Illegal immigration is not a problem.

[RandomGuy]

For now. On its current course, the U.S. population of 310 million will continue to grow relative to that of the rest of the developed world, primarily because its birth rate, while barely at replacement level, is still higher than that of almost any other industrialized country.


Birth rates are falling dramatically across Latin America, especially in Mexico, suggesting a tidal shift in migration patterns. Consider what happened with Puerto Rico, where birth rates have also plunged: Immigration to the mainland United States has all but stopped despite an open border and the lure of a considerably higher standard of living on the continent. In the not-so-distant future, the United States may well find itself competing for immigrants rather than building walls to keep them out.

Source article for the Foreign Policy Journal starts here:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/10/11/think_again_global_aging

Within about 20 years or so, I doubt illegal immigration will be of any concern.

Which makes the curernt debate, to me, all the more meaningless. Fences my ass. :rolleyes

[Winehole23]

The whole article is worth reading. Interesting stuff.

[MiamiHeat]

We have enough people in this country.

The conditions that led to the logic and reason for encouraging immigration is long dead.

This country is no longer in need of a bigger population.

So no, we won't be competing for immigrants. We have enough people now. Some would say too much.

[Wild Cobra]

We have enough people in this country.

The conditions that led to the logic and reason for encouraging immigration is long dead.

This country is no longer in need of a bigger population.

So no, we won't be competing for immigrants. We have enough people now. Some would say too much.
I agree.

I laughed at the pretense of the article. People will continue to come here until we make it impossible for them to, or until our economy is as bad as theirs.

[Winehole23]

Immigration was a minor side point of the article that RG used as a hook.

[Wild Cobra]

Immigration was a minor side point of the article that RG used as a hook.
Like I said, I laughed at the pretense.

[Winehole23]

What did you think of the article?

[RandomGuy]

I agree.

I laughed at the pretense of the article. People will continue to come here until we make it impossible for them to, or until our economy is as bad as theirs.

The pretense of the article Mr. Never Reads The Article Boy, had more to do with a rapidly aging global population.

Unless you have some other explanation for the lack of immigration from Puerto Rico, you might want to read the underlying article.

I just used part of the article to make a point.

People will continue to come here, until their own country is shrinking as rapidly as that of Peurto Rico, or Mexicos is beginning to.

BTW, the last baby projected to be born in Japan will be born in 2959 at current rates, according to the article, which is really quite fascinating.

[Wild Cobra]

I'm sorry, I meant the pretense of the OP.

[RandomGuy]

I'm sorry, I meant the pretense of the OP.

I kinda figured.

You will disagree with me, but we will continue to do next to nothing about illegal immigration, and due to population pressures mentioned in the article, it will fall anyways.

It will therefore cease to be a problem. The only continent that will be left actually having more babies will be Africa.

Kind of hard to smuggle yourself to the US from there, don't you think?

Meh. In 20 years, we will get to see who is right about a great deal of things. Hope to see you there. I promise to keep the "I told you so's to a minimum." :lol

(as you will of course do for my dumb ass) :p:

[Wild Cobra]

Meh. In 20 years, we will get to see who is right about a great deal of things. Hope to see you there. I promise to keep the "I told you so's to a minimum." :lol

I agree. Time will tell for most the things we disagree on.

[Winehole23]

What did you think of the article?

[RandomGuy]

We have enough people in this country.

The conditions that led to the logic and reason for encouraging immigration is long dead.

This country is no longer in need of a bigger population.

So no, we won't be competing for immigrants. We have enough people now. Some would say too much.

More young people = more workers supporting aging people in Social Security.

The thing is that population = human capital = more scientists = more inventors

I fully disagree. We are already facing shortages in a lot of job fields.

[Homeland Security]

More young people = more workers supporting aging people in Social Security.

The thing is that population = human capital = more scientists = more inventors

I fully disagree. We are already facing shortages in a lot of job fields.
The problem is not that America lacks people.

The problem is that 50 years of left-wing culture has reduced much of the population to simians.

[Spurminator]

Fascinating article.

[Winehole23]

(Unsure sure whether the comparison to "simians" is more insulting to monkeys or to us)

[Wild Cobra]

What did you think of the article?
The lop sided population is created by our ability to heal. Ends up costing us more and more as people live longer and longer if we make medical an entitlement. It will bankrupt nations falling into that trap. Also shows the world is playing a Ponzi scheme with people like we do with money.

[RandomGuy]

what to you think of the article?


The lop sided population is created by our ability to heal. Ends up costing us more and more as people live longer and longer if we make medical an entitlement. It will bankrupt nations falling into that trap. Also shows the world is playing a Ponzi scheme with people like we do with money.

Medicine keeps people healthier and longer. This extends the ability to work, and preserves a LOT of education and experience, two measures of human capital.

People are an asset. You would not think twice about spending money to maintain a bridge, or a vehicle.

This is one of my main problems with a the overall charactor of many libertarian and conservative arguments.

You collectively would sacrifice logical solutions on the altar of moral self-righteousness.

I think we would gain far more long-term economic benefit by accepting the short term raising of taxes moderately and using that to fund things like education and health care for people who are not making enough money to buy health insurance.

I view this in the same manner as spending on physical infrastructure.

I would include in "education" the social and support to help struggling parents spend more time with their kids, like funding daycare so parents can work a bit less to have more time with their kids, and more teachers/tutoring.

[DarrinS]

Not enough lifeboats was also not a problem on the Titanic. Until it started sinking.

[RandomGuy]

Not enough lifeboats was also not a problem on the Titanic. Until it started sinking.

:lmao

[Wild Cobra]

Not enough lifeboats was also not a problem on the Titanic. Until it started sinking.:lmao
Random, you just don't get it.

[Winehole23]

Actually, you didn't get it WC. If you read the article, which I find very hard to believe.

It focuses on the possible effects of a contracting population rate. Not on overpopulation.

[Winehole23]

But hey, you had a 50%-50% shot. Nice guess.

[Wild Cobra]

Actually, you didn't get it WC. If you read the article, which I find very hard to believe.

It focuses on the possible effects of a contracting population rate. Not on overpopulation.
Yes, I did get that. At the same time, you have less people supporting a longer living group that may exceed the younger generation.

My point had to do with not being able to guarantee free services to the aging population that may soon start living past 100 as an average. If they cannot afford life extending treatments, should the general population have to pay all their wealth in taxes to do so?

[Winehole23]

Yes, I did get that. At the same time, you have less people supporting a longer living group that may exceed the younger generation.Fair enough.


My point had to do with not being able to guarantee free services to the aging population that may soon start living past 100 as an average. Encouraging immigration is one way to alleviate that problem. Riposte?


If they cannot afford life extending treatments, should the general population have to pay all their wealth in taxes to do so?No worries. We've got death panels for that now.

[Parker2112]

immigration is just a whipping boy when the economy tanks. when times are good, people need cheap labor, and the clamour dies down.

[RandomGuy]

Random, you just don't get it.

It was more of a commentary on Darrin's shallow and vapid style of brief replies than anything else.

Satire by smiley, if you will.

I do get it. Honest.

[RandomGuy]

Yes, I did get that. At the same time, you have less people supporting a longer living group that may exceed the younger generation.

My point had to do with not being able to guarantee free services to the aging population that may soon start living past 100 as an average. If they cannot afford life extending treatments, should the general population have to pay all their wealth in taxes to do so?

How would one define "life extending treatments"?

High blood pressure medication?

At some point, one MUST trade off cost versus human lives. I understand that. Either we can pay out through overall lower productivity, or pay out a bit more for health care.

I think there would be some solid cost/benefit for national health insurance, and making basic health care a bit more accessible.

[Wild Cobra]

Encouraging immigration is one way to alleviate that problem. Riposte?

We do encourage legal immigration. A few of the problems with illegal immigration is that they drain more in social programs than they pay in taxes, are generally taking away lower paying jobs that our unemployed should be forced to take, and reduce the desire for us to increase legal immigration quotas. Legal immigrants on the other hand usually are better educated and produce a net gain to our economy, thus can help support more jobs.

You would be hard pressed to find many who despises legal immigration into this country. Please differentiate.

[Winehole23]

http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/290-width/images/print-edition/20111119_USC100.gif


It’s quiet most days in the El Paso sector, as the Border Patrol dubs this 268-mile slice of the border. Back in 1993, agents arrested 285,781 people trying to enter America illegally. In those days, the holding cells in the processing centre, explains Scott Hayes, a Border Patrol agent, were full to bursting. In 2010, however, agents picked up only 12,251 illegal immigrants in the area—a 96% decline. Much the same is true of the border as a whole: last year’s tally, of 447,731 arrests, is barely a quarter that of the peak year, 2000, when 1,643,679 people were intercepted. This year’s figure will be under 350,000; a fifth of the peak.

http://www.economist.com/node/21538750

[Wild Cobra]

http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/290-width/images/print-edition/20111119_USC100.gif


http://www.economist.com/node/21538750
And this is suppose to mean what? Please elaborate on what your intended message is.

There are several factors I bet, making the numbers as they are.

[Winehole23]

Mass immigration as a social problem is vastly overhyped.

[Borat Sagyidev]

Some of you are so stupid I fail to see how you can remember to breathe.

Baby boomers are retiring and will start to suck the life out of this country, just watch. When they were young, there where 20 workers for every retiree...now its about 3-1 soon to be 2-1. The American engine is getting spread pretty thin.

We need more immigrants, period. The bottom line is with this hard line stance, along with hard line stances on taxes, spending, etc are screwing over the younger generation.

There is going to be blow back of immense proportions. Sarah Palin's advisers tell her to be scared of death panels for a reason.

[Borat Sagyidev]

We do encourage legal immigration.

You would be hard pressed to find many who despises legal immigration into this country. Please differentiate.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tanton

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Beck

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NumbersUSA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation_for_American_Immigration_Reform

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Tancredo

[mavs>spurs]

Nothing wrong with allowing working professionals with degrees to immigrate, but wtf should we let the average construction working Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Lu ck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_ come over by the millions?

[JoeChalupa]

Housing needs those workers. Oh yes they do.

[mavs>spurs]

Um joe get real, who the fuck is building houses in this economy? this housing market is terrible. sorry but that example just backfired and blew up in your brown face, turning it more black

[Wild Cobra]

Mass immigration as a social problem is vastly overhyped.
Mass legal, or illegal?

[ElNono]

Legal immigration is capped, no such thing as mass legal immigration.

[Wild Cobra]

Housing needs those workers. Oh yes they do.
I don't think the housing market will recover for some time. I remember seeing reports in parts of Portland where at the top of the housing prices, more houses were being built than normal. The reason was because it became far cheaper to build new, than people were asking for the houses they were flipping. It stand tioi reason that big investors also built more houses seeing the profit of selling at then, current prices. Now we have an dramatic overage of houses. When they all go back on the market, the excess supply to demand will drive prices down more. Right now, so many are in limbo. No occupant, but not on the market either.

[Winehole23]

Mass legal, or illegal?Both, imho.

[boutons_deux]

Um joe get real, who the fuck is building houses in this economy? this housing market is terrible. sorry but that example just backfired and blew up in your brown face, turning it more black

The post-Greenspan-bubble collapse of the new housing market is one of key reasons illegal immigration is way down. They come for jobs, and (eg, (TX) Repug) businessmen were/are extremely ready to hire them.

The other main reason is the drug violence in northern MX.

Still no practical, workable proposals from the right-wing xenophobes about how to resolve the problem of millions of illegals still in USA. Just screaming "no amnesty" is useless other than as a brilliant rabble-rousing campaign sound bite, since the rabble don't have the mental capacity to think with any complexity.

[mavs>spurs]

Here's an idea, make it a felony to hire them, create a national database for employers to have to enter a SS# when hiring an employee and it will tell you if it's valid or not. I guarantee you all the illegals will be magically gone in a matter of months without work.

[scott]

Here's an idea, make it a felony to hire them, create a national database for employers to have to enter a SS# when hiring an employee and it will tell you if it's valid or not. I guarantee you all the illegals will be magically gone in a matter of months without work.

Your worldview lacks a certain element of realism. Go back to the drawing board.

[mavs>spurs]

bahahaha and why is this so unrealistic? because the rich in power like the slave wages and don't WANT them gone? so what, we just bow down to the mexicans then or what? let's hear your bright idea.

[boutons_deux]

Here's an idea, make it a felony to hire them, create a national database for employers to have to enter a SS# when hiring an employee and it will tell you if it's valid or not. I guarantee you all the illegals will be magically gone in a matter of months without work.

Many businesses have flourished, profit-wise, from illegals, and for decades. They would never accept such laws, and anyway, e-Verify hasn't chased them home.

[mavs>spurs]

so they're going to accept legalization of all these mexicans so that they no longer have to work for slave wages? why would they be opposed to this but welcome amnesty?

[scott]

bahahaha and why is this so unrealistic? because the rich in power like the slave wages and don't WANT them gone? so what, we just bow down to the mexicans then or what? let's hear your bright idea.

Because a good amount of labor supplied from illegal immigrants is undocumented, cash wages. Making some database to check SS #s isn't going to change that.

[mavs>spurs]

you're missing my point..i'm saying make it a FELONY to not have your employees in the database and actually enforce it, throwing the employers who hire illegals in prison. If inspectors can go around to bars and ensure that they are checking everyone for ID and following regulations, surely they could make sure that employers are following the law.

[scott]

so they're going to accept legalization of all these mexicans so that they no longer have to work for slave wages? why would they be opposed to this but welcome amnesty?

You don't really get it, do you?

The businesses who hire and profit from illegal labor want nothing more than than the status quo. They don't want their supply of cheap labor sent home via deportation, and then don't want the price of their labor to increase dramatically by legalizing them. For those who hire illegals, things are perfect right where they are. And isn't just agricultural labor - visit any restaurant in America and there is a good chance you have an illegal immigrant working there. Some restaurants even go out of their way to hire illegals because 1) they are cheaper and 2) they work harder.

What, exactly, is your objective here? Do you want to have America free of illegal immigrants? Why? Because you think it would be good for the economy? Or some moral grounds? I'm seriously asking here - so many people have formed an opinion of immigration without thinking about what they are trying to achieve.

