There is absolutely no way that

[erynthered]

Good point, erynthred. It's also a blanket statement on the other side too: I know Americans who are happy to make $6 an hour for hard work. Saying that all Americans are too lazy/spoiled/whatever to work those jobs just isn't right.

295690[/snapback]

 

 

 

For generations immigrants came to this country and worked the “Menial Jobs” That’s what happened. The Irish, the Polish the Jews the Italians you name it, they did it. Its kind of the circle of Immigration in this country. I have the utmost respect for those that take those jobs.

 

I’m teaching my daughter Spanish, little that I know, but will continue with that education for her because within the next 25 years if you are not BI-lingual. You will have a hard time getting a job, degree or not. That’s the truth.

[GG]

Well, if you want facts, I could point out that the U.S. offers generous social services; whereas in the past it did not. Did it ever occur to you that offering social services to people who don't work might attract people who, ahem, don't want to work? Oh, sorry, I guess in your world that's just paranoid propaganda.

 

Because that paranoid example runs counter to the rationale to emigrate. In general, immigrants come to the US to get a better life for them and their children. You will find a very tiny percentage of people killing themselves to get here for the social safety net. While the governmental services have grown immensely since immigrants first set foot here, the basic draw of America has not changed.

 

If you want a quantitative look on the costs immigration is imposing on our nation, go here:  http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

 

There are a couple conclusions that I drew from this report. One, is that the CIS was arguing for greater budget allocation for enforcement of the Mexican border, but didn't quantify the cost. They also didn't quantify the savings by redeploying agents from stopping illegal Mexican migrants.

 

The costs also don't take into account that the Bush proposal is to allow temporary worker permits, rather than carte blanche legal status of migrant workers, as the Mexican immigration issue is different than for people who must cross an ocean.

 

The reason that the Mexican migrants are causing problems in border states is the byproduct of the US laws and economy. Since there is no opportunity for them to legally to register to work and all the incentive in the world to bear a child here, you're creating a huge underground community which creates a deficit drain. If you issue temporary work permits, you reduce the incentive to try to move the entire family to the US.

 

The CIS study also doesn't take into account the impact on the economy of the higher cost of labor would have. We've heard about the $5 head of lettuce in this thread, and it's not a bad analogy. Let's count the impact on the economy of a 1% drop in GDP and a 5% rise in unemployment. Europe is doing so well with the worker protection measures.

 

If you want to learn more about immigration's human cost, go here: http://www.immigrationshumancost.org/

 

For a look at the impact illegals have on the American worker, go here:

 

http://www.carryingcapacity.org/100000.html

295671[/snapback]

 

I'm sure that those sources were fully supportive of NAFTA and its goal to raise the Mexicans' standard of living and reduce the incentive to look in the US for jobs.

[Pac_Man]

Because that paranoid example runs counter to the rationale to emigrate.  In general, immigrants come to the US to get a better life for them and their children.  You will find a very tiny percentage of people killing themselves to get here for the social safety net.  While the governmental services have grown immensely since immigrants first set foot here, the basic draw of America has not changed.

There are a couple conclusions that I drew from this report.  One, is that the CIS was arguing for greater budget allocation for enforcement of the Mexican border, but didn't quantify the cost.  They also didn't quantify the savings by redeploying agents from stopping illegal Mexican migrants. 

 

The costs also don't take into account that the Bush proposal is to allow temporary worker permits, rather than carte blanche legal status of migrant workers, as the Mexican immigration issue is different than for people who must cross an ocean.

 

The reason that the Mexican migrants are causing problems in border states is the byproduct of the US laws and economy.  Since there is no opportunity for them to legally to register to work and all the incentive in the world to bear a child here, you're creating a huge underground community which creates a deficit drain.  If you issue temporary work permits, you reduce the incentive to try to move the entire family to the US.

 

The CIS study also doesn't take into account the impact on the economy of the higher cost of labor would have.  We've heard about the $5 head of lettuce in this thread, and it's not a bad analogy.  Let's count the impact on the economy of a 1% drop in GDP and a 5% rise in unemployment.  Europe is doing so well with the worker protection measures.

