Obamanation Re-election MegaThread

[StrangeSox]

Little reason except proximity i.e. it's a lot easier for a Tijuanan to immigrate than a Malawian.

[Balta1701]

Little reason except proximity i.e. it's a lot easier for a Tijuanan to immigrate than a Malawian.

If you were actually constructing a system from scratch that really shouldn't matter, because it's not like there are real legit barriers to transit around the globe these days.

 

If you did it right...there's x demand for part time or migrant workers, there's y number of people willing to apply globally, y is going to be greater than x as long as the U.S. is a major economic power, so y number of people apply to fill x number of jobs, and once those are filled, the only driving force for illegal immigration is people who want to truly get around labor laws (i.e. running textile sweatshops), and then you can actually direct your enforcement on to shutting down those businesses.

 

But again, if getting to that situation requires the 10 million+ people who are already here to pick up and leave happily...then arguing for a setup like that is just a way to protect the status quo, because that won't happen.

[southsider2k5]

Don't we offer political assylum separate from our immigration quota system now?

 

And how does this address the millions of Mexicans, Guatemalans, Hondurans, Costa Ricans, etc. who will want to come here to escape poverty, would prefer to do so legally but will do so illegally if there is no other choice, literally risking life and limb in many cases to do so?

 

How is this much different from arguments that were used in favor of excluding southern and eastern Europeans that claimed they were poor, sickly, unskilled and unable to adapt or contribute to American society?

 

There are going to be choices in any system. We literally can't support the world.

[Jenksismyhero]

There are going to be choices in any system. We literally can't support the world.

 

But we SHOULD ss2k5! Who cares if we can or not!

[southsider2k5]

So I can't go back and find 15 posts saying that the current 10 million+ illegal immigrants who are here are breaking the law?

 

No one else here is using racism as a motivator.

[Balta1701]

No one else here is using racism as a motivator.

Because it's very convenient to hide behind the law if no one points out that the law itself is racist.

[StrangeSox]

There are going to be choices in any system. We literally can't support the world.

 

I'm not asking to "support the world." I'm asking for plausible solutions to our broken immigration system. You aren't offering anything that actually addresses extant problems and how we prevent them from reoccurring in the future.

 

You are absolutely right that amnesty alone is not good policy, but you aren't saying how to handle all of the people who want to come here legally. Not for hand-outs, but for jobs, as recent economic downturns and illegal immigration rates show.

[StrangeSox]

If you were actually constructing a system from scratch that really shouldn't matter, because it's not like there are real legit barriers to transit around the globe these days.

 

I don't necessarily mean codified preferences, but it seems that an open immigration system, even with some high overall but no country-specific cap, is going to result in many more latin american immigrants simply due to ease of travel. Coming from central Africa is going to require an expensive plane ticket or a months-long journey via land and sea while coming from Tijuana will require a relatively short walk/bus ride to San Diego.

[southsider2k5]

Because it's very convenient to hide behind the law if no one points out that the law itself is racist.

 

That can be done, without using racist terminology.

[StrangeSox]

That can be done, without using racist terminology.

 

"yellow" is literally the terminology that was used by proponents of bills like the "Chinese Exclusion Act."

[southsider2k5]

I'm not asking to "support the world." I'm asking for plausible solutions to our broken immigration system. You aren't offering anything that actually addresses extant problems and how we prevent them from reoccurring in the future.

 

You are absolutely right that amnesty alone is not good policy, but you aren't saying how to handle all of the people who want to come here legally. Not for hand-outs, but for jobs, as recent economic downturns and illegal immigration rates show.

 

Like I said, my system is based on the needs of the US. It doesn't make sense to bring people here, if their aren't jobs for them. Anything past what is demanded is only going to hurt the people who are here in a disproportional manner. There is going to be an enforcement aspect to any immigration policy. That is why I feel it is necessary to remove incentives for being here illegally, which is why there should be a punishment for doing so. It removes the incentives to break the laws.

[southsider2k5]

"yellow" is literally the terminology that was used by proponents of bills like the "Chinese Exclusion Act."

 

It is also terminology that no else one here is using.

[Balta1701]

It is also terminology that no else one here is using.

Exactly. Instead, people are happy to stand behind the comfortable, easy euphemism of "they need to follow the law".

 

When in reality, they're saying the same thing, except it's so much more uncomfortable when someone points out that the addendum to "they need to follow the law" is "That we wrote to keep the dirty group x out of the country".

[StrangeSox]

The "incentives" for being here illegally are that it's still better to be working in a shadow economy with no legal protections from exploitation and constant fear of deportation than it is to be back in your home country.

 

If you aren't fixing that "incentive" somehow, through harsh penalties and enforcement, having conditions in their home countries improve or allowing legal immigration, then you aren't really doing anything to address immigration problems. We know that the first method is both very expensive and very ineffective, as well.

[southsider2k5]

Exactly. Instead, people are happy to stand behind the comfortable, easy euphemism of "they need to follow the law".

 

When in reality, they're saying the same thing, except it's so much more uncomfortable when someone points out that the addendum to "they need to follow the law" is "That we wrote to keep the dirty group x out of the country".

 

Justify the racism all you like, I'm not happy about it, and I don't think it does Soxtalk its due. You can have a discussion about racism, without resorting to racist terminology.

