Then we should have unlimited immigration, with the limitations that we have no criminals or people with infectious diseases.
The 20,000 was what labor initially wanted, which would have effectively shut down immigration in a way even Tom Tancredo or Pat Buchanan couldn’t imagine in their most gleeful dreams. The fact that they want to legalize those already here has no bearing on that.
And even the 200,000 cap is unrealistic. Since 1986, we imported 11 million people, or 400,000 per year. So under labor’s “concession” we cut immigration in half.
Still far away from the original misleading implication, actually even farther away as labor is in favor of legalizing the workers that are already here.
And IIRC on the latest years, thanks to the recession, there has been less immigration. So once again, clean your sources of information, you will have less headaches when posting.
That’s a concession to the fact that they are part of a larger political coalition. The fact is, they want to reduce immigration from historical levels, and they want to do so substantially.
We’re going to be in recession forever? I just want to be clear on what’s going to happen here.
Let’s say the economy is booming and we return to historical levels of immigration: 400,000 workers want to come here. Only 200,000 are allowed. So this means we deport 200,000 people per year? I just want to be clear on that. Is this what labor is favoring? I don’t think even Operation Wetback involved that much deportation.
As a previous poster said, you can’t stop people from coming here and looking for work. So why not just drop the pretense of limiting the supply of labor and open the borders?
Tap dancing, the point was that the 20,000 number was misleading. So time to drop that wedge issue, labor is in favor of immigration reform and stop with the starwmen too, I’m not demanding that the borders be open.
Labor is in favor of immigration reform, I never denied that. And the 20,000 figure wasn’t misleading, it is actually what they demanded. If business interests hadn’t negotiated them to a higher number, that’s what it would have been.
I was just pointing out why liberals in power can’t back open borders: labor would never allow unlimited immigration. Do you disagree that this is the case?
It is still omitting the millions that will benefit from the reform that labor is supporting. That is why I’m just saying it is misleading, the fact that it was not mentioned that it was per year and the number will increase was also leaving out a lot.
If you can not figure out that I already said that, I really wonder what is your point here.
Cite? I’m afraid that you are **still **attempting to ignore that the reform will help the millions already here, many of those will then become workers that will, most likely than not, join a union.
Future workers would join a union too. So why have a cap? And why would you need a cite to know that a cap would necessitate a lot of deportations? I already made the case: average illegal immigration since 1986 has been 400,000 per year. The cap is only 200,000 in the best case(lower otherwise). what happens to the 200,000+ per year who aren’t allowed?
No cite then, and again, the point stands, ignoring the millions that labor is supporting in this reform makes a mockery of the wedge that is being push here.
Actually you **do **need a cite. It was not my imagination that you are ignoring current information regarding the levels of immigration that are being seen now.
Most likely, the ones that made the deal do not ignore the millions already here and do take into account what is happening now and in the near future, also the reported reduction in the number of children per family that is seen in places like Mexico point to less dire numbers going forward as the ones you are pointing to.
My cite was historical immigration levels. Current immigration levels are due to lack of jobs. When jobs become more abundant, we’ll return to normal levels of immigration demand.
Which still leaves the fact that there’s a cap on future immigration that is much, much lower than the immigration we’ve seen in the past.
We’re supposed to be fixing our immigration system. It sounds to me that if labor is thinking the same way you are, that we’re making the mother of assumptions here about future immigration, to the point where our immigration system will go right back to being broken.
If labor(and you) are confident that future immigration will be lower, then let’s not have a cap.
The reform include the uses of tools like E-verify that even though controversial, it has been reported that in the places that is used employers do get discouraged on employing illegals, there is then less incentive to try to hire illegals as they did before.
In any case the point stands, there is a lot that is changing, and not only in the USA but in places like Mexico that point to your say so’s to be the less impressive.
And that just leaves an opinion with little support.
It is not an assumption when the incentives for immigration are changing in the USA and in the developing world.
And once again, your cap is made of straw, I do agree in having some controls.
I assume that Chen019’s PhD from Harvard got lost in the mail or something, given that the intellectual achievements he demonstrateshere show him to be just as deserving as Dr. Richwine.
Note that the National Research Council found that the cost of each low skill entrant is $130,000 in todays dollars. So from a fiscal perspective amnesty for low skill workers is illogical.
In terms of labor or unions, it obviously goes against their existing workers to have greater competition to drive down wages. Basically encouraging a race to the bottom to the lowest wages possible, which is what big business wants.
It’s an interesting issue as it also affects blue collar african-americans in an adverse manner. But their interests get trumped by political expediency.