I'm sure that those sources were fully supportive of NAFTA and its goal to raise the Mexicans' standard of living and reduce the incentive to look in the US for jobs.

295725[/snapback]

 

Most "worker protection measures" increase unemployment, because companies that make bad hiring decisions find it more difficult to fire those they shouldn't have hired in the first place. Therefore they become more cautious about hiring people. Massive immigration increases unemployment, because you're flooding the job market with plenty of new applicants.

 

You say that immigrants can be credited with keeping lettuce at $1 instead of $5. The implication is that immigrant labor is a lot cheaper than the American alternative. That point undercuts what you've been saying about social services.

 

The point about $5 lettuce is inconsistent with economic data. The overall consumer price index rose from 100 in 1982 - 1984 to about 170 by 2001 (see page 16 of http://economics.sbs.ohio-state.edu/pdf/mc...ch/qnspline.pdf )

 

In the meantime, the price index for food rose from 100 in 1982 - 1984 to 173 by the year 2001. See http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/waob021/waob20021f.pdf

 

In other words, food prices from 1983 - 2001 increased at about the rate of inflation, even though the country was being flooded with legal and illegal immigrants. You would think that new farming techniques, genetically engineered crops, etc. would cause food prices to decrease in relation to the overall price index. It used to be safe to eat raw eggs, because chickens were raised in more sanitary (and therefore more expensive) conditions. In the past animals like cows and pigs were fed grain and other plant substances; today they are also fed crushed bones from other herd animals. If illegal immigrants were half as effective in driving down food prices as you claim, then in combination with these cost-cutting measures food prices should have fallen through the floor. Instead they have risen at the pace of inflation.

 

You seem to be seriously suggesting that money could be saved by cutting border patrol spending. I'm not sure I should dignify that idea with a response. I will point out that the border patrol is quite possibly the most underfunded federal agency we have. In addition, most of the September 11 hijackers were illegal aliens. Had the American government taken an interest in enforcing the right of the American people to a sovereign, uninvaded nation, September 11 would never have happened.

 

I agree that the present incentives are a draw for immigrants to come into this country. Clearly, it is mistaken policy to allow the child of an illegal immigrant to become an American citizen by default.

[GG]

Most "worker protection measures" increase unemployment, because companies that make bad hiring decisions find it more difficult to fire those they shouldn't have hired in the first place. Massive immigration increases unemployment, because you're flooding the job market with plenty of new applicants.

 

Except there's always large demand for unskilled labor and a growing economy will find ways to absorb that supply. The influx of low wage unskilled labor also aids the economic expansion by allowing more people to afford the products.

 

"Worker protection" measures increase unemployment because companies don't have the flexibility to vary their labor costs, which leads to lower profits and then to economic stagnation. With no growth in the economy, you aren't generating new jobs.

 

 

You say that immigrants can be credited with keeping lettuce at $1 instead of $5. The implication is that immigrant labor is a lot cheaper than the American alternative. That point undercuts what you've been saying about social services.

 

Since I haven't a clue of what you just said, I can't understand how it undercuts what I've been saying about social services (and I wasn't talking about social services - I was talking about social services not being the motivating factor for immigrants' decision to emigrate)

 

The point about $5 lettuce is inconsistent with economic data. The overall consumer price index rose from 100 in 1982 - 1984 to about 170 by 2001 (see page 16 of http://economics.sbs.ohio-state.edu/pdf/mc...ch/qnspline.pdf )

 

In the meantime, the price index for food rose from 100 in 1982 - 1984 to 173 by the year 2001. See http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/waob021/waob20021f.pdf

 

In other words, food prices from 1983 - 2001 increased at about the rate of inflation, even though the country was being flooded with legal and illegal immigrants.

 

[i don't know why people present links that undermine their case]

 

Even discounting the miniscule difference between CPI growth of 170 and foodstuffs growth of 173 over a 18-20 year period, if you take a closer look at the table you provided, you can't infer any statistical link between migrant workers and price of food. In fact, the report starts out by saying that between 2001 and 2011, USDA expects the price of food to trail inflation! That's what I call undercutting a point.