[mavs>spurs]

the illegals are a net drain on the working class and a net gain for the rich, they contribute to this widening gap of wealth distribution. also, mexicans are some of the most racist people on earth and openly scoff whites and america in general, while still feeding off the safety of the white man's tee tee. So a mix of moral and economic grounds yes.

[scott]

you're missing my point..i'm saying make it a FELONY to not have your employees in the database and actually enforce it, throwing the employers who hire illegals in prison. If inspectors can go around to bars and ensure that they are checking everyone for ID and following regulations, surely they could make sure that employers are following the law.

Again, you are missing the point of including realism in your idea. "Actually enforce it" are easy words to say, but not easy to actually do. And enforcing selectively is unlikely to result in an effective deterrent (since it hasn't with any of our other laws).

[scott]

the illegals are a net drain on the working class and a net gain for the rich, they contribute to this widening gap of wealth distribution.

Evidence?


they contribute to this widening gap of wealth distribution. also, mexicans are some of the most racist people on earth and openly scoff whites and america in general, while still feeding off the safety of the white man's tee tee. So a mix of moral and economic grounds yes.

Are they really?

[mavs>spurs]

Again, you are missing the point of including realism in your idea. "Actually enforce it" are easy words to say, but not easy to actually do. And enforcing selectively is unlikely to result in an effective deterrent (since it hasn't with any of our other laws).

That's where your wrong. Your average middle to upper class white employer does NOT want to get locked up for a felony to get railed in the butt by Tyrone and Jamal. Ever been to a bar? You should see the way they step up their enforcement of the rules and freak out whenever they think an inspector is supposed to be coming by soon. Surely this issue is a little bigger than checking for ID's and shit like that, I'm pretty sure they could manage if they really WANTED to. Key word, want to.

[scott]

That's where your wrong. Your average middle to upper class white employer does NOT want to get locked up for a felony to get railed in the butt by Tyrone and Jamal. Ever been to a bar? You should see the way they step up their enforcement of the rules and freak out whenever they think an inspector is supposed to be coming by soon. Surely this issue is a little bigger than checking for ID's and shit like that, I'm pretty sure they could manage if they really WANTED to. Key word, want to.

I own a bar. We see the enforcement guys like once every 2 years. You greatly overestimate the government's ability to enforce things.

How much do you think it would cost to implement your plan?

[scott]

In any event, I'll play a long in saying that your plan could be implemented and enforced - but I question the premise of "why".

Can you back up your purported economic justification? I don't think you can, but I'll give you the opportunity. If you can't, then your argument hinges around the idea that "Mexicans are racist".

[mavs>spurs]

Without getting too deep into economic theory, illegal immigration lowers wages by artificially increasing the supply in the market for labor. Whites are forced to either A) get a college degree (which the student loan bubble is growing more and more by the day, only so many of those jobs are needed as well and even graduates can't find jobs right now) or B) work for shit unlivable wages. And it hurts the economy as a whole too, because low unemployment and a healthy middle class is the backbone of a healthy economy.

[scott]

Without getting too deep into economic theory, illegal immigration lowers wages by artificially increasing the supply in the market for labor. Whites are forced to either A) get a college degree (which the student loan bubble is growing more and more by the day, only so many of those jobs are needed as well and even graduates can't find jobs right now) or B) work for shit unlivable wages. And it hurts the economy as a whole too, because low unemployment and a healthy middle class is the backbone of a healthy economy.

I think you should get deep into economic theory, because you have some serious flaws in your oversimplification, the first of which being your apparent assumption that labor is fungible. You also ignore critical labor demographics in your oversimplification.

And your focus on "whites" doesn't really help your credibility either.

[Borat Sagyidev]

Without getting too deep into economic theory, illegal immigration lowers wages by artificially increasing the supply in the market for labor. Whites are forced to either A) get a college degree (which the student loan bubble is growing more and more by the day, only so many of those jobs are needed as well and even graduates can't find jobs right now) or B) work for shit unlivable wages. And it hurts the economy as a whole too, because low unemployment and a healthy middle class is the backbone of a healthy economy.


That's what your problem is. Evading the whole economic theory or nature of this.

So once we get rid of of all the undocumented people, what happens..does everyone get a job? Does the obvious budget and economic issues, including that of baby boomer retirement go away?

population facts:
there was a 20+ to 1 worker to retiree ratio 50 years ago
it will be 2 to 1 soon, over 10 fold less paying in than extracting. That's a pretty big discrepancy to place on our children.

Australia countered this by allowing massive waves of immigration, now their workforce is 25% foreign born.
They have had no:
no housing/financial crash
no retirement/pension cuts
no high unemployment
no schooling cuts



So does your solution include some additional magic? Because at this current rate a lot of young college graduates would rather work overseas than barely making ends meat given that burden here.

[mavs>spurs]

And how exactly do u figure that illegal immigrants making shit wages and getting paid mostly in cash are major contributors to SS?? There aren't any jobs here for the people that we DO have, so how is letting a bunch of people going to help If there are no jobs for them dumbass.

[mavs>spurs]

Would be** major contributors

[Borat Sagyidev]

And how exactly do u figure that illegal immigrants making shit wages and getting paid mostly in cash are major contributors to SS?? There aren't any jobs here for the people that we DO have, so how is letting a bunch of people going to help If there are no jobs for them dumbass.


I like how you avoid the question by asking one of your own, Mr. Final Solution.


Right now, their contribution is next to zero since they aren't payroll taxed in any legitimate terms so pretty much any legalization and tax above zero is an increase "dumbass" .

SS taxes are capped at 106k of taxable income. The contribution to SS relative to another is not that great, rather minimal, numbers matter more than income. Millionaires, billionaires, etc only contribute as if they earned 102k and get back comparable to what they put in.....for now. And this isn't just about SS

This whole point about this article, several posts including mine is that it's not just social security. It's meeting the consumer demand of the economy in general terms. Right now as it stands, China is taking those dollars and keeping them.

Of course, we could just continue to import cheap crap from Asia and send our dollars over there, which don't come back.Then of course we can expect you to post more stupid BS about how China is passing the US up.

Head in the sand as usual.
:downspin:

[mavs>spurs]

The conversation can begin whenever you tell us where the jobs are going to come from for all these people you want to legalize and the others you want to bring in. You blab about your little 2 to 1 ratios but fail to realize that lack of workers isn't the problem, lack of JOBS is. Why bring more people over to join the unemployment line? What we need is to lure some of the brightest students and professionals over here and convince THEM to stay, not just an open door policy.

[scott]

The conversation can begin whenever you tell us where the jobs are going to come from for all these people you want to legalize and the others you want to bring in. You blab about your little 2 to 1 ratios but fail to realize that lack of workers isn't the problem, lack of JOBS is. Why bring more people over to join the unemployment line? What we need is to lure some of the brightest students and professionals over here and convince THEM to stay, not just an open door policy.

Is this your example of getting deep into economic theory? Because you're failing, miserably.

[Winehole23]

joining the unemployment line while taking our jobs

[Winehole23]

damn immigrants took our jobs and our welfare.

[mavs>spurs]

Is this your example of getting deep into economic theory? Because you're failing, miserably.

No this is your example of pro b3aner theory because Gingrich and others told you it was cool and progressive.

[scott]

No this is your example of pro b3aner theory because Gingrich and others told you it was cool and progressive.

Cool story brah.

[mavs>spurs]

Amnesty will cost US tax payers at least 2.6 trillion

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/06/amnesty-will-cost-us-taxpayers-at-least-26-trillion

[Borat Sagyidev]

The conversation can begin whenever you tell us where the jobs are going to come from for all these people you want to legalize and the others you want to bring in. You blab about your little 2 to 1 ratios but fail to realize that lack of workers isn't the problem, lack of JOBS is. Why bring more people over to join the unemployment line? What we need is to lure some of the brightest students and professionals over here and convince THEM to stay, not just an open door policy.

I know how to create the jobs, but my inquiry was not about that. You have to make the US market only work more for domestic labor, whether it be by law, stimulus or opening up restrictions (which many conservatives favor, even if they are temporary fixes). Some of them will likely be crappy jobs, but atleast that money will stay here and reduce outsourcing as it has been going for decades.

The point of it all, was that what happens if you don't have a proper amount of workers? There is only so much that can be done. We need the economy to grow... not stagnate and shrink.

Some of the brightest students and professionals already come here, but they don't stay.
#1 it's a royal pain in the ass to officially immigrate
#2 the economic prospects suck and have not much indication to get better other than consumer demand.

If you have a young immigrant population, that yes..will take shitty lower paying jobs that Americans won't do and spend money here it can and will boost the economy as it has done in this country for centuries.

That money spent here creates more jobs and it starts a domestic spending cycle that benefits everyone (this is what China wants to do real soon). As it stands now, we outsource our dollars+production and prevent that.

[mavs>spurs]

Also to answer borat, look it up those migrating to australia were mostly educated, a big difference from the US where most are lacking even a high school diploma. Low skill immigrants are a huge net drain on the working class, numerous studies have proven so just google it for the breakdown of all the details surrounding why this is so.

[mavs>spurs]

I know how to create the jobs, but my inquiry was not about that. You have to make the US market only work more for domestic labor, whether it be by law, stimulus or opening up restrictions (which many conservatives favor, even if they are temporary fixes). Some of them will likely be crappy jobs, but atleast that money will stay here and reduce outsourcing as it has been going for decades.

The point of it all, was that what happens if you don't have a proper amount of workers? There is only so much that can be done. We need the economy to grow... not stagnate and shrink.

Some of the brightest students and professionals already come here, but they don't stay.
#1 it's a royal pain in the ass to officially immigrate
#2 the economic prospects suck and have not much indication to get better other than consumer demand.

If you have a young immigrant population, that yes..will take shitty lower paying jobs that Americans won't do and spend money here it can and will boost the economy as it has done in this country for centuries.

That money spent here creates more jobs and it starts a domestic spending cycle that benefits everyone (this is what China wants to do real soon). As it stands now, we outsource our dollars+production and prevent that.

You're talking about two separate issues here with outsourcing and illegal Mexican immigration. Yes outsourcing is a huge problem, IMO anytime net imports vastly exceeds net exports there is a problem. But outsourcing isn't because of a lack of workers here to do those jobs you silly.

[boutons_deux]

"outsourcing isn't because of a lack of workers here to do those jobs"

yep, plenty of workers here to do those jobs, but not for Chinese pay and benefits. (Actually, there's plenty of jobs the US poor won't do at any price, like pick fruit and veg for less than minimum wage and no benefits)

[mavs>spurs]

Don't look now, but the era of cheap chinese labor is coming to a close as workers demand higher wages. As soon as the playing field is leveled a little bit, things will fall into balance. If there were a more even distribution of wealth in this world then people would be able to afford food, even at higher prices due to *GASP*- actually paying the people who pick it a livable wage. What we need to do is attack the source of the problem rather than allowing illegal immigration just to keep the corrupt system going (and keep that money in the pocket of the rich)

[Borat Sagyidev]

Also to answer borat, look it up those migrating to Australia were mostly educated, a big difference from the US where most are lacking even a high school diploma. Low skill immigrants are a huge net drain on the working class, numerous studies have proven so just google it for the breakdown of all the details surrounding why this is so.

Low skill immigrants are a drain? ARE YOU KIDDING ME? What do you think Detroit was back in the 10's to 70's? Do you think those workers had PhD's..? Do you think some even graduated high school?

As far as the undocumented low skill guys
Some of these guys you are talking about can put together a house in 30days, overhaul an engine over a weekend, put up a 100ft fence in 2 hours in 100F+ weather and they are low skilled? Do you think Bob Perry is a billionaire for people that are a drain? If Mexico's govt ever got their shit together to motivate they could be a powerhouse from that type of resilience, instead those people leave.

You know what's a real drain to this society? CEO and Executives that take in millions to billions in bonuses and salaries in high numbers thanks to the taxpayer bailing them out. You're comparison of 1k a month is social services to a family needing welfare does not even compare




In regards to Australia,
Yes, Australia did good with that. Most of those educated net a much lower income there than here (Cost of living is super high in some areas there, its mostly desert), and many end up doing some manual labor (who else is going to do it?). We should be attracting them, but we aren't. They are, they make it easy to immigrate.

[Wild Cobra]

Your worldview lacks a certain element of realism. Go back to the drawing board.
I think it's very realistic. Tell me why is won't work please.

[Wild Cobra]

you're missing my point..i'm saying make it a FELONY to not have your employees in the database and actually enforce it, throwing the employers who hire illegals in prison. If inspectors can go around to bars and ensure that they are checking everyone for ID and following regulations, surely they could make sure that employers are following the law.
Maybe Scott doesn't realize how many less employers would be willing to get a felony conviction, or is using the stupid all or nothing type argument.

[mavs>spurs]

Low skill immigrants are a drain? ARE YOU KIDDING ME? What do you think Detroit was back in the 10's to 70's? Do you think those workers had PhD's..? Do you think some even graduated high school?

As far as the undocumented low skill guys
Some of these guys you are talking about can put together a house in 30days, overhaul an engine over a weekend, put up a 100ft fence in 2 hours in 100F+ weather and they are low skilled? Do you think Bob Perry is a billionaire for people that are a drain? If Mexico's govt ever got their shit together to motivate they could be a powerhouse from that type of resilience, instead those people leave.

You know what's a real drain to this society? CEO and Executives that take in millions to billions in bonuses and salaries in high numbers thanks to the taxpayer bailing them out. You're comparison of 1k a month is social services to a family needing welfare does not even compare




In regards to Australia,
Yes, Australia did good with that. Most of those educated net a much lower income there than here (Cost of living is super high in some areas there, its mostly desert), and many end up doing some manual labor (who else is going to do it?). We should be attracting them, but we aren't. They are, they make it easy to immigrate.

