The Fiscal Cost of Unlawful Immigrants and Amnesty to the U.S. Taxpayer

[adaher]

Because it’s current law(although real proficiency isn’t required) and it’s the common tongue.

[Buck_Godot]

@yanceylebeef

I wonder how many of these groups will be deemed RINOs by the far right?

@adaher

None. The right is genuinely divided on immigration. Both sides are consistent with conservatism, which is why both sides think they are right.

Just because there is a genuine divide doesn’t mean that each side won’t demonize the other side. The purity test on the right won’t acknowledge the possibility of multiple points arguable points of view. Eventually it will get to the point that each individual Republican will think that he himself is the only person that represents “True American Values”.

[adaher]

You understand! And of course that person is me.

[YogSothoth]

Right wing organizations have no credibility on any thing. Its a wonder why anyone’s who’s not a severe conservative would listen to them. In fact, the truth is probably the opposite: immigration reform will bring in trillions of dollars

[Mosier]

@Chen019

@ GIGOBuster,

It’s hardly surprising that a member of the Gang of 8 is reflexively dismissive of a report suggesting the costs make amnesty a bad policy on economic grounds. They don’t address the points the report makes about the impact on existing unemployed people in the US.

Just as a thought experiment, suppose that 20 million Americans were raptured and disappeared tomorrow. Would unemployment go up, or down?

[Zakalwe]

@Mosier

Just as a thought experiment, suppose that 20 million Americans were raptured and disappeared tomorrow. Would unemployment go up, or down?

It depends. Are those 20M Americans working in jobs with long hours and hard physical labor for a less-than-living wage? If so, probably has little to no effect. Your average college grad ain’t pickin’ 'maters or hanging drywall for $8/hr.

[Fear_Itself]

@Zakalwe

It depends. Are those 20M Americans working in jobs with long hours and hard physical labor for a less-than-living wage? If so, probably has little to no effect. Your average college grad ain’t pickin’ 'maters or hanging drywall for $8/hr.

They still eat food, and pay rent, and buy clothes; what do you think happens when the economy loses 20 million people who spend everything they earn as soon as they are paid?

[Zakalwe]

@Fear_Itself

They still eat food, and pay rent, and buy clothes; what do you think happens when the economy loses 20 million people who spend everything they earn as soon as they are paid?

Sorry. We’re agreeing. I was commenting on the specific issue about the job rate. The simple fact is that many of these immigrants are working jobs that “real” Americans don’t want, at wages that “real” Americans won’t take.

ETA, and doing a yeoman’s job. One of the most fascinating things I’ve ever seen was 3 Mexicans (I asked) drywall a large room. It was truly stunning just how good at it those guys were. My buddy gave them (directly) extra money when the foreman wasn’t watching.

[Fear_Itself]

@Zakalwe

Sorry. We’re agreeing. I was commenting on the specific issue about the job rate. The simple fact is that many of these immigrants are working jobs that “real” Americans don’t want, at wages that “real” Americans won’t take.

I was just pointing out that the impact of the disappeared is not limited to their own jobs, but to those whose jobs depend on selling them goods and services. There would be a ripple effect that would drive up unemployment across the economy.

[adaher]

@YogSosoth

Right wing organizations have no credibility on any thing. Its a wonder why anyone’s who’s not a severe conservative would listen to them. In fact, the truth is probably the opposite: immigration reform will bring in trillions of dollars

That all depends on what immigration reform is. One of the things that concerns me is that the proposal calls for bringing in lots of people, but limiting the number of workers. Guess what happens when you bring in lots of people but don’t let them work?

Liberals also have a serious division on the immigration issue. Their instincts say that it’s inhumane to deport people just for wanting a better life, but they can’t just favor open borders because labor would have a cow.

[GIGObuster]

@adaher

That all depends on what immigration reform is. One of the things that concerns me is that the proposal calls for bringing in lots of people, but limiting the number of workers. Guess what happens when you bring in lots of people but don’t let them work?

Liberals also have a serious division on the immigration issue. Their instincts say that it’s inhumane to deport people just for wanting a better life, but they can’t just favor open borders because labor would have a cow.

It seems that you are not aware of the past 13 years.

http://www.npr.org/2013/02/05/171175054/how-the-labor-movement-did-a-180-on-immigration

For decades, labor saw illegal workers as the enemy. The AFL-CIO wanted them kept out, believing that an expansion of the available pool of workers was bad for unions. The low wages that undocumented immigrants earned made it even worse. This was the labor federation’s official position for decades and through the 1990s, says labor analyst Harley Shaiken.