 

You would think that new farming techniques, genetically engineered crops, etc. would cause food prices to decrease in relation to the overall price index. It used to be safe to eat raw eggs, because chickens were raised in more sanitary (and therefore more expensive) conditions. In the past animals like cows and pigs were fed grain and other plant substances; today they are also fed crushed bones from other herd animals. If illegal immigrants were half as effective in driving down food prices as you claim, then in combination with these cost-cutting measures food prices should have fallen through the floor. Instead they have risen at the pace of inflation.

 

Actually, the USDA chart shows that many of the food items are well below the level of inflation over the past 20 years. The only items above inflation are Fruits/Vegetables, Fish and Cereals/Bakery. Of those, fruits & veggies is the obvious target of migrant heap. But since the report doesn't break out imported fruits or veggies, you can't say that the primary reason for the rise in their cost is due to higher prices paid for imports.

 

You seem to be seriously suggesting that money could be saved by cutting border patrol spending. I'm not sure I should dignify that idea with a response. I will point out that the border patrol is quite possibly the most underfunded federal agency we have. In addition, most of the September 11 hijackers were illegal aliens. Had the American government taken an interest in enforcing the right of the American people to a sovereign, uninvaded nation, September 11 would never have happened. 

 

No, I said that the CIS report was negligent in ignoring the cost of extra enforcement in their cost analysis. And since you brought up that point, we're back to the original contention that AD made that perhaps immigration enforcement should be better served targeting people who intend to do real harm

to this country.

 

Just to clarify, most 9/11 hijackers were not illegal aliens. All of them entered into the US legally, although some overstayed their visa requirements.

 

 

I agree that the present incentives are a draw for immigrants to come into this country. Clearly, it is mistaken policy to allow the child of an illegal immigrant to become an American citizen by default.

295866[/snapback]

 

Yeah, screw the Constitution. Screw the new immigrants. You already got the benefit of your ancestors fighting their way to get here.

[Pac_Man]

Except there's always large demand for unskilled labor and a growing economy will find ways to absorb that supply.  The influx of low wage unskilled labor also aids the economic expansion by allowing more people to afford the products. 

 

"Worker protection" measures increase unemployment because companies don't have the flexibility to vary their labor costs, which leads to lower profits and then to economic stagnation.  With no growth in the economy, you aren't generating new jobs.

Since I haven't a clue of what you just said, I can't understand how it undercuts what I've been saying about social services (and I wasn't talking about social services - I was talking about social services not being the motivating factor for immigrants' decision to emigrate)

[i don't know why people present links that undermine their case]

 

Even discounting the miniscule difference between CPI growth of 170 and foodstuffs growth of 173 over a 18-20 year period, if you take a closer look at the table you provided, you can't infer any statistical link between migrant workers and price of food.  In fact, the report starts out by saying that between 2001 and 2011, USDA expects the price of food to trail inflation!  That's what I call undercutting a point.

Actually, the USDA chart shows that many of the food items are well below the level of inflation over the past 20 years.  The only items above inflation are Fruits/Vegetables, Fish and Cereals/Bakery.  Of those, fruits & veggies is the obvious target of migrant heap.  But since the report doesn't break out imported fruits or veggies, you can't say that the primary reason for the rise in their cost is due to higher prices paid for imports.

No, I said that the CIS report was negligent in ignoring the cost of extra enforcement in their cost analysis.  And since you brought up that point, we're back to the original contention that AD made that perhaps immigration enforcement should be better served targeting people who intend to do real harm

to this country.

 

Just to clarify, most 9/11 hijackers were not illegal aliens.  All of them entered into the US legally, although some overstayed their visa requirements.

Yeah, screw the Constitution.  Screw the new immigrants.  You already got the benefit of your ancestors fighting their way to get here.

