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 10-22-2012, 07:44 AM
 
31,471 posts, read 14,565,596 times
Reputation: 8350

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by cw30000 View Post
We cannot deal with immigration until we deal with welfare. By welfare, I am referring to all these "free" services, like food, medicial, health care, education, etc. The people who are legally here are already cost a lot of money and we are adding more to more to welfare, thanks to big government.

I do agreed most people come here to look for a better opportunity, but for the small percentage who just want to come here for the welfare is a big no. Like I point out earlier, the welfare is costing us too much for the people already here, we cannot add more load to it.

We need to get rid of welfare and returns the money to taxpayers. When there is no welfare, people who want to come and stay will have no choice but benefit this country. They have to work and spend their money here.
We need to remove all the incentives for them to come here. One big one is birthright citizenship of which they can tap into our tax coffers/welfare via their U.S. born children.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-22-2012, 07:45 AM
 
341 posts, read 539,351 times
Reputation: 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by crone View Post
The Congress could change our policy today. They could say no more immigration until everybody who needs a job has one.

They could also say no sending money out of the country. There are long lines all over Houston every Friday night of people sending money out of the country. That is money that is not spent here. Congress could say for every dollar sent out of the country, there is a 10 cent tax. H

How many SS checks are sent to Mexico and Greece. I was told by my neighbor who worked for SS that a huge number of people will come and work the required number of quarters and then go home. We send their SS checks to them. That is money not being spent here.

Big government is as close as your congressman.
My Lee jeans is Made in Mexico and they could spent dollars in Mexico for the Lee jeans...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2012, 07:49 AM
 
Location: Midwest City, Oklahoma
7,133 posts, read 4,317,272 times
Reputation: 2637
Quote:
Originally Posted by softblueyz View Post
We were a developing nation in 1850. We needed immigrants. We were creators then. Today we are not creating, we are dismantling. Outsourcing?? If we are losing jobs, we are not creating. If you speak of infrastructure which is needed since it is falling apart, we have many capable Americans who are unemployed and could do the work.
You speak of a changing America, without really talking about why it has changed.

Do you think there weren't recessions in the 1800's? Do you think there weren't times when we had high unemployment rates during the 1800's? Do you think there was never backlash against immigrants in the 1800's for "taking American jobs"? Even the Irish were fighting with themselves. The first-generation immigrants were fighting with the second-generation immigrants, the nativists.

But lets talk about our crumbling infrastructure, immigration, and the Americans who could do the work.

One of the typical arguments against immigration, is that immigrants take the jobs of Americans. Which is certainly true. The problem is, why is it that these Americans aren't doing the work?

Well, probably one of two reasons. Either they refuse to accept the low wages involved in the low-skill work, or their own skills are so low to be unemployable even at low wages. Which means they will remain unemployed, unless the available labor pool is so small, that they are the only options left for employers.

When we discuss immigration and how immigrants take jobs away from Americans. The jobs we are referring to are always low-skilled jobs. People don't talk about how immigrants are taking away high-skill jobs. But not only are immigrants taking away high-skill jobs, but we seem to have absolutely no problem with them taking those jobs.

So why do we seem to have such inconsistent values when it comes to the types of jobs immigrants come to the United States to take?

The idea is that high-skilled immigrants basically produce more than they take away. While low-skilled immigrants take more than they produce.


The question is, if employers would rather hire immigrants than American citizens on the basis that American citizens either cost too much, or don't do as good of work. What benefit is it to this country to prohibit businesses from finding high-quality and inexpensive labor? Might it be that our immigration policies are helping to cause the massive "outsourcing" of jobs from this country? Lets pretend we passed trade policies to "protect American business from competition from other countries", would the average American citizen be better off or worse off?


It is a popular belief that somehow you can raise the standard of living of the poor by raising the minimum wage. If that were true, we could raise the minimum wage to $100 an hour, and we would all be rich right? The truth is, raising the minimum wage is an exercise in futility, and accomplishes no real means. When you raise the minimum wage, prices simply go up, and no one is actually better off... To hire Americans(as opposed to immigrants) at higher wages, who tend to produce lower quality work, is an act of charity, and makes absolutely zero business sense.

The argument against immigration is basically that immigration hurts the poor. That immigration means the poor will either be out of a job, or will have to work for much less. Bringing the average living conditions of the poor down lower than they already are.

The question is, is that the truth?

