U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-11-2010, 06:09 PM
 
Location: San Diego North County
4,800 posts, read 7,686,811 times
Reputation: 3010

Advertisements

My bad, I meant Monte Verde, not Tierra del Fuego--radiocarbon dated at 14,500 B.P.

Most of your information is pretty good, except I would differ with your description of the Sonoran desert DURING the Younger Dryas stadial period. Afterward, as the glaciers receded, it did indeed become a suitable habitat for human habitation for several thousand years. Many archaeologist believe that a large number of those who migrated as far as modern day Mexico and South America did so via water craft, hugging the coastline--thus bypassing the interior modern day U.S.

This information comes from my Geomorphology professor. I have no reason to believe he was feeding our class misinformation.

It would stand to reason that there would be evidence of a pre-Clovis settlement in Canada. People did migrate there before making their way to the modern day U.S. However, my understanding of the Sheguiandah site is that the 20,000 B.P. date is controversial due to post-depositional mixing of the soils and has not yet been settled. Meadowcroft remains controversial as well, due to the possibility of sample contamination. So, until either one is determined one way or the other, Monte Verde remains the oldest verified site in the New World.

Lastly, when researching various topics for papers, I was warned off of Science Daily by various professors--due to (their words, not mine) the tendency toward pseudoscience. The only other internet source they consistently frown upon is Wikipedia. I think that speaks volumes as to the credibility of Science Daily.

Maybe we should start a new discussion area for archaeological ramblings since so many people seem to be interested in the origins of the New World and the people who inhabited it.

And, because I don't want to anger Yac and the powers that be, that's all I have to say on that subject!

Last edited by Kele; 09-11-2010 at 06:27 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-11-2010, 08:18 PM
 
Location: Bayou City
2,991 posts, read 4,468,299 times
Reputation: 2496
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoEdible View Post
I thought the SAME thing when I read the post. I haven't seen that attitude. I have read and heard pro-illegal immigration people using Black history to justify illegal immigration, but never seen anything that the OP is speaking of.

I smell blasphemy, lol. This was a bait thread.
The attitude usually shows when advocates attempt to extol the virtues of the "hard-working" illegal immigrant. This usually results in some sort of comparison between the work ethic of the immigrant and that of the native citizen, often with the not-so-subtle suggestion that the native citizen's work ethic is decidedly inferior.

Even the most well-intentioned of advocates might find themselves in a position where they are forced to point to the existence of the "disfunctional black community" in support of their stance for widespread acceptance of what they deem to be the potentially "stabilizing force" of immigration.

And no this wasn't intended to be a bait thread. Not my fault that other posters here took it upon themselves to derail it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-11-2010, 08:20 PM
 
Location: Bayou City
2,991 posts, read 4,468,299 times
Reputation: 2496
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kele View Post
My bad, I meant Monte Verde, not Tierra del Fuego--radiocarbon dated at 14,500 B.P.

Most of your information is pretty good, except I would differ with your description of the Sonoran desert DURING the Younger Dryas stadial period. Afterward, as the glaciers receded, it did indeed become a suitable habitat for human habitation for several thousand years. Many archaeologist believe that a large number of those who migrated as far as modern day Mexico and South America did so via water craft, hugging the coastline--thus bypassing the interior modern day U.S.

This information comes from my Geomorphology professor. I have no reason to believe he was feeding our class misinformation.

It would stand to reason that there would be evidence of a pre-Clovis settlement in Canada. People did migrate there before making their way to the modern day U.S. However, my understanding of the Sheguiandah site is that the 20,000 B.P. date is controversial due to post-depositional mixing of the soils and has not yet been settled. Meadowcroft remains controversial as well, due to the possibility of sample contamination. So, until either one is determined one way or the other, Monte Verde remains the oldest verified site in the New World.

Lastly, when researching various topics for papers, I was warned off of Science Daily by various professors--due to (their words, not mine) the tendency toward pseudoscience. The only other internet source they consistently frown upon is Wikipedia. I think that speaks volumes as to the credibility of Science Daily.

Maybe we should start a new discussion area for archaeological ramblings since so many people seem to be interested in the origins of the New World and the people who inhabited it.

And, because I don't want to anger Yac and the powers that be, that's all I have to say on that subject!
Promise?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-11-2010, 08:57 PM
 
Location: San Diego North County
4,800 posts, read 7,686,811 times
Reputation: 3010
Indeed I do. And just to prove it to you, let me address the original post.