295888[/snapback]

 

The future projections enforce my point: as of 2001, the country had already been flooded with illegal aliens, and their wage rates were already low. While the report I cited does not describe the assumptions behind its future projections, I hope and believe that their optimism is not based on the assumption that per-hour migrant worker costs are likely to fall even further. On the contrary, if NAFTA will help Mexico as much as its proponents say, the result will be higher wages for Mexican workers; and therefore higher wages for migrant workers. If a relative decrease in food prices can be accomplished despite this possible migrant worker wage increase, it would further demonstrate we don't need slave labor to have inexpensive food.

 

A number of factors will affect U.S. food prices going forward:

 

- A decrease in available farmland due to population expansion. The main driver behind population expansion is immigration.

 

- Advances in farming techniques

 

- Increasingly sophisticated genetically modified food products

 

- Increased investment in farm equipment due to lower interest rates

 

- Increased demand for food caused (once again) by immigrant-driven population expansion.

 

- Other factors

 

As you can see, the USDA had to make assumptions about the above factors to arrive at their model. What percent of farmland did they predict would be lost to suburban sprawl? How successful did they believe genetically modified foods would be in raising the overall food supply?

 

You wrote--incorrectly--that migrant labor is responsible for lettuce being $1 a head instead of $5. You also wrote that immigrants do not come here for social services, because the cost or danger of coming outweighs the benefits they could get from social services. These two points contradict each other because if it's worth immigrants' while to come here to do physical labor for $5 an hour (the only way they can possibly hope to drive down food prices), it's also worth their while to come here for social services.

 

At present, illegal immigrants are rewarded for breaking the law by having their children declared American citizens. I fail to see how the elimination of this carrot would be a violation of the Constitution. In any case you fail to cite whichever portion of the Constitution you think this immigration reform would violate.

 

As far as the comment about my ancestors: when they came here, America was a great nation. People--especially in small towns--left their doors unlocked at night. There was a sense of unity, of community, of a shared sense of right and wrong. Different people had different religious views; but there were some things that almost nobody did--stealing, for example. My ancestors did nothing to disrupt this state of affairs; but instead allowed themselves to become Americanized.

 

As the Tuscon Weekly article makes clear, many of today's immigrants lack this basic respect for the American community. Many steal, or vandalize, or leave massive amounts of litter. Moreover, many or most Latino immigrants have no particular desire to become Americanized. In regions of the country where Latino immigrants are numerous--such as central Florida--the result is a coming together of Latino and American culture. Except that the meeting of these two cultures does not produce the enriched wonderful culture that liberals wish it did. It produces a culture of the lowest common denominator--which is to say, a culture of the American mass media. What I saw when I lived in central Florida was fundamentally different from--and inferior to--what I experienced when I grew up in Western New York. That's not the future I want for my children, and that is why the invasion of America must be stopped.

[Bill from NYC]

It's amazing to hear people regurgitate the same tired lies. 

 

Illegal immigration is a terrible problem in this country and its not the lettuce pickers and landscapers who sneak across that we really need to worry about.  It's the thugs and terrorists and the politicians who continue to turn a blind eye to same.

295302[/snapback]

 

This is a problem that will not stop thanks to our loving, caring politicians.

The repubs view these people as cheap labor for their corporate friends. When it comes time for medical benefits, who pays? Oh yeah....you and me.

 

The dems view them as potential voters. Some, like the Clintons, also view them as cheap labor for their corporare friends, such as Wal-Mart and Tyson Foods; two Arkansas based companies that have been jammed up for hiring illegals.

 

In Suffolk County NY, there is a town named "Farmingville." Years ago, there was a large Portuguese enclave. Some residents tell stories of having to hide relatives in their basements because Immigrations chased them down.

Today, several hundred, perhaps a thousand illegal aliens line the streets of Farmingville each and every day waiting for contractors to pick them up for day labor. This happens right in front of the police. Residents have complained to Immigrations, and some were told to "move" if they were unhappy from what I am told. They refuse point blank to enforce the law, and residents get zero help from elected officials, except for one.

New County Executive Steve Levy proposed that some Suffolk County Police Officers be deputized as Marshalls, in order to deport ONLY violent felons. For his trouble, Mr. Levy was called a racist, etc. by leftists.

 

As I said, this issue is not going away. It is just another tool for politicians to drive down labor costs, serve their friends, and perhaps hire a cheap nanny to raise their kids.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

This is a problem that will not stop thanks to our loving, caring politicians.

