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.
There is no reason to "get used to the idea". Our politicians are suppose to represent us and we are the majority in this country and want controlled legal immigration that meets our needs as a country and want illegal immigrants removed from our country. You may have a defeatist attitude about the soveirgnty of our country and our power at the polls but I do not and neither do most Americans.
If you think that with unemployment numbers increasing Americans are going to sit idly by while illegal immigrants or other cheap, foreign labor floods our borders then you don't know Americans very well.
Unfortunately, neither major candidate is going to do anything about illegal immigration.
For the most part Romney's policies will be identical to Bush's, which means he'll do nothing. There have actually been more deportations under Obama, but he'll never make a major move to drastically cut illegal immigration...the Democrats want the Latino vote too badly, and any attempt to curb illegal immigration is painted as an anti-Hispanic attack. As the numbers of Latinos grow, it will become even more suicidal to really push for tighter borders.
I'm a leftist on most issues, but I realize that you can't have a Social Democracy with a constant flood of exploitable labor to undercut wages. Neither major party is going to do anything to stop this. So, I'm defeatist on it as well.
Unfortunately, neither major candidate is going to do anything about illegal immigration.
For the most part Romney's policies will be identical to Bush's, which means he'll do nothing. There have actually been more deportations under Obama, but he'll never make a major move to drastically cut illegal immigration...the Democrats want the Latino vote too badly, and any attempt to curb illegal immigration is painted as an anti-Hispanic attack. As the numbers of Latinos grow, it will become even more suicidal to really push for tighter borders.
I'm a leftist on most issues, but I realize that you can't have a Social Democracy with a constant flood of exploitable labor to undercut wages. Neither major party is going to do anything to stop this. So, I'm defeatist on it as well.
Not exactly. Bush pushed for amnesty, Romney isn't. There is something wrong in this country when we have a group of citizens who think their ethnic group is above our immigration laws and anyone who dares object to that is painted as anti-Hispanic. So you are saying that as the number of Latinos grow our country we will become divided among ethnic lines with law abiding citizens on one side and Latinos on the other? We don't have tight borders. We allow in over 1 million legal immigrants a year and Latinos are favored by far in those numbers so what have they to b*tch about?
Sorry, but I will fight for my country's soveirgnty till my dying breath and I know many Americans who will do likewise. Throwing your hands up in defeat is just being a coward IMO.
Instead of sharing ignorance, go to Numbers USA and watch the presentation about the world's poor and why we can't save them.
Teachers are being laid off ll over this country. A Texas Charter school group, Harmony Academies, is bringing in teachers on H1B visas.
We are spending millions a year for education. Universities doing research are bring in post docs on H1B visas. This is crazy.
Interesting because the teaching curriculum varies from country to country. So now we bring in teachers who don't know the American education system, more than likely English is a second language, and this is at the expense of childrens education. The schools gain and the teachers won't be in the union and they will work for less pay. All the more reason for home schooling. Be prepared for your child's English skills deteroriate and end up being slow learners.
Why do you constantly spin to what immigration you want, my response was to how immigration is. Even for employment-based immigration, it isn't based on a skill set we don't have in the United States, it is based on what an employer is willing to pay (or actually not pay) for that trait. You can't even decide whether you want skills or diversity as a primary criteria for immigration, maybe just whatever blocks the most legal immigrants that you don't like?
What are you talking about? Shouldn't all Americans want legal immigration to be fair, diversified and equal for all groups while taking into account the skills they have to offer for jobs that can't be filled by Americans? Why would you favor a particular group? That isn't what this country has been based on. Why allow in immigrants soley based on having relatives here?
My response to you was to address your claim that we CD posters only want immigration from certain countries. That's a bald face lie! Just what legal immigrants don't I like? When have I ever said I don't like certain ones?
I want both diversity and job skills that we need. Why do I have to pick one or the other? Immigrants should be willing to assimilate and have a working knowledge of English before coming here also. Is that too much to ask? I guess it is according to you.
