New Asian immigrants to US now surpass Hispanics

[Zippyjuan]

Yes, another immigration topic but thought it might get lost in one of the other threads.
http://enews.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20120619/23bf8379-9f91-4b40-af30-500489ba5e5b

WASHINGTON (AP) — For the first time, the influx of Asians moving to the U.S. has surpassed that of Hispanics, reflecting a slowdown in illegal immigration while American employers increase their demand for high-skilled workers.

An expansive study by the Pew Research Center details what it describes as "the rise of Asian-Americans," a highly diverse and fast-growing group making up roughly 5 percent of the U.S. population. Mostly foreign-born and naturalized citizens, their numbers have been boosted by increases in visas granted to specialized workers and to wealthy investors as the U.S. economy becomes driven less by manufacturing and more by technology.

"Too often the policy debates on immigration fixate on just one part — illegal immigration," said Karthick Ramakrishnan, a political science professor at the University of California-Riverside and a fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. "U.S. immigration is more diverse and broader than that, with policy that needs to focus also on high-skilled workers."

"With net migration from Mexico now at zero, the role of Asian-Americans has become more important," he said.

About 430,000 Asians, or 36 percent of all new immigrants, arrived in the U.S. in 2010, according to the latest census data. That's compared to about 370,000, or 31 percent, who were Hispanic.

The Pew analysis, released Tuesday, said the tipping point for Asian immigrants likely occurred during 2009 as illegal immigrants crossing the border from Mexico sharply declined due to increased immigration enforcement and a dwindling supply of low-wage work in the weak U.S. economy. Many Mexicans already in the U.S. have also been heading back to their country, putting recent net migration at a standstill.

As recently as 2007, about 390,000 of new immigrants to the U.S. were Asian, compared to 540,000 who were Hispanic.

The shift to increased Asian immigration, particularly of people from India, China and South Korea, coincides with changes in U.S. immigration policy dating to the 1990s that began to favor wealthy and educated workers. The policy, still in place but subject to caps that have created waiting lists, fast tracks visas for foreigners willing to invest at least half a million dollars in U.S. businesses or for workers in high-tech and other specialized fields who have at least a bachelor's degree.

International students studying at U.S. colleges and universities also are now most likely


More at link.

[jkr]

well, there ARE more of them...better brush up that mandarin...

[Drex]

Oh, but asians are better for our country

/sarcasmoff

[Zippyjuan]

Everybody here comes from some immigrant group up their family tree.

[Brian4Liberty]

As a resident of New Asia, this is old news. I really do miss Mexican food though. Growing up in an ethnically integrated community is one thing. Becoming a severe (and somewhat unwelcome) minority in your own "hometown" is a different story. Koreans and Vietnamese are particularly closed to outsiders. Non-Asians are generally not welcome in their businesses when a critical mass is reached.

[angelatc]

They come here legally - no problem.

[James Madison]

The shift to increased Asian immigration, particularly of people from India, China and South Korea, coincides with changes in U.S. immigration policy dating to the 1990s that began to favor wealthy and educated workers. The policy, still in place but subject to caps that have created waiting lists, fast tracks visas for foreigners willing to invest at least half a million dollars in U.S. businesses or for workers in high-tech and other specialized fields who have at least a bachelor's degree.


No Japan....

I am disappoint :(

[heavenlyboy34]

No Japan....

I am disappoint :(
+1 who will invent urine powered video games if not for Japanese folks? ;)

[dannno]

Everybody here comes from some immigrant group up their family tree.

Up YOURS (family tree)!!

:D

[liberdom]

They're counting only legal immigrants, right?

[LibForestPaul]

They come here legally - no problem.
Of course, no problem, pish-posh unemployment and underemployment. I'll just work for DOD, Police, Teacher, Hospital, City job.

[ProIndividual]

Of course, no problem, pish-posh unemployment and underemployment. I'll just work for DOD, Police, Teacher, Hospital, City job.

Immigration is condusive to economic growth, and it historically, in its greatest waves in any country including our own, INCREASES native employment rates and INCREASES native wages. Please do some reading into free market economics. Labor protectionism (anti-immigration attitudes) is anti-free market, anti-property rights (ability to trade labor and jobs with anyone you like), anti-free trade, anti-contract (labor contracts are rights, not up for state intervention and regulation), etc.

