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.
I have already explained why I will not play your hypothetical game. I can easily defend my position. However, I have neither the time nor the inclination to participate in a discussion based on what I consider as nonsense. And, you are certainly entitled to believe whatever you choose.
Uh huh. This is like your fourth post explaining that you will not respond to the hypo. But yeah, no, you totally don't have the time or inclination, I understand.
Please don't turn this into another run of the mill thread. I plan on waiting forever for someone to man up and answer the hypothetical.
Michigan would lose tax revenue
Michigan would spend more on enforcement
Ohio would problably stop trading with Michigan (hurting both)
Michigans economy would stay stagnant people would stay on the state system.
People who wanted to work would be deprived of the chance to work
I don't see any economic benefit to this law
But I will say there would be political benefit because the person passing the law would always be able to say he passed a law that would protect Michigan from the horrors of Ohio and get reelected over and over even though all he actually did was harm michigan and ohio
I don't mind you have a problem with 10 million people not supporting their children and burdening the taxpayers of this country (I'm pretty sure that number is wrong anyway)
What I would ask is why your more concerned with 10 million doing it Instead of the 1-250,000,000 legal americans who dont' support their kids and are fleecing the taxpayers
Hurts me more to see a dad making 150k a year with 3 wives 6 kids that he never sees and never supports figures out a way to relieve himself of most of his tax burden while problably scamming food stamps some how for him or for one of his wives and 6 kids
Bad Americans >(greater problem) that Bad Migrants
Although I will freely admit I'm not as informed on the subject as you because I'm more worried about not having an NFL season this year than who's taking cans out of my recycling bin.
And I'll freely admit I'm more concerned about not paying 100 dollars at the store for a vegetable tray for the NFL season we might not have, instead of who's picking cans out of my recycling bin.
I guess it's a matter of priorites mine are problably more selfish and less patriotic than yours I just like football.
I think it just angers me more to have a neighbor treating his family bad and scamming welfare than the guy picking cans out of my recycling bin.
First, DO NOT change my posts. I said EXACTLY what I intended to say.
Second, you are in the wrong place. We are not discussing U.S. citizens, we are discussing illegal aliens. Go next door if you want to discuss Americans or legal immigrants.
Sorry, but your hypothetical is an extreme apples & oranges scenario. Even speaking hypothetically, you can’t seriously believe a comparison can be made between citizens of a country relocating to another state, irrespective of motives, and people illegally entering a sovereign, foreign nation.
The fact that they are also fleecing taxpayers makes it much more difficult to tolerate. It’s bad enough that they are here illegally. But, at the very least, they should support themselves and their children, and not burden the taxpayers of this country.
I agree. What a dumb analogy that was. A citizen moving to another state to gain employment would still be paid the prevailing wage and it would depend on if their skills were better than a citizen of that state would be whether they got the job or not. So the only competiton there would be would be based on better skills or experience and that still would have been the case in his own state regardless.
With illegal aliens they have the leverage of taking a job for less than the prevailing wage and many employers don't care about their lack of skills just that they work cheaper.
I agree. What a dumb analogy that was. A citizen moving to another state to gain employment would still be paid the prevailing wage and it would depend on if their skills were better than a citizen of that state would be whether they got the job or not. So the only competiton there would be would be based on better skills or experience and that still would have been the case in his own state regardless.
With illegal aliens they have the leverage of taking a job for less than the prevailing wage and many employers don't care about their lack of skills just that they work cheaper.
My guess is that you have be on ignore and thus couldn't actually read the OP.
Which is good fun imo.
I like the idea that illegal aliens will go for less than the average wage but poor Americans moving across state lines to find work are just too proud. Basic economics!
First, DO NOT change my posts. I said EXACTLY what I intended to say.
Second, you are in the wrong place. We are not discussing U.S. citizens, we are discussing illegal aliens. Go next door if you want to discuss Americans or legal immigrants.
explain how I changed your post ?? because I dont' know what your talking about
All I wanted to know is if you'd be mad if you had to pay a fortune for a vegetable tray on football sunday
If you can show me that your stance won't price me out of anything but eating ramen noodles then you win.