Unfortunately, neither major candidate is going to do anything about illegal immigration.
For the most part Romney's policies will be identical to Bush's, which means he'll do nothing. There have actually been more deportations under Obama, but he'll never make a major move to drastically cut illegal immigration...the Democrats want the Latino vote too badly, and any attempt to curb illegal immigration is painted as an anti-Hispanic attack. As the numbers of Latinos grow, it will become even more suicidal to really push for tighter borders.
I'm a leftist on most issues, but I realize that you can't have a Social Democracy with a constant flood of exploitable labor to undercut wages. Neither major party is going to do anything to stop this. So, I'm defeatist on it as well.
Deportation numbers are distorted. Catching someone crossing the border and turning them around doesn't fall under "deportation" except when the numbers work for Obama.
Obama has given illegals more "rights" than any other president. He has excused crimes committed by illegals to enable them to obtain work permits - DACA. He won't allow ICE to enforce the law. He has given criminals and out if they are detained - all they have to do is claim they are a DREAMer and they are released. He won't allow states to enforce immigration laws. Someone applying for legal entry would probably be denied entry if they had the criminal background that illegals have.
Give Obama 4 more years and he will be giving illegals more. I wouldn't be surprised if he tries to go for full blown amnesty. I think Romney may not do anything. Although he is not obligated to extend the work permits under DACA. He can reverse some of the "entitlements" that Obama has gifted to illegals. I doubt amnesty is on his agenda.
Deportation numbers are distorted. Catching someone crossing the border and turning them around doesn't fall under "deportation" except when the numbers work for Obama.
Obama has given illegals more "rights" than any other president. He has excused crimes committed by illegals to enable them to obtain work permits - DACA. He won't allow ICE to enforce the law. He has given criminals and out if they are detained - all they have to do is claim they are a DREAMer and they are released. He won't allow states to enforce immigration laws. Someone applying for legal entry would probably be denied entry if they had the criminal background that illegals have.
Give Obama 4 more years and he will be giving illegals more. I wouldn't be surprised if he tries to go for full blown amnesty. I think Romney may not do anything. Although he is not obligated to extend the work permits under DACA. He can reverse some of the "entitlements" that Obama has gifted to illegals. I doubt amnesty is on his agenda.
Not to mention that Obama broke his own promise in regards to illegals. Illegals will not get a head of line pass. They will have to follow the same path as anyone else seeking to enter this country legally...
I feel like there is so much crap spewing out of your mouth I don't even know where to begin.
Is your stance, have open borders, get rid of welfare, every man for himself and we will grow and become more prosperous than ever?
Personally we cant have open borders world wide as seems your desire.
Let me clarify the reasoning behind this post.
The point of this post is, my aunt is a liberal, she is hispanic, and she wants to be able to bring her family over from Guatemala. She supports Obama and basically social and economic justice, which is typical of Hispanics in this country.
The purpose of asking you people how to create government policies which would enable all the people of the world to move to this country "if they desired to", was not because I want everyone in the world to move to the United States. I don't. I would be fine with no one coming, and many people leaving. The purpose of asking the question was to see if my opinion was a valid opinion.
And my opinion is that the only structure to government which would allow unlimited immigration, is libertarianism, with very strong crime laws and an extension of the death penalty, no birthright citizenship, very strict naturalization laws, but letting the states allow "non-citizens" to live in their states if they choose to, so basically no federal regulation of immigration, outside of setting uniform naturalization laws.
What I'm saying is, the only type of government that could allow open-immigration, would be the type of government this country had during most of the 1800's. Which is exactly the opposite the type of government that the majority of Hispanics support.
So don't you think that it is ironic that the type of government Hispanics regularly support, is the type of government that prevents their "people" from being able to come to this country legally in the first place? What should be more important to them, bringing their family here, or protecting their own social benefits?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digital_Duck
I agree with much of your post EXCEPT this:
It's not silly at all ... illegals will work for less that wage standards which
for those who made standard wages - they are now forced to work for less ...
