AP style manual deems term "illegal immigrant" unacceptable


#164

Still not relevant to our immigration issue, because the Illegals are less and less Mexican (which is because the Mexican economy is growing. They still have their issues, but they’re gaining sure-footing.)


#165

Sure it is. That’s why the fence. It may be addressing a symptom, but it’s a symptom that affects us while the problem is in someone else’s hands.


#166

I can think of several. For one, we have over 80 million, able-bodied AMERICANS out of work and who can’t FIND work.


The Manifesto of the El Paso Shooter
#167

[quote=“Gov101, post:150, topic:43515”]
Because the OP is about an Associated Press style guideline change, not about the concept of illegal immigration.
[/quote]Yes, it is. And it’s a poor change to incorporate if the story is about “illegal immigration.” The OP is about a style change regarding the concept of illegal immigration. Are you trying to say “illegal immigration” is not “illegal immigration”? Or has nothing to do with the concept?

In short, huh?


#168

Then you want more immigrants, not less.

Two things:

  1. immigrants create jobs, not simply take them.

  2. Immigrants are by en large not competitors, but instead compliment American labor, due to American Labor skill being somewhere in the middle, and immigrants tending to skew either towards bottom or the top.

The American Enterprise Institute study American wages, and found no serious effects due to Immigration:

And Economists have gone across the whole of the OECD countries, and found no affirmative connection between immigration, and unemployment:

The heart of the matter is, is that you are operating here on a common misconception, called the “seen and the unseen”, as described by Frederich Bastiat.

You see a given American worker out of a job, and you see an a immigrant with a job, thus you assume that the Immigrant displaced the American.

What you cannot see however, are the decisions each of the involved parties made that gave us this result.

Perhaps the American worker was too expensive for the employer, and the choice for them was either to hire the immigrant, or leave the position empty? What if the job wasn’t of interest to the American, who was looking for something with better benefits or more relevant to their work skills? And what if, instead of one worker, the employer got two or more, allowing them to expand their business, and bring on other Americans with management or HR skills they needed to handle the expansion? Which American now deserves the pay check?

High skill immigrants alone tend to be entrepreneurs who either start businesses that hire Americans (think Elon Musk or Sergey Brin), or invent devices that create entire industries (Ajay Bhatt and the USB, Gholman Peyman and LASIK eye surgery, Michel Mirowski and the Cardioverter defibrillator)

Seeing their effects, is it really not worth them getting to this country, and for a time, taking a job an American might of had instead? I for one want to attract as much talent around the world as possible, as it not only makes us better off, its a large part of the reason we have enjoyed such technological marvels.


#169

Utter nonsense. Just a couple of years ago, before they quit doing it on Obama’s orders, ICE raided a meat-processing plant in Iowa and arrested and later deported 65 illegals working there. The plant bemoaned the loss of such a large percentage of their workforce in the news. The following week, there were over 1000 APPLICANTS for those 65 jobs–ALL of whom were either American citizens or LEGAL aliens.


Protesters Remove U.S. Flag, Replace It With Mexican Flag Outside ICE Facility
#170

So should we get rid of all ATMs? I’m sure we can make a few more jobs that way.

How about Bulldozers? I’m sure a lot of construction workers would prefer to have the jobs those machines displaced.


#171

So apparently it was 302 illegals convicted. Many were jailed and then deported after serving their sentence. Postville’s population is about 2,200. Kids apparently stopped going to school, hiding from the authorities. Classrooms were quiet after that raid. The place apparently went bankrupt, and when someone bought it and after some investment, it provided 600 jobs, up from 300 at the time of its bankruptcy.

You say 1,000 applied for 65 jobs. It actually had a lot more openings, but I can find no source, not quickly anyway that shows 1,000 applied for jobs or proving that they were all American or legal aliens. Maybe they did, maybe they didn’t, but it caused a problem for the town and the economy in that town.

His 3 1/2-year-old business, GAL Investments Ltd., generated monthly revenue of $192,000 before the May 12, 2008, raid that plunged Postville into an economic recession months ahead of the rest of the nation. Now, with just 19 of his 129 rental units occupied, Menahem took in $16,000 last month – a fraction of his expenses.

