NOT if they are here ILLEGALLY, AS. What part of that word escapes you? We can solve the illegal immigration problem pretty easily. FINE any employer who HIRES someone here illegally enough to put him/her out of business. BINGO! Problem solved.
You’d have to to find them, and create a massive police state to do so. Violating civil rights of other Americans incidentally in the process, and creating a massive backlash.
Better solution: Stop trying to go to war with the economy, and just do what Eisenhower sent the head of INS to do: Go to these people, and offer to help them get the labor they need legally.
That way, they’re no longer an obstacle to the law, and instead, become a force encouraging immigrants to follow the law.
They become the carrot to the Border agent’s stick. The coyote market unravels as they see their customers use our system instead of theirs.
The Welfare issue has NOT been addressed in this thread, ridiculous excuses as to why it does not matter and ludicrous claims about economic growth from sources that know NOTHING that can be verified in any legitimate way and opinions from hacks like the CATO institute who also ignore every relevant argument that they lack a response to does not equal “dealt with” anywhere outside of the public school system.
Nobody is “at war with the economy”–except those who think flooding the country with uneducated, unskilled welfare cases is a “good idea,” and a “benefit” to us because it brings in more “consumers”.
That’s economics Dave,
You keep complaining, but I’m not seeing you explain how this isn’t a natural economic outcome.
Free markets are people freely coming together, to make arrangements that benefit them both.
If the arrangement benefits the employer, and benefits the immigrant, and both came to the arrangement freely, then That’s a free market arrangement Dave.
It’s a product of market forces. Just like the unskilled immigration waves of earlier eras.
But it’s the market that is flooding the country this way. The market produces the deamnd for labor that the immigrants come to fill.
You’re interfering with the market. You are saying, unequivocally, that you understand market needs, better than the market itself.
I’m drawing the line in the sand; you need to come clean about what you’re doing here. I’m not going to let you ignore it anymore. You are trying to tell the market how much labor it needs. That is central planning, full stop.
Nonsense, of course, AS. Who do you think PAYS for all the millions of welfare cases we’re bringing in? Where do you think they GET the money to “consume” more and “improve” the economy? By in large, they are getting their cash from working Americans and frankly, we’re getting sick and tired of it! If $10K of my tax money is going to support these people and one or two come into my restaurant a couple of times a year, it’s going to take me a LONG time to get my money back in your so-called “improved economy.” The government doesn’t have a single DIME to give these people that it hasn’t taken by force, or the threat of force, from the people who worked and EARNED it. THAT’S an “economic fact,” and it’s the very definition of robbery. Maybe YOU enjoy working from January to June to support the spendthrifts in D.C., but no one that I know does.
Dave, I can quote economists supporting this position. and I know you can’t. Free market economist are completely on my side on this.
Economics as a discipline, says even unskilled immigration is useful.
It thus fundamentally disagrees with your assumptions.
This is a contradiction you can’t explain, other than to say, that you disagree with Free Market economics.
It’s either that, or you learn more economics to understand why having unskilled immigration, isn’t a cost to us. Learn what the economy does with them.
CATO and others quantified the cost. They know for a fact that immigrants produce more than they consume.
Further, nothing about this qualifies whether or not unskilled immigrants are useful.
That’s an independent assumption you made, seperate from welfare. Because you don’t understand what labor does, or how it operates.
You also assume America has one giant labor market, when we actually have several thousand, many of which have shortages, even when the cities have high unemployment.
It’s something you really needed to think through more Dave. Labor isn’t homogeneous. It doesn’t act uniformly. Which is why immigrant labor is useful, because it goes out, and finds the areas that are lagging, and fills the shortages.
I MIGHT agree with you IF every immigrant coming to the US became part of the labor force. You and I BOTH know they don’t. Millions come here for the “benefits” we offer the indigent and STAY here because they can’t get anything like those “benefits” elsewhere…and WE are stuck with the bill for them. YOU need to become part of the real world…not some esoteric “theories” propounded by academia–including your so-called “discipline” of economics. I’ve watched in horror as these people flood our ERs, just for example, and NEVER intend to PAY for the services we provide them. THAT’S why an ER aspirin costs US $15 or $20 each when WE have to use them. I recently took my wife to a local ER because she was experiencing chest pain. After waiting hours behind 15 welfare/immigrant families, she got to feeling better and we gave up before anyone bothered to look at her and went home. As it turned out, it was indigestion, but it COULD have been heart trouble, but we STILL had to stand in line. Then, the hospital sent us a bill for a couple of hundred dollars, just for logging in! We paid it–under protest. ERs all across the country are simply shutting down because they can’t afford to provide “free” assistance to these people. Tens of thousands of these people who do go to work use someone else’s SSN (or one simply made up). That, in itself, is identity theft and it costs Americans BILLIONS. Did Pew or Cato calculate how much money illegals send home, to be spent THERE instead of here? I doubt it, because there’s no way to KNOW.