It's my opinion that illegal aliens tend to take the jobs that many middle class Black and White people [b]used[B to do--construction comes to mind.

However, in order to justify this, many illegal alien apologists state that those who formerly held these jobs are simply too lazy to continue working in their given field and that illegal aliens will do the job cheaper, faster, and better. They got the cheaper part right. The wages in a number of fields formerly occupied by American citizens have been driven down so low that your average American can no longer afford to do the work.

Of course, we all know that this is merely another way in which people pander to the increasing illegal alien population at the expense of American citizens, Black, White, or polka dotted.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-11-2010, 09:09 PM
 
344 posts, read 152,897 times
Reputation: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kele View Post
My bad, I meant Monte Verde, not Tierra del Fuego--radiocarbon dated at 14,500 B.P.

Most of your information is pretty good, except I would differ with your description of the Sonoran desert DURING the Younger Dryas stadial period. Afterward, as the glaciers receded, it did indeed become a suitable habitat for human habitation for several thousand years. Many archaeologist believe that a large number of those who migrated as far as modern day Mexico and South America did so via water craft, hugging the coastline--thus bypassing the interior modern day U.S.

This information comes from my Geomorphology professor. I have no reason to believe he was feeding our class misinformation.

It would stand to reason that there would be evidence of a pre-Clovis settlement in Canada. People did migrate there before making their way to the modern day U.S. However, my understanding of the Sheguiandah site is that the 20,000 B.P. date is controversial due to post-depositional mixing of the soils and has not yet been settled. Meadowcroft remains controversial as well, due to the possibility of sample contamination. So, until either one is determined one way or the other, Monte Verde remains the oldest verified site in the New World.

Lastly, when researching various topics for papers, I was warned off of Science Daily by various professors--due to (their words, not mine) the tendency toward pseudoscience. The only other internet source they consistently frown upon is Wikipedia. I think that speaks volumes as to the credibility of Science Daily.

Maybe we should start a new discussion area for archaeological ramblings since so many people seem to be interested in the origins of the New World and the people who inhabited it.

And, because I don't want to anger Yac and the powers that be, that's all I have to say on that subject!
That seems fair enough about Monte Verde. As for Sonora, I'm basing it on what my professors told me (Ecology and Evolution...it was looking more at the changes in flora due to climatic events).

Wikipedia along with Science Daily are okay, as long as you don't base your entire arguments on them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-11-2010, 09:11 PM
 
14,307 posts, read 11,144,640 times
Reputation: 2130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kele View Post
Indeed I do. And just to prove it to you, let me address the original post.

It's my opinion that illegal aliens tend to take the jobs that many middle class Black and White people [b]used[B to do--construction comes to mind.

However, in order to justify this, many illegal alien apologists state that those who formerly held these jobs are simply too lazy to continue working in their given field and that illegal aliens will do the job cheaper, faster, and better. They got the cheaper part right. The wages in a number of fields formerly occupied by American citizens have been driven down so low that your average American can no longer afford to do the work.

Of course, we all know that this is merely another way in which people pander to the increasing illegal alien population at the expense of American citizens, Black, White, or polka dotted.
Totally agree, Kele. Those who claim that our economy demands these cheap illegal workers because we don't have enough Americans to do them are full of it. It is just that the employers don't want to pay an American a fair wage anymore. These employers just pocket the profits for themselves. This corrupt practice needs to end by holding the employers accountable and in turn it will discourage the illegals to remain here and for more to come.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2010, 02:40 AM
 
344 posts, read 152,897 times
Reputation: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kele View Post
Indeed I do. And just to prove it to you, let me address the original post.

It's my opinion that illegal aliens tend to take the jobs that many middle class Black and White people [b]used[B to do--construction comes to mind.

However, in order to justify this, many illegal alien apologists state that those who formerly held these jobs are simply too lazy to continue working in their given field and that illegal aliens will do the job cheaper, faster, and better. They got the cheaper part right. The wages in a number of fields formerly occupied by American citizens have been driven down so low that your average American can no longer afford to do the work.

Of course, we all know that this is merely another way in which people pander to the increasing illegal alien population at the expense of American citizens, Black, White, or polka dotted.
As for illegal immigrants taking away jobs from Whites and Blacks, this is widely regarded as false on many grounds.

1) The median household income for illegal immigrants was $36,000 according to Pew Hispanic in 2006. The median Black household income in 2006 was $32,000 according to the US census. Illegal immigrants household made more than Black households. According to Pew Hispanic there were about 2.5 workers per household in illegal immigrant households and about 2 workers per household in Black households. So the per capita is roughly the same (slightly lower for illegal workers).

