Better Question: Did the Mexican Government ever try to build a City in the U.S. filled with just Mexicans?
Because the Chinese sure as hell did the same with their own people.
They buy our companies, they steal our technology, they take out a $200 million ad space in Times Square to spread their propaganda… and Chinese people living here even call questioning the Communist party’s actions “Anti-China”.
And you’re worried about Mexican nationalism?
No sense of priorities. Mexican immigration is shrinking, and is less than half of Latino immigration.
Chinese immigrants are growing, are rich, and are looking to change our policy stance towards China.
Be honest, and tell me who has more power to effect who and what we are?
Baloney. And I’m still waiting for you to tell us if you will finance the economic needs of all the poverty stricken, poorly educated, low and unskilled foreigners you want to import into the country ___ at least for a five year period.
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.
California is the largest haven for illegal immigrants, there is not even a close second in the United States.
We do have a singular labor market, Americans have ALWAYS moved to the work and today is no different.
No equilibrium in the cost of labor in relation to the cost of living in any region can occur when one segment of the labor market is free from obeying the laws and gets subsidies while all the others must obey the laws and pay their own way.
It is absolutely irrelevant who “uses more Welfare” between citizens and illegals regarding the labor market, citizen Welfare rats do not participate in the labor market.
The benefits to the economy that are gleaned from labor competition are lost if the reason the lower cost group wins the jobs is because the majority of their sustenance appears on a different line of their employers spread sheet; “taxes” instead of “wages”
It is cheaper to pay employees directly a wage that reflects the cost of living than it is to pay them a pittance and run the rest of their wage through a government bureaucracy.
There is NO LABOR SHORTAGE IN THE UNITED STATES, there is only a bastardized labor market that cannot adjust to reflect the cost of living in any given area due to the MANDATORY funding of subsidized labor groups whether a business wants to use them or not.
There are NO valid comparisons prior to the Great Society regarding immigration, that is because ALL LABOR both immigrant and native alike competed for the same work in the context of having the same cost of living realities. Under those conditions a wide open and competitive labor market benefits all.
The VAST MAJORITY of jobs that need to be filled today are Professional jobs in the construction and maintenance fields, anyone that says crop picking and bathroom scrubbing are the primary labor destinations for illegals is either a liar or has NEVER worked a day in any productive field.
Opening our borders to labor immigration before the Welfare subsidy is removed will destroy our labor market.
The courts have already decided in multiple precedents that we cannot deny Welfare, Education and access to all of the other subsidies like housing to anyone based on their citizenship status, if they are here they get treated like our citizens.
The claim that illegals don’t know how to access our Welfare system is proof that the one who said it knows nothing about the subject, American taxpayers pay for commercials to be created and played on Spanish television and radio stations explaining exactly how to get these dollars and the Welfare agencies are stocked with people who speak their language and who point them to every available benefit.
I threw number 11 in AGAIN because I keep hearing how Trumps “5 year ban” should address some of my FACTUAL arguments, that portion of Trumps plan will be the first to fall and it would not take a month.
Doesn’t change that your population of them, and of poor people in general, is shrinking. Soon the only thing “big” about you will be your debt.
It’s different, Americans are less mobile today:
If we had a single market, all states and all cities would have one unemployment rate, that was the same across the country. But they don’t.
Subsides don’t give you knowledge of what supply should be.
Again, we subsidize Corn, that doesn’t tell anyone how much corn there should be.
We subsidize healthcare, that doesn’t tell anyone how many hospitals or surgeries there should be.
We subsidize Americans; that doesn’t tell anyone how many Americans there should be.
Subsidies do not change that you do not have this knowledge. Quit the Pretense of Knowledge.
The relevant point, is that if Legals are 10-14% more likely to work, that means most aren’t getting enough welfare to live off the hog like native born Americans.
The game is in the native-born Americans favor, immigrants still need to find work. Which is why they leave your precious California for greener pastures. Places, like North Carolina, who have less welfare, but better jobs, and a lower cost of living.
This argument doesn’t work in the face of evidence that they leave blue High-welfare states. for Red, low-welfare states.
Yes there is; You are wrong RET, Rural counties have been depopulated for decades, and people are not moving from the cities to fill their shortages. You are living in a fantasy if you think otherwise.
Farmers say this straight up, I’ll take their word, because they know their own business better than would-be armchair planners.
They’re not the majority by themselves, but they are the biggest.
They’ve said nothing about limiting it.
Didn’t say that. I said Americans access more welfare, because they’re more tuned into our culture, and our Government systems.
They also don’t have to be afraid of being tracked down, and kicked out.
More BS, none of your statistics has any bearing on this debate and the idea that your precious government has any idea what is happening in the criminal community just reveals why you have more faith in the government to manipulate the labor market via selective subsidies than the market itself.
You think the government knows best, so it follows that you would want widespread dependence to keep the market managers in power.
By the way, which citizens can buy subsidized corn and which ones cannot?
If you had an argument that was relevant you would not keep offering up meaningless paragraphs to avoid admitting that you cannot defend your position.