"This was a time where labor had gone through decades of being buffeted, sometimes slammed by forces of globalization. So the fear was, ‘How do we preserve what we fought so hard with such sacrifice to get in the first place?’ " says Shaiken.

Shaiken says labor’s response was predictable: to circle the wagons. “But that’s not a tenable position,” says Shaiken. “That just results in further shrinkage.”

That position changed abruptly in 2000 when the executive council of the AFL-CIO voted to reverse itself, calling for undocumented immigrants to be granted citizenship. It was the result of years of internal pressure from unions representing service workers, a large number of whom were Latino.

At the time, Ana Avendano was with the United Food and Commercial Workers. Unions like hers argued that existing immigration policy allowed employers to take advantage of such workers, she says. It was a union-busting tool.

[Chronos]

I’m a liberal, and I favor open borders.

[adaher]

@GIGObuster

It seems that you are not aware of the past 13 years.

Yet labor demanded that only 20,000 workers be let in as part of immigration reform.

If we assume that most people come here to work, that essentially means labor wanted to stop almost all immigration.

[BrainGlutton]

Why is this thread in Elections?

[YogSothoth]

@adaher

That all depends on what immigration reform is. One of the things that concerns me is that the proposal calls for bringing in lots of people, but limiting the number of workers. Guess what happens when you bring in lots of people but don’t let them work?

Liberals also have a serious division on the immigration issue. Their instincts say that it’s inhumane to deport people just for wanting a better life, but they can’t just favor open borders because labor would have a cow.

You don’t get to set the criteria for what people can and can’t do to fit your ideology, I thought you learned your less during the last election?

People will come for work, they won’t and can’t be stopped.

[GIGObuster]

@adaher

Yet labor demanded that only 20,000 workers be let in as part of immigration reform.

If we assume that most people come here to work, that essentially means labor wanted to stop almost all immigration.

You know, you really need to clean up your sources of information, that 20,000 bit was misleading in the extreme; as the NPR article showed, labor is not opposed to help the mess of immigrants working that are already here, that 20,000 number is for **new **low skilled laborers and it is a number that will increase in the future.

http://www.wnyc.org/articles/wnyc-news/2013/apr/01/deal-new-guest-worker-program-clears-path-immigration-reform/

Under the agreement 20,000 immigrant workers will be allowed to enter the US in the first year. That number will grow to 75,000 in the fourth year, and will be capped at 200,000 annually.

[Marley23]

Moved to Great Debates from Elections, and the long cut-and-paste in the OP has been trimmed. Please stick to our fair use guidelines, Chen019. Quote a short portion that makes your point and let the link take care of the rest.

[waterj2]

I know everyone is going to be shocked, shocked to find that the study cited in the OP was coauthored by someone who’s PhD dissertation was the same sort of racist argument Chen019 makes in every other thread he posts in:

Richwine’s dissertation asserts that there are deep-set differentials in intelligence between races. While it’s clear he thinks it is partly due to genetics — “the totality of the evidence suggests a genetic component to group differences in IQ” — he argues the most important thing is that the differences in group IQs are persistent, for whatever reason. He writes, “No one knows whether Hispanics will ever reach IQ parity with whites, but the prediction that new Hispanic immigrants will have low-IQ children and grandchildren is difficult to argue against.”

[BrainGlutton]

@waterj2

I know everyone is going to be shocked, shocked to find that the study cited in the OP was coauthored by someone who’s PhD dissertation was the same sort of racist argument Chen019 makes in every other thread he posts in:

And the other author, Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation, has not an impressive track record.

Intelligence Report, Fall 2006, Issue Number: 123

Bogus Numbers Undergird Attacks on Gays, Immigration

<snip>

The national immigration debate is also suffering from propagandistic number inflation. Robert Rector, a senior research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, issued a report in June alleging that the immigration reforms then being considered by the U.S. Senate would add at least 100 million people to the United States over 20 years, ballooning the size of the population by a third.

Rector’s study seemed to defy the most elementary logic. As critics later pointed out, his minimum figure of 100 million is equal to almost the entire current population of Mexico. His high-end estimate of 190 million over the next 20 years would require that the equivalent of the current population of Central America be added, too. A series of leading demographers told the San Francisco Chronicle that Rector’s projections were vastly overstated, ignored the effects of emigration and used unreasonably high estimates of legalization and naturalization.

Nevertheless, based on his report, two Democratic senators changed their positions and the Senate then passed an amendment sharply limiting a future guest worker program.

[waterj2]

This is really starting to shake my faith in Jim DeMint’s intellectual honesty.