2) The risks associated are higher when employing illegal immigrants. Thus, it stands to reason, with a lower wage and lower risks associated, that Blacks would be a better choice.

3) 20% of illegal immigrants are employed in construction. Typically in the lower echelons of construction. Therefore, they do not constitute a majority (or even close to a majority) of construction workers.

Illegal immigrants are hired possibly because of the fact they are more likely to endure harder jobs at the same or lower wages. They expect a less comfortable work environment, not necessarily lower wages. Being a small percentage of the labor market makes it impossible to take jobs away from a larger population.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2010, 08:55 AM
 
Location: Maryland
15,179 posts, read 15,807,269 times
Reputation: 3028
Quote:
Originally Posted by Califreeman View Post
As for illegal immigrants taking away jobs from Whites and Blacks, this is widely regarded as false on many grounds.

1) The median household income for illegal immigrants was $36,000 according to Pew Hispanic in 2006. The median Black household income in 2006 was $32,000 according to the US census. Illegal immigrants household made more than Black households. According to Pew Hispanic there were about 2.5 workers per household in illegal immigrant households and about 2 workers per household in Black households. So the per capita is roughly the same (slightly lower for illegal workers).

2) The risks associated are higher when employing illegal immigrants. Thus, it stands to reason, with a lower wage and lower risks associated, that Blacks would be a better choice.

3) 20% of illegal immigrants are employed in construction. Typically in the lower echelons of construction. Therefore, they do not constitute a majority (or even close to a majority) of construction workers.

Illegal immigrants are hired possibly because of the fact they are more likely to endure harder jobs at the same or lower wages. They expect a less comfortable work environment, not necessarily lower wages. Being a small percentage of the labor market makes it impossible to take jobs away from a larger population.
Tell me, how can anyone even allege to estimate the annual earnings of illegal aliens, when there is no reliable source or methodology? How does one determine a total for anything from a phantom demographic? Given that a large percentage of illegal aliens are either paid under the table, or are using a stolen or fake SSN, how are their wages enumerated?

Even if Census data were used for the Hispanic population, there is no category for Hispanic illegal aliens. Therefore, there is no credible data to delineate earnings of illegal aliens in this country -- not Pew, USCIS, IRS, or the SSA. No one knows.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2010, 12:02 PM
 
344 posts, read 152,897 times
Reputation: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benicar View Post
Tell me, how can anyone even allege to estimate the annual earnings of illegal aliens, when there is no reliable source or methodology? How does one determine a total for anything from a phantom demographic? Given that a large percentage of illegal aliens are either paid under the table, or are using a stolen or fake SSN, how are their wages enumerated?

Even if Census data were used for the Hispanic population, there is no category for Hispanic illegal aliens. Therefore, there is no credible data to delineate earnings of illegal aliens in this country -- not Pew, USCIS, IRS, or the SSA. No one knows.
By extension all your stats that you propose are wrong. So therefore it is completely plausible, if we're taking an extreme stance, I can disprove all your stats by saying 'how do we know there is negative effect by illegal immigration'.

That's the logic you're using.

Obviously there are some metrics that have to be agreed upon. Certain thinktanks (that are deemed credible) and the government are the best things we have.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2010, 12:30 PM
 
Location: Maryland
15,179 posts, read 15,807,269 times
Reputation: 3028
Quote:
Originally Posted by Califreeman View Post
By extension all your stats that you propose are wrong. So therefore it is completely plausible, if we're taking an extreme stance, I can disprove all your stats by saying 'how do we know there is negative effect by illegal immigration'.

That's the logic you're using.

Obviously there are some metrics that have to be agreed upon. Certain thinktanks (that are deemed credible) and the government are the best things we have.
Wrong! We DO know how many “non-citizens” are enrolled in our K-12 programs, and the costs per student; and we DO know how many of said students require expensive ESL classes, and/or are enrolled in tax-funded breakfast/lunch programs.

We DO know they are living in our subsidized housing, including the aunt of our president.

We DO know how many are receiving tax-funded organ transplants, kidney dialysis, and unpaid and/or long-term multi-million dollar medical care.

We DO know how many illegals are incarcerated, and the costs per prisoner. We DO know the number of apprehended rapists, pedophiles, and murderers.

Yes, there are many things we don’t know, but we DO know they are fleecing the taxpayers of this country. We simply don’t know the true magnitude of this scourge. Try again.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top