They are a net GAIN to guys like Bob Perry, net loss to the middle class. From the link I posted

Giving amnesty to illegal immigrants will greatly increase long-term costs to the taxpayer. Granting amnesty to illegal immigrants would, over time, increase their use of means-tested welfare, Social Security, and Medicare. Fiscal costs would rise in the intermediate term and increase dramatically when amnesty recipients reach retirement. Although it is difficult to provide a precise estimate, it seems likely that if 10 million adult illegal immigrants currently in the U.S. were granted amnesty, the net retirement cost to government (benefits minus taxes) could be over $2.6 trillion.
The calculation of this figure is as follows. As noted above, in 2007 there were, by the most commonly used estimates, roughly 10 million adult illegal immigrants in the U.S. Most illegal immigrants are low-skilled. On average, each elderly low-skill immigrant imposes a net cost (benefits minus taxes) on the taxpayers of about $17,000 per year. The major elements of this cost are Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid benefits. (The figure includes federal state and local government costs.) If the government gave amnesty to 10 million adult illegal immigrants, most of them would eventually become eligible for Social Security and Medicare benefits or Supplemental Security Income and Medicaid benefits.
However, not all of the 10 million adults given amnesty would survive until retirement at age 67. Normal mortality rates would reduce the population by roughly 15 percent before age 67. That would mean 8.5 million individuals would reach age 67 and enter retirement.
Of those reaching 67, their average remaining life expectancy would be around 18 years.[17] (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/06/amnesty-will-cost-us-taxpayers-at-least-26-trillion#_ftn17) The net cost to taxpayers of these elderly individuals would be around $17,000 per year.[18] (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/06/amnesty-will-cost-us-taxpayers-at-least-26-trillion#_ftn18) Over 18 years, the cost would equal $306,000 per elderly amnesty recipient. A cost of $306,000 per amnesty recipient multiplied by 8.5 million amnesty recipients results in a total net cost of $2.6 trillion.
These costs would not occur immediately. The average adult illegal immigrant is now in his early thirties; thus, it will be 25 to 30 years before the bulk of amnesty recipients reaches retirement. At their peak level, it appears the amnesty recipients will expand the number of beneficiaries under Social Security by 5 to 10 percent. This will occur at a point when Social Security will already be running deficits of over $200 billion annually.
This is a rough estimate. More research should be performed, but policymakers should examine these potential costs very carefully before rushing to grant amnesty, "Z visas," or "earned citizenship" to the current illegal immigrant population.
Factors That Could Increase Future Costs
The $2.6 trillion figure is a rough estimate of future costs that would result from putting 10 million adult illegal immigrants on a guaranteed pathway to citizenship. There are a number of factors that could raise or lower these future costs. Among the factors that could increase the net cost (benefits received minus taxes paid) well above $2.6 trillion are the following:


The actual number of illegal immigrants may be greater than 12 million. The estimated cost of $2.6 trillion in future retirement costs outlined above assumes that the number of illegal immigrants in the U.S. in 2007 was around 12 million, based on data from the Pew Hispanic Center. While the Pew Hispanic Center is the most widely used source for demographic information about illegal immigrants, its data assume that some 90 percent of illegal immigrants appear in the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey (CPS).[19] (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/06/amnesty-will-cost-us-taxpayers-at-least-26-trillion#_ftn19) It is possible that many illegal immigrants do not appear in the CPS and that the total number of illegal immigrants is substantially higher than 12 million. Some estimates place the number of illegal immigrants as high as 20 million. Clearly, if the illegal immigrant population is greater than 12 million, then the net retirement costs resulting from amnesty would be, ceteris paribus, higher as well.



There is a huge potential for amnesty fraud. In order to receive amnesty and a Z visa and be put on a pathway to citizenship, an illegal immigrant must demonstrate that he or she was in the U.S. illegally and employed on January 1, 2007. However, the standard to demonstrate residence is very loose. The illegal immigrant need merely produce two affidavits from non-relatives asserting that he or she was working in the U.S. on the appropriate date. The affidavits could even come from other illegal immigrants. It is doubtful that the Department of Homeland Security has any real capacity to separate true affidavits from bogus ones, especially in the crush of processing millions of applications in the space of a year or two. Consequently, the potential for amnesty based on fraudulent documents is very high. In the 1986 amnesty, an estimated 25 percent of the amnesties granted were fraudulent.[20] (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/06/amnesty-will-cost-us-taxpayers-at-least-26-trillion#_ftn20) In the last 20 years, the underground industry producing fraudulent documents has grown vastly larger and more sophisticated. In this round of amnesty, the fraud rate could be as high as or higher than in 1986, resulting in millions of additional amnesties.



Spouses and children living abroad may be added to the amnesty population. In its present form, the bill grants amnesty to employed illegal immigrants who were in the U.S. on January 1, 2007. Any spouses, children, and parents of employed illegal immigrants who were residing in the U.S. on that date will also receive Z visas and amnesty. However, many illegal immigrants have spouses and children living abroad; under S. 1348, while illegal immigrants and their families inside the U.S. are put on a path to citizenship, families living abroad are not. family members living abroad would be denied Z visas and would not be permitted to reside in the U.S. for the foreseeable future. Presumably, the Z visa holder could have his family join him when he achieves legal permanent residence, but this would not occur until eight years after he is initially given the Z visa.

The designers of the bill appear to have excluded spouses and children living abroad from eligibility for Z visas in order to lower the apparent number of amnesty recipients, but pressure will build to eliminate this exclusion. At some point, either before or after the bill's passage, a "technical correction" will almost certainly be introduced allowing spouses and children living abroad to obtain Z visas and get on the pathway to citizenship. For every 10 illegal immigrants living in the U.S., there may be four dependents living abroad; if the current illegal population is 12 million, the number of additional dependents who could be brought permanently into the country should the exclusion be eliminated may be as high as five million.[21] (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/06/amnesty-will-cost-us-taxpayers-at-least-26-trillion#_ftn21) The overall number of amnesty recipients and dependents could easily reach 17 million.



Medicaid and Medicare costs are likely to rise faster than the rate of general inflation. To project the future governmental costs of amnesty recipients during retirement, this paper has used the current net governmental costs for elderly immigrants with skill levels similar to the amnesty population. These net governmental costs amount to $17,000 per person per year in 2004; half of this cost was medical care expenditures under the Medicare and Medicaid programs. The cost of government Medicaid and Medicare benefits has tended to escalate rapidly both because medical cost inflation has been greater than the general rate of inflation in the economy and because the range of medical services provided by these programs has expanded. The cost of Medicare and Medicaid services is likely to continue to increase more rapidly than inflation for the foreseeable future. As a consequence, the actual retirement costs for amnesty recipients will almost certainly be greater than $2.6 trillion, even after adjusting for general inflation.

[mavs>spurs]

To be fair Borat, aren't you some sort of scientist? I think you should stick with that instead of going outside your field of study.

Essentially you're talking about adding 20 million people to a working population already facing almost 10% unemployment. Amongst these 20 million, the vast majority are low wage earners and don't pay much in federal taxes, although once given amnesty would start applying for social welfare and the costs would be staggering. Hispanics are second only to blacks in welfare received and it isn't by as big of a margin as you'd think. We have everything to lose and nothing to gain by granting them amnesty. The corporations and business owners would now have to pay larger salaries expenses, cost of goods goes up, putting a strain on the already strained middle class. It's also unfair to those who came here legally and waited their turn.

[mavs>spurs]

I think it's very realistic. Tell me why is won't work please.

The only thing keeping it from happening is the rich who have the politicians in their back pocket, other than that it's totally feasible and easy to implement. Scott is just part of the new wave of Gingrich fan.

[mavs>spurs]

http://www.examiner.com/immigration-reform-in-national/dhs-confirms-cheaper-to-deport-every-illegal-alien-than-allowing-them-to-stay

DHS confirms cheaper to deport every illegal alien than allowing them to stay

http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/hash/85/35/8535a5feb78cd5a293f0a8059c39345b.jpg (http://www.examiner.com/immigration-reform-in-national/101208010846napolitanox-jpg-photo)Surprised Janet?Credits:
Getty Images

On December 3, Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs, Nelson Peacock, responding to request from several U.S. Senators, including Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), wrote: “Our conservative estimate suggests that ICE would require a budget of more than $135 billion to apprehend, detain and remove the nation’s entire illegal immigrant population.”
In July 2010, the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) released the results of a study which examined the costs of illegal immigration at the federal, state and local levels. The study found that U.S. state and local governments shell out $84.2 billion annually in various services (law enforcement, schools, social services, etc.), with California taxpayers alone, spending $21 billion on illegal aliens every year.
The same study found that $29 billion is spent every year in federal funds on illegal aliens.
So, while it would cost a one-time fee of about $135 billion to deport every single illegal alien in the country, it is actually a bargain considering the fact that it already costs us $113 billion annually to keep them here.
In other words, the mass deportation would pay for itself in a little over a year.
Incidentally, in 2007, the DHS estimated the cost of deporting all illegal aliens to be approximately $94 billion.

[boutons_deux]

Cheap Chinese labor won't arrive soon to match US salaries and benefits. Then again, UCA is screwing hourlies, salaries, and benefits to the bone, so I bet the quickest move will be by the US, not China. China spends about $30B/year subsidizing mfr so mfrs can dump product on the rest of the planet. US doesn't have the balls to call China on dumping, because China took the US's balls.

[scott]

The only thing keeping it from happening is the rich who have the politicians in their back pocket, other than that it's totally feasible and easy to implement. Scott is just part of the new wave of Gingrich fan.

LOL, what?!? Dude, you have no idea what I think the solutions to any purported problems are, because I haven't provided any. You're taking on a "if it's not A, it must be B" mentality fairly typical of the resident wingbats of this forum.

When I have time to spend more than 5 minutes at a keyboard, I'll happily explain why it's not feasible.

[scott]

To be fair Borat, aren't you some sort of scientist? I think you should stick with that instead of going outside your field of study.

Essentially you're talking about adding 20 million people to a working population already facing almost 10% unemployment. Amongst these 20 million, the vast majority are low wage earners and don't pay much in federal taxes, although once given amnesty would start applying for social welfare and the costs would be staggering. Hispanics are second only to blacks in welfare received and it isn't by as big of a margin as you'd think. We have everything to lose and nothing to gain by granting them amnesty. The corporations and business owners would now have to pay larger salaries expenses, cost of goods goes up, putting a strain on the already strained middle class. It's also unfair to those who came here legally and waited their turn.

Pray tell, what is your field of study?

[mavs>spurs]

finance/economics 3.8 gpa due to graduate this spring

[scott]

I'm not qualified to debate you. I concede to whatever you said before.

[RandomGuy]

Here's an idea, make it a felony to hire them, create a national database for employers to have to enter a SS# when hiring an employee and it will tell you if it's valid or not. I guarantee you all the illegals will be magically gone in a matter of months without work.

Figure out how to enforce that.

Given the blowback such a policy would cause, not to mention that would mean that people might not even hire legal immigrants out of fear that they might accidentally hire someone with really good fake papers.

Most have begun to sink roots here with families and children.

This is yet another reason that the problem will go away. The illegal immigrants give birth the US citizens, who will go on to college and jobs.

What do you do with the 10 year old US citizen whose parents are illegals?

Your whole solution again smacks of pompus self-righteousness. I prefer not to have my public policy sacrificed on that altar.

[mavs>spurs]

that's telling me

[mavs>spurs]

Figure out how to enforce that.

Given the blowback such a policy would cause, not to mention that would mean that people might not even hire legal immigrants out of fear that they might accidentally hire someone with really good fake papers.

Most have begun to sink roots here with families and children.

This is yet another reason that the problem will go away. The illegal immigrants give birth the US citizens, who will go on to college and jobs.

What do you do with the 10 year old US citizen whose parents are illegals?

Your whole solution again smacks of pompus self-righteousness. I prefer not to have my public policy sacrificed on that altar.

Self righteous? Tell me how amnesty is "righteous" at all for the millions who have migrated here legally and take pride in this country.

[RandomGuy]

Because a good amount of labor supplied from illegal immigrants is undocumented, cash wages. Making some database to check SS #s isn't going to change that.

Bingo. I have done some bookkeeping for a small construction company. There wasn't a check in sight.

[mavs>spurs]

The thing about illegal immigrants is that the rich making a killing off them while we get stuck with the bill. Every time they go to college, we subsidize part of it with tax dollars so that it's even somewhat affordable to them. Especially at community college. Every time they make a trip to the country hospital, yup me and you pay for it. And at the same time they artificially increase the supply for many working class jobs, driving down wages. Net loss for the middle class I tell you, and what we're hearing right now from all these politicians is just propoganda to try to get the Hispanic vote. Not one of these guys proposing amnesty will ever do such a thing, because the rich who have them in their back pockets won't ever allow it. They just spout off shit like the puppets they are and you people eat it up.

[RandomGuy]

Without getting too deep into economic theory, illegal immigration lowers wages by artificially increasing the supply in the market for labor. Whites are forced to either A) get a college degree (which the student loan bubble is growing more and more by the day, only so many of those jobs are needed as well and even graduates can't find jobs right now) or B) work for shit unlivable wages. And it hurts the economy as a whole too, because low unemployment and a healthy middle class is the backbone of a healthy economy.

Whip out some papers, research data, hell ,even a graph or two.

I'll keep up, promise.

Be sure to balance the benefits of lower costs of goods and services purchased to your costs. I would love to see what that graph/calculation looks like, and what you base it on.

[RandomGuy]

Self righteous? Tell me how amnesty is "righteous" at all for the millions who have migrated here legally and take pride in this country.

I don't give a shit about amnesty or not, and that wasn't what the OP was about.

Got any other faulty assumptions you want to test?

[RandomGuy]

The thing about illegal immigrants is that the rich making a killing off them while we get stuck with the bill. Every time they go to college, we subsidize part of it with tax dollars so that it's even somewhat affordable to them. Especially at community college. Every time they make a trip to the country hospital, yup me and you pay for it. And at the same time they artificially increase the supply for many working class jobs, driving down wages. Net loss for the middle class I tell you, and what we're hearing right now from all these politicians is just propoganda to try to get the Hispanic vote. Not one of these guys proposing amnesty will ever do such a thing, because the rich who have them in their back pockets won't ever allow it. They just spout off shit like the puppets they are and you people eat it up.

