No. You are the one trying to stifle criticism by calling anyone who points out the obvious, consistent racism of your positions hysterical.
Again, you go for the moral outrage and shaming language. The problem is that this seems to be your only argument. You are either incapable, or unwilling (for good reason?), to debate immigration on the merits. This is the problem Half Sigma alludes to above and why public discourse is so corrupted - even intelligent people like Robert Reich end up sounding like idiots because they are terrified of getting called the equivalent of a heretic by people like you.
So an obvious policy move to address the job situation cannot be discussed - out of fear.
No; the problem is I see no reason to think that this is anything but yet another of your attempts to push racism.
:rolleyes: No, it’s not “obvious” at all that legal American citizens want to take jobs as abused near-slaves at below minimum wage and in horrible conditions. In fact, it’s illegal. And the so-called anti-immigrant movement in America is rabidly racist; it is far more concerned with persecuting brown people regardless of nationality than with immigration.
Haha, you see it wouldn’t matter who suggested that reducing immigration might be a sensible idea when there is high unemployment. You would use the same shaming language. Because it is far more effective than rational argument!
That, and the fact that you have no rational argument. 
No, I and others already provided some. You just aren’t interested in acknowledging them because it doesn’t involve calling brown people inferior.
Ok, then perhaps you could answer a basic suggestion outlined by Half Sigma above:
Another bigot over here too. A black bigot no less!
Already answered. Nobody is going to take those hellish jobs legally; either they’d be done by machines, outsourced to another country or just go away. It wouldn’t increase jobs; if anything it would hurt the economy by reducing the number of consumers and taxpayers.
Why do you think nobody is going to take those jobs legally?
See, that is a reasonable argument. “Your methods would not achieve your intended goals, and here’s why” is a good way of making your point. “Isolationism doesn’t work in the real world, and here’s why” would be another. “If you don’t think it’s your government’s job to worry about assisting would-be immigrants, you’re a racist” is not.
Because it would be illegal for people to work for below minimum wage under the kinds of conditions illegal immigrants work under, not to mention you can’t call INS and have them haul off your legal workers just before payday. The jobs exist in the first place because they are brutally exploitative.
We are. Our birth rate exceeds our death rate by about 5 per 1,000. Our migrant rate is about 4 per 1,000. So, immigration is not even half of our growth, not “nearly all”.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html
It’s a given that illegal immigration should be addressed, but Half Sigma is also referring to lowering immigration generally. In relation to low skill immigration in previous debates on the topic I’ve cited page 334 of this report by the National Research Council. They found found that unskilled immigrants on average collect $125,277.62 (2011 dollars) more in their lifetime than they pay in taxes.
These figures may underestimate the costs. Since this study was made the costs of welfare services to lower income people has further expanded.
Um, do you have the right page? The table 7.5 that you’re citing doesn’t come close to supporting that figure.
What’s more, it’s pretty likely that unskilled immigrant labor is a net burden (if they are) on the populace because they are not given any benefits or even a living wage from their employers. So any outlay on the part of the taxpayer is really a subsidy for the businesses that hire them. This is an outlay that would be required no matter who the companies hired as long as the pay and benefits remain at the current levels.
Thanks for bringing this factual cite to the debate. I now await Chen019 withdrawing his support for the argument of eliminating immigration to stop growth, since the whole premise has now shown to be completely and totally false.
<crickets>
So soothing, on a late summers night. That one is my favorite.
TABLE 7.5 Average Fiscal Impact of an Immigrant Overall and by Education Level (1996 dollars)
less than high school education = - $89,000.
Adjusted to 2011 dollars = $128,152.06 overall negative fiscal impact. (sorry, above I was using $1997, so the net burden is actually greater than I stated above).
That is further evidence of why immigration may be reduced if there is already population replacement & even growth. Again, look at the statistics in the post above on the negative overall fiscal impact of low skill immigration. It makes little sense to maintain low skill immigration, especially given a labor surplus during high unemployment.
That’s not even getting onto the downstream costs. If a population requires ongoing affirmative action then you have to question why you would seek to increase their overall numbers via immigration.
Take the immigration crap to another thread, please.
No.
Der Trihs and Chen019, (and anyone chiming in to support either of them), you need to stop the personal sniping, immediately.
Der Trihs, you need to stop imputing motives to other posters.
Chen019, if you want to argue the importance of curtailing immigration, either legal or illegal, open a new thread. This thread was intended to be a discussion of President Obama’s speech and plans and if he did not put it in there, it is a different topic.
[ /Moderating ]