Like many other Postville residents, Menahem suffers the ill effects of what local clergy describe as a government-inflicted disaster comparable to the floods and tornadoes that ravaged other parts of Iowa last year.

The arrests of 389 Agriprocessors workers and the tearing apart of their families, followed by criminal charges against plant supervisors, including former top executive Sholom Rubashkin, plunged the town’s leading employer into bankruptcy and a shutdown that put hundreds more employees out of work.

Read more: 2009: Agriprocessors raid – 1 year later - TheGazette

Five businesses closed on Main Street and more in the process.

“A year ago it was impossible to buy a house in Postville. Now there are 228 houses for sale out of 700 total,” said Menahem, who describes the town as "a sinking ship."
It just goes on and on. A year later, and that town is in dire straits.

I would think filling those positions so easily would have prevented this. It really looks like those 65 or 300-plus jobs really weren’t filled from a pool of 1,000 applicants.

Alaska’s analysis is correct. It’s economics 101, and invoking Bastiat is always a win. What you’re saying, if it were valid, is but a tiny part of the entire picture, which extends far beyond illegal immigration as an issue. Our centrally planned economy creates situations where it’s better, despite the risk, to hire illegals.

Legal or illegal, a person is both a labor supplier and a consumer.

*More sources available upon request.


#172

And the pity is that you actually believe this crap yet style yourself as a “conservative.” Unbelievable.


#173

I can see RWNJ’s conservative credentials a lot easier than I can yours, Dave. You’re as much a nanny-stater as any liberal, Dave, the only difference is the kind of human activity you want the state to regulate.


#174

Then you’re blinder than I’ve been thinking, Jazz. There is very LITTLE “human activity” that I think needs “regulating” by the federal government. Almost none, in fact.


#175

You certainly support extensive regulation of voluntary human activity by the state, if not necessarily by the federal government. If conservatism is all about human liberty, RWNJ is more of a conservative than you are.


#176

Big deal! I have no intention of getting into another “I’m more conservative than you are,” discussion, however.


#177

But I bet you support E-verify.

Anyway, you didn’t answer my question: Should we get rid of automation? It takes jobs “away” just the same as immigrants do, in fact, their effect economically is almost indistinguishable from each other. They both provide businesses with a means to get more output for less input.

ig deal! I have no intention of getting into another “I’m more conservative than you are,”

Nor do I, but I will say this much: In order to be a conservative, you must have a coherent theory of Economics. In this day of age, you don’t have the luxury of forgoing it, especially if you’re going to weigh into explicitly economic issues.


#178

[quote=“Alaska_Slim, post:177, topic:43515”]
But I bet you support E-verify.
[/quote] Then you’d lose that bet. I don’t think the government has ANY business IN business except maybe to create an economic climate in which American citizens can prosper by their own efforts. There wouldn’t be a NEED for E-verify if the government did its job and protected our shores against the invasion that’s currently underway.

Anyway, you didn’t answer my question: Should we get rid of automation? It takes jobs “away” just the same as immigrants do, in fact, their effect economically is almost indistinguishable from each other. They both provide businesses with a means to get more output for less input.
Nonsense. It requires PEOPLE to both design and build automated equipment so the taking away of one “job” requires the creation of another–perhaps more technically-oriented–job.

Nor do I, but I will say this much: In order to be a conservative, you must have a coherent theory of Economics. In this day of age, you don’t have the luxury of forgoing it, especially if you’re going to weigh into explicitly economic issues.

So you believe that taking more and more of the money YOU earn and giving it to the government so some bureaucrat can “re-distribute” it to those he thinks “deserve” it more than you do is a “coherent theory of economics?”


#179

Good on you then.

Nonsense. It requires PEOPLE to both design and build automated equipment so the taking away of one “job” requires the creation of another–perhaps more technically-oriented–job.

It takes people to meet the food, housing, and clothing demands of immigrant workers, who are now also consumers. These consumer demands create other jobs, that will themselves by extension require more “technical” inclined people both to manage the workers and to provide whatever equipment they need to do those demand-meeting jobs. It’s an economic potato-potahto.

So you believe that taking more and more of the money YOU earn and giving it to the government so some bureaucrat can “re-distribute” it to those he thinks “deserve” it more than you do is a “coherent theory of economics?”