Well, to a certain extent it is true. But, the reality is that the immigrants who are taking the jobs of lower-class Americans, tend to either have higher skills, or tend to work for less. So yes, a sudden influx of huge numbers of immigrants would take away many of the opportunities of the poorest Americans. But an influx of immigrants would also reduce the prices of good and services produced in this country, and bring up the quality of many of the goods and services produced here. Making us more competitive in terms of international trade.

So the question is, would we be better off if we closed all immigration tomorrow? If that was to happen, the price of goods would skyrocket. Productivity would actually drop. And the average American would end up with less and not more.

The argument against immigration is not that immigration isn't beneficial(it is, and everyone knows it). The argument against immigration is all about the welfare state. And it is certainly true, it is impossible to both have a welfare state and open-immigration.


Quote:
Originally Posted by softblueyz View Post
So you are saying that immigrants need not contribute to society, nor will they take from society. Well if that is how the sytem would work, then citizens can do the same. How would people survive? Shall we go back to hunting for our own food? Chop down trees and build our own homes? Build mud huts? Cook over an open fire? Crap in a hole? Make candles? Use horses for transportation? Have a goat in every back yard and a rooster on the roof? Shall we just go back in time?
You are seriously misrepresenting my question.

What I'm saying is, the argument against immigration is that immigrants basically take away from society. And thus, if you were to have open-immigration, then we would be worse off. But the argument for "high-skill" immigration is that it makes us better off.

So the question was, if immigration neither was positive nor negative, then would you oppose it or support it?


My point was, the primary arguments against immigration, is because of cultural incompatibility, concerns of increase crime, and because of the pressures that would be place on social obligations through our generous welfare programs.


I was asking if there was any way to structure society and government in a way, where those primary concerns in regards to immigration, could become so trivial that immigration would end up neither being positive or negative, or potentially even positive. Which was the conditions of the 1800's.

Another question might be, if we had the welfare programs in the 1800's that we have today, would we have allowed as many immigrants to come to this country as we did? Whom the vast majority were basically the poorest of the poor.

Last edited by Redshadowz; 10-22-2012 at 08:03 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2012, 07:55 AM
 
Location: Springfield, Ohio
11,785 posts, read 9,708,825 times
Reputation: 10783
There is no restructuring of the country which will accommodate unlimited immigration in our lifetimes. The 19th and early 20th centuries were unique in that we were still a new country with little infrastructure, basically an open slate. It was also right at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. In the 21st century, the Information Age, there is no more wide-open land to be settled, and much of the work done by our forefathers is now either automated or has been outsourced to China, et al.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2012, 08:02 AM
 
Location: Midwest City, Oklahoma
7,133 posts, read 4,317,272 times
Reputation: 2637
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldglory View Post
So what did the woman from Guatamala say when you used the very sound argument against unlimited immigration and especially from poor countries? Most pro-illegal Hispanics here in this country don't care about any of that. They just want as many Hispanics to come here as possible even if it means coming here illegally and negatively impacting the citizens of this nation.
Actually where this argument came about was that, my aunt the Guatemalan said that she was basically going to vote for Obama. Then argued that she wouldn't ever vote for someone like Ron Paul. And I was trying to convince her that her salvation was through libertarianism, and not socialism. So I spent several hours trying to explain that the reasons we can't have open-immigration is because of welfarism, the very policies that Obama supports.

I thought it was interesting that the policies she supports, are actually preventing whats important to her. Which is bringing her family from Guatemala to the United States.

I had intended to outline a policy proposal which would have the potential for us to have open-immigration, thus allowing her family to come to America. But I never finished it while I was in Texas. I figured I might throw the question up on these forums and see what you guys could think up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gmagoo View Post
Uh..You notice the tourists and retirees are moving to and visiting Costa Rica and not Guatemala? Disbanding the military and shifting the funds to education worked pretty well.
If You Count Happiness, Costa Rica Is The Richest Country On Earth | Co.Exist: World changing ideas and innovation


You are missing the point. If Costa Rica didn't allow immigration, then Costa Rica would still be a dump like Guatemala. It is through immigration that Costa Rica has become much better off. So I thought it was funny that you being so anti-immigration and all, would be using Costa Rica, which has very loose immigration laws, as an example of a forward-thinking country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2012, 08:07 AM
 
Location: Too far from home.
8,743 posts, read 5,550,867 times
Reputation: 2360
Seems everyone is missing your points. On the other hand, you seem to missing the points made by others.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2012, 08:22 AM
 
9,901 posts, read 12,973,449 times
Reputation: 5462
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natural510 View Post
There is no restructuring of the country which will accommodate unlimited immigration in our lifetimes. The 19th and early 20th centuries were unique in that we were still a new country with little infrastructure, basically an open slate. It was also right at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. In the 21st century, the Information Age, there is no more wide-open land to be settled, and much of the work done by our forefathers is now either automated or has been outsourced to China, et al.

