.



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,985
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

18 Feb 2013, 11:21 pm

An illegal alien is still a criminal.
Giving them amnesty only invites more if the same.


_________________
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
- William F. Buckley


Tyri0n
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2012
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,967
Location: Douchebag Capital of the World (aka Washington D.C.)

18 Feb 2013, 11:46 pm

Raptor wrote:
An illegal alien is still a criminal.
Giving them amnesty only invites more if the same.


It's the U.S. government that's full of criminals. The Southwest U.S. rightfully belongs to Mexico. The undocumented are not criminals for simply returning to their own land.



Telekon
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

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

19 Feb 2013, 12:08 am

visagrunt wrote:
Well states have demonstrated themselves to be first-class morons and have gone rushing in where any sensible government would fear to tread. So now, Congress' hand will be forced.

The US economy cannot survive an wholesale assault on improperly documented workers. Cities would collapse. Every policy maker in Washington is well aware that every major city in the United States operates on the basis of undocumented workers. There are entire industries that function with almost complete reliance on them. And let's not forget the amount of consumer spending that 12,000,000 people contribute to the economy.

Like it or not, these people are there, and their presence is no longer optional. So Congress can either continue to turn a blind eye to it, or Congress can finally pull its collective thumb out and take control of this policy agenda.


The federal government doesn't enforce its immigration laws, but it is not because 'cities would collapse' (!). The powers-that-be want a docile population of dependents who they can buy votes from. The government has imposed wide-scale deportations in the past (e.g. Operation Wetback) and there's no logistical reason why they couldn't do that now. The INS already deports around 100,000 illegals a year; they could easily deport 1,000,000 a year given enough manpower.

A group of mostly unemployed laborers, who sent what little they earn in under-the-table wages to their families in Mexico, would not cause cities to collapse if they went home. Their consumption spending is insignificant and does not offset the social service costs they impose on roads, highways, police, utilities, schools, hospitals, housing, social security, medicaid and medicare. The city coffers are mostly financed by property taxes, state income taxes and municipal bonds. How many illegal aliens are paying property and state income taxes? How many are holding muni bonds? Probably only a handful, if any. Cities are built and sustained by the middle and upper classes, not illiterate, unemployed laborers. Find a city with a median family income of less than $40,000 and see how many businesses, libraries, sports stadiums, monorails, police and fire departments it has. Illegals are a burden on cities, and companies only hire them because the owners don't have to insure them or pay them minimum wage.



AspieOtaku
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

19 Feb 2013, 12:22 am

Viva la Azatlan?


_________________
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


John_Browning
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range

19 Feb 2013, 2:08 am

Tyri0n wrote:
Raptor wrote:
An illegal alien is still a criminal.
Giving them amnesty only invites more if the same.


It's the U.S. government that's full of criminals. The Southwest U.S. rightfully belongs to Mexico. The undocumented are not criminals for simply returning to their own land.

The treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo makes it our land. The Mexican Government signed it. That and the subsequent purchases. Mexicans can't make good use of it anyway and they interfere with our ecomomic and cultural growth.


_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud


Tyri0n
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2012
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,967
Location: Douchebag Capital of the World (aka Washington D.C.)

19 Feb 2013, 2:55 am

John_Browning wrote:
Tyri0n wrote:
Raptor wrote:
An illegal alien is still a criminal.
Giving them amnesty only invites more if the same.


It's the U.S. government that's full of criminals. The Southwest U.S. rightfully belongs to Mexico. The undocumented are not criminals for simply returning to their own land.

The treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo makes it our land. The Mexican Government signed it. That and the subsequent purchases. Mexicans can't make good use of it anyway and they interfere with our ecomomic and cultural growth.


America invaded Mexico and made them sign a treaty under duress. Sounds fair, I guess. By that reasoning, France and most of Europe belong to Germany because Adolf Hitler invaded these countries and made them sign treaties under similar circumstances.

Since when is the fact that someone "can't make good use" of a piece of land an excuse to steal it? Who defines "good use" anyway? It seems like all we do is trash the environment and enrich corporations with it. China does these things even better than we do, so does this mean China has a right to U.S. land?