Illegal immigrants generally don't go to college.

More fail.

[Sense]

I'm not qualified to debate you. I concede to whatever you said before.

" Scott also serves on the Brewers Association Finance Committee and, while no one is looking, teaches economics at the University of Texas at San Antonio. "


:wakeup

[RandomGuy]

that's telling me

The sad thing is that you don't realize exactly what he is saying there.

He is more than fully qualified to discuss the economics, so that doesn't mean what you think it does. I am fairly sure I know what the post means, and it is funny that you don't.

[RandomGuy]

" Scott also serves on the Brewers Association Finance Committee and, while no one is looking, teaches economics at the University of Texas at San Antonio. "


:wakeup

PhD in economics, if memory serves. I wasn't gonna give it up, but since it is outta the bag.

[RandomGuy]

...just propoganda to try to get the Hispanic vote... They just spout off shit like the puppets they are and you people eat it up.

Meh. As opposed to your complete inability to back up your shit with anything that approaches logic, and or data?

Isn't that the definition of propaganda?


information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.

If all you have are rumors, but no data, that is pretty much the definition of what you are criticizing. Making you a hypocritical dumbass.

QED

[mavs>spurs]

I don't give a shit about amnesty or not, and that wasn't what the OP was about.

Got any other faulty assumptions you want to test?

So what is your suggestion, just keep them here and do nothing at all about immigration?


Illegal immigrants generally don't go to college.

More fail.

bullshit. i know PLENTY who do. an aerospace engineer who dj's at clubs, a teacher who volunteers as a teachers assistant grading papers for free, a nurse who sits at home all day..complete and utter bullshit.


The sad thing is that you don't realize exactly what he is saying there.

He is more than fully qualified to discuss the economics, so that doesn't mean what you think it does. I am fairly sure I know what the post means, and it is funny that you don't.

it's super ironic how you talk about faulty assumptions then post this. i knew his post was sarcasm that's why i sarcastically replied that he "told me."

[mavs>spurs]

Meh. As opposed to your complete inability to back up your shit with anything that approaches logic, and or data?

Isn't that the definition of propaganda?



If all you have are rumors, but no data, that is pretty much the definition of what you are criticizing. Making you a hypocritical dumbass.

QED

There's data out the ass that shows that illegal immigrants are a net loss to the tax payer, you just don't know how to use google and I'm not doing your research for you. I find it dumb that I should even have to post these studies.

[mavs>spurs]

I don't give a shit about amnesty or not, and that wasn't what the OP was about.

Got any other faulty assumptions you want to test?

Well then how bout you tell me how allowing them to stay or doing anything OTHER THAN enforcing immigration laws is "righteous" to the working class american or millions of immigrants who came here legally? Good luck with that I'll be waiting.

[Winehole23]

I find it dumb that I should even have to post these studies.I find it dumb that you don't.

Other posters try to back up what they say, when requested. Why can't you?

[mavs>spurs]

because whenever you google "illegal immigrant net impact on tax payer" I don't know which of the 1,000,000 case studies to choose.

[RandomGuy]

bullshit. i know PLENTY who do. an aerospace engineer who dj's at clubs, a teacher who volunteers as a teachers assistant grading papers for free, a nurse who sits at home all day..complete and utter bullshit.

Oooh. Personal anecdotes. Call the president.

That showed me.

Now what percentage of illegal immigrants does this sample represent, and is it a valid statistical sample that can be used to accurately draw conclusions from?

[RandomGuy]

because whenever you google "illegal immigrant net impact on tax payer" I don't know which of the 1,000,000 case studies to choose.

Google illegal immigrant net impact on tax payer


illegal immigrant net impact on tax payer

Search About 116,000 results (0.22 seconds)

Do tell. A million studies.

Pick one.

[mavs>spurs]

Oooh. Personal anecdotes. Call the president.

That showed me.

Now what percentage of illegal immigrants does this sample represent, and is it a valid statistical sample that can be used to accurately draw conclusions from?

in a town of 8,000 i know of over 100 illegal b3aners and i dont even know that many Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Lu ck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_s, not hte most scientific poll ever but you're crazy if you think illegals don't go to school. what do you think all the fuss over the dream act was about? millions of b3eaners get their associates or 4 year in hopes of some day gaining amnesty.

[scott]

because whenever you google "illegal immigrant net impact on tax payer" I don't know which of the 1,000,000 case studies to choose.

I googled it as suggested. This was the first one.

http://immigration.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000788

[RandomGuy]

FWIW:
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/cost-of-illegal-immigrants/


So, how much do illegal immigrants cost federal, state and local governments in the U.S.? Estimates vary widely, and no consensus exists. The Urban Institute put the net national cost at $1.9 billion in 1992; a Rice University professor, whose work the Urban Institute criticized, said it was $19.3 billion in 1993. More recently, a 2007 report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office examined 29 reports on state and local costs published over 15 years in an attempt to answer this question. CBO concluded that most of the estimates determined that illegal immigrants impose a net cost to state and local governments but "that impact is most likely modest." CBO said "no agreement exists as to the size of, or even the best way of measuring, that cost on a national level."

Most "studies" are rather questionable and sloppy, from what I have seen on the subject, and that seems to jibe with factchecks impression as well. A few are fairly well done, but still flawed.

The most comprehensive study that I have read listed the long term economic impact of each illegal immigrant at a NPV of something like $67,000. Been a while since I read it, but I can probably find it again eventually. It makes for good reading, as the author considers the future cash flows resulting from that immigrant and the US citizens they give birth to, which is something that a lot of the studies you will try citing don't consider.

[mavs>spurs]

what would be the discount rate in such a study, the average rate of inflation?

[Winehole23]

Didn't Carole Keeton Strayhorn have an economic impact report for the State of Texas when she was comptroller?

[RandomGuy]

I googled it as suggested. This was the first one.

http://immigration.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000788

Funny if you read that that the "pro" (anti-immigrant) side is written by think tanks, and the "con" (immigrants are not a net cost to the economy) is PhD's like say, Alan Greenspan.

Just sayin'.

And on that note, my wife says to quit arguing with people on the internet and spend some time with her.

[Winehole23]

As I dimly seem to recall the official results for Texas a few years ago, do not comport with the trend you have alleged, YH.

[scott]

FWIW, the wealth of research on the suggested search term with the 1,000,000 case studies to chose from... results in this very thread as the 7th hit.

[RandomGuy]

what would be the discount rate in such a study, the average rate of inflation?

I am merely relating what I can remember.

You are the one making assertions with no support, and you have avoided answering several direct questions.

Your sample of three people from all the "illegal immigrants" (I assume you knew for certain they were illegal) represents what percentage of illegal immigrants in the US?

As a statistical sample, is this sufficient to draw conclusions about the number of illegal immigrants attending college "on the taxpayers dime"?

Is it even a valid statistical sample?

[Winehole23]

Bet you could even find it on Spurstalk if you really cared so much.

[RandomGuy]

FWIW, the wealth of research on the suggested search term with the 1,000,000 case studies to chose from... results in this very thread as the 7th hit.

That happens more often than one might think. wife is hurumphing... really gotta go.

[scott]

Funny if you read that that the "pro" (anti-immigrant) side is written by think tanks, and the "con" (immigrants are not a net cost to the economy) is PhD's like say, Alan Greenspan.

Just sayin'.

And on that note, my wife says to quit arguing with people on the internet and spend some time with her.

But those Think Tanks are The Federation for American Immigration Reform and The Center for Immigration Studies, both of which have the word IMMIGRATION right in their names! Clearly they know better.

[Winehole23]

because whenever you google "illegal immigrant net impact on tax payer" I don't know which of the 1,000,000 case studies to choose.because you got some silly excuse

:lol:toast

[ElNono]

Non-issue. Nothing that can't be fixed by shooting some brown dudes in the border, tbh.

/WC

[Wild Cobra]

Bingo. I have done some bookkeeping for a small construction company. There wasn't a check in sight.
The owner should be behind bars. That means he wasn't paying his fair share in insurances, and payroll taxes.

[Wild Cobra]

Whip out some papers, research data, hell ,even a graph or two.

I'll keep up, promise.

Be sure to balance the benefits of lower costs of goods and services purchased to your costs. I would love to see what that graph/calculation looks like, and what you base it on.
WTF...

Outsourcing labor locally is every bit as evil as outsourcing our jobs to Asia.

Do you have a clue to what you are saying?

[Wild Cobra]

Non-issue. Nothing that can't be fixed by shooting some brown dudes in the border, tbh.

/WC
You just won't let that go. I want deterrents that people will respect. It doesn't mean we have to shoot those crossing the border illegally, but if it comes to that, I say hell yes. They are foreign invaders.

[RandomGuy]

The owner should be behind bars. That means he wasn't paying his fair share in insurances, and payroll taxes.

They paid their workers cash. Those workers don't collect from the unemployment insurance funds, and don't contribute.

Nothing for nothing sounds like a fair exchange for me.
Neither will those workers ever collect Social Security.

Again, a nothing for nothing exchange.

As the CBO noted, the overall impact, to the best anyone has ever been able to determine, is "modest".

Over the long run, given that their kids will get legitimate, tax-paying, jobs and will be paying into the SS system that you will be benefitting from in a decade or two, you probably shouldn't be bitching about a "fair exchange".

[RandomGuy]

WTF...

Outsourcing labor locally is every bit as evil as outsourcing our jobs to Asia.

Do you have a clue to what you are saying?

Why do you hate the free market? Sounds like you want some socialist policies to prevent this "evil". Is that what you are saying?

[DMC]

Sorry, we don't need illegal immigration. Legal immigration would be fine.

We also don't need rape or floods, but some sex and rain would be nice on occasion.

[m>s]

illegal immigrant isn't a problem, at least not as much of a problem as "legal" immigration imho. illegal families may afford to pay for highschool, with or without government aid, but most of them don't have that much $ to pay for colleges. college costs are sky high tbh even some american families can't afford it, which is the main reason why so many american young lads have to head towards the workplace instead of realizing their american dreams in colleges.

families of legal immigrants, however, are rich enough to afford college education for their kids and are qualified for all sorts of government aid. kids of legal immigrants are sent to colleges where they'll spend 4 years and graduate with degrees, then they'll outcompete those AMERICAN lads who do not have college degrees in the new workforce.

illegals are dirting your neighbor maybe that ain't something you're supposed to like, but they ain't no threat or danger to this country imho. its LEGAL immigrants who're taking those decents jobs that american kids should have... they're about to claim everything you have and eventually take our whole country over.

time to STOP that i say. n!ggas grab your guns and start shootin em damn yellows on sight, LETS GOOOO!!!!!!

[Wild Cobra]

They paid their workers cash. Those workers don't collect from the unemployment insurance funds, and don't contribute.

Nothing for nothing sounds like a fair exchange for me.
Neither will those workers ever collect Social Security.

Again, a nothing for nothing exchange.

As the CBO noted, the overall impact, to the best anyone has ever been able to determine, is "modest".

Over the long run, given that their kids will get legitimate, tax-paying, jobs and will be paying into the SS system that you will be benefitting from in a decade or two, you probably shouldn't be bitching about a "fair exchange".
So...

You are OK with them being able to put their competition out of business, who pay legal workers and taxes, by being able to offer services for less?

Shame on you.

[Wild Cobra]

Why do you hate the free market? Sounds like you want some socialist policies to prevent this "evil". Is that what you are saying?
I see. Another attack on me that bears no true merit. Just another attack.

If you wish to take that view on the free market, then why not look the other way of industry doesn't follow the rules and pollutes rivers, the sky, etc. Are you only willing to promote illegal activity you agree with? Does that mean I can promote illegal activity I agree with? Now what if everyone practiced illegal activity they thought shouldn't be illegal?

My God man...

If one business follows the rule, and another doesn't to save money, who do you think will be laying off workers? Are you saying you would prefer workers who pay no income taxes of SS insurance keep their jobs over workers who do pay into the systems?

Seriously think about the economics you are supporting.

[ElNono]

I see. Another attack on me that bears no true merit. Just another attack.

:dramaquee

[Winehole23]

So...

You are OK with them being able to put their competition out of business, who pay legal workers and taxes, by being able to offer services for less?

Shame on you.You would deny job creators this subtle edge in overhead? Why do you hate profits, WC?

[cantthinkofanything]

You would deny job creators this subtle edge in overhead? Why do you hate profits, WC?

What about robots though?

[Winehole23]

what about robots? are you one?

[cantthinkofanything]

what about robots? are you one?

LOL. Sometimes, I think that people are the robots but we don't know it.

But my question was really about how robots figure in to the whole population thing. I would think that with robots, you don't need as many people.

[Winehole23]

http://www.distrofurniture.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Ordinary-Butter-Knife-Design.jpg

[Borat Sagyidev]

To be fair Borat, aren't you some sort of scientist? I think you should stick with that instead of going outside your field of study.

Essentially you're talking about adding 20 million people to a working population already facing almost 10% unemployment. Amongst these 20 million, the vast majority are low wage earners and don't pay much in federal taxes, although once given amnesty would start applying for social welfare and the costs would be staggering. Hispanics are second only to blacks in welfare received and it isn't by as big of a margin as you'd think. We have everything to lose and nothing to gain by granting them amnesty. The corporations and business owners would now have to pay larger salaries expenses, cost of goods goes up, putting a strain on the already strained middle class. It's also unfair to those who came here legally and waited their turn.

What's with all this classism bullshit? Do you understand anything about production economies? They don't have to make much money for it to be beneficial. Dollars in the US and sent to the US produce a real trickle down economy. How do you think China is improving living standards? and they have shitloads of people.

Also, a white felon has much better job prospects than a equally qualified black male with no criminal record in this country. I bet that has nothing to do with it.



finance/economics 3.8 gpa due to graduate this spring

:lol
So you're saying because you did some mickey mouse program with classes like "business calculus" or i.e calculus for retards, you're an expert on the subject?


So Mr. Finance major, how do you create jobs, how do you pay for baby boomer retirement once you kick out the evil jorb takers?

Just wondering. You're the smart one. I should stick to my subject area.