You don't think that being forced to take lower wages doesn't hurt our economy?
Lower wages = less fluid cash flow
less fluid cash flow = less product sales
less product sales = less generated taxes
less generated taxes = increasing taxes on more successful MIDDLE CLASS so government can spend more.
You are looking at it wrong. I am looking it at from an overall level, not an individual level. I will agree that many individuals would lose if there was unlimited immigration. Especially since it would require a rollback of all government welfare programs.
What I'm arguing is that, one of the primary roles of the government is national defense. The cost of the national defense should largely be a fixed value. The military has to be a certain strength to resist foreign invasion. So theoretically, the more people you add to this country, the less defense spending there should be per-capita. The same goes for interstate highways. Can you imagine how much it would cost per-capita to run a highway from California to New York if there were only a couple million people living in this whole country? And the majority of wear-and-tear on the highways comes from weather decay, not from driving over them. Can you imagine how expensive our military would be per-capita, to stay at the same strength it is today, if the population of this country was a quarter what it is today? How much cheaper per-person would our military be to stay at the same strength, if we had the same population as China?
So basically infrastructure and defense spending goes down the more people you add to the country. The only spending that goes up per-capita by adding more people, are things like police/fireman spending, and of course, all entitlement/welfare spending.
If you got rid of entitlement/welfare spending, and returned us more to the government we had in most of the 1800's. It would only allow three types of taxation, property taxes, tariffs, and excise taxes. Tariffs and excise taxes came from consumption(which goes up the more people you add), and from property taxes, which is relative to the average value of real estate(which also tends to go up the more people you add).
In my view, if we had the same structure we had before, the federal government would have more tax revenue compared to spending, since we would be adding more people/taxpayers without much increase in spending. So in a sense, if we had open-immigration and the same tax system from the past, the vast majority of people would be far better off than they are be now, if we talk about the amount of goods and services they could buy with their wages, as the cost-of-living would drop drastically.
We know that by getting rid of the welfare system, it would harm some people. But the truth is, the vast majority of the people in this country would get along just fine. Moreover, you have churches and charities that would largely come in and fill the gap. So the question is, if the vast majority of people would benefit from libertarian government, and if it would allow open-immigration which is what seems to be important for many immigrants who are already here. Would the fact that the vast majority of Americans would benefit, balance out the fact that a minority of Americans would have less?
Basically, from a macro level, open-immigration is good, from a micro/individual level, it could be bad depending on who you are. Should we "sacrifice the few for the good of the many", or should we sacrifice the many to protect the few who would be incapable of competing against immigrants with higher skills. Which direction would make us better off as a country?
Most of the largest companies, and the richest people have come from the United States. Why do you think that is? Do you think business interests want more immigration or less immigration? Why?
The point of this post is, my aunt is a liberal, she is hispanic, and she wants to be able to bring her family over from Guatemala. She supports Obama and basically social and economic justice, which is typical of Hispanics in this country.
The purpose of asking you people how to create government policies which would enable all the people of the world to move to this country "if they desired to", was not because I want everyone in the world to move to the United States. I don't. I would be fine with no one coming, and many people leaving. The purpose of asking the question was to see if my opinion was a valid opinion.
And my opinion is that the only structure to government which would allow unlimited immigration, is libertarianism, with very strong crime laws and an extension of the death penalty, no birthright citizenship, very strict naturalization laws, but letting the states allow "non-citizens" to live in their states if they choose to, so basically no federal regulation of immigration, outside of setting uniform naturalization laws.
What I'm saying is, the only type of government that could allow open-immigration, would be the type of government this country had during most of the 1800's. Which is exactly the opposite the type of government that the majority of Hispanics support.
So don't you think that it is ironic that the type of government Hispanics regularly support, is the type of government that prevents their "people" from being able to come to this country legally in the first place? What should be more important to them, bringing their family here, or protecting their own social benefits?