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,367
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

19 Feb 2013, 3:35 am

Reconquista or whatever is a BS argument. Where did Mexico get it's land from? Spain. Where did Spain get it's land from? The Indians. All quite violently I might add. Mexico only laid claim to that part of the southwest for less the 30 years. Do to British still rightfully own the area that made up the original 13 colonies?



AspieOtaku
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

19 Feb 2013, 9:05 am

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajkAP_M4ZAM[/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

19 Feb 2013, 1:55 pm

Jacoby wrote:
And what would be the effect if they were to become legal and documented, would they still work for an illegal undocumented wages? If you believe that the entire economy is built on the backs of illegal immigrants, then you probably should be strongly in favor of the status quo.


Not the entire economy--just important elements of it. And certainly, the status quo ante would be where the business community would like immigration policy to be. But the genie is out of the bottle, and that probably cannot hold any longer.

As for the effect of legalizing these people, you are quite correct that this will put upward pressure on wages. And while inflationary pressure is a significant worry, I think it is far less worrisome than the alternative of eliminating all of the economic activity and consumer spending undertaken by undocumented aliens. If you are forced into policy change, then you need to adopt the policy change that involves the least damage.

Raptor wrote:
An illegal alien is still a criminal.
Giving them amnesty only invites more if the same.


No, it doesn't. What attracts more of the same are jobs. If there are no jobs to be had, there are no "pull factors." Now, the interesting question will be whether policy change will be a one-off exercise to attempt to shift the existing population, but do nothing about ongoing needs, or whether someone will actually have the presence of mind to talk about creating a visa classification for workers in unskilled jobs. The best answer might be to reopen Chapter 16 of NAFTA.


_________________
--James


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

19 Feb 2013, 2:08 pm

Some of the restaurants I've worked had undocumented employees, and none of them were paid under the table or below minimum wage; they all had ghosted social security numbers and were put into the system just like regular employees. They were hired entirely for their work ethic, despite all the hassles of having employees that spoke minimal English in a labor sensitive industry, which really says something in a state with a $9+ minimum wage.


_________________
Murum Aries Attigit


Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,367
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

19 Feb 2013, 4:51 pm

visagrunt wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
And what would be the effect if they were to become legal and documented, would they still work for an illegal undocumented wages? If you believe that the entire economy is built on the backs of illegal immigrants, then you probably should be strongly in favor of the status quo.


Not the entire economy--just important elements of it. And certainly, the status quo ante would be where the business community would like immigration policy to be. But the genie is out of the bottle, and that probably cannot hold any longer.

As for the effect of legalizing these people, you are quite correct that this will put upward pressure on wages. And while inflationary pressure is a significant worry, I think it is far less worrisome than the alternative of eliminating all of the economic activity and consumer spending undertaken by undocumented aliens. If you are forced into policy change, then you need to adopt the policy change that involves the least damage.


How much economic and consumer spending do they really account for? I know remittance accounts for a fairly large part of the Mexican economy and even larger part of some other countries. So part of what little they do have is being sent back to their home countries. There are tremendous costs to having them in this country as well, I'm not sure the costs outweigh the benefits.

The ones that don't work below a legal wage with fake SS numbers are the ones we could most easily do without. I do not deny their worth ethic and the merit based nature of some of their jobs but we live in a country with officially 8% unemployment and unofficially much much higher, the are American citizens fully capable of doing those jobs. Teen unemployment is astronomical. Food stamps are through the roof, people applying for disability is at an all time high, this country has been in decline for a long time now.

Mass deportation is not economical or feasible politically but I don't think that means we're stuck with 12 million illegal immigrants. Step 1 is to secure the border whatever that entails, we have a lot of troops guarding the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan right now that could help. The Drug War has destabilized much of Latin America and is probably the main cause of corruption in their governments, not only would it stymie the violence and corruption it would be huge boost to our economies. So if the flow of illegal immigrants has been slowed to a trickle and if life in their home countries has improved, I think a portion of the illegals already here could be encouraged to return home possibly with incentives while at the same time disincentivizing their continued presence in this country(no amnesty, ending jus soli) It costs like $12,000 to forcibly deport somebody, I think a could portion would leave voluntarily for a fraction of that. Deportation should be use for criminals not families. For those that remain and want to stay, they can either return to their home countries and wait in line like everyone else or pay a significant fine/serve in the military/develop a useful skill/marry an American citizen.