Other posters try to back up what they say, when requested. Why can't you?

[mavs>spurs]

a real trickle down economy

:lmao

[m>s]

The thing about illegal immigrants is that the rich making a killing off them while we get stuck with the bill. Every time they go to college, we subsidize part of it with tax dollars so that it's even somewhat affordable to them. Especially at community college. Every time they make a trip to the country hospital, yup me and you pay for it. And at the same time they artificially increase the supply for many working class jobs, driving down wages. Net loss for the middle class I tell you, and what we're hearing right now from all these politicians is just propoganda to try to get the Hispanic vote. Not one of these guys proposing amnesty will ever do such a thing, because the rich who have them in their back pockets won't ever allow it. They just spout off shit like the puppets they are and you people eat it up.
illegals don't get a dime of subsidy from the government, its LEGAL immigrants who do. you might have misfired at the wrong n!ggas imho

[Wild Cobra]

illegals don't get a dime of subsidy from the government, its LEGAL immigrants who do. you might have misfired at the wrong n!ggas imho
That may be true in some areas, but in Oregon, they don't require proof of legal residency to get government assistance.

[RandomGuy]

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/eop/2005/2005_erp.pdf#page=104

Chapter 4, the Economic Report of the President deals with the net costs of immigrants, legal and otherwise.



It's from 2005, for those fucktards who won't bother reading the link because it came from Obama.

[Wild Cobra]

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/eop/2005/2005_erp.pdf#page=104

Chapter 4, the Economic Report of the President deals with the net costs of immigrants, legal and otherwise.



It's from 2005, for those fucktards who won't bother reading the link because it came from Obama.
If that is a response to my last post, parts of it are either incorrect, or not enforced.

[MannyIsGod]

Sorry, we don't need illegal immigration. Legal immigration would be fine.

We also don't need rape or floods, but some sex and rain would be nice on occasion.

You think a rape and illegal immigration are analogous? Interesting.

[scott]

That may be true in some areas, but in Oregon, they don't require proof of legal residency to get government assistance.


http://www.gpoaccess.gov/eop/2005/2005_erp.pdf#page=104

Chapter 4, the Economic Report of the President deals with the net costs of immigrants, legal and otherwise.



It's from 2005, for those fucktards who won't bother reading the link because it came from Obama.


If that is a response to my last post, parts of it are either incorrect, or not enforced.

LOL, this exchange might subtly be one of the best in recent history.

WC should have just said "I didn't read that link, because you posted it, but if it disagrees with what I say then clearly its wrong."

[MannyIsGod]

Let me know when Alabama's unemployment numbers show improvement based on their immigration law.

[MannyIsGod]

LOL, this exchange might subtly be one of the best in recent history.

WC should have just said "I didn't read that link, because you posted it, but if it disagrees with what I say then clearly its wrong."

Par for the course.

[Wild Cobra]

I searched the pdf for some pertinent information. Oregon does not abide by the areas I found.

[CosmicCowboy]

This whole immigration issue puzzles me. We either should accept it or stop it. If they want to stop it then eliminate the jobs. Require employers to use e-verify and then fine the fuck out of them if they don't. I mean put them out out fucking business. As for the freeloaders on the system, make citizenship a requirement for benefits. Anchor babies? Fine. You want to come over here and have your babies so they can be citizens? We aren't gonna turn you away from the hospital when you are in labor. After you pay your fucking bill you can have your damn baby and we will give you a ride back to the border. When your kid is 18 they can come back. You can stay the fuck in Mexico.

[Winehole23]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/07/us/path-to-green-card-for-illegal-immigrant-family-members-of-americans.html?_r=2

[Wild Cobra]

This whole immigration issue puzzles me. We either should accept it or stop it. If they want to stop it then eliminate the jobs. Require employers to use e-verify and then fine the fuck out of them if they don't. I mean put them out out fucking business. As for the freeloaders on the system, make citizenship a requirement for benefits. Anchor babies? Fine. You want to come over here and have your babies so they can be citizens? We aren't gonna turn you away from the hospital when you are in labor. After you pay your fucking bill you can have your damn baby and we will give you a ride back to the border. When your kid is 18 they can come back. You can stay the fuck in Mexico.
Agreed.

[Wild Cobra]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/07/us/path-to-green-card-for-illegal-immigrant-family-members-of-americans.html?_r=2
Bad idea, unless it only applies to only spouses and dependents. The problem is, right now, people can bring in parents and other relatives. If we only remove the timeline, nothing keeps them form bringing in the entire extended family. That can be hundreds more for each new legal.

[Winehole23]

The Obama Administration has quietly thrown in the towel in a long-running battle to prevent disclosure of internal legal memos about its plans to force local law enforcement agencies to participate in the controversial immigration-enforcement system known as Secure Communities. The government also admitted it made an embarrassing mistake by giving a federal judge false information last year about the circulation of one of the documents.


With much of official Washington shut down between Christmas and New Year's, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement division of the Department of Homeland Security released the long-sought memoranda on Dec. 28 to three immigrants' rights groups that filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit for the documents.
U.S. District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin ruled in October (http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/federal-judge-orders-release-of-immigrant-program-memo) that ICE had to make public a key memo describing the legal basis for forcing local police agencies to have fingerprint checks submitted to the Federal Bureau of Investigation also cross-checked in databases of alleged immigration violators. The Manhattan-based judge said in her opinion (posted here (http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/10/26/ice.pdf)) that ICE adopted the memo as its official rationale by apparently reading from it in public. She also said the agency failed to rebut indications raised by the immigrants' rights groups that the memo may have been shared widely enough to void the usual attorney-client privilege.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2012/01/administration-folds-in-immigration-foia-fight-admits-110124.html

[Winehole23]

The issue of whether communities can "opt out" of the Secure Communities program has been a politically sensitive one in recent years, as some localities have adopted policies of not cooperating with federal efforts to enforce immigration laws. As Scheindlin recounted in her opinion, DHS indicated through early 2010 that local communities could elect not to participate in the program, but DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano said at a press conference in October 2010, just four days after the ICE legal memo, that local law enforcement could not opt out of the program. Critics of Secure Communities say it has led to the deportation of thousands of immigrants arrested for minor offenses.same

[ElNono]

The memo here (http://images.politico.com/global/2012/01/icefoiaoptoutdocs.pdf)

[RandomGuy]

Bump. Seems relevent.

[Phenomanul]

Bump. Seems relevent.

Yep...

Some people in here need a continuous outlet to spew their xenophobia... this thread is as good as any...

[diego]

amazing that a country built by immigrants, still can't accept that people go where there is opportunity. The US consumes and creates more wealth than any other nation, many times with free trade agreements. Why should goods and money be able to enter freely, but people can't follow? Its simple logic. Part of being the economic hub in the world is that people try to go there, get over it. Now, seeing as that is reality, the best thing you can do is make it legal and thus properly regulated.

[RandomGuy]

Yep...

Some people in here need a continuous outlet to spew their xenophobia... this thread is as good as any...

It is slightly astonishing to see the level of vitriol on the subject. Well maybe no astonishing so much as sad commentary on the overall smallness of mind on the part of some.

[Wild Cobra]

It is slightly astonishing to see the level of vitriol on the subject. Well maybe no astonishing so much as sad commentary on the overall smallness of mind on the part of some.
If that's what you want to call it when I disagree with supporting illegal and harmful action, then fine.


amazing that a country built by immigrants, still can't accept that people go where there is opportunity.
I do understand it. I don't have to accept it.

Don't you think if we have an absolutely open border, with social services we have, that maybe a billion people would try to make it here if we stopped enforcement completely?

The US consumes and creates more wealth than any other nation, many times with free trade agreements.
What about prosperity?

Sure, we have wealth, but in the end, uncontrolled immigration means robbing from the rich and giving to the poor.

Why should goods and money be able to enter freely, but people can't follow? Its simple logic. Part of being the economic hub in the world is that people try to go there, get over it. Now, seeing as that is reality, the best thing you can do is make it legal and thus properly regulated.
Just how many people do you think we could handle if we started getting 100 million or so people annually?

I am all for legal immigration. Not illegal immigration.

[Wild Cobra]

there are very real reasons why all countries limit the amount of immigrants coming in. you can't allow more immigrants to come in and outpace economic growth. EVERY country has immigration laws.

For instance I couldn't just flock to China as their economy grows and decide im going to move there whether they like it or not. You'd have to apply and only so many could get in.

I wonder how many people know that out legal immigration numbers are greater than allowed by all other countries combined?

[Winehole23]

Conservatives and Immigration (http://volokh.com/2012/04/26/conservatives-and-immigration/)

Ilya Somin (http://volokh.com/author/ilya/) • April 26, 2012 10:39 pm


Politico’s Arena site recently asked contributors to weigh in on whether the GOP is likely to be “wounded” by its support for severe restrictions on immigration. My answer is available here (http://www.politico.com/arena/perm/Ilya_Somin_9A98D5C7-1358-486E-9C10-1D1238F0FCF2.html):
The real tragedy here is not that the GOP might suffer politically, but that so many conservative Republicans have turned against immigration in the first place. Conservatives claim to support free markets, yet many of them also wish to use massive government intervention to close off an international free market in labor. They extol the virtues of self-help, economic opportunity, and individual achievement. Yet many of them also want to build a wall to keep out immigrants who come seeking greater freedom and opportunity than they could hope for in their native lands.
Had the restrictive immigration policies favored by some of today’s conservatives been in force a century ago, the ancestors of most of those conservatives would never have been able to come to America in the first place….
Ronald Reagan (http://volokh.com/posts/1180077450.shtml) said that America should be “a tall, proud city… teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace.. and … doors …. open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here.” More recently, former Florida governor Jeb Bush (http://volokh.com/2012/01/26/jeb-bush-on-immigration/) urged Republicans to rethink their views on immigration. Conservative Republicans should heed their call.
In this post (http://volokh.com/2011/06/12/immigration-and-the-welfare-state/), I explained why conservatives (and some libertarians) are wrong to worry that increased immigration will lead to a larger welfare state. Evidence from many countries suggests that increased immigration and ethnic diversity actually reduces support for welfare state policies.

For this reason, among others, Jeb Bush (http://volokh.com/2012/01/26/jeb-bush-on-immigration/) is right to urge a change in the GOP position on this issue:
Republicans should reengage on this issue and reframe it. Start by recognizing that new Americans strengthen our economy. We need more people to come to this country, ready to work and to contribute their creativity to our economy…. Just as Republicans believe in free trade of goods, we should support the freer flow of human talent.
http://volokh.com/2012/04/26/conservatives-and-immigration/

[Old Man Kidd]

^so what you're saying basically is, that you're anti american? because if we just let everyone in the world come on over, half of our own native born americans would be out of work. we should give jobs to foreigners and throw some of our own under the bus? force americans to leave and go find jobs in some 3rd world shithole, basically swap positions?

[Winehole23]

Ilya Somin isn't advocating that and neither am I. You're allowed to read before responding...

[Old Man Kidd]

what do you propose we do to encourage this "freer flow of human talent?" we already allow more legal immigration than any other country on earth. you can't ever allow immigrant growth to outpace job growth, though. say we opened the borders and let 1million more people over today. exactly what jobs would they take, and what about our own american citizens who are waiting in the unemployment line? we should take care of our own first.

[Wild Cobra]

I will never agree with illegal immigration not being a problem. One problem is we don't make people in the social system take jobs available.

There are too many negatives that go with illegal immigration.

[Winehole23]

what do you propose we do to encourage this "freer flow of human talent?"I'm not an immigration wonk, so I don't have any white papers handy, but i can think of a couple: give guest workers better incentives to play by the rules, including viable legal pathways to citizenship; lift or lower financial requirements for foreign entrepreneurs.


you can't ever allow immigrant growth to outpace job growthis it outpacing job growth now?


we should take care of our own first.Free market thinking stops at the water's edge?

[Old Man Kidd]

is it outpacing job growth now?

It has for many years, until shit finally hit the fan with double digit unemployment. Don't believe those 8-9% propaganda numbers, the real rate is around 15%. Get in touch with the young crowd, the under 25's. They are the ones feeling the pain.

[ChumpDumper]

It has for many years, until shit finally hit the fan with double digit unemployment. Don't believe those 8-9% propaganda numbers, the real rate is around 15%. Get in touch with the young crowd, the under 25's. They are the ones feeling the pain.They are tweeting from their phones how tough life is. :cry

[Old Man Kidd]

^the unemployed have more time on their hands, I'd imagine.

[Winehole23]

Navarro, 33, has taken part in a historic migration. For the first time in decades, more people are moving from the U.S. to Mexico than are coming to the U.S. from Mexico, the Pew Hispanic Center (http://www.mysanantonio.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=news%2Fmexico&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22Pew+Hispanic+Center%22) reported in April. Some, like Navarro, are deported, but the vast majority came to Mexico voluntarily, according to the report.

Read more: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Mexico-now-seeing-wave-of-immigrants-3925786.php#ixzz28j8ynkPD

[Winehole23]

The period of unprecedented expansion of immigrant-led entrepreneurship that characterized the 1980s and 1990s has come to a close,” writes an ominous new Kauffman Foundation report from Stanford researcher and Washington Post columnist, Vivek Wadhwa.
He and his team of researchers are finding that, despite being the source of venerable American businesses, from Carnegie to Google, immigrants no longer see the United States as the only land of dreams, driven in large part by Congress’s inability to enact high-skill friendly immigration reform (http://techcrunch.com/2012/09/20/meritocracy-vs-diversity-impasse-stalls-last-hope-for-immediate-immigration-reform/). In the words of immigrant and President of Xerox’s Innovation Group Sophie Vandebroek, with whom Wadhwa spoke for his new book, Immigrant Exodus (http://www.amazon.com/The-Immigrant-Exodus-America-Entrepreneurial/dp/1613630212/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1349190952&sr=8-1&keywords=immigrant+exodus): “Clearly the attraction the United States had on people like myself two to three decades ago is very different now. Countries all over the globe now have successful and growing research universities and labs.”