Actually, that’s what you’re doing.

Any money that business owners have, is their own. But you want a Government Bureaucrat to force them to give their money to Americans, rather than hiring immigrants.

Last I checked, the assets of businesses in America were not a collective resource. So why are you treating them like one? Why do you think their private money ought to be reserved for American workers? That’s Unionism in all but name.


#180

Oh BS, AS. No one has claimed that a business’ assets are a “collective resource.” Those assets belong to the BUSINESS owners…not the government and not even those who WORK for that business, who are presumably compensated for their labor, unless they are also stock-holders as I was at the last company I worked for. They shouldn’t have the OPTION of “giving their money” to ILLEGAL aliens. I have NEVER said that businesses should not hire immigrants who aren’t citizens. I’ve said they shouldn’t be ABLE to find and hire ILLEGAL “immigrants.” And they wouldn’t be able to do so if the government did its job properly.


#181

[quote=“Pappadave, post:172, topic:43515”]
And the pity is that you actually believe this crap yet style yourself as a “conservative.” Unbelievable.
[/quote]Why wouldn’t I believe it? Do have a credible source for your story about that raid rather than dismissal since your example doesn’t actually support your point? Do you believe that that news story is a lie? Where did you get your information?

Also, I don’t style myself as a conservative.

And both Alaska and I are basing our opinions on actual economics, and both of us clearly support real free markets, you know that thing conservatives also supposedly support.

Economics is a horribly poor argument against any kind of immigration, and you can’t really use economics to claim illegal immigrants harm American citizens.

[quote=“Pappadave, post:178, topic:43515”]
Nonsense. It requires PEOPLE to both design and build automated equipment so the taking away of one “job” requires the creation of another–perhaps more technically-oriented–job.
[/quote]Until it’s built and replaces 30 other workers. By your logic with the economics of illegal immigration, the automation should be stopped.

[quote=“Pappadave, post:178, topic:43515”]
So you believe that taking more and more of the money YOU earn and giving it to the government so some bureaucrat can “re-distribute” it to those he thinks “deserve” it more than you do is a “coherent theory of economics?”
[/quote]He never said anything like this. I have little doubt that his position is precisely the opposite of the made up “belief” you’re trying to cram into Alaska’s skull.

Mind boggling.

One guy: “I support free markets and a coherent economic theory.”

Second guy: “Oh, so you believe in redistribution of wealth.”

Alaska, did you say something somewhere in support of socialist redistribution of wealth to people whom you think deserve it?


#182

[quote=“Rightwing_Nutjob, post:181, topic:43515”]
Why wouldn’t I believe it? Do have a credible source for your story about that raid rather than dismissal since your example doesn’t actually support your point? Do you believe that that news story is a lie? Where did you get your information?

Also, I don’t style myself as a conservative.
[/quote] …and yet, you style yourself as “right wing.” What do YOU think “right wing” means?

And both Alaska and I are basing our opinions on actual economics, and both of us clearly support real free markets, you know that thing conservatives also supposedly support.

Economics is a horribly poor argument against any kind of immigration, and you can’t really use economics to claim illegal immigrants harm American citizens.

Wrong. Economics is the BEST argument against ILLEGAL immigration. Why? Because a LARGE percentage of illegals wind up on the welfare system–which takes money OUT of the hands of those it belongs to and puts it into the hands of freeloaders…but only AFTER it’s been filtered through the government bureaucracy. Worse yet, the fraudsters in the Democrat Party have convinced a substantial percentage of these illegals that they are now “entitled” to vote in our elections. Who do they vote FOR? Democrats who promise them even MORE out of the public treasury. Good Lord! Bill Clinton sent a “voter ID card” to everyone in Orange County, CA with an Hispanic surname in 1996 in order to get Sanchez elected there. Guess who won the election?

Until it’s built and replaces 30 other workers. By your logic with the economics of illegal immigration, the automation should be stopped.
…which requires 35 workers to design and build the NEXT generation of robotics.


#183

[quote=“Pappadave, post:172, topic:43515”]
And the pity is that you actually believe this crap yet style yourself as a “conservative.” Unbelievable.
[/quote]Rightwingnutjob is a libertarian