They have a higher worker participation rate than Natives.
And both legal and illegal immigrants use less welfare than poor Natives:
So if even legal immigrants use less welfare… why are we not growing legal immigration to replace illegals?
Why are we not doing this Dave?
Yes they did, worldwide in fact. And Dave, did you forget about how immigrants have to EXCHANGE THEIR MONEY?
Or how about this:
“Remittances sent home by immigrants will eventually return to the U.S. economy in the form of increased exports or capital account surpluses.”
It pretty much makes the claim meaningless; the money stays disproportionally in the country, and even the money that does leave, helps to grow our exports.
Economics always has a away of evening the scales. The “real world” , is not zero sum.
Zero sum economic ideologies, like Socialism, like Mercantilism, is what leads people to ruin. Not Free Markets.
“You tell me it’s not about Muslims, but then go straight to Muslim extremists to make your point about culture. Odd.”
What is not funny but very telling is, you are the one who brought up Muslims.
“Sorry. I’m confused.”
We are in agreement that you are confused.
This new format is horrible
LOL. You’ve GOT to be kidding? Right? Sending US dollars to Mexico “increases exports to Mexico?” That’s pure, unadulterated BS, and you KNOW it. Those people in Mexico who are the recipients of that money don’t buy American products. They buy FOOD and pay their rents with it. What we “export” is American dollars. Please explain to me how this “benefits” America.
Secondly, I don’t believe PEW’s assessment of how many illegals (or LEGAL immigrants) are using our welfare system. They obviously didn’t include the cost of educating their kids in our schools and they don’t include a whole range of “costs” to us in the form of reduced wages. Plus, we have FILM of Mexican kids crossing the border near San Diego and getting on school buses which then take them to American schools. Their parents aren’t paying ANY taxes to support this and it’s common all along our border with Mexico.
Heading: illegals thrive on government cheese
See: Cashing in: Illegal immigrants get $1,261 more welfare than American families, $5,692 vs. $4,431
”Illegal immigrant households receive an average of $5,692 in federal welfare benefits every year, far more than the average "native" American household, at $4,431, according to a new report on the cost of immigration released Monday.”
American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade America’s borders to give birth.
Reading through this thread answers the question: “Why did the Libertarians only garner 3.2% of the vote in the last election?”
Some good examples of why:
Data doesn’t lie Dave: Not only do individual states with Higher immigrants populations export more, we can even parse which countries they export more to, based on where those immigrants are from.
Ergo, if you’re in a state with a high number of Filipino immigrants, your state will export more to the Philippines than a state with a lower Filipino population.
Cause & effect.
“In summary, remittances are a long term investment in the U.S. export economy. Available
evidence indicates that in poorer countries, remittances prompt consumer spending, increasing
export competiveness for U.S. goods. Remittances are also used to fund education and health
services, increasing human capital and ultimately the earning potential of individuals in a
country. U.S. exports of technological, recreational, or luxury goods become feasible as
incomes increase and the expectation of economic security and gains increases for populations.
Remittances create the ability and desire to purchase U.S. goods, creating new markets for these goods, and increasing global trade competitiveness for U.S. industries.”
Nope! You’re wrong Dave I can say that without reservation, as economics says plenty of things that defy common perception.
Subsidies make goods more expensive.
Automation creates jobs.
A stimulus deepens recession.
Just because you don’t understand why, doesn’t make it impossible. It means this is just one more implication of supply & demand, that you’ve never followed far along enough to see what it does.
Bob, you just exposed that you don’t read history.
Eisenhower, a Conservative Republican President, did this. That is how he fixed illegal immigration.
He was successful, both as a policy maker, and in combatinng illegal immigration.
Ask yourself, do you want a policy that works, or just more of the same?
How in the world you got reading history, a reference to Eisenhower, (though you frequently get in Eisenhower no matter what), immigration, and policy out of what I said about THE LIBERTARIAN DISMAL SHOWING IN THE ELECTION . . . I have no idea.
Your ability to make these non-sequitor leaps is astounding.
What was the last thing you did for your country?
Data doesn’t lie–but those compiling the data DO. Wake up and smell the coffee, AS. JWK just posted data that completely refutes yours.
The subject is effective policy.
If a conservative president can advocate for “let people in”, and build success upon that policy, then clearly, that isn’t the obstacle libertarians face.
Your claim is disingenuous, and tries to reduce the topic to one of populism.
Last I checked, I was a conservative, who advocates what is right based upon prior experience, not which has the right optics to look good in polls.
My politics are not set by a weather vane, are you telling me that yours are?