I know it's counter intuitive, but free market economics are deductively logical.

The idea immigrants increase native unemployment and lower native standards of living has been debunked by free market economics for 100 years...and some studies are 100 years long, ranging from 100 years ago to the present.

It should be the self imposed duty of every liberty advocate to educate themselves on economics, especially where they directly effect individual rights.

[Origanalist]

Immigration is condusive to economic growth, and it historically, in its greatest waves in any country including our own, INCREASES native employment rates and INCREASES native wages.

You keep saying that, but after the huge wave we just had from South America our unemployment is way up and I don't think wages have increased any. Where is all this prosperity for Americans all these immigrants are supposed to be bringing with them?

PI, if you don't mind me asking, what do you do to support yourself?

[liberdom]

Immigration is condusive to economic growth, and it historically, in its greatest waves in any country including our own, INCREASES native employment rates and INCREASES native wages. Please do some reading into free market economics. Labor protectionism (anti-immigration attitudes) is anti-free market, anti-property rights (ability to trade labor and jobs with anyone you like), anti-free trade, anti-contract (labor contracts are rights, not up for state intervention and regulation), etc.

I know it's counter intuitive, but free market economics are deductively logical.

The idea immigrants increase native unemployment and lower native standards of living has been debunked by free market economics for 100 years...and some studies are 100 years long, ranging from 100 years ago to the present.

It should be the self imposed duty of every liberty advocate to educate themselves on economics, especially where they directly effect individual rights.

The only reasons immigration was good for the economy in the past was because
1) we had less technology
2) less social services
3) lower population overall

Anybody who thinks "immigration is always good, otherwise free market theory can't be true", ought to look at the world around them, and explain to us why the richest countries don't happen to be those who are either most populated or most immigrated.

By the way, why do you assume
1) economic growth is always good
2) employment is always good when increased
3) increasing wages is always good
If we wanted any of the 3 of its own sake, then it'd be fine to let the government create it, but it isn't always a good thing. So using that as your selling point for immigration is quite stupid.

[Philhelm]

Everybody here comes from some immigrant group up their family tree.

Yeah right. God created me. Everyone else evolved from apes. :D

[Zippyjuan]

They're counting only legal immigrants, right?
It is not quite clear but appears that it counts both since it points out that illegal imigration from Mexico has basically stopped (last year the same number came here as went back home) as impacting the number of them in the US.

[alucard13mmfmj]

Once Obama grants amnesty... instead of net 0.. itll be net positive again.

I am chinese and asians do take over entire towns. Parts of San Gabriel Valley in california is predominantly asian/chinese. Like a Chinatown, but more like a China City.

A lot of western super markets go out of business, like Vons, Ralphs, and etc in these communities and many chinese/asian super markets sprout.

[John F Kennedy III]

To the people who keep pretending immigration increases wages and jobs:

We have 30 million illegal immigrants here. Going by what you say, every american would have a job paying $15 an hour or more.

[Zippyjuan]

There are a few factors at work on the Mexican numbers. The biggest is the US economy shedding jobs starting in 2007. Over the next two years, we saw a net exodus of two million illegal aliens since jobs became harder to find. When the economy picks up, many will likely return. Secondly, the Mexican population is not booming like it once was- people are having fewer kids (down to 2.2 per family vs six or eight. That will mean fewer people needing new jobs. http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/04/changing_mexica.html The "bulge" of hispanic immigration occured in large part in the wake of NAFTA which put many Mexican and Central American farmers out of work so they came to the US looking for it. Mexico is now creating more jobs for its own citizens than it did in the past and their economy has been improving. This also reduces the reasons to leave the country looking for work.

The estimated number of illegal immigrants in the country is not 30 million but closer to 10 million. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2012/0424/40-year-wave-of-Mexican-migration-recedes-as-illegal-immigration-ebbs-video


Mexicans make up about 58 percent of an estimated 11.2 million unauthorized immigrants in the United States. Nearly 40 million immigrants – legal and illegal – live in the US, and Mexicans account for 30 percent of that total.