The repubs view these people as cheap labor for their corporate friends. When it comes time for medical benefits, who pays? Oh yeah....you and me.

 

The dems view them as potential voters. Some, like the Clintons, also view them as cheap labor for their corporare friends, such as Wal-Mart and Tyson Foods; two Arkansas based companies that have been jammed up for hiring illegals.

 

In Suffolk County NY, there is a town named "Farmingville." Years ago, there was a large Portuguese enclave. Some residents tell stories of having to hide relatives in their basements because Immigrations chased them down.

Today, several hundred, perhaps a thousand illegal aliens line the streets of Farmingville each and every day waiting for contractors to pick them up for day labor. This happens right in front of the police. Residents have complained to Immigrations, and some were told to "move" if they were unhappy from what I am told. They refuse point blank to enforce the law, and residents get zero help from elected officials, except for one.

New County Executive Steve Levy proposed that some Suffolk County Police Officers be deputized as Marshalls, in order to deport ONLY violent felons. For his trouble, Mr. Levy was called a racist, etc. by leftists.

 

As I said, this issue is not going away. It is just another tool for politicians to drive down labor costs, serve their friends, and perhaps hire a cheap nanny to raise their kids.

295907[/snapback]

 

And the problem with all this is?

 

Look, it is a FACT that the average American worker won't accept less than 6-7 an hour. If you were a large farmer adn you could pay Mexican migrants a QUARTER of that, why wouldn't you?

[KRC]

I hate the idea that my tax money goes to people that have come to this country illegally and contribute nothing to society.

295212[/snapback]

 

The DNC Times had an article on this in today's paper.

 

Using data from the Census Bureau's current population survey, Steven Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies, an advocacy group in Washington that favors more limits on immigration, estimated that 3.8 million households headed by illegal immigrants generated $6.4 billion in Social Security taxes in 2002.

 

NY Times Thingy

[Bill from NYC]

And the problem with all this is?

 

Look, it is a FACT that the average American worker won't accept less than 6-7 an hour. If you were a large farmer adn you could pay Mexican migrants a QUARTER of that, why wouldn't you?

295925[/snapback]

 

Joe, despite the name of the town, there are no farms; it is a residential community in which homeowners pay an average of $6,000 per year for a modest house.

The immigrants, and again, there are thousands of them, place their kids in the schools. Guess who pays for this, and their medical care?

Perhaps my view is simplistic, but from where I sit it looks like corporations gouging the taxpayers and getting the benefits while people like our families bear the cost.

[Pac_Man]

The DNC Times had an article on this in today's paper.

NY Times Thingy

295940[/snapback]

"Households headed by illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal government in 2002 and paid only $16 billion in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of almost $10.4 billion, or $2,700 per illegal household." - http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

 

And those are just the costs imposed directly by immigrants on the taxpayer. When you add in the indirect costs caused by more crowded roads, longer lines at stores, higher crime, and lower wages for the unskilled American worker (whom the pro-immigration crowd seems to think is lazy and overpaid), the costs of illegal immigration are even higher.

[KRC]

"Households headed by illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal government in 2002 and paid only $16 billion in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of almost $10.4 billion, or $2,700 per illegal household." - http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

 

And those are just the costs imposed directly by immigrants on the taxpayer. When you add in the indirect costs caused by more crowded roads, longer lines at stores, higher crime, and lower wages for the unskilled American worker (whom the pro-immigration crowd seems to think is lazy and overpaid), the costs of illegal immigration are even higher.

296162[/snapback]

 

There is no question that they cost more than they benefit, in terms of government spending. I do not think that there is much debate on that point.

[Pac_Man]

There is no question that they cost more than they benefit, in terms of government spending. I do not think that there is much debate on that point.

296165[/snapback]

I agree with you, and I'll take it one step further: the costs that the American people bear as a result of massive Third World immigration exceed the benefits that large corporations derive from reduced wage costs. However, large corporations are better organized than the American people at large, which is why the invasion is allowed to continue.