You are looking at it wrong. I am looking it at from an overall level, not an individual level. I will agree that many individuals would lose if there was unlimited immigration. Especially since it would require a rollback of all government welfare programs.
What I'm arguing is that, one of the primary roles of the government is national defense. The cost of the national defense should largely be a fixed value. The military has to be a certain strength to resist foreign invasion. So theoretically, the more people you add to this country, the less defense spending there should be per-capita. The same goes for interstate highways. Can you imagine how much it would cost per-capita to run a highway from California to New York if there were only a couple million people living in this whole country? And the majority of wear-and-tear on the highways comes from weather decay, not from driving over them. Can you imagine how expensive our military would be per-capita, to stay at the same strength it is today, if the population of this country was a quarter what it is today? How much cheaper per-person would our military be to stay at the same strength, if we had the same population as China?
So basically infrastructure and defense spending goes down the more people you add to the country. The only spending that goes up per-capita by adding more people, are things like police/fireman spending, and of course, all entitlement/welfare spending.
If you got rid of entitlement/welfare spending, and returned us more to the government we had in most of the 1800's. It would only allow three types of taxation, property taxes, tariffs, and excise taxes. Tariffs and excise taxes came from consumption(which goes up the more people you add), and from property taxes, which is relative to the average value of real estate(which also tends to go up the more people you add).
In my view, if we had the same structure we had before, the federal government would have more tax revenue compared to spending, since we would be adding more people/taxpayers without much increase in spending. So in a sense, if we had open-immigration and the same tax system from the past, the vast majority of people would be far better off than they are be now, if we talk about the amount of goods and services they could buy with their wages, as the cost-of-living would drop drastically.
We know that by getting rid of the welfare system, it would harm some people. But the truth is, the vast majority of the people in this country would get along just fine. Moreover, you have churches and charities that would largely come in and fill the gap. So the question is, if the vast majority of people would benefit from libertarian government, and if it would allow open-immigration which is what seems to be important for many immigrants who are already here. Would the fact that the vast majority of Americans would benefit, balance out the fact that a minority of Americans would have less?
Basically, from a macro level, open-immigration is good, from a micro/individual level, it could be bad depending on who you are. Should we "sacrifice the few for the good of the many", or should we sacrifice the many to protect the few who would be incapable of competing against immigrants with higher skills. Which direction would make us better off as a country?
Most of the largest companies, and the richest people have come from the United States. Why do you think that is? Do you think business interests want more immigration or less immigration? Why?
You implied that I am wrong and you failed to substantiate one point where I was incorrect.
You just launched into a diatribe scattering your points even farther and wider than before.
There is no direction to bring your point to a conclusion. It was left like roots of a blackberry bush ... all over the place.
Let me say this:
Open immigration is NOT good at all. It allows for a subservient invasion of American resources and benefits for the sake of outsiders with little to no investment into the standards and values which built this once great nation
and has already shredded our values with the complacency of outsiders opinions based on their own countries nationalist failures.
Let me make this point:
the Census Bureau estimated that perhaps 115,000 people from Middle Eastern countries live in the United States illegally.
That says nothing of the northern African countries which hate this country more that many of them which are not added into these numbers.
You implied that I am wrong and you failed to substantiate one point where I was incorrect.
Your argument is that, if we had open immigration that Americans would be far worse off. Based on what?
Without government income redistribution, why would you be more poor than you are today? Why would the vast majority of Americans be more poor than they are today?
Your argument is rooted in two areas. First you believe that immigrants take jobs from Americans. And secondly, you believe that immigrants push down wages.
We have to ask, are those points true? And how do they play out in the real world.