The standstill in Mexican immigration seems to be a result of the weakened US economy in which jobs are harder to find, heightened border control, greater danger crossing the border illegally, and a rise in deportations. Other factors include an improved Mexican economy and a decline in birthrates in Mexico.

“There has been a decrease in apprehensions at the border, which points to the fact that fewer people are crossing the border,” says Pew's Ms. Cohn.

In 2005, more than 1 million Mexicans were taken into custody trying to cross the US border. By 2011, that number decreased by more than 70 percent.

Meanwhile, deportations of illegal Mexican immigrants have jumped sharply. In 2010, nearly 400,000 unauthorized immigrants were deported – 73 percent of them Mexicans.

Although many Mexican immigrants who have been deported say they plan to try to return to the US, a rising share say they won’t.

A survey by Mexican authorities found that 20 percent of repatriated labor migrants said they would not return to the US in 2010, as opposed to just 7 percent who said the same thing in 2005, according to the Pew study.

[ProIndividual]

Immigration is condusive to economic growth, and it historically, in its greatest waves in any country including our own, INCREASES native employment rates and INCREASES native wages. Please do some reading into free market economics. Labor protectionism (anti-immigration attitudes) is anti-free market, anti-property rights (ability to trade labor and jobs with anyone you like), anti-free trade, anti-contract (labor contracts are rights, not up for state intervention and regulation), etc.

I know it's counter intuitive, but free market economics are deductively logical.

The idea immigrants increase native unemployment and lower native standards of living has been debunked by free market economics for 100 years...and some studies are 100 years long, ranging from 100 years ago to the present.

It should be the self imposed duty of every liberty advocate to educate themselves on economics, especially where they directly effect individual rights.

That post recieved this negative reputation and remark:

"your philosophy is antithetical to liberty go away" by thoughtomator

Umm, I'm pretty sure you're absolutely wrong there, and have no evidence to prove anything I said was wrong. Can you now try logic, data, and sources in debate...or is anyone who disagrees with labor protectionism inhibiting free markets in a anti-libertarian ethical way based on misconceptions in economics a person whose "philosophy is antithetical to liberty"?

I'm pretty sure if anyone, between the two of us, is antithetical to liberty..it's clearly you and your "philosophy" of statism and Mercantilist economics.

Now try to prove me wrong this time, not just neg rep me and have no evidence whatsoever to back your claims. I have links to mine if people want them over at this thread:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?381015-Immigration-Policy-Poll-Law-to-Prevent-Immigrants-from-Getting-Benefits-for-X-Years

There is a long post by me on page one, with lots of links at the end of it. There you will find all the data and other evidence you require from minarchists to back my claims. You will not find any reputable libertarian organizations out there (or no one has yet despite my request to find one) that support immigration hawk positions.

[ProIndividual]

The only reasons immigration was good for the economy in the past was because
1) we had less technology
2) less social services
3) lower population overall

Anybody who thinks "immigration is always good, otherwise free market theory can't be true", ought to look at the world around them, and explain to us why the richest countries don't happen to be those who are either most populated or most immigrated.

By the way, why do you assume
1) economic growth is always good
2) employment is always good when increased
3) increasing wages is always good
If we wanted any of the 3 of its own sake, then it'd be fine to let the government create it, but it isn't always a good thing. So using that as your selling point for immigration is quite stupid.

All data says you're wrong. Show me data to prove these opinions. Show me one libertarian organization of repute than even agrees with this.

[ProIndividual]

To the people who keep pretending immigration increases wages and jobs:

We have 30 million illegal immigrants here. Going by what you say, every american would have a job paying $15 an hour or more.

It's not pretending to have 100 years of data vs your anecdote in a recession. We are, afterall, a nation of immigration...how do you think we got so damn rich? You don't think capital accumlation invested in technology, immigrant labor, and outsourcing did it (ala David Ricardo's 'labor set free', and his 'comparative advantage')? SHOW ME DATA TO PROVE YOUR POINT. I have data to prove mine. SHOW ME ONE libertarian organization of repute that backs you claim, as all of them seem to back mine.

