Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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 06-27-2011, 09:27 AM
 
1,569 posts, read 1,205,548 times
Reputation: 111

Advertisements

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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-27-2011, 11:39 AM
 
1,569 posts, read 1,205,548 times
Reputation: 111
And for those who think this is some kind of trap, allow me to make this clear:

Whether or not you believe that Michigan is harmed in the hypothetical, you can still maintain valid reasons for opposing illegal immigration. The intent of this hypo is not to back anyone into a corner, but simply to clarify everyone's position, since I think we can all admit the other threads go around in circles.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2011, 10:27 PM
 
47,525 posts, read 69,431,937 times
Reputation: 22471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockmadinejad View Post
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.
What does this have to do with illegals from foreign countries breaking laws to come here and work here?

Actually Michigan does give preference to the residents of Michigan in hiring. Try applying to "Michigan Works" if you have an out-of-state address.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2011, 01:01 AM
 
3,484 posts, read 2,860,318 times
Reputation: 2354
Quote:
Originally Posted by NavyFlyer View Post
Yes they can. I dont think anyone that advocates open borders is saying it should be a one way valve. Incidentally, I believe a lot of American's retire to Costa Rica to take advantage of their lower cost of living and healthcare system. Have to double check that one though.

Back to the OP though. THe only point of it is to look at the economics of the situation. He even admitted that it was an imperfect hypothetical. It's more than enough to try and suss out the related economic issues though. Are you willing to take a stab at it?
Are you seriously proposing that is okay to move to Mexico and ask Mexicans to endure higher taxes to pay a foreigner's medical bills?

Can we ship every poor and unemployed person there? Every single HIV positive person? Every high school drop out who does not speak Spanish? How high should Mexican taxes be raised to support them? That's crazy. No country's citizens would endure it. Oh wait. We're supposed to.

Yeah.



The OP has nothing to do with the issue of illegal immigration.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2011, 01:07 AM
 
36 posts, read 19,206 times
Reputation: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eleanora1 View Post
Are you seriously proposing that is okay to move to Mexico and ask Mexicans to endure higher taxes to pay a foreigner's medical bills?

Can we ship every poor and unemployed person there? Every single HIV positive person? Every high school drop out who does not speak Spanish? How high should Mexican taxes be raised to support them? That's crazy. No country's citizens would endure it. Oh wait. We're supposed to.

Yeah.

Most people that advocate open borders (myself included) agree that some health conditions would be limiting (though I doubt HIV would be among them since its a very treatable condition these days), along with a criminal background check. But other than that, yes I completely believe people should be able to freely move across borders with very limited restrictions.

Quote:
The OP has nothing to do with the issue of illegal immigration.
It has nothing to do with ALL the facets of the immigration issues but it has a lot to do with the economic component. Why are you so resistant to just making an honest attempt at answering it? Or anyone else for that matter?

EDIT: Didnt phrase that last bit well. Meant to ask why no one (so far) will make an attempt.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2011, 07:25 AM
 
1,569 posts, read 1,205,548 times
Reputation: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eleanora1 View Post
Are you seriously proposing that is okay to move to Mexico and ask Mexicans to endure higher taxes to pay a foreigner's medical bills?

Can we ship every poor and unemployed person there? Every single HIV positive person? Every high school drop out who does not speak Spanish? How high should Mexican taxes be raised to support them? That's crazy. No country's citizens would endure it. Oh wait. We're supposed to.

Yeah.



The OP has nothing to do with the issue of illegal immigration.
And yet you responded as if it does (without, of course, actually responding).

Part of the point, of course, is that you could point to ANY border and say "why let poor, uneducated people cross that border? What if they have HIV? What if it impacts our taxes?" Why would I, a guy living in DC, want someone who is poor and has a disease coming here from Baltimore?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2011, 10:17 AM
 
20 posts, read 12,558 times
Reputation: 14
Wouldn't limiting a chance at economic growth be bad from an economics standpoint in any case ?

(I'm assuming this tread is about economics)

you know buy low sell high kinda stuff ?

I guess no matter how you feel about the immigration stuff from a purely economical viewpoint any kind of regulations that would hamper growth would be bad.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2011, 10:18 AM
 
1,569 posts, read 1,205,548 times
Reputation: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by sixtysevensixtyseven View Post
Wouldn't limiting a chance at economic growth be bad from an economics standpoint in any case ?

(I'm assuming this tread is about economics)

you know buy low sell high kinda stuff ?

I guess no matter how you feel about the immigration stuff from a purely economical viewpoint any kind of regulations that would hamper growth would be bad.
Right, so the question is whether such a law would harm Michigan's economic growth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2011, 10:19 AM
 
20 posts, read 12,558 times
Reputation: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eleanora1 View Post

Yeah.



The OP has nothing to do with the issue of illegal immigration.

Illegal immigration is EXTREMLY tied to current economics in the U.S.

whether one thinks it good or one thinks it bad one must still admit that a lot of economical consequences are inevitible no matter which side ones argument falls on
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2011, 11:30 AM
 
Location: Maryland
15,171 posts, read 18,492,285 times
Reputation: 3044
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.
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

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top