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, 10:01 AM
 
Location: Midwest City, Oklahoma
7,194 posts, read 4,359,760 times
Reputation: 2647

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1AngryTaxPayer View Post
No successful long term model includes 50 trillion people and paving every square inch of a Continent.
There is less railroad line in this country today than there was 50 years ago, and less 50 years ago than 100 years ago. In the state of Oklahoma, something like 70% of our bridges are in disrepair. Probably a quarter to a third of most major cities are full of houses that are practically falling down. North Dakota has such a boom of oil and gas and not enough people to work there, that even the fast-food restaurants are paying like $15-$20 an hour. Huge swaths of this country are practically empty. There are many places in Kansas where they will give you land for free, if you agree to improve that land.

Obviously the Earth can't have 50 trillion people, nor do we want to pave the whole country. But you are trying to argue that there is nothing to do in this country. But the only reason most of what could be done isn't done, is because of drastically inflated prices of labor and resources.

Most of the materials we are using these days, come from other countries. Not because we don't have those resources, but because we can get them cheaper from other countries. Why? Generally because their labor is cheaper. And there is no reason we couldn't import that cheap labor here. Then at least we wouldn't be exporting money to those countries to buy their goods. Talk about siphoning money out of here.



I used to drive a van for a living and I didn't make much more than minimum wage. If you drive for the government, they pay you $20+ an hour plus benefits. Most of the reason why light rail and other rail transportation systems costs so much, is because a railroad engineer makes about $120k a year plus some the best benefits in the country(probably pushing his actual compensation to value closer to $180k a year). Is it a high-skill job? Not at all. Almost all railroad employees only have high-school educations. They are not the cream of the crop by any means. Would an immigrant work as a railroad engineer for $50k a year with no benefits? I guarantee they would, probably less. And railroads are the most efficient form of moving freight.

If our prices were more competitive, if our labor could offer services for less, if Unions didn't have a stranglehold on our economy. You would see an absolute surge in development in this country.

Moreover, people talk about limitations to population growth. Well population growth is only related to the amount of food you can produce. We have seen massive increases in farm productivity. And things like "vertical farming" could multiply the amount of food we can produce in this country.

I'm not trying to argue I want any immigration at all. Read over my forum posts, I'm not an advocate for immigration.

But your arguments against immigration are baseless and empty.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-22-2012, 10:02 AM
 
Location: Portland, OR
9,603 posts, read 9,479,252 times
Reputation: 9212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
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.
Costa Rica is a tax haven and has unknown billions of invested money to say nothing of the large population of wealthy Americans and other First World expatriates that retire there.

H
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2012, 10:13 AM
 
Location: Too far from home.
8,743 posts, read 5,588,440 times
Reputation: 2360
[quote=Redshadowz;26614561]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.

Economically the country is not in a position to support more immigrants. Economically we don't have the work for them.


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 poor and uneducated were the ones that built this country. Built the infrastructure and the buildings. They were craftsmen. Many years ago in NYC there was a church that underwent a project to restore it to its original artistic state. They had to go to Italy to find people who could still do the work that was done when it was originally built - to restore it to its original beauty.

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.

Illegal immigrants brought wages down in the US. They took jobs away from Americans. Educated, skilled, trained, experienced people who obtain work visas come to the US and work. Why does the US need people who are uneducated and can't speak English?

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.

Oh lord. And you want to pretend that it would be a good thing if immigrants come to the US take nothing and give nothing they will survive and it's good for the country.

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.

If we weren't shrinking industries by outsourcing our jobs and controlled illegal immigration we could grow. Not all land can be developed. This isn't the wild west where we can claim land and build on it.

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.

You just repeated pretty much what I've said. Except controlled immigration would still be needed. Supply and demand. If there are more jobs than people, then up immigration quotas. I don't think American citizens should have to compete with people who are not citizens or legally in the country. I don't think people who are not citizens or legally in the country should be granted the same rights as Americans.

If you look at the IT industry we have a massive number of people from India. Look at healthcare, massive numbers of doctors from various countries, nurses from the Phillipines. Exactly what do people from third world countries have to offer?