This is almost funny, if it weren't so tragic. NO FREE MARKET ECONOMIST (a non-Keynesian) says that immigration is anything but CONDUSIVE to economic growth, native wages, and native employment rates. Show me otherwise (excluding Milton Friedman, who was a Keynesian, and Hoppe who I've been criticizing on immigration for days now with data to show why other libertarians say he's wrong).

[ProIndividual]

You keep saying that, but after the huge wave we just had from South America our unemployment is way up and I don't think wages have increased any. Where is all this prosperity for Americans all these immigrants are supposed to be bringing with them?

PI, if you don't mind me asking, what do you do to support yourself?

Again, 100 year studies I've given links to show otherwise. You say "we have a recession...see, immigrants hurt us", when the recession in Austrian theory has NOTHING to do with immigration. If the immigration had not occured, the wages would have been lower and unemployment higher. We know this, because in non-recession times the effect of immigration is always positive.

Blaming immigrants for the FEDs deeds? Nope, not going to fly.

Credit expansion leads to artifical booms in the economy, and then busts. That's the FED.

Immigrant labor, like technology and outsourcing (when at market levels, which it's not - it's high right now because of govt incentives) leads to cheaper products we consume, which leads to more expendable income for us (making us richer, logically), which leads to more consumption, which leads to more demand for products, which leads to more hiring and more profits, which leads to higher wages that can be paid. Deductive logic in free market economics. They do not bring wealth with them, they help produce it. As free market economists have been saying for 50 years "supply creates its own demand".

Of course, this can't be universal, but because an influx of immigrants into one area leads to more demand on housing and such, the prices of housing go up there (like NYC for example), and therefore the amount of immigrants who can move there is limited by the market. The FEDs policies don't make this worse for natives, as they make prices of houses artificially high, not low. Each immigrant into a new area makes the immigration of the next immigrant more expensive for that subsequent immigrant...and so the market regulates itself in immigration to one area (so the bombardment of immigrants theory has never panned out for anti-free market economists like Keynesians who advocated for closed borders and protectionist tariffs and taxes).

As to what I do for a living (which is logically irrelevant to the facts of the debate), I play poker for a living, and have for several years now. Before that, I was a sewer technician.

I'm an autodidact who obsessively reads (like way too much to be considered normal)...that's why I know so much about economics, especially Austrian economics and Keynesian economics (I read Keynesian books like "Small is Beautiful" just to write critiques of their positions). I'm currently rereading one of my favorite economic books..the Black Swan by Nassim Taleb (which relates, like much of economics, to poker and bankroll management), along with two other books, Bobbo's Bible of No Limit Hold Em (about an $800 book), and An Exploration and Development of Current Artificial Neural Network Theory and Applications with Emphasis on Artifical Life by David J. Cavuto (it's to help understand how to order a build of a better poker program that can help me run simulations vs artifical opponents who are more like real life players I play time to time online and in real life...as of now most poker programs I've had designed just don't have enough variables to mimic actual players I play).

Anyways, autodidacts are either dilettente (dabblers in many categories) or like me, obsessive readers who can't stop consuming information on a topic until they've completely mastered it. I took about 7 years out for economics and philosophy combined (I started on economics, but then when I went from leftist to free market because of what I had learned, I abandoned hardcore statism - it was bad - for libertarianism). I dropped out of high school at 16, was in college with a GED at 17 (I of course found a way around the law that said I couldn't take it until 18), and quit college at about 18 1/2, after getting bored with it (just before graduating the Associates Program in Science). I hated dabbling in different subjects like in Catholic school, and wanted to just totally consume one topic at a time. I started spending a lot of time at the library before the internet came along. I managed to make about $60K a year in the sewer business in Ohio (about medium Middle Class) until I left it for a more lucrative living in poker.

I am a NLHE specialist, mostly tournaments online, mostly cash live. If you'd like lessons I charge $60 an hour, which is super cheap (the book I mentioned that cost $800, that's his hourly for coaching :) ). I'm so cheap because I don't like to do it much and I don't give people a price that I would charge an advanced player...I'd charge them no less than $300 an hour. Since most people I run into qualify as beginners in my eyes, I give them the beginner rate until I see they are much better than that and need charged more. They usually don't want coached once they hear the price...but believe me, if I save you one buy-in you'll think of it as the smartest money ever spent...lol.