Both Wadhwa’s book and accompanying report continue his seminal research on the importance of immigrants to the high-tech sector. Nearly a quarter (24.3 percent) of engineering and technology companies had at least one foreign-born founder; in Silicon Valley, it’s nearly half (43.9 percent). Nationwide, they’ve helped employ more than half a million workers (560,000) who contributed $63 billion in sales just in 2012.

The faces behind the names make the impact all the more extraordinary, writes Wadhwa:


“Each decade has yielded top-flight entrepreneurs not born in this land, from Andrew Carnegie (Carnegie Steel Company) to Alexander Graham Bell (AT&T) to Charles Pfizer (Pfizer) to Vinod Khosla (Sun Microsystems) to Sergey Brin (Google) to Elon Musk (PayPal, SpaceX, Tesla Motors). A 2011 study by the Partnership for a New American Economy tabulated that first-generation immigrants or their children had founder roles in more than 40% of the Fortune 500. These companies had combined revenues of greater than $4.2 trillion and employed more than 10 million workers worldwide.”


But this foreign source of talent is now waning: After an impressively thorough sampling of 1,882 tech companies founded in the last six years, it was discovered that the immigrant’s usual contribution to the startup founder scene had stagnated, dropping from 25 percent to 24 percent. While that tiny number doesn’t seem to match Wadhwa’s (relatively) apocalyptic language, he sees it as an early warning sign. In Silicon Valley, the drop in foreign-born founders is far more pronounced, plummeting from 52 percent to 43 percent.

http://techcrunch.com/2012/10/07/report-for-first-time-in-decades-us-is-bleeding-high-skilled-immigrants/

[Winehole23]

http://www.kansascity.com/2012/09/21/3826679/bill-to-steer-visas-to-more-highly.html

[boutons_deux]

Washington apple growers scrambling to find workers

One after another, at a recent emergency meeting in Wenatchee called by the Governor's Office, fruit growers talked about how hard it's been to find workers as the harvest hits its sweet spot.

One orchardist recalled how, of the 149 people referred to him earlier in the season by the state's unemployment office, half showed up on the first day, a quarter on the second day.

Now, only five remain.

And so it went around the room, until a representative from the state Department of Corrections proposed an unexpected solution: prison labor.

"Do they come with guards?" one grower asked.

While putting inmates to work in the fruit orchards of Eastern Washington proved too costly and too late to help growers this year, that it was even considered and studied shows the lengths to which growers and state officials will go to address the labor problems in one of
Washington's most vital industries.

Apples alone are a $1.5 billion-a-year business in the state.

And two weeks ago Gov. Chris Gregoire amped up what now has become an almost annual harvest-time refrain by growers when she declared the state's farm-labor shortage a crisis.

Growers mostly blame rising tensions around illegal immigration that have spooked migrant farmworkers, the majority of whom are here illegally, while worker advocates say there'd be no shortage if growers were willing to pay workers more.

"Truth be told, we've always had a labor shortage in this state; 75 percent of these workers aren't authorized to be here," said Dan Fazio, director of the Washington Farm Labor Association.

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2016652587_farmlabor31m.html

[boutons_deux]

FARM OWNERS, WORKERS WORRY ABOUT IMMIGRATION LAW’S IMPACT ON CROPS

http://gfvga.org/2011/06/farm-owners-workers-worry-about-immigration-laws-impact-on-crops/

[Winehole23]

The tech industry has a message for Republicans and Democrats bickering over competing immigration bills: See the bigger picture. Tech companies, desperate for more high-skilled talent, aren’t particularly concerned with how Congress delivers more green cards for foreign graduates of U.S. universities with advanced degrees. They just want them.




Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81578.html#ixzz28jF2aZAT

[boutons_deux]

Foreigners in tech jobs usually work a lot cheaper than US tech workers. This is just the tech industry screwing down US employees by pitting them against foreigners.

[Winehole23]

sounds plausible. can you support that?

[boutons_deux]

I remember reading an article a couple years ago by an national association of computer engineers saying precisely that, not green cards, but H1B visas.

[Winehole23]

content to rely on anecdote for your sweeping assertions? unsurprising.

[ElNono]

A lot of these people are already in the country. They're just trying to move from H1B visas (temporary worker) to green cards (permanent resident).

It's a PITA for companies. They hire these talented people who become an integral part of the success of the company, but after 8 years or so, they cannot get residency, and so they have to leave the country (and the companies).

Basically, the companies end up scrambling to replace this high-skilled worker, while the person goes overseas with 8 years of experience under his belt after working for Microsoft, Google, Oracle, etc.

[boutons_deux]

http://blogs.computerworld.com/the_h_1b_battle_the_war_within_ieee

The H-1B visa program, as we know it today, was created to support business (and politicians’) claims that they could not find enough qualified employees. The myth of the qualified labor shortage grew during late 1980s with the Y2K bug and peaked in the 1990s during the dot.com boom. Many of the initial misconceptions about the perceived labor shortage were due to flawed analysis by the National Science Foundation in the 1980s [25]. The Millennium bug passed without incident and the dot.com bubble burst, and the labor market expanded and contracted, but claims of shortages persist [5].

http://www.todaysengineer.org/2012/Mar/STEM-Careers.asp

etc, etc

[Winehole23]

thanks for the link, boutons

[Winehole23]

you see this part?


Although the business claim is flawed, some aspects of the issue cannot be casually dismissed. For example, American university graduate programs in engineering today are dominated by foreign nationals as demonstrated in a table from a study sponsored by the Semiconductor Industries Association [7].

[Winehole23]

Forget the debt ceiling. Forget the fiscal cliff, the sequestration cliff and the entitlement cliff. Those are all just symptoms. What America really faces is a demographic cliff: The root cause of most of our problems is our declining fertility rate.
The fertility rate is the number of children an average woman bears over the course of her life. The replacement rate is 2.1. If the average woman has more children than that, population grows. Fewer, and it contracts. Today, America's total fertility rate is 1.93, according to the latest figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; it hasn't been above the replacement rate in a sustained way since the early 1970s.


The nation's falling fertility rate underlies many of our most difficult problems. Once a country's fertility rate falls consistently below replacement, its age profile begins to shift. You get more old people than young people. And eventually, as the bloated cohort of old people dies off, population begins to contract. This dual problem—a population that is disproportionately old and shrinking overall—has enormous economic, political and cultural consequences.

For two generations we've been lectured about the dangers of overpopulation. But the conventional wisdom on this issue is wrong, twice. First, global population growth is slowing to a halt and will begin to shrink within 60 years. Second, as the work of economists Esther Boserups and Julian Simon demonstrated, growing populations lead to increased innovation and conservation. Think about it: Since 1970, commodity prices have continued to fall and America's environment has become much cleaner and more sustainable—even though our population has increased by more than 50%. Human ingenuity, it turns out, is the most precious resource.


Low-fertility societies don't innovate because their incentives for consumption tilt overwhelmingly toward health care. They don't invest aggressively because, with the average age skewing higher, capital shifts to preserving and extending life and then begins drawing down. They cannot sustain social-security programs because they don't have enough workers to pay for the retirees. They cannot project power because they lack the money to pay for defense and the military-age manpower to serve in their armed forces.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323375204578270053387770718.html

Given popular support for legal abortion and birth control, the most viable way to change this trend would seem to be immigration reform. Immigration from Roman Catholic (or otherwise traditional/paternalistic) countries might be a plus.

[boutons_deux]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323375204578270053387770718.html

Given popular support for legal abortion and birth control, the most viable way to change this trend would seem to be immigration reform. Immigration from Roman Catholic (or otherwise traditional/paternalistic) countries might be a plus.

WSJ doesn't distinguish between birth rate by race, ethnic group. Mortdick's WSJ toilet paper rag is really complaining about the WHITE birth rate, not the black, brown birth rates.

btw, your immigration "solution" is already in place with mostly Catholic immigrants from Central/South America, NOT what the WSJ wants.

People don't have kids if they are assured of their future income to pay for a family, housing. The 1%/VWRC Class War, Globaliization, the War on Employees, vehemently supported by WSJ, blackens the future current college grads in $25K+ debt, "23 Million" un/under-employed, shitty growth and only in shitty jobs, etc, etc.

[Winehole23]

WSJ doesn't distinguish between birth rate by race, ethnic group. no, it does not


Mortdick's WSJ toilet paper rag is really complaining about the WHITE birth rate, not the black, brown birth rates.no, it isn't.

[TDMVPDPOY]

what costs more to the govt, illegals who want to contribute or already contributing.....or freeloaders?

[boutons_deux]

what costs more to the govt?

Criminal financial sector, by orders of magnitude, but we won't hear any Repug whining about punishing banksters the way they whine about punishing illegal aliens.

[boutons_deux]

America's Genius Glut

WHILE genuine immigration reform has the potential to fix a seriously broken system, four senators have introduced a bill to solve a problem we don't have: the supply of high-tech workers.

The bill's authors, led by Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, argue that America would benefit from letting more immigrants trained in science, technology, engineering and math work in the country, with the sponsorship of high-tech companies like Microsoft and I.B.M.

But the opposite is the case:

the bill would flood the job market with indentured foreign (cheap) workers, people who could not switch employers to improve their wages or working conditions;

damage the employment prospects of hundreds of thousands of skilled Americans;

and narrow the educational pipeline that produces these skilled workers domestically.

The impetus for the bill, which would give six-year visas to as many as 300,000 foreign high-tech workers a year, is the longstanding lament by business leaders that they cannot find the talent they need in the American labor market. In their version, there is a shortage of scientists and engineers, and the United States is failing to keep substantial numbers of foreign students in the country. As a result, our position as the world's leading high-tech economy is in danger.

Fortunately, they argue, H-1B visas - our guest-worker program for high-tech workers - brings us "the best and the brightest" in the world. We just don't give out enough of them.

But America's technology leadership is not, in fact, endangered. According to the economist Richard B. Freeman, the United States, with just 5 percent of the world's population, employs a third of its high-tech researchers, accounts for 40 percent of its research and development, and publishes over a third of its science and engineering articles. And a marked new crop of billion-dollar high-tech companies has sprung up in Silicon Valley recently, without the help of an expanded guest-worker program.

Nor are we turning away foreign students, or forcing them to leave once they've graduated. According to the Congressional Research Service, the number of full-time foreign graduate students in science, engineering and health fields has grown by more than 50 percent, from 91,150 in 1990 to 148,900 in 2009. And over the 2000s, the United States granted permanent residence to almost 300,000 high-tech workers, in addition to granting temporary work permits (for up to six years) to hundreds of thousands more.

The bill's proponents argue that for the sake of our global competitiveness, we shouldn't train and then return the tens of thousands of Chinese and Indian students who come here every year. But almost 90 percent of the Chinese students who earn science and technology doctorates in America stay here; the number is only slightly lower for Indians. If they're talented enough to get a job here, they're already almost guaranteed a visa.

If anything, we have too many high-tech workers: more than nine million people have degrees in a science, technology, engineering or math field, but only about three million have a job in one. That's largely because pay levels don't reward their skills. Salaries in computer- and math-related fields for workers with a college degree rose only 4.5 percent between 2000 and 2011. If these skills are so valuable and in such short supply, salaries should at least keep pace with the tech companies' profits, which have exploded.

And while unemployment for high-tech workers may seem low - currently 3.7 percent - that's more than twice as high as it was before the recession.

If there is no shortage of high-tech workers, why would companies be pushing for more? Simple:

workers under the H-1B program aren't like domestic workers - because they have to be sponsored by an employer, they are more or less indentured, tied to their job and whatever (LOW) wage the employer decides to give them.

Moreover, too many are paid at wages below the average for their occupation and location: over half of all H-1B guest workers are certified for wages in the bottom quarter of the wage scale.

Bringing over more - there are already 500,000 workers on H-1B visas - would obviously darken job prospects for America's struggling young scientists and engineers. But it would also hurt our efforts to produce more: if the message to American students is, "Don't bother working hard for a high-tech degree, because we can import someone to do the job for less," we could do significant long-term damage to the high-tech educational system we value so dearly.

There is no question that the immigration system needs major reform. But let's not break anything else in the process.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=1025291&f=28&sub=Contributor

iow, the high-tech companies want more FOREIGN INDENTURED high-tech employees because they are CHEAPER and less mobile than US employees.

[Wild Cobra]

America's Genius Glut

WHILE genuine immigration reform has the potential to fix a seriously broken system, four senators have introduced a bill to solve a problem we don't have: the supply of high-tech workers.
Yep, the wages of us "parts changers" is getting ready to break 6 digits. Supply is is limited.

[Winehole23]

genius glut includes WC? no comment.

[Wild Cobra]

genius glut includes WC? no comment.
Didn't you know, I am in the High Tech industry. My base pay in 2001 was $72k. I think I made $118k that year with overtime and bonuses. My current job has finally taken me a little above $72k. I could go back to a higher paying High Tech job, but I feel secure where I am now. I was laid off from that other job in 2002.

[Winehole23]

I don't judge anyone by their salary. do you?

[Wild Cobra]

I don't judge anyone by their salary. do you?
No, I was making the point that there really isn't a need to bring in the VISA people. They just want to cut the amount of money they pay. increase the supply of labor vs. the work demand.

Now it is getting harder for High tech to keep good people, even at the wages they pay, because it is so cyclical. Nobody likes a job industry that goes through hiring and layoff cycles.

[admiralsnackbar]

No, I was making the point that there really isn't a need to bring in the VISA people. They just want to cut the amount of money they pay. increase the supply of labor vs. the work demand.

Now it is getting harder for High tech to keep good people, even at the wages they pay, because it is so cyclical. Nobody likes a job industry that goes through hiring and layoff cycles.

Why do you hate Ayn Rand?

[Winehole23]

free marketers don't believe in free movement of labor. as usual, free enterprise thinking ceases at the water's edge.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

'Free market' is ideology and not reality. It exists nowhere on this planet not even in the freest economies on Earth such as Singapore.

The argument stating that lower fertility leading to a higher aging population is only true in the short term. The problem is a population boom. Going forward we aren't going to have a third of the population as the older demographic.

'Growth' is certainly an American ideal but I find it a lie. You end up as a dog that chases it's own tail and most especially at the expense of future generation. I am sick of that thinking as much as the demographic in the power structure follows it.