We were a growing nation in the 1800s and 1900s. We were building and creating. As of now, because of government for the most part, we have hit a wall where we have reached our growth potential. We are not creating big corporations, and industries are shrinking. Allowing open immigration is NOT going to restart the growth of this country. Uneducated immigrants do not add growth to this country other than in population. There is no place, need or room for unlimited immigrants.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2012, 10:34 AM
 
Location: Portland, OR
9,603 posts, read 9,479,252 times
Reputation: 9212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
There is less railroad line in this country today than there was 50 years ago, and less 50 years ago than 100 years ago. In the state of Oklahoma, something like 70% of our bridges are in disrepair. Probably a quarter to a third of most major cities are full of houses that are practically falling down. North Dakota has such a boom of oil and gas and not enough people to work there, that even the fast-food restaurants are paying like $15-$20 an hour. Huge swaths of this country are practically empty. There are many places in Kansas where they will give you land for free, if you agree to improve that land.

Obviously the Earth can't have 50 trillion people, nor do we want to pave the whole country. But you are trying to argue that there is nothing to do in this country. But the only reason most of what could be done isn't done, is because of drastically inflated prices of labor and resources.

Most of the materials we are using these days, come from other countries. Not because we don't have those resources, but because we can get them cheaper from other countries. Why? Generally because their labor is cheaper. And there is no reason we couldn't import that cheap labor here. Then at least we wouldn't be exporting money to those countries to buy their goods. Talk about siphoning money out of here.



I used to drive a van for a living and I didn't make much more than minimum wage. If you drive for the government, they pay you $20+ an hour plus benefits. Most of the reason why light rail and other rail transportation systems costs so much, is because a railroad engineer makes about $120k a year plus some the best benefits in the country(probably pushing his actual compensation to value closer to $180k a year). Is it a high-skill job? Not at all. Almost all railroad employees only have high-school educations. They are not the cream of the crop by any means. Would an immigrant work as a railroad engineer for $50k a year with no benefits? I guarantee they would, probably less. And railroads are the most efficient form of moving freight.

If our prices were more competitive, if our labor could offer services for less, if Unions didn't have a stranglehold on our economy. You would see an absolute surge in development in this country.

Moreover, people talk about limitations to population growth. Well population growth is only related to the amount of food you can produce. We have seen massive increases in farm productivity. And things like "vertical farming" could multiply the amount of food we can produce in this country.

I'm not trying to argue I want any immigration at all. Read over my forum posts, I'm not an advocate for immigration.

But your arguments against immigration are baseless and empty.
Germany is currently at the top of the pile in International Competitiveness. Waiters make $20/hr. in Germany. In fact, 20/hr is more or less the de facto minimum wage in Germany. Union autoworkers make over $60/hr in Germany. How the @#%%^ do they do it? The Lenovo factory worker in China who makes $3.00/hr ... lets look at that. Now the first thing that you must factor, and the Conservatives never do that, is the exchange rate between China and the U.S. It's not my job to know what it is. I'm not the one saying that U.S. citizens should work for $3.00/hr so the U.S. Fortune 500 can compete with Chinese labor. I don't think I am off base in assuming that Chinese money is worth less than U.S. money. Much less. Maybe 1/2 as much. Maybe much less than that. So.... that chinese worker making $3.00/nr in relative terms is actually making more than the minimum wage here and likely just about what that kind of factory work would pay here.

In order to work somewhere, Red, an employer has to want you there. If s/he does not, you don't have a job. You can't make someone hire you. American employers who can, move their manufacturing to China because they can pay Chinese labor rates IN CHINA. They could not pay Chinese workers $3.00/hr IN AMERICA! And don't. When Central Americans come to America illegally they can and will work for less than the prevailing minimum wage because of their immigration status. They are exploitable. LEGAL immigrants are also exploitable to a lesser degree. Enough so to make it worth the doing if a company can swing it. Its all about the bottom line and you know it. If two people apply for the same job and both will do the same quality of work for the employer, the worker that is cheaper to hire will get the position.

But back to Germany. The reason why German car makers can pay line workers $60K/yr. is because they do not pay the CEO $40M/yr. Earlier you wondered why not a $100/hr minimum wage. Why get ridiculous? Why can't the right wing argue intelligently? Adjusted for inflation, the current $7.15/hr is a negative salary in many places in the U.S. like the East Coast. A minimum wage worker is a steady drain on the system because there is no way that that wage can sustain a human being living at an animal level, let alone in the manner to which a citizen of a First World country is indoctrinated to aspire to. So why not a $15 or $20 minimum wage? Indexed to inflation and the COL in the locality the wage is earned as well as the industry that pays the wage, i.e a different minimum wage for pizza delivery than warehouse work.

Unions? Union representation at 7% of all U.S. workers? Killing the country? Breaking its back? Destroying the Fortune 500? I don't think so, Red. I flat out disagree with everything you believe is true and representative of the "problem" the U.S. has with respect to immigration. As usual Conservatives want to blame the victims. Americans are lazy, they don't want to work for $3.00/hr and be competitive and the poor job creators what else can they do. And the immigrants should know better and out of respect, refuse the invitation to come and work in the U.S. or vice versa. Does that about sum up your position?

H
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2012, 10:35 AM
 
Location: Jacurutu
5,302 posts, read 4,030,390 times
Reputation: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
...Anyway, I ask her about Guatemala a lot when I'm there. She has mixed opinions about Guatemala, obviously she is from there, and has family there. So she holds a certain amount of nostalgia and bias for the place of her birth, but gets a little frustrated sometimes by the relative state of society there.

She wishes her family could come to the United States, but Guatemala is one of the poorer countries in the Americas, so it is nearly impossible to legally immigrate to the United States from there...
Two-thirds of immigration to the United States is "family-based", meaning it is through a relationship to a U.S. citizen (or, at a much lesser extent, to a U.S. Legal Permanent Resident). If she has naturalized (three years as a Legal Permanent Resident while being married to your Uncle), she can sponsor her parents and siblings (which is quota-based, also being categorized if they are adult and/or married). No other relatives are able to be sponsored by her directly (any children she may have had previously born outside the United States can apply for a Certificate of Citizenship, derived from her).

Wealth (at least to a "middle-class" level) has little to do with a family-based immigration scenario...

Contrary to how this topic is developing, it also has little to do with the immigrant's skill set. Legal immigration has little to do with the potential for welfare usage. English language skills aren't even considered.

But you'll have scores of people on C-D tell you otherwise, and they'll try to raise the specter of ALL of the world's poor coming here, Great-Grand Nephews being able to be sponsored, and every family member being on welfare, in a gang, doing drug deals...

And that is because even though they say they are cool with legal immigration, it makes quite a bit of difference to them where that immigration is coming from...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2012, 10:39 AM
 
47,315 posts, read 24,863,253 times
Reputation: 14474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yooperkat View Post
The United States needs to be able to control illegal immigration. Legal immigration is not the problem.

We need to enforce our laws. And since illegals don't respect our laws (first law broken, coming here through improper channels) we need to build bigger and better fences along the entire Mexican border, and increase patrol guards.

Just letting anyone who wants to come here (Al Qaeda for example) by any means does negatively effect this nation.

Some people may have family outside the U.S. and try to tug at your heartstrings about it, but we can't fix everyone's problems. We have enough of our own.
We had those problems when your ancestors arrived too. Probably more.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2012, 10:59 AM
 
Location: Midwest City, Oklahoma
7,194 posts, read 4,359,760 times
Reputation: 2647
Quote:
Originally Posted by softblueyz View Post
Economically the country is not in a position to support more immigrants. Economically we don't have the work for them.
There is no work for them? There is nothing to do in this country? There is no work to be done? Do you have any idea how how jobs are created?

You seem to believe that jobs sort of come down from high, and if we need a worker cheap, we will bring in an immigrant. But that isn't how job creation works. Immigrants themselves can and do create jobs. And if we are "outsourcing" our jobs, because we can't get cheap labor in our own country, that definitely isn't creating any jobs.

The reason we lost jobs, is because for many years our economy was artificially inflated through manipulation of the dollar by our financial institutions. Its why we could have trade deficits of hundreds of billions of dollars but still have a growing economy with low unemployment, all while outsourcing millions and millions of jobs.

And those jobs probably wouldn't have been outsourced if we had more lax immigration laws, more similar to the immigration laws of the 1800's.

Quote:
Originally Posted by softblueyz View Post
Illegal immigrants brought wages down in the US. They took jobs away from Americans. Educated, skilled, trained, experienced people who obtain work visas come to the US and work. Why does the US need people who are uneducated and can't speak English?
I dunno, I remember there were plenty of uneducated and non-english speaking Italians that came here in the last 1800's. As well as Germans, Polish, and other slavic people.

Look.. If you could go back to the 1800's, sure there was a demand for labor. But do you think the immigrants didn't make it harder for many Americans to get jobs? In the 1800's, did the immigrants not drive down labor costs for low-skill Americans? Did a lot of Americans during that time want to stop all immigration? Did a lot of Americans believe they were basically being pushed into poverty because of all the immigrants? But was it a good thing for those immigrants to come to this country in the 1800's?

[quote=softblueyz;26615154]Oh lord. And you want to pretend that it would be a good thing if immigrants come to the US take nothing and give nothing they will survive and it's good for the country.[/color]

I never said that it was good if they took nothing and gave nothing. I said, would it matter if they took nothing and gave nothing.

My argument is that, if you had a libertarian government, then no one would be guaranteed anything. So people who came here wouldn't really be taking away from anyone else. So even if they provided absolutely nothing, they wouldn't be taking anything either, so would it matter?

In a Libertarian-based government, the worst-case scenario would basically be that people came here and did nothing and either starved to death or went back home. It is the only way to have open-immigration, which at worst does nothing, and at best drastically expands our economy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by softblueyz View Post
If you look at the IT industry we have a massive number of people from India. Look at healthcare, massive numbers of doctors from various countries, nurses from the Phillipines. Exactly what do people from third world countries have to offer?
You keep talking like the only jobs that matter are professionals. But why are those the only jobs that matter?

Quote:
Originally Posted by softblueyz View Post
We were a growing nation in the 1800s and 1900s. We were building and creating. As of now, because of government for the most part, we have hit a wall where we have reached our growth potential. We are not creating big corporations, and industries are shrinking. Allowing open immigration is NOT going to restart the growth of this country. Uneducated immigrants do not add growth to this country other than in population. There is no place or room for unlimited immigrants.
I agree, because of government we have hit a wall. So if you got government out of the way, wouldn't that mean we would no longer be up against a wall?


That was the point of this forum thread. It wasn't to ask if you thought open-immigration was a good idea as things are today. I asked you if there was any way to restructure the government, where immigration wouldn't be harmful, and how would you do it.

It is basically silly to say that America has hit a developmental dead-end. While outsourcing all our jobs to countries with populations several times larger than our own.

There is plenty of work to be done in this country, its just that no one wants to pay for it. We are overweighted in debt, while we send all our money out of the country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2012, 11:09 AM
 
Location: Portland, OR
9,603 posts, read 9,479,252 times
Reputation: 9212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
There is plenty of work to be done in this country, its just that no one wants to pay for it. We are overweighted in debt, while we send all our money out of the country.
Whose fault is that?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2012, 11:11 AM
 
32,022 posts, read 14,777,184 times
Reputation: 8554
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leisesturm View Post
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

Right wing talking points? Are you confused? Conservatives don't want uncontrolled legal or illegal immigration. This apparent undeducated individual hasn't a clue what the carrying capacity of a country means and is living in some kind of globalist, utopian fantasy world based on emotion rather than common sense and logic. He has no respect for our nations soveriegn borders, our right to retain our identifying culture and language and our citizen's rights to jobs and resources.

He spouts nonsense that these immigrants both legal and illegal are doing jobs that Americans won't do for a FAIR wage. I have heard this nonsense far too many times as justification for unlimited immigration into our country. That is why people like him/her are put on my ignore list quickly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2012, 11:29 AM
 
32,022 posts, read 14,777,184 times
Reputation: 8554
Quote:
Originally Posted by IBMMuseum View Post
Two-thirds of immigration to the United States is "family-based", meaning it is through a relationship to a U.S. citizen (or, at a much lesser extent, to a U.S. Legal Permanent Resident). If she has naturalized (three years as a Legal Permanent Resident while being married to your Uncle), she can sponsor her parents and siblings (which is quota-based, also being categorized if they are adult and/or married). No other relatives are able to be sponsored by her directly (any children she may have had previously born outside the United States can apply for a Certificate of Citizenship, derived from her).

Wealth (at least to a "middle-class" level) has little to do with a family-based immigration scenario...

Contrary to how this topic is developing, it also has little to do with the immigrant's skill set. Legal immigration has little to do with the potential for welfare usage. English language skills aren't even considered.

But you'll have scores of people on C-D tell you otherwise, and they'll try to raise the specter of ALL of the world's poor coming here, Great-Grand Nephews being able to be sponsored, and every family member being on welfare, in a gang, doing drug deals...

And that is because even though they say they are cool with legal immigration, it makes quite a bit of difference to them where that immigration is coming from...
Why do constantly spin what others have said and their reasons for saying so? IMO, legal immigration should have little bearing on what relatives they have here. It should be based more on skills that we need.

Immigration should be diversified but you spin it to mean that we don't want immigrants coming here from certain countries. That's simply not true! How is wanting equal and diversifed numbers from all sending countires equate to not wanting immigrants from certain counties? Why do you always have such a big chip on your shoulder?
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