And as you can imagine, I've known my share of state tyranny over the last year, having most of my life savings seized by the DOJ with no charges and no crime commited (the DOJ swears players commited no crimes, only the sites did), with refusal for charges and trial and refusal to return the money. They outlawed my job (online poker), stole my life savings (which I've accumulated back mostly), and refuse me property or trial rights. This is partly why I'm leaving the country in December..I have to move to where poker is legal and property rights and trial rights are somewhat consistent. I'm one of those expatriates, come December. They've left me no choice.

Anyways...does that help? I think you wanted to try and disqualify my opinion by what I did for a living, but it's not a good argument. That's an ad hominem...attacking the debater, not the debate. I wasn't going to answer, but I figured that would just fuel the fire. I have links to data that will prove my case...I require links to opposing data from free market advocates (or not, but why would you link to Keynesians?) that disprove my claims. I'm not sure you'll find those links :)

Now, may I ask, why did you want to know what I did for a living? It wasn't an attempt at ad hominem...was it?

[Origanalist]

Now, may I ask, why did you want to know what I did for a living? It wasn't an attempt at ad hominem...was it?

You may call it that if you wish. It just seems to me your positions all come from theory and things you hear other people say while mine come from observing firsthand what the massive immigration of illegals did to my own and everybody elses wages.

To say that massive immigration raises wages just flies in the face of reality, I don't care who says different. (unless they are all already rich and looking to hire)

There was all kinds of work in the construction industry when this took place, yet all of a sudden work I was getting paid 20 cents a foot for was being done for 12 by the illegals. That may have been great for the contractor but you can't say it raised wages, no matter what the economists say.

[Dsylexic]

immigration obviously decreases wages in certain sectors where the immigrants are joining work?most of it tends to be in silicon valley -and valley salaries are thru the roof.go figure.
if you have a job in small retail or some small manufacturing unit,your company is unlikely to survive normal competitive forces,so lets not blame immigration for it.

no immigrant is coming over to take up jobs in coal mines.the software business is booming.now if you are mediocre worker stuck in low end software work,obviously you'll be at risk of losing the job. such jobs are commoditized today and it will vanish unless your skills serve the needs of today/tomorow. ie your productivity is on the wane,so your salary should also go down. i guess,those cribbing against immigration are usually part of this bunch of people (and they do form a majority),so i hear where they are coming from.

[Dsylexic]

You may call it that if you wish. It just seems to me your positions all come from theory and things you hear other people say while mine come from observing firsthand what the massive immigration of illegals did to my own and everybody elses wages.

To say that massive immigration raises wages just flies in the face of reality, I don't care who says different. (unless they are all already rich and looking to hire)

There was all kinds of work in the construction industry when this took place, yet all of a sudden work I was getting paid 20 cents a foot for was being done for 12 by the illegals. That may have been great for the contractor but you can't say it raised wages, no matter what the economists say.

why should your wage have increased? did your productivity increase? you were doing a commoditized low end job which would have been eliminated by normal competitive forces like automation .why blame immigrants for it? you didnt deserve your higher wage -simple as that.the profit you were capturing merely on the basis of your nationality got eliminated when faced with competition.obviously,the contractor/home owner and everyone else benefitted -the overall economy benefitted from it..you didnt.therefore you crib against the immigrant for making you realize this.

[Origanalist]

Why do I get the feeling I'm talking to a wall here? My wage D E C R E A S E D, by well over thirty percent. I would like to see you do the work I do you arrogant fuck, then tell me how low end it is. It takes years to get skilled at it, and some people never do get good at it.

The arguement here, which you seemed to have missed altogether, (go figure), was that large amounts of immigrants increased wages. I say this is just some theoretical wet dream.

[Agorism]

New Asian immigrants now outnumber Hispanics
http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2012/06/19/pew_asian_american_survey_asians_largest_new_immig rant_group_.html


The number of Asians moving to the United States has eclipsed that of Hispanics for the first time, according to a new Pew report out Tuesday.

In 2010, Asians comprised 36 percent of new immigrants while Hispanics accounted for 31 percent. That’s a stark reversal from 2000, when Hispanics accounted for nearly 6 in 10 immigrants and Asians made up only 19 percent.