It is certainly true that immigrants will push down wages in many fields. But how does that affect the real world? Well, how much can you buy with an income of $20,000? Go backwards in time, and then forwards in time, does the power of the dollar fluctuate over time? What is money? Money is simply a way to trade in goods and services. Money has no absolute value. And whether or not you make $10,000 a year or $100,000, it simply doesn't matter. All that matters is how much you can purchase with that money.
Take for instance Norway, if we look at their GDP per capita. The average income in Norway according to the IMF is $97,607 a year. When you apply purchasing power, its only $53,396. Contrast that with the United States where the average income is $48,328 with equal purchasing power. So while Norway per-capita income is $49,279 higher than ours, their purchasing power is only $5068 more.
When you talk about Germany, its per-capita income is $44,111. But has a purchasing power of only $38,077. Switzerland has a per-capita income of $83,073, but a purchasing power of only $44,452. Which means while the average Swiss income is nearly twice as high as American income, they actually make less money than Americans if you look at what they can actually buy with their money.
Other notables by per-capita income vs purchasing power... Note, the United States has purchasing power of $48,328
So while I agree with you, if immigrants came in, incomes would drop, but only by the size of the absolute numbers, not by purchasing power. Because purchasing power is based on how much you can purchase with the money you have, and since wages will drop, so would the price of goods and services.
To argue your case, you would have to believe that immigrants will come in, drive down wages, while prices will remain the same or go up.
If we take as example one of the arguments for immigration, that migrants do jobs that Americans won't do, such as picking tomato's and lettuce for low pay. Your point-of-view is that, Americans would do those jobs if they paid better for the work, even if it means that the cost of lettuce and tomato's will go up heavily in price. The question is, why would you be better off if the price of lettuce and tomato's(and almost everything else) goes up in price? One of our largest exports from this country is actually food. What would happen to food exports if the cost of production doubled? Which would you prefer, closed immigration and outsourcing to countries with low wages, and huge trade deficits and debt. Or open immigration, an expansion of manufacturing, and trade surpluses?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digital_Duck
Let me say this:
Open immigration is NOT good at all. It allows for a subservient invasion of American resources and benefits for the sake of outsiders with little to no investment into the standards and values which built this once great nation
and has already shredded our values with the complacency of outsiders opinions based on their own countries nationalist failures.
Look, I'm not arguing that I want to import the values of other countries. I don't at all.
The question was not about whether or not I want to flood this nation with communists and muslim jihadists. The question was whether or not you could produce a system that could potentially allow people from all over the world to come here, that would have no harmful effects to the country as a whole. It doesn't mean all 310 million people here will be better off, it means that 156 million people or more will be better off.
My argument is that, if you had a very limited government, which gave absolutely no one any "benefits". Then people could only come here, if they could make it on their own. They could only come here if they could provide a good quality service for a low price. They could only come here if they were being productive. They could only come here, if they behaved in a way that the people who are already here tolerated. Without anti-discrimination laws, people who had values that were counter to American values would be incredibly poor, as no one would want to shop for their goods and services, and most likely they would just go home, or not come at all. Companies would be boycotted and individuals would be ostracized. Without government, people from the 2nd-world and 3rd-world wouldn't be coming here for "benefits". They would be coming here for jobs. And if there was open immigration, they wouldn't be sending money back to Mexico. They would be bringing their families and friends to this country, just like what happened in the 1800's.
The people that came here during that time, didn't come to a multi-culturalist nation. They came to a melting pot, where there was incredible pressure to assimilate. There was incredible pressure to become an American, to speak English. If you had that country again, then you could have almost entirely open immigration. And if we had open immigration today, I can guarantee you that our economic growth would skyrocket. We wouldn't lose the jobs we already have, and we would see a huge expansion of jobs created by the countless people who would come here. Also, without government regulations and interventions, you would have much more free-market principles, and the free market is a much better job creator than the government.
I would almost guarantee 10%+ annual growth for at least 20 years if that were to happen.
Follow the existing law. Get rid of residents on the dole and don't allow citizenship until they show a record that they will not become social service users on a regular basis.
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.