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

19 Feb 2013, 6:22 pm

Jacoby wrote:
How much economic and consumer spending do they really account for? I know remittance accounts for a fairly large part of the Mexican economy and even larger part of some other countries. So part of what little they do have is being sent back to their home countries. There are tremendous costs to having them in this country as well, I'm not sure the costs outweigh the benefits.

The ones that don't work below a legal wage with fake SS numbers are the ones we could most easily do without. I do not deny their worth ethic and the merit based nature of some of their jobs but we live in a country with officially 8% unemployment and unofficially much much higher, the are American citizens fully capable of doing those jobs. Teen unemployment is astronomical. Food stamps are through the roof, people applying for disability is at an all time high, this country has been in decline for a long time now.


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.

Now, in an ideal world, removing these individuals would see them replaced by other workers, who would be earning those dollars and spending them in the same fashion. But that ideal would not, I suggest, be borne out in reality. Unemployment is not homogenously distributed. And even if that ideal was realized, with 12,000,000 people gone, there are 12,000,000 fewer people buying groceries, there are fewer housholds occupying housing (which means yet another devastating blow to housing starts), and the bult of that $180 billion won't actually be replaced.

As for the tremendous costs, how much can you actually articulate in direct cost? Apart from education, there are previous few direct spending programs for which undocumented aliens would receive direct transfers, or program spending. There are indirect costs, of course, but I would expect that the removal of 12,000,000 people would not actually present a significant marginal reduction in program spending on those indirect costs.

Quote:
Mass deportation is not economical or feasible politically but I don't think that means we're stuck with 12 million illegal immigrants. Step 1 is to secure the border whatever that entails, we have a lot of troops guarding the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan right now that could help. The Drug War has destabilized much of Latin America and is probably the main cause of corruption in their governments, not only would it stymie the violence and corruption it would be huge boost to our economies. So if the flow of illegal immigrants has been slowed to a trickle and if life in their home countries has improved, I think a portion of the illegals already here could be encouraged to return home possibly with incentives while at the same time disincentivizing their continued presence in this country(no amnesty, ending jus soli) It costs like $12,000 to forcibly deport somebody, I think a could portion would leave voluntarily for a fraction of that. Deportation should be use for criminals not families. For those that remain and want to stay, they can either return to their home countries and wait in line like everyone else or pay a significant fine/serve in the military/develop a useful skill/marry an American citizen.


I think part of the problem is the thinking that views undocumented aliens as a problem to be solved, rather than a benefit. Of course observation of the law is a desirable policy goal--and if a visa category were created for unskilled workers in high demand industries and locations, it is quite likely that most currently undocumented aliens would choose to become documented. Those that did not would then be the authors of their own misfortune.

But ultimately, these are people who work, who contribute to economic prosperity, and who build foreign trade links. Immigration is the fundamental bedrock on which the prosperity of trading nations like the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand have been built. It's high time that the legislative framework caught up with the economic reality.


_________________
--James


John_Browning
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range

20 Feb 2013, 12:01 am

That economic gain would cancel out the economic drain they cause- and then some once things that don't have a well defined price tag like a lower crime rate, smaller prison population better learning environment in schools due to a lack of anchor babies, shorter hospital waiting lines, less demand for gun control, lower domestic violence, fewer sex crimes, cleaner elections, fewer DUIs, fewer brain-dead actions that endanger or inconvenience the community, less drug trade, fewer midnight noise complaints, and lower unemployment among legal US residents is taken into consideration.

Other economic benefits of mass deportation are:
Less spending on law enforcement and prisons
A choice of less spending on schools or smaller classes and more money spent per kid
Lower insurance rates
Fewer hospital costs getting passed off to legal residents and insurance companies
Fewer costs that hospitals have to write off from services they are required to provide by law
Either less spending on welfare programs or more spending per person
Decreased SSI costs
Fewer problems with identity theft (especially for US citizens with Hispanic names)

Illegal aliens are nothing but giant locusts!


_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud