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.
Again...it was not a grammar statement, but a statement about how the Republican party views minorities.
If it's all about business and every economist agrees that immigration is a net positive for the nation and legalization would be a big boost to the economy, then why are you against it?
What polls?
All of them.
Yeah if you wanna count the biased media polls.
Go ahead believe them - have fun! lol!
ALL of the independent non biased media polls say Trump is way way way ahead and has been "forever".
But this is business, and if there is one thing I have learned in my years of business dealings it is that you never let emotions govern them. If you do, you will lose every time.
That's funny, because Trump is a classic example of a person who lets his emotions govern his actions. Namely his fragile ego, constant addiction for attention and knee-jerk tendency to lash out. It's cost him dearly in the political ring, and it has cost him in the business side as well (witness his wonderful lack of success in the gaming business, for example).
Last edited by silverkris; 08-18-2016 at 09:33 AM..
There is not a single study that I am aware of that supports the assertion that there is a "trickle down" economic benefit to a mass deportation of illegal immigrants. The only benefit they tend to show is the potential savings for what they estimate illegal immigrants currently cost local, state and federal governments. Study after study after study has proven that amnesty and legalization is a net benefit to the economy.
I think you are using "trickle down" as a buzzword. Businesses need employees. I'm sure if they had reasonably priced robots to do the work, they would use them instead, but they don't. This is reality, not Star Wars. If you take away the cheap labor that has no business being here in the first place, what other option are the businesses left with?
After all, as a democrat, isn't it your assertion that we need these people here to do these jobs? If we need them so badly, then wouldn't we need the unemployed masses to do the jobs just as badly if they were gone? In fact wouldn't we need them so badly, that the businesses would have to pay "a living wage" in order to get them?
And let's talk about your statement, "The only benefit they tend to show is the potential savings for what they estimate illegal immigrants currently cost local, state and federal governments."
"Only"? This is huge. There is no "only" about it.
And let me add to that the converse. We are already paying for their schooling and "emergency health care" but what if we legalized 11 million poor people all at once?
What would that do to social security? What would that do to section 8 housing? What would that do to the food stamp program? What would that do to Medicaid? Medicare? Or how about subsidies under Obamacare? Welfare?
Legalize them, and Americans won't only be competing with them for jobs, they will be competing with them for social safety nets. Who is going to pay for all of this? It seems like a huge amount of trouble and expense for a group of people who came uninvited and skirted our laws to be here. We should be the ones who decide how many more workers to let in, JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER COUNTRY ON THE PLANET. If we get rid of the illegal workers, and we get minority unemployment levels to reasonable levels, and we STILL find that we don't have enough workers, we can always take more in, legally, and at our discretion.
I think main reason that something like that won't happen is that Brexit was a simple majority vote but the presidency is decided by the Electoral College. The closest we come are with the traditional battleground states and right now it looks like Hilary is ahead in that race. That is why looking at nationwide figures isn't really the best way to look at who is likely to win, after all Gore won the popular vote but a battleground state was all of the difference.
That's all true but few elections differ in the outcome of the popular and electoral college vote. Though not directly linked the two are correlated because the electoral college is divided up by population mostly. Granting a minimum does favor states that presumably prefer Trump, but the population is much more heavily weighted. Clinton will win the e college by a much larger percentage than the popular vote, but she will win both decisively.
I think you are using "trickle down" as a buzzword. Businesses need employees. I'm sure if they had reasonably priced robots to do the work, they would use them instead, but they don't. This is reality, not Star Wars. If you take away the cheap labor that has no business being here in the first place, what other option are the businesses left with?
After all, as a democrat, isn't it your assertion that we need these people here to do these jobs? If we need them so badly, then wouldn't we need the unemployed masses to do the jobs just as badly if they were gone? In fact wouldn't we need them so badly, that the businesses would have to pay "a living wage" in order to get them?
And let's talk about your statement, "The only benefit they tend to show is the potential savings for what they estimate illegal immigrants currently cost local, state and federal governments."
"Only"? This is huge. There is no "only" about it.
And let me add to that the converse. We are already paying for their schooling and "emergency health care" but what if we legalized 11 million poor people all at once?
What would that do to social security? What would that do to section 8 housing? What would that do to the food stamp program? What would that do to Medicaid? Medicare? Or how about subsidies under Obamacare? Welfare?
Legalize them, and Americans won't only be competing with them for jobs, they will be competing with them for social safety nets. Who is going to pay for all of this? It seems like a huge amount of trouble and expense for a group of people who came uninvited and skirted our laws to be here. We should be the ones who decide how many more workers to let in, JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER COUNTRY ON THE PLANET. If we get rid of the illegal workers, and we get minority unemployment levels to reasonable levels, and we STILL find that we don't have enough workers, we can always take more in, legally, and at our discretion.
I linked to the Forbes article explaining the "Lump of Labor Fallacy". Here is is again...
I have also provided links and data regarding legalization in multiple other posts. From my last post in response to the same claims:
Quote:
Even conservative pundits estimate that it would take 20 years and over $300 billion to deport them. It would then cost an additional $315 billion to enforce that removal and keep them out. That's $615 billion. That's just the hard cost. Removing them would shrink the labor pool by 6.4% which would in turn shrink US economic output by 6% and cost the country around $1.6 trillion in lost GDP. Hit particularly hard would be the construction, agriculture and hospitality industries.
The cost of legalization would be about $262 billion in federal benefits and subsidies over the same comparison period, but would in turn be offset by $459 billion in tax revenue from the now legalized workers.
How do you justify deportation when even conservative think tanks estimate that it would involve massive costs and impacts to our economy? To borrow an old analogy..."it's cheaper to keep her"...
Increase federal direct spending by $262 billion over the 2014–2023 period. Most of those outlays would be for increases in refundable tax credits stemming from the larger U.S. population under the bill and in spending on health care programs—particularly for the Medicaid program and for subsidies provided through insurance exchanges created under the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
Increase federal revenues by $459 billion over the 2014–2023 period. That increase would stem largely from additional collections of income and payroll taxes, reflecting both an increase in the size of the U.S. labor force and changes in the legal status of some current workers.
Decrease federal budget deficits through the changes in direct spending and revenues just discussed by $197 billion over the 2014–2023 period.
Face it...you and Trump are completely WRONG about the economic impact of immigrants both legal and illegal and the impacts of legalization in general. I am not aware of a SINGLE ECONOMIST that would back your position. I've sourced and backed up my argument. You continue with your hyperbole.
If it's all about business and every economist agrees that immigration is a net positive for the nation and legalization would be a big boost to the economy, then why are you against it?
Not "every economist", but there are certainly enough of them out there. But many economists think on a global scale, and economists tend to pick and choose the numbers that fit their narrative/agenda. And more often than not, their agenda is globalization, equalization of currencies, removal of trade barriers, etc. And I am in agreement with them that this is the best way to bring the world out of poverty, but they never tell you that it is at the expense of the working class of wealthy nations. And will be for decades to come until the equalization occurs. It can't happen any other way. I have been wondering for decades when the people of first world were going to wake up to this, and it seems like finally, they are beginning to. This is great for the people of the third world. It's also great for multinational corporations. Not so great for the middle class of first world countries. And at this stage of the game, we don't need a study. The numbers are already in.
Not "every economist", but there are certainly enough of them out there. But many economists think on a global scale, and economists tend to pick and choose the numbers that fit their narrative/agenda. And more often than not, their agenda is globalization, equalization of currencies, removal of trade barriers, etc. And I am in agreement with them that this is the best way to bring the world out of poverty, but they never tell you that it is at the expense of the working class of wealthy nations. And will be for decades to come until the equalization occurs. It can't happen any other way. I have been wondering for decades when the people of first world were going to wake up to this, and it seems like finally, they are beginning to. This is great for the people of the third world. It's also great for multinational corporations. Not so great for the middle class of first world countries. And at this stage of the game, we don't need a study. The numbers are already in.
So, no...you have nothing to back up anything you are saying.
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.