As for the myth that population growth is going to halt, those that are saying that have been wrong. Case in point is India where they have massive social programs including things such as paying people to sterilize themselves. Eugenics WC style. They just did their census and the tabulations are coming out. One thing is clear: the population predictions were wrong. Exacerbating the issue both there and pretty much everywhere else is disproportionate demographic growth and widening of the rich poor gap.

Resource scarcity and supply and demand are not going to go away. And the 'growth will save the day' and 'building them more infrastructure and shit will save the day' is at best poor planning. Hope is not a plan and the technology needed to make sure that all the disease, famine, violent conflict and water shortages simply does not exist.


I don't judge anyone by their salary. do you?

I have a hard time believing this. To be true you would have to view a person making $1.5m a year the same as someone making $9/hr. Sounds like a good ideal to strive for nonetheless.

[Wild Cobra]

Case in point is India where they have massive social programs including things such as paying people to sterilize themselves. Eugenics WC style.
LOL...

The Fuzzy Gay Bitch is back. Can't help but think of me in every thread.

upR7GQ5ToCs

[FuzzyLumpkins]

LOL...

The Fuzzy Gay Bitch is back. Can't help but think of me in every thread.

upR7GQ5ToCs

Did you or did you not say that you supported a program where mothers who sought AFDC or similar programs would have to surrender their reproductive rights?

[Wild Cobra]

Did you or did you not say that you supported a program where mothers who sought AFDC or similar programs would have to surrender their reproductive rights?
What I did or did not say doesn't matter. What matters is you are a chronic bitch. You find any reason to bitch about the people you don't like.

Bitch baby bitch...

That's all you are is a bitch.

[ElNono]

^ :lol that post is rich on Vitamin I

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What I did or did not say doesn't matter. What matters is you are a chronic bitch. You find any reason to bitch about the people you don't like.

Bitch baby bitch...

That's all you are is a bitch.

Mocking the village idiot is not bitching. I wasn't even addressing you in that original comment and there is no one else here that supports those types of programs. You do support such programs.

Complaining about me like the post I am quoting IS bitching. It's hilarious watching you own yourself over and over and over again.

[Wild Cobra]

Mocking the village idiot is not bitching.
True.

That's why I mock you when you give me reason.

you are so wrong so many times, you you are too stupid to see it.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

True.

That's why I mock you when you give me reason.

you are so wrong so many times, you you are too stupid to see it.

Really? Give examples. Examples of people mocking you are:

Black surgeons
Flaglot
Eugenics
Capacitors
Partschanger
Ocean is a soda
Solar burps and explosions in the thermosphere
Dr. Google

Hell, people have created troll accounts mocking your takes. All you are doing right now is the Pee Wee Herman routine: I know you are but what am I. You're such an easy target it's pathetic.

[Wild Cobra]

Really? Give examples. Examples of people mocking you are:

Black surgeons
Flaglot
Eugenics
Capacitors
Partschanger

Hell, people have created troll accounts mocking your takes. All you are doing right now is the Pee Wee Herman routine: I know you are but what am I. You're such an easy target it's pathetic.
And what does that say about them?

[Wild Cobra]

Fuzzy.

Why don't you admit it. You can't get me out of your mind. You are in love, you gay bitch.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And what does that say about them?

They think you are a moron. That's what it says about them, moron.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Fuzzy.

Why don't you admit it. You can't get me out of your mind. You are in love, you gay bitch.

How often do you post here? That's like saying that Obama cannot get the white house off his mind.

[Wild Cobra]

Is your troll name going to be Captain Fantastic?

Are your dreaming of being knee high to a man?

2sd6P2Tu8rw

[Wild Cobra]

They think you are a moron. That's what it says about them, moron.
Consensus is not science, or fact.

This place is filled with liberals, college educated assholes, and authoritarians that don't like what I say. I can respect many of them, but not bitches like you.

[Winehole23]

I have a hard time believing this. To be true you would have to view a person making $1.5m a year the same as someone making $9/hr. Sounds like a good ideal to strive for nonetheless. Everyone judges for himself. To me, quality and character count for more than salary or net worth. Way more.

[Winehole23]

You judge someone for making $9 an hour? To me that makes you a pathetic human being, Fuzzy Lumpkins.

[Wild Cobra]

Everyone judges for himself. To me, quality and character count for more than salary or net worth. Way more.
Agreed.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You judge someone for making $9 an hour? To me that makes you a pathetic human being, Fuzzy Lumpkins.

I think that they are different. Judging someone does not imply that it's bad. When I think of someone that is only making that much the first thing that comes to mind is young. I expect different behavior as well. I have been around both types and they do not act the same. It's a completely different environment and as such I don't think it unreasonable to expect different types of people.

Even here you say "more than" which implies some level of thinking along those lines. Quit being a sanctimonious douchebag.

[Wild Cobra]

I think that they are different. Judging someone does not imply that it's bad. When I think of someone that is only making that much the first thing that comes to mind is young. I expect different behavior as well. I have been around both types and they do not act the same. It's a completely different environment and as such I don't think it unreasonable to expect different types of people.

Even here you say "more than" which implies some level of thinking along those lines. Quit being a sanctimonious douchebag.
Well WH, I would say this is another example of his stupidity. What do you think?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Consensus is not science, or fact.

This place is filled with liberals, college educated assholes, and authoritarians that don't like what I say. I can respect many of them, but not bitches like you.

:lol

College education being used to judge someone negatively. Inferiority complex much?

[Wild Cobra]

:lol

College education being used to judge someone negatively. Inferiority complex much?
I didn't say all college educated people were assholes, now did I? Since when does using the term "college educated assholes" mean all college educated? I specified "assholes." Not "all."

When will you ever realize how stupid your interpretations of what other mean is?

[Wild Cobra]

To clarify...

I have noted that over the last several decades I decided not to go to college, many people who go to college think they are superior to those who haven't.

That is a form of bigotry.

Are you proud of that?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I didn't say all college educated people were assholes, now did I? Since when does using the term "college educated assholes" mean all college educated? I specified "assholes." Not all.

When will you ever realize how stupid your interpretations of what other mean is?

Then why single out the college educated ones if it's independent of what you are trying to say? That someone is derisive to you AND college educated are the ones that you single out.

I mean you give a laundry list of characterizations you don't like and include college educated in it. This is just like your weasling about being a racist.


:cry People always misinterpret what I say.

Also note how WH has yet to back you up?

Oh and here is the question again: why did you include college educated in your list?

[Wild Cobra]

Then why single out the college educated ones if it's independent of what you are trying to say? That someone is derisive to you AND college educated are the ones that you single out.

I mean you give a laundry list of characterizations you don't like and include college educated in it. This is just like your weasling about being a racist.



Also note how WH has yet to back you up?

Oh and here is the question again: why did you include college educated in your list?
WH may or may not back me up, and I don't care if he does or not. It doesn't change the facts that you are unethical beyond the capacity of most people.

I understand the truth about myself. That's what matters. Some troll on the internet like you is nothing to me but a globfly.

[Wild Cobra]

LOL...

Fuzzy Gay Troll...

You just don't know how to respond to the truth, do you?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I know how to respond to someone who ignores a question, coward.

You call liberals libtards so that makes sense.

You have claimed to be a libertarian so it makes sense that you would deride 'authoritarians.'

You can make claims of my ethics without basis but I will say that your avoiding of the question is questionable ethics.

Why did you include college educated in your list of derision?

[Wild Cobra]

Are you really that dumb?


I know how to respond to someone who ignores a question, coward.

You call liberals libtards so that makes sense.

Liar. I only call some liberals, libtards.


You have claimed to be a libertarian so it makes sense that you would deride 'authoritarians.'

Yes, those like you.


You can make claims of my ethics without basis but I will say that your avoiding of the question is questionable ethics.

Ethics?

You attempt to find fault in me, for any stupid reason, and you wonder why I question your ethics?


Why did you include college educated in your list of derision?

With the qualifier "asshole."

Why is that so hard for your pea brain to grasp?

What question are you speaking of?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

College educated was the adjective. In the English language the adjective comes before the noun. College educated qualified asshole not the other way around, barely literate non-college graduate.

You still haven't said why you brought in college education. You're avoiding the question, coward.

Why single out college educated assholes?

[Wild Cobra]

College educated was the adjective. In the English language the adjective comes before the noun. College educated qualified asshole not the other way around, barely literate non-college graduate.

You still haven't said why you brought in college education. You're avoiding the question, coward.

Why single out college educated assholes?
Sorry you don't see the connection.

I have stated it.

To clarify...

I have noted that over the last several decades I decided not to go to college, many people who go to college think they are superior to those who haven't.

Are you really that stupid as not to understand my meaning?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

College education being used to judge someone negatively. Inferiority complex much?


To clarify...

I have noted that over the last several decades I decided not to go to college, many people who go to college think they are superior to those who haven't.

That is a form of bigotry.

Are you proud of that?

You're pretty stupid whether or not you went to college. People around here do not think they are better than you because you didn't got to college. They think that because you stay stupid shit all the time.

[Wild Cobra]

believe as you wish.

It doesn't change the fact that you are a stupid bitch.

[Wild Cobra]

Source article for the Foreign Policy Journal starts here:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/10/11/think_again_global_aging

Within about 20 years or so, I doubt illegal immigration will be of any concern.

Which makes the curernt debate, to me, all the more meaningless. Fences my ass. :rolleyes
RG.

I went back to the OP since I am guilty of sidetracking it. Now going to the link poses a problem. It isn't cooperating.

Anyway, I will add this.

Illegal is illegal, legal is legal. Should we need more immigration, we will simply make more of it legal.

Why should we accept "illegal?"

[boutons_deux]

Why should we accept "illegal?"

Tell us what you do about 10M+ illegal aliens, Herr KattleKar.

[Wild Cobra]

Tell us what you do about 10M+ illegal aliens, Herr KattleKar.
Make it preferable for them to self deport.

[TeyshaBlue]

^ :lol that post is rich on Vitamin I

:lmao:lmao

[Blake]

Make it preferable for them to self deport.

Which for you means to threaten to shoot them if they don't leave.

Tbh.

[RandomGuy]

RG.

I went back to the OP since I am guilty of sidetracking it. Now going to the link poses a problem. It isn't cooperating.

Anyway, I will add this.

Illegal is illegal, legal is legal. Should we need more immigration, we will simply make more of it legal.

Why should we accept "illegal?"

Only when you GTFO.... 3a7SLJdMVHQ

:D


Seriously though, we should simply pour a lot of efforta nd money into bringing these people out and into legality, if not outright citizenship.

Given the demands of our constitution, we owe it to the citizens they have given birth to, IMO.

[Winehole23]

I think that they are different. Judging someone does not imply that it's bad. When I think of someone that is only making that much the first thing that comes to mind is young. I expect different behavior as well. I have been around both types and they do not act the same. It's a completely different environment and as such I don't think it unreasonable to expect different types of people.sanctimony's on your side too. you assume a lot.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

sanctimony's on your side too. you assume a lot.

As I said before I don't pretend any different nor do I act as if I am above it as you do. You simply use flowery prose and front.

Everyone assumes things about everything all the time. It's about how you act on said assumptions that makes the difference. On how diligent you are in making sure and how diligent you are about making sure to see for yourself. Some people get lazy in their assumptions certainly but we all still make them.

You claim you assume the same thing about the owner when you drive into an upscale gated community as you do as driving up to section 8 housing. I say that you are both sanctimonious and full of shit.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

As for the OP, the reason why they are a benefit is precisely because they are a second social class. You don't have to pay them as much plain and simple. Why pay a trained professional US citizen $40k to watch your kids when you can hire somebody from Central America to do it for half that and appreciate it twice as much.

This country has a long history of creating a second class and profiting off of it. It's been the hallmark of civilization since the dawn of time. Now I certainly do not disagree that the treatment that they get is an abomination but what I am saying is that raising them to the level of us and allowing them to stay doesn't help us. It's a reversal of the beneficial aspects of the status quo. Removal of a low cost labor pool will be a 'problem' for all manner of things. You can certainly dismiss any idea of for example raising the minimum wage.

There are limits to immigration for a reason and population growth sucks for everyone but those who buy labor.

[boutons_deux]

Silicon Valley and Immigrant Groups Find Common Cause

Silicon Valley executives, who have long pressed the government to provide more visas for foreign-born math and science brains, are joining forces with an array of immigration groups seeking comprehensive changes in the law. And as momentum builds in Washington for a broad revamping, the tech industry has more hope than ever that it will finally achieve its goal: the expanded access to visas that it says is critical to its own continued growth and that of the economy as a whole.

Signs of the industry's stepped-up engagement on the issue are visible everywhere. Prominent executives met with President Obama last week. Start-up founders who rarely abandon their computers have flown across the country to meet with lawmakers.
This Tuesday, the Technology CEO Council, an advocacy organization representing companies like Dell, Intel and Motorola, had meetings on Capitol Hill. On Wednesday, Steve Case, a founder of AOL, is scheduled to testify at the first Senate hearing this year on immigration legislation, alongside the head of the deportation agents' union and the leader of a Latino civil rights group.


"The odds of high-skilled passing without comprehensive is close to zero, and the odds of comprehensive passing without high-skilled passing is close to zero," said Robert D. Atkinson, president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a nonpartisan research group based in Washington.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/02/13/business/tech-companies-and-immigrant-advocates-join-forces.xml?f=19
Comments, some with The Truth:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/acomm?a=1026942&f=19

[LnGrrrR]

Didn't you know, I am in the High Tech industry. My base pay in 2001 was $72k. I think I made $118k that year with overtime and bonuses. My current job has finally taken me a little above $72k. I could go back to a higher paying High Tech job, but I feel secure where I am now. I was laid off from that other job in 2002.

I'm crossing my fingers that I'll be able to make low 6 figures coming out of the military in a half decade or so, but I'd be happy with 70K+... that would put me in the top 5% or so of all American households after all. :p

[TSA]

I know how to respond to someone who ignores a question, coward.Speaking of ignoring questions, have you turned your guns in yet?

[boutons_deux]

Behind the "illegals MUST BE PUNISHED/NO AMNESTY" bullshit, here's what the real strategy is:

Republican Rep Says GOP Should Oppose Immigration Reform Because It Would Give Democrats ‘Millions Of Votes’ (http://thinkprogress.org/special/2013/02/14/1593201/gop-rep-republicans-should-oppose-immigration-reform-because-it-could-give-democrats-millions-of-votes/)

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/lamar-smith-new-e1360851081886.jpg

Does anyone really think Republicans are going to outbid Democrats on giving benefits to illegal immigrants?


And fifth, you have to be a little suspicious when liberal Democrats tell Republicans they have to support amnesty to win elections. Do Republicans really think they have the best interests of the GOP at heart?

Immigration is the field Democrats want to lure Republicans to play on. Why? Because Democrats know they’ll win.

Democrats have done the math and realize that legalization inevitably would give them millions of votes, meaning more victories in congressional and presidential elections.

http://thinkprogress.org/special/2013/02/14/1593201/gop-rep-republicans-should-oppose-immigration-reform-because-it-could-give-democrats-millions-of-votes/

From an old, white, inherited wealth SA Repug.

[Frank Dux]

As for the OP, the reason why they are a benefit is precisely because they are a second social class. You don't have to pay them as much plain and simple. Why pay a trained professional US citizen $40k to watch your kids when you can hire somebody from Central America to do it for half that and appreciate it twice as much.

This country has a long history of creating a second class and profiting off of it. It's been the hallmark of civilization since the dawn of time. Now I certainly do not disagree that the treatment that they get is an abomination but what I am saying is that raising them to the level of us and allowing them to stay doesn't help us. It's a reversal of the beneficial aspects of the status quo. Removal of a low cost labor pool will be a 'problem' for all manner of things. You can certainly dismiss any idea of for example raising the minimum wage.

There are limits to immigration for a reason and population growth sucks for everyone but those who buy labor.

Yep. In my state (Colorado) undocumented immigrants contribute far more to the economy than they take from it.

[boutons_deux]

Republicans Attack Obama For Drafting Immigration Reform Plan That Resembles Bipartisan Principles

On Sunday, Republicans lashed out at a leaked draft of the White House’s plan to reform the immigration system.


Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) said any proposal from the president that lacked Republican input would be “dead on arrival” and is “hurting the effort” at reform. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) claimed that Obama was looking for a “partisan advantage” on the issue and Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) announced that the draft demonstrated that “the president doesn’t want immigration reform.”
http://thinkprogress.org/special/2013/02/17/1605391/republicans-attack-obama-for-drafting-immigration-reform-plan-that-resembles-bipartisan-principles/

[boutons_deux]

Gingrich: Republicans Will Oppose Any Immigration Plan Backed By Obama Because They Hate Obama

http://thinkprogress.org/special/2013/02/17/1605401/gingrich-republicans-will-oppose-any-immigration-plan-backed-by-obama-because-they-hate-obama/

Repugs will deny Barry/Dems ANY success, no matter what the pain and cost to USA, just like they have and will oppose any govt spending that helps get the economy moving, no matter how many 10Ms of people are left under- and unemployed.

I'm reading that the Repugs WANT, and will work for, the sequestration to occur, because, SURPRISE, they will blame it 100% on Barry/Dems.

[boutons_deux]

Private Prison CEO Assures Investors of ‘Strong Demand’ For Beds After Immigration Reform (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/02/20/1613411/private-prison-ceo-assures-investors-of-strong-demand-for-beds-after-immigration-reform/)


As the U.S. private prison industry has grown over the last several years, studies have shown (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/08/03/627471/private-prisons-spend-45-million-on-lobbying-rake-in-51-billion-for-immigrant-detention-alone/) that private prisons are incentivized to lobby for more incarceration (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/06/23/251363/cca-geogroup-prison-industry/). During an investor call this week, the CEO of private prison operator Corrections Corporation of America signaled that incarceration rates would remain high, assuring investors (http://colorlines.com/archives/2013/02/ceo_of_largest_private_prison_company_in_us_says_h es_not_worried_about_immigration_reform.html) that immigration detention would be a strong source of business for the foreseeable future, ColorLines reports. Addressing the prospect of federal immigration reform, CEO Damon Hininger said Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials have said there will “always be a demand for beds”:


It’s too early to tell exactly what the impact [of reform] is going to be, but again, ICE has always said that there’s going to be a demand for bed space here in the US because of all the things they’re doing both within the interior, on the border, from the people that are released from state prisons that are ultimately need to be deported. […]


There is always going to be strong demand regardless of what is being done at the national level as far as immigration reform.


http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/02/20/1613411/private-prison-ceo-assures-investors-of-strong-demand-for-beds-after-immigration-reform/


and

Corporations Write Our Laws and Profit From Our Misery


But human beings matter little in the corporate state. We myopically serve the rapacious appetites of those dedicated to exploitation and maximizing profit. And our corporate masters view prisons—as they do education, health care and war—as a business.

The 320-bed Elizabeth Detention Center, which houses only men, is run by one of the largest operators and owners of for-profit prisons in the country, Corrections Corporation of America. CCA, traded on the New York Stock Exchange, has annual revenues in excess of $1.7 billion. An average of 81,384 inmates are in its facilities on any one day. This is a greater number, the American Civil Liberties Union points out ina 2011 report, "Banking on Bondage: Private Prisons and Mass Incarceration," than that held by the states of New York and New Jersey combined.

The for-profit prisons and their lobbyists in Washington and state capitals have successfully blocked immigration reform, have prevented a challenge to our draconian drug laws and are pushing through tougher detention policies. Locking up more and more human beings is the bedrock of the industry's profits. These corporations are the engines behind the explosion of our prison system. They are the reason we have spent $300 billion on new prisons since 1980. They are also the reason serious reform is impossible.

The United States, from 1970 to 2005, increased its prison population by about 700 percent, according to statistics gathered by the ACLU. The federal Bureau of Justice Statistics, the ACLU report notes, says that for-profit companies presently control about 18 percent of federal prisoners and 6.7 percent of all state prisoners. Private prisons account for nearly all of the new prisons built between 2000 and 2005. And nearly half of all immigrants detained by the federal government are shipped to for-profit prisons, according to Detention Watch Network.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which imprisons about 400,000 undocumented people a year, has an annual budget of more than $5 billion. ICE is planning to expand its operations by establishing several mega-detention centers, most run by private corporations, in states such as New Jersey, Texas, Florida, California and Illinois. Many of these private contractors are, not surprisingly, large campaign donors to "law and order" politicians including New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.
In CCA's annual report to the Securities and Exchange Commission for 2011, cited by the ACLU, the prison company bluntly states its opposition to prison reform. "The demand for our facilities and services could be adversely affected by the relaxation of enforcement efforts, leniency in conviction or parole standards and sentencing practices or through the decriminalization of certain activities that are currently proscribed by criminal laws," it declares. CCA goes on to warn that "any changes with respect to drugs and controlled substances or illegal immigration" could "potentially [reduce] demand for correctional facilities," as would "mak[ing] more inmates eligible for early release based on good behavior," the adoption of "sentencing alternatives [that] ... could put some offenders on probation" and "reductions in crime rates."

CCA in 2011 gave $710,300 in political contributions to candidates for federal or state office, political parties and 527 groups (PACs and super PACs), the ACLU reported. The corporation also spent $1.07 million lobbying federal officials along with undisclosed funds to lobby state officials, according to the ACLU. CCA, through the American Legislative Exchange Council (http://www.alec.org/) (ALEC), lobbies legislators to impose harsher detention laws at the state and federal levels. The ALEC helped draft Arizona’s draconian anti-immigrant law SB 1070.

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/14639-corporations-write-our-laws-and-profit-from-human-misery

[mavs>spurs]

be@ners get amnesty only over every American Patriot's dead body. FUCK YOU NWO LACKEYS, BRING IT ON BITCH LETS MEET UP AND FIGHT ILL TAKE ON ANY BOARD LIBERAL

[boutons_deux]

Texas advanced civilization takes a giant leap even higher

Texas bans shooting immigrants from helicopters


http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/02/22/texas-bans-shooting-immigrants-from-helicopters/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

to the great chagrin of m>s, WC, etc, etc.

[boutons_deux]

How H-1B Visas Are Screwing Tech Workers

A few years ago, the pharmaceutical giant Pfizer informed hundreds of tech workers at its Connecticut R&D facilities that they'd soon be laid off. Before getting their final paychecks, however, they'd need to train their replacements: guest workers from India who'd come to the United States on H-1B visas. "It's a very, very stressful work environment," one soon-to-be-axed worker told (http://www.theday.com/article/20081103/DAYARC/311039960/0/SEARCH) Connecticut's The Day newspaper. "I haven't been able to sleep in weeks."

Established in 1990, the federal H-1B visa program allows employers to import up to 65,000 foreign workers each year to fill jobs that require "highly specialized knowledge." The Senate's bipartisan Immigration Innovation Act of 2013, or "I-Squared Act," would increase that cap to as many as 300,000 (http://blog.timesunion.com/politicssource/new-effort-to-increase-visas-for-tech-workers-as-high-as-300000/4752/) foreign workers. "The smartest, hardest-working, most talented people on this planet, we should want them to come here," Sen. Marco Rubio, (R-Fla.) said (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QF7K9qUV20A) upon introducing the bill last month. "I, for one, have no fear that this country is going to be overrun by Ph.D.s."

To be sure, America's tech economy has long depended on foreign-born workers. "Immigrants have founded 40 percent of companies in the tech sector that were financed by venture capital and went on to become public in the U.S., among them Yahoo, eBay, Intel, and Google," writes (http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/google-supports-high-skilled.html) Lazslo Bock, Google's senior VP of "people operations," which, along with other tech giants such as HP and Microsoft, strongly supports a big increase in H-1B visas. "In 2012, these companies employed roughly 560,000 workers and generated $63 billion in sales."

But in reality, most of today's H-1B workers don't stick around to become the next Albert Einstein or Sergey Brin. ComputerWorld (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9236732/The_data_shows_Top_H_1B_users_are_offshore_outsour cers) revealed last week that the top 10 users of H-1B visas last year were all offshore outsourcing firms such as Tata and Infosys. Together these firms hired nearly half of all H-1B workers, and less than 3 percent of them applied to become permanent residents. "The H-1B worker learns the job and then rotates back to the home country and takes the work with him," explains (http://www.epi.org/blog/top-10-h1b-guestworker-offshore-outsourcing/) Ron Hira, an immigration expert who teaches at the Rochester Institute of Technology. None other than India's former commerce secretary once dubbed the H-1B the "outsourcing visa."

Of course, the big tech companies claim H-1B workers are their last resort, and that they can't find qualified Americans to fill jobs. Pressing to raise the visa cap last year, Microsoft pointed to 6,000 job openings at the company.

Yet if tech workers are in such short supply, why are so many of them unemployed or underpaid? According to the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), tech employment rates still haven't rebounded to pre-recession levels. And from 2001 to 2011, the mean hourly wage for computer programmers didn't even increase enough to beat inflation.

The ease of hiring H-1B workers certainly hasn't helped. More than 80 percent of H-1B visa holders are approved to be hired at wages below those paid to American-born workers for comparable positions, according to EPI. Experts who track labor conditions in the technology sector say that older, more expensive workers are particularly vulnerable to being undercut by their foreign counterparts. "You can be an exact match and never even get a phone call because you are too expensive," says Norman Matloff, a computer science professor at the University of California-Davis. "The minute that they see you've got 10 or 15 years of experience, they don't want you."

A 2007 study by the Urban Institute concluded that America was producing plenty of students with majors in science, technology, engineering, and math (the "STEM" professions)—many more than necessary to fill entry-level jobs. Yet Matloff sees this changing as H-1B workers cause Americans to major in more-lucrative fields such as law and business. "In terms of the number of people with graduate degrees in STEM," he says, "H-1B is the problem, not the solution."

Even detractors of the H-1B visa program concede that it can fill important roles, such as encouraging brilliant foreigners to permanently relocate to the United States. EPI immigration expert Daniel Costa suggests a couple of tweaks to the I-Squared Act: Require employers to prove that they've tried to recruit Americans before applying for foreign workers, and make sure that H-1B workers get paid as much as Americans do for comparable jobs. "If that was fixed," he says, "I think it would be a different story."

As it stands, though, there are plenty of stories like the one Jennifer Wedel told to President Barack Obama last year (see video below). "My husband has an engineering degree with over ten years of experience," the Fort Worth resident told the president during a web chat hosted by the social network Google+. "Why does the government continue to issue and extend H-1B visas when there are tons of Americans just like my husband with no job?"

"We should get his résumé and I will forward it to some of these companies, " Obama replied.

But more than two months later, Wedel's husband was still looking for a job (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/04/09/144558/texas-engineer-who-sent-obama.html).

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/02/silicon-valley-h1b-visas-hurt-tech-workers

[TDMVPDPOY]

if u say the visas are destroying the local workers, maybe you clowns should also stop handing out free college scholarships to internationals...

[Latarian Milton]

immigrants can deliver papers in the US and still make more $ than they would've earned in their own countries doing engineering or accounting jobs, which's the problem. the currency difference was supposed to be a barrier than prevents foreigners from permeating the US, say you can be an above-middle class motherfucker in a 3rd world country but still you can't afford a home in US. however, as the liberals give foreigners equal chances as american citizens, they dig a hole in the damn which leads to the collapse of the whole dam, then the uncontrollable flood comes in town. the whole shit started from clinton administration and if i remember correct, clinton is a democrat

[Borat Sagyidev]

be@ners get amnesty only over every American Patriot's dead body. FUCK YOU NWO LACKEYS, BRING IT ON BITCH LETS MEET UP AND FIGHT ILL TAKE ON ANY BOARD LIBERAL

Speak English moron.

[mavs>spurs]

fuck you wetback son of a bitch, i'll take on any board liberal just name the time and place, WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU PUSSIES GONNA DO

[Borat Sagyidev]

[youtube]B4GvuoG8h3Y[\youtube]