There is plenty of wide open land but that doesn't mean we should develop it.

There are huge swaths of the plain states that are basically abandoned...look up Kansas ghost towns.

Anyway, I digress. If we allowed unlimited immigration, our social institutions, hospitals, schools, etc, would collapse under the weight of all the impoverished and uneducated in a span of 5 years. We cannot take care of the entire worlds poor.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2012, 08:27 AM
 
Location: Midwest City, Oklahoma
7,133 posts, read 4,317,272 times
Reputation: 2637
Quote:
Originally Posted by softblueyz View Post
Seems everyone is missing your points. On the other hand, you seem to missing the points made by others.
Look, I understand what you are saying. You are trying to argue that there was this magic window in time where open-immigration was possible, because our country was developing rapidly through industrialization.

What I'm saying is, you are right from a historical basis, but you are ignoring the economic reality of the situation.


During that period of time where we had near open-immigration, there were poor people, very poor people, there were plenty of people unemployed. And the poor underclass wanted to prevent more immigration for the same reason the poor underclass want to prevent immigration today. Even the Irish that came a generation before during the 1800's wanted to prevent new Irish from arriving and taking their jobs and keeping wages low.

The Irish of the north largely wanted to get rid of slavery, but yet the Irish tended to want absolutely nothing to do with black people. The reason they wanted to get rid of slavery, was because they believed that it would give them more opportunity for jobs and higher wages.


You want to pretend that the economic and social principles of the 1800's don't apply today, simply because conditions aren't exactly the same. But I simply disagree.

The United States has one of the lowest population densities in the world. Vast swaths of the United States is still very undeveloped. The United States could support a higher population than China, which is believed to grow to 1.6 billion people. The belief that we are at a sort of industrial "dead-end", I think is ridiculous.

The reason why America has hit a sort of developmental dead-end, is because of policies and regulations that basically limit our growth. I can promise you that if we had the same system of government that we had in the 1800's today, that we wouldn't be outsourcing our jobs. Our manufacturing base would still be growing, our infrastructure wouldn't be crumbling. And we could have near open-immigration, because it would provide us with the labor and resources to continue developing this country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2012, 08:33 AM
 
Location: San Diego
32,798 posts, read 30,034,103 times
Reputation: 17687
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
Look, I understand what you are saying. You are trying to argue that there was this magic window in time where open-immigration was possible, because our country was developing rapidly through industrialization.

What I'm saying is, you are right from a historical basis, but you are ignoring the economic reality of the situation.


During that period of time where we had near open-immigration, there were poor people, very poor people, there were plenty of people unemployed. And the poor underclass wanted to prevent more immigration for the same reason the poor underclass want to prevent immigration today. Even the Irish that came a generation before during the 1800's wanted to prevent new Irish from arriving and taking their jobs and keeping wages low.

The Irish of the north largely wanted to get rid of slavery, but yet the Irish tended to want absolutely nothing to do with black people. The reason they wanted to get rid of slavery, was because they believed that it would give them more opportunity for jobs and higher wages.


You want to pretend that the economic and social principles of the 1800's don't apply today, simply because conditions aren't exactly the same. But I simply disagree.

The United States has one of the lowest population densities in the world. Vast swaths of the United States is still very undeveloped. The United States could support a higher population than China, which is believed to grow to 1.6 billion people. The belief that we are at a sort of industrial "dead-end", I think is ridiculous.

The reason why America has hit a sort of developmental dead-end, is because of policies and regulations that basically limit our growth. I can promise you that if we had the same system of government that we had in the 1800's today, that we wouldn't be outsourcing our jobs. Our manufacturing base would still be growing, our infrastructure wouldn't be crumbling. And we could have near open-immigration, because it would provide us with the labor and resources to continue developing this country.
No successful long term model includes 50 trillion people and paving every square inch of a Continent.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2012, 08:57 AM
 
Location: Portland, OR
9,594 posts, read 9,424,935 times
Reputation: 9198
Quote:
Originally Posted by softblueyz View Post
Seems everyone is missing your points. On the other hand, you seem to missing the points made by others.
He doesn't have any points. Its just one long ramble of overworked right wing talking points. And when have those types ever.... EVER... responded to new information and outside input.

H
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