Those somewhat surprising numbers reflect, in the words of the Associated Press, “a slowdown in illegal immigration while American employers increase their demand for high-skilled workers.”

Politico notes the shifting immigration demographics could have political implications: While Asian-Americans typically lean Democratic, they don’t fall squarely within either major political party. (Asian-Americans now represent about 6 percent of the U.S. population, compared to the 17 percent of Americans who are Hispanic.)

[ZenBowman]

To the people who keep pretending immigration increases wages and jobs:

We have 30 million illegal immigrants here. Going by what you say, every american would have a job paying $15 an hour or more.

Immigration is about free movement of labor, a critical component of free markets.

It brings down labor costs, which brings down costs in general making businesses more competitive.

[Zippyjuan]

Immigration is about free movement of labor, a critical component of free markets.

It brings down labor costs, which brings down costs in general making businesses more competitive.

Lower labor costs are great- unless you are the one who had their labor costs (wages) reduced. Those who did have their wages reduced will then have less money to spend with your employer so you may be effected as well.

[AuH20]

Immigration is about free movement of labor, a critical component of free markets.

It brings down labor costs, which brings down costs in general making businesses more competitive.

But in the modern age, mass immigration in the millions as opposed to the thousands (especially of a low skilled kind) is counterproductive when look at the ancillary costs of supporting a population from a quality of life perspective. Schooling derived from property taxes and federal grants sucks up capital. Rising insurance premiums (e.g. those driving without auto insurance) cost capital. Increased healthcare pricing in light of the EMTALA extracts money. Sanitation and law enforcement takes a toll. The building of prisons (see California where there has been an explosion over the last 20 years) and maintenance of such facilities costs more as well.

[jkr]

THEY ARE MULTIPLYING!!!

[Zippyjuan]

But in the modern age, mass immigration in the millions as opposed to the thousands (especially of a low skilled kind) is counterproductive when look at the ancillary costs of supporting a population from a quality of life perspective. Schooling derived from property taxes and federal grants sucks up capital. Rising insurance premiums (e.g. those driving without auto insurance) cost capital. Increased healthcare pricing in light of the EMTALA extracts money. Sanitation and law enforcement takes a toll. The building of prisons (see California where there has been an explosion over the last 20 years) and maintenance of such facilities costs more as well.

Growing population- reguardless of source- can cause those issues. They are not necessarily caused by immigration. Take the prision issue for example. Immigrants are LESS likely to commit crimes than are "locals". They are thus less likely to be sent to prision than a citizen.

http://www.livescience.com/4872-immigration-reduces-crime-rates.html

Contrary to popular stereotypes, areas undergoing immigration are associated with lower violence, not spiraling crime, according to a new study.

Harvard University sociologist Robert Sampson examined crime and immigration in Chicago and around the United States to find the truth behind the popular perception that increasing immigration leads to crime.

Sampson’s study results, detailed in the winter issue of the American Sociological Association’s Contexts magazine, summarizes patterns from seven years’ worth of violent acts in Chicago committed by whites, blacks and Hispanics from 180 neighborhoods of varying levels of integration. He also analyzed recent data from police records and the U.S. Census for all communities in Chicago.


Many other studies have also come to the same consclusion. Cities which received the largest immigrant numbers (both legal and illegal) have seen the largest reductions in crime rates.

[cheapseats]

It must be owned that both Asians AND Hispanics...both legal and "illegal"...are MUCH better at forming and fostering Intentional Communities than ruggedly individual Americans are.

[AuH20]

Growing population- reguardless of source- can cause those issues. They are not necessarily caused by immigration. Take the prision issue for example. Immigrants are LESS likely to commit crimes than are "locals". They are thus less likely to be sent to prision than a citizen.

http://www.livescience.com/4872-immigration-reduces-crime-rates.html

Many other studies have also come to the same consclusion. Cities which received the largest immigrant numbers (both legal and illegal) have seen the largest reductions in crime rates.