all you ever say is get rid of illegals (which is fine) all i'm asking is how are you going to do it without people like me not being able to afford anything other than ramen
EDIT which i'm sure you might have posted elsewhere but I'd appreciate a link instead of sifting though 367 pages of riff raff nonsense to find it
I don't mind you have a problem with 10 million people not supporting their children and burdening the taxpayers of this country (I'm pretty sure that number is wrong anyway)
What I would ask is why your more concerned with 10 million doing it Instead of the 1-250,000,000 legal americans who dont' support their kids and are fleecing the taxpayers
Hurts me more to see a dad making 150k a year with 3 wives 6 kids that he never sees and never supports figures out a way to relieve himself of most of his tax burden while problably scamming food stamps some how for him or for one of his wives and 6 kids
Bad Americans >(greater problem) that Bad Migrants
Although I will freely admit I'm not as informed on the subject as you because I'm more worried about not having an NFL season this year than who's taking cans out of my recycling bin.
And I'll freely admit I'm more concerned about not paying 100 dollars at the store for a vegetable tray for the NFL season we might not have, instead of who's picking cans out of my recycling bin.
I guess it's a matter of priorites mine are problably more selfish and less patriotic than yours I just like football.
I think it just angers me more to have a neighbor treating his family bad and scamming welfare than the guy picking cans out of my recycling bin.
There are checks and balances when one applies for welfare. Sure some Americans are scamming the system but most are NOT so we should add millions of illegal aliens scamming the system when they don't even have a right to be here? I get so sick of people trying to justify the scams of illegal aliens just because we don't live in a perfect society with perfect citizens.
If you are trying to claim that your fruit and veggies would cost you more without illegal alien labor you would be dead wrong. Your supposed savings on one tomato is wiped out by your added taxes supporting the social costs of illegal aliens. Most illegals aren't even working agricultural jobs anyway but other jobs that Americans have always done.
I don't know what kind of point you are trying to make with your recycled can remarks. What does that have to do with the overall issue of illegal immigration?
Irrelevant. There’s a HUGE difference between people relocating within THEIR country, whether they collect welfare or not, and foreigners who have no right to be here whatsoever. Learn the difference.
Enjoy your orange-tasting apples. Delusion has a tendency to blur the senses.
Yes. It's like someone in the USA deciding that because in Mexico, there is free movement of the Mexican people in their country that we can decide to ignore that country's laws on immigration and tourism and break any of it's laws on foreigners taking jobs, etc.
Yes. It's like someone in the USA deciding that because in Mexico, there is free movement of the Mexican people in their country that we can decide to ignore that country's laws on immigration and tourism and break any of it's laws on foreigners taking jobs, etc.
In this hypothetical there is also a law making the migration illegal.
So to put aside the debate of rule of law (which I plan to create a separate thread on if this one isn't a disaster), I think there is a fundamental disagreement in play about the economic efficiency of mobile labor.
Several times here I have accused a few posters of simply not knowing much at all about economics. In response I've generally been told I lack "common sense" or something similar. So to clarify what I believe to be the most brutal misunderstanding frequently displayed here, I offer the following hypothetical, with randomly selected states:
Michigan, with large unemployment rates, notices that a lot of low-income workers from Ohio are moving up to Michigan, where their prospects for work are better. The workers start to offer low wages (above minimum wage for the most part), and begin to avail themselves of state welfare programs.
Michigan, with its longtime residents complaining about the newfound competition, decides to make a strong move and put massive restrictions on Ohioans who are trying to move into their state via a new law - the Protecting Michigan's Jobs Act of 2011.
Ignoring constitutional issues (Michigan would not have the authority to do this), and ignoring the specific features of each state (these are randomly chosen, so it could be any two states), is this new law good for Michigan, or bad?
I think the analogy is obvious, so if we could avoid immediately talking about the differences between this and Mexico/America I think it would be more productive.
Each State has "Residency" requirements before one (moving workers) can avail themselves of the States welfare benefits. They would still be able to draw welfare from the state they left for a period of time. So now, your hypothetical becomes nothing more then an abundance of low wage workers competing for jobs. I would question as to why they are moving to an area with a high unemployment rate to begin with, as employers in most professions must have a reason to release a worker to replace with another worker. Your hypo is really unrealistic, both in analogy and in claiming there are Constitutional issues when there really are none. Each State can mandate residency requirements before becoming a resident of said State.
The new law would be good for Michigan based on the simple fact that they are not paying out the welfare benefits for a set amount of time (they could also put into this law that one must have a prior job in Michigan in order to obtain welfare benefits once said residency requirements are met), Ohio would be the loser as they are paying benefits to people living in another state.
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.