Unless of course you just admit that you want a permanent majority of Democrats elected, then it would all make sense.
But If you want a non-Government source for where the Fastest growing immigrant communities are, fine, here you go.
And RET? It’s you who is trusting the Government. You trust that it is capable of knowing how many people should enter U.S. labor markets; simply because the Government offers subsidies.
That’s the equivocation you’re making, You’ve admitted to it, and I don’t buy it. Because that assumption doesn’t work in any other sphere of economics, or even the population.
You’re inventing an exception to economics, despite the fact Immigration is far from the only arena where the Government gives subsidies.
If your conception of labor markets was accurate, it would apply to other areas where subsidies exist. It’s as simple as that.
I don’t know; which ones RET? You’re the only one here trying to control market behavior, I’m not.
In my mind, countries subsidizing their goods does not eliminate the need for Free Trade. Equally, the Government subsidizing labor, doesn’t negate the need for the market to allocate labor.
The Government does not have the knowledge to be a rational allocator of labor. Subsidies do not “magically” give it that knowledge.
This is the point your argument turns on, and you have not substantiated it. F.A. Hayek himself would shake his head at the suggestion that the Knowledge Problem he defined was in anyway overcome by this.
I am not relying on any government BS to see how your policies work out, I am watching your policies in action every single day.
You only think my position is creating an “exception” to economic theory because everything you think you know is hearsay; if you had ever made a payroll you would know that what line an expense gets entered on is irrelevant to its effect on the final cost of a good or service.
Wages will reflect the cost of living in every region where labor is needed unless this pool is polluted by government subsidies to “preferred segments” of the labor pool; you advocate for the pollution of the labor market in this way.
There are no economic benefits to your subsidized labor plan, just an ever growing dependent class that will vote for your Leftist leaders to keep the table scraps coming.
RET, I’am not denying that subsidies cause distortions.
Right now, we have destroyed the domestic corn market in Latin countries like Guatemala, because we subsidized our corn, underbidding all of their domestic growers, and throwing them out of business. Now, people are starving because we’re artificially raising prices back up with our Ethanol mandates.
Subsidies are destructive, no argument here.
Rather, the exception I’m saying you’re making, is your belief that the Government can assign a better result than the Market through controlling supply.
Markets, even in a subsidized industry, are the best way of allocating supply… Always. There is no Government functionary who will do the job better, as no one in Government has the necessary knowledge to do the job better.
It’s true for healthcare, it’s true for corn, and it’s true for labor.
Your planners will not make more rational decisions than the market RET. Subsidies don’t change the shear lack of knowledge they have at their disposal.
Knowledge in markets is implicit, and cannot be centralized. Subsidies and all their distortions, as terrible as they are, do not change this fundamental aspect of reality.
You pooh-pooh “central planning” by the government and then–in almost the same breath–go to government-generated “data” to bolster your arguments. Where do you think Pew, etc. GET their data? Maybe you believe it comes out of thin air? No. They get their “data” from the very government agencies that you CLAIM to not trust to manage the economy…and which likely DO get their information out of thin air, generated by some punk in the bowels of the bureaucracy trying to make a name for himself.
LOL. Oh! So Democrat-controlled COUNTY bureaucracies are more reliable than Democrat-controlled federal or state bureaucracies?? I can see dozens of reasons for them to lie, and so could you if you weren’t so wedded to your open-borders philosophy.
And if we ban the dole for legal immigrants, then we address your concern about them. Time and again, AS and I have said we agree with that provision in this proposal. What then is your objection to the poor and uneducated? Where do we disagree if we banish the dole for immigrants?
Certainly the existence of the dole for citizens contributes to high levels of the workforce choosing not to participate.
He has repeatedly agreed with you (as have I) throughout these pages that we ought to prohibit them from receiving government cheese for five years – or longer.
In perfect coordination with one another; indicating that these counties are being depopulated? Consistently showing poor people are leaving California, demonstrating that their policies are a failure?
That’s quite the conspiracy just to show everyone that Democrat policies chase people away. Including the ones they say they’re policies are meant to help.
No Dave, sounds more like you just didn’t think this through.
Poor people are leaving California in droves, a fact that surprises no one whose been paying attention.
Welfare rats are NOT leaving California, the working class and business owners are leaving California; the only ones “on the dole” who are leaving are the ones whose unemployment has run out and that is an entirely different group.
The courts have already spoken many times, there will be no 5 year Prohibition from receiving Welfare that will stand.
To support increased immigration when our worker participation rate is so low, knowing full well that these migrating workers are subsidized by the dollars taken from those who they will be competing with for work is insane.
Unless the point is to get Democrats elected by creating mass poverty, if that is the point then it is a great idea.
Austin TX was growing fast with a large influx of CA residents moving from CA’s floundering tech jobs, to where it’s booming. I mean booming hard too. So many tech jobs in TX right now it’s not even funny. Sadly, my wife won’t move there or I could almost double my salary just from moving. CoL is higher, but not that much.