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.
They can find decent workers. You just don't want them here and can't explain why. If these U.S. drop outs jobs were stolen by these farmers in GA they would be there working right now. That isn't the case. Now, if you want to keep making this argument provide sources or explain why you don't want them here.
You and they clearly have a much more bizarre definition of decent worker than most people. A decent worker is not a docile, undereducated foreign national who does not have dominant language fluency. At least by most people's definition.
I don't want them here because they don't speak English, have no real job skills and impose huge costs on American society that aren't made up by the minor savings they may or may not generate. You have yet to refute those arguments.
Quote:
Sure I have, they benefit our economy and obviously there are jobs available. If there weren't they wouldn't be coming here. Do you think Hispanics would be less successful?
How do low skilled migrants who don't speak English benefit our economy? They don't benefit their home country's economy or more Latin American leaders would demanding they come home instead of lobbying for their continued prescence here. Your only refutation to that point seems to amount to because some greedy employers want them here.
Quote:
That's quite a description of someone who wants to work harder for less. Also wrt to the bolded:
So if I said that someone who wants to do YOUR job for half your pay (and then demand you pay more taxes to make up the difference) is wonderful how would you feel? Asking to lower someone's wages and take their job is not an act of benevolence.
The point is that they are a net drain, if even by a little -.07% ($10.25B) of GDP ($14.64T). This doesn't take into consideration the "benefits" they use in increased government expenditures They also increase government expenditure by using public services, including fire and police protection, public roads and bridges, publically funded emergency health care, and, most importantly, public education — though not all at the same levels as the native born.
Huh. That article specifically says the BENEFIT is small. Not that the DRAIN is small. The part you bolded:
Quote:
And if we account for the small fiscal burden that unauthorized immigrants impose,
even hints that they considered the costs. Also, illegals pay for those other taxes you mentioned through other taxes than just federal taxes. School funding is paid for by property tax right?
You and they clearly have a much more bizarre definition of decent worker than most people. A decent worker is not a docile, undereducated foreign national who does not have dominant language fluency. At least by most people's definition.
I don't want them here because they don't speak English, have no real job skills and impose huge costs on American society that aren't made up by the minor savings they may or may not generate. You have yet to refute those arguments.
Why would I need to refute your horrible stereotypes. You should receive infractions or bans without proving these claims. Liquid Reigns already posted a study showing they are a NET Benefit so please quit citing the costs on society for starters.
Since US spending on enforcement activities is already very high, sizeable increases in
enforcement resources could easily cost far more than the tax savings they generated from
reduced illegal presence in the United States. Because the net impact of illegal immigration
on the US economy does not appear to be very large, one would be hard pressed to justify a
substantial increase in spending on border and interior enforcement, at least in terms of its
aggregate economic return.
If the farmer can use the VISA program and elects not to one has to question the motives.
Why not? Could it be he can fill the jobs with legal workers but might have to sacrifice a profit margin? Or is it he cant abuse his labor force as freely because they know they dont have to put up with it?
I would contend that American labor is just as easily exploitable by migrant labor contractors. In my experience American born migrant laborers tend to have a much higher rate of drug addiction than Hispanic laborers which laborcontractors use to controll their labor by providing them drugs. In fact, our farm used to use only American laborers untill the guy we contracted our labor from got busted by the Feds for all sorts of abuses. My parents spent well into 6 figures in legal defenses when they had been tryingto do things as beat as they good, the contractor they used was the most reputable source for American labor available to them. After that we only used Hispanic labor.
One is that notwithstanding all of the focus and controversy surrounding illegal immigration, the fate of the US economy is not riding on the country’s policy toward unauthorized workers. Allowing a few more or a few less unauthorized immigrants into the country would not have dire consequences. At the same time, Congress can increase thenet benefit that the United States derives from each low-skilled immigrant by reducing his or her fiscal impact, either by charging immigrants an entry fee or taxing the employers that hire them (which, obviously, would require them to be legal). Reducing government benefits to the unauthorized population is not a meaningful option, given that the primary benefits they receive are in the form of public education, to which their access is constitutionally guaranteed, and Medicaid for their US-born children.
If the farmer can use the VISA program and elects not to one has to question the motives.
Why not? Could it be he can fill the jobs with legal workers but might have to sacrifice a profit margin? Or is it he cant abuse his labor force as freely because they know they dont have to put up with it?
No, one doesn't. The H2A certification process can become prohibitively expensive for farmers to use especially in instances where the farmers have to provide housing. Competition within agriculture is high and margins are very thin in most cases therefore certification costs quickly become prohibitive for smaller agricultural firms.
Isn't it nice when you can refute your opponents claims with their own sources?
Yeah. That study pretty much resolves all the arguments regarding the economy and immigration we've been having. It also says there is nothing concrete about the number being let in yearly. We can and will do just fine letting in more. Not only that we can further increase the net benefit they are providing by LEGALIZING THEM.
All I can think of being argued now is preserving our culture, people's hatred of foreign language, and subtle comments about illegals being inherently violent criminals. Oh, and "They aren't following the law!! What part of the law don't you understand!?"
Last edited by huddledmasses; 06-26-2011 at 01:51 PM..
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.
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.