[southsider2k5]

The "incentives" for being here illegally are that it's still better to be working in a shadow economy with no legal protections from exploitation and constant fear of deportation than it is to be back in your home country.

 

If you aren't fixing that "incentive" somehow, through harsh penalties and enforcement, having conditions in their home countries improve or allowing legal immigration, then you aren't really doing anything to address immigration problems. We know that the first method is both very expensive and very ineffective, as well.

 

Hence the first two parts of my plan.

[StrangeSox]

Hence the first two parts of my plan.

 

Your "plan" is essentially status quo, maybe with a few more billion dumped on the border and more prisons/detention centers. We know that this is not an effective means of controlling immigration from several decades of experience.

[Soxbadger]

Like I said, my system is based on the needs of the US. It doesn't make sense to bring people here, if their aren't jobs for them. Anything past what is demanded is only going to hurt the people who are here in a disproportional manner. There is going to be an enforcement aspect to any immigration policy. That is why I feel it is necessary to remove incentives for being here illegally, which is why there should be a punishment for doing so. It removes the incentives to break the laws.

 

This isnt true. There dont need to be "jobs" waiting, there will never be "jobs" waiting because I have never heard 1 economist believe that unemployment can be 0%.

 

As I pointed out, most economists both liberal/conservative, believe that immigrants create jobs. Can you find any modern economist who agrees in protectionism? I mean even Adam Smith understood this 500 years ago.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/artcarden/2011...y-and-invasive/

 

How so? As Adam Smith famously wrote, the division of labor is limited by the extent of the market. There isn’t a fixed amount of work to do. When we have more people participating in the market, we get more opportunities to specialize. The average unskilled immigrant brings a set of skills that are complements to rather than substitutes for native workers’ skills. There will undoubtedly be some short-run dislocation, but the net effect is to raise everyone’s standards of living. The opportunity to trade with immigrants means that our time and energy is worth more because we can afford more, better food, clothing, shelter, and health care.

 

Second, the goal of economic activity is not to create employment. It’s to produce.

 

It does make sense to bring people here if you believe in economics.

Edited June 19, 2012 by Soxbadger

[Soxbadger]

I just got told that problem didn't exist. You guys probably should get your talking points straight.

 

Also even if the other side is right, and there is a major tax deficit, most illegals aren't going to be working the types of jobs that make them taxpayers enough to cover the benefits they use over a life time. Do that times however many illegals there are here... not pretty.

 

Its not really the crux of my argument, which is about increasing access to the US because more immigrants should improve the economy. Its not about tax, its about economics

 

 

LEGAL immigrant. But nice spin to something irrelevant.

 

Actually if you read the posts you would understand why it is relevant. Carnegie was only able to immigrate here due to extremely lax immigration policies. The point is that the US should go back to those policies, so that we dont turn away the next Carnegie.

 

His parents had to borrow money to pay to come across to the US, he was the type of "poor immigrant" people so unnecessarily fear.

[CanOfCorn]

The following statement is absolutely the current problem in the United States today. Not in specific terms, but generally.

 

There will undoubtedly be some short-run dislocation, but the net effect is to raise everyone’s standards of living.

 

This country, Dems and GOP (but it seems a slight majority of GOP) are so worried about RIGHT NOW. How does it affect my current situation? And while that is important, we have to look forward. Of course, there is no way to know what will happen in the future, but trying something for the future seems to be better than constant band-aid, short term solutions that only cause problems in a shorter time span.

 

Now as this relates to this discussion. Has anyone found anything about relative cost comparisons between giving 11+ million immigrants amnesty and finding those same and deporting them? I would imagine that would be another interesting argument. Maybe they won't pay a lot of taxes, but some coverage is better than none. And how much money would it take to track down 11+ million illegals and ship them home? Can't be cheap.

[EvilMonkey]

There wouldn't be too much need for deportation if other things were done. Like checking status before getting benefits. Or making sure people going to school actually belong there and are here legally. And fining the companies that hire outside the system. And not giving drivers licenses to non citizens. To get a job you have to fill out your I9 and show either a US passport, certificate of citizenship or naturalization OR both a government issued ID and a SS card or birth certificate. How about the same stuff for school registration, or for welfare applications (or any other social service application). You have the 'kids' who are here now and been here for 18 years because all along the way too many agencies were willing to just close their eyes and not check, or not do anything about it. Cut off the funds and illegal jobs, you end up with many self deporting.

[StrangeSox]

To get a job paying cash for a day's labor, you have to show up to work the fields/job site. Your proposal doesn't address that.

[EvilMonkey]

To get a job paying cash for a day's labor, you have to show up to work the fields/job site. Your proposal doesn't address that.

You have to show an ID to turn in metals for recycling now, no proof required to get paid for work?

[StrangeSox]

You have to show an ID to turn in metals for recycling now, no proof required to get paid for work?

 

Not if an employer doesn't ask for it and the work is undocumented, e.g. contractors picking up day-laborers outside of Home Depot and paying cash.

[Balta1701]

Not if an employer doesn't ask for it and the work is undocumented, e.g. contractors picking up day-laborers outside of Home Depot and paying cash.

Ditto sweatshops that are already breaking the law anyway.