I think there is alot of published propaganda on both sides & I would agree with you that in other states the criminal effect of illegal immigration is relatively benign to the major population centers, but in California, the grand experiment of the illegal alien phenomenon, has been adversely affected by the influx of the immigrant population, which directly relates to an increased social burden for prison costs.

http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2011/04/california_criminal_aliens.php


In California, criminal aliens comprise roughly 10 percent of the total number of days in which inmates are incarcerated -- costing $1.1 billion annually. Yet it receives very little reimbursement from the feds when it comes to housing alien inmates. In fiscal year 2009, California spent the most of all five states listed in the report to incarcerate an alien inmate for the year -- $34,500. Yet the feds only repaid $2,775 of that.

So doing some quick math: In fiscal year 2009, while California spent a total of $298 million incarcerating illegal aliens who were eligible for federal reimbursement, the feds pitched in only $88 million.

And you can guess who is paying the balance -- taxpayers.


Some facts on the inmate population: In the random sample of 1,000 criminal aliens nationwide showed, on average, they had seven arrests and were charged with 12 offenses. In California, about half of all of them were convicted of drug crimes, assault, or sex offenses.

Here's the breakdown:

http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/assets_c/2011/04/rsz_gaoreport2-thumb-550x498.jpg

[Southron]

It must be owned that both Asians AND Hispanics...both legal and "illegal"...are MUCH better at forming and fostering Intentional Communities than ruggedly individual Americans are.

So much for the so-called "melting pot". Tribalism is the future here.

[Zippyjuan]

In California, criminal aliens comprise roughly 10 percent of the total number of days in which inmates are incarcerated -- costing $1.1 billion annually.
The prison statistics covers immigrants- both legal and illegal. As a percent of the California population,


California has a higher proportion of immigrants than any other state.
The proportion of the state’s population that is foreign-born has plateaued over the past few years at its highest level since 1890. California has a much higher share of immigrants in its population than the United States as a whole (27% vs. 13%) or any other state (New York, with 21%, has the second-highest share). Another 22% of Californians have at least one immigrant parent.
http://www.ppic.org/main/publication_show.asp?i=258

If immigrants comprise 27% of the California population and only ten percent of the prison population, that definately shows that they are less likely to end up in prison than citizens. If you increase the population then by the same amount, adding 1000 immigrants would mean fewer people in jails than if you added 1000 citizens meaning your prison costs would be lower.

[Brian4Liberty]

So much for the so-called "melting pot". Tribalism is the future here.

On the brighter side, it's both. Always has been. Always will be.

[liberdom]

All data says you're wrong. Show me data to prove these opinions. Show me one libertarian organization of repute than even agrees with this.

Which part did I get wrong, and what is the "all data" you are speaking of? You show if first, since you claim to have data.

And there is no such thing as "libertarian organization of repute", at least not on immigration, so the fact you're looking only to there for data and facts, means you'll never find it.

[liberdom]

It's not pretending to have 100 years of data vs your anecdote in a recession. We are, afterall, a nation of immigration...how do you think we got so damn rich?

Not all immigrants are equal. And the fact we are rich had nothing to do with our incidental discovery of undeveloped land, resources, and wars destroying other countries as competitors?

[RonPaulMall]

If immigrants comprise 27% of the California population and only ten percent of the prison population, that definately shows that they are less likely to end up in prison than citizens. If you increase the population then by the same amount, adding 1000 immigrants would mean fewer people in jails than if you added 1000 citizens meaning your prison costs would be lower.

What type of immigrants? What type of citizens? There are subgroups within both groups that barely commit any crimes at all, and other subgroups which commit crimes at rates massively out of proportion to their numbers. A certain type of immigrant moving in to a certain type of neighborhood will undoubtedly lessen the overall crime rate of the community just as surely as the same type of immigrant group moving in to a different type of neighborhood would increase it. Ultimately, immigration involves more complicated factors of race and culture that are taboo to discuss in American politics and which aren't even allowed to be discussed on this board. So this whole debate is kind of pointless. You can't have a productive debate about a policy issue where it is forbidden to discuss the relevant issues. That's a big reason our immigration policy is and will for the foreseeable future remain a mess.

[ProIndividual]

You may call it that if you wish. It just seems to me your positions all come from theory and things you hear other people say while mine come from observing firsthand what the massive immigration of illegals did to my own and everybody elses wages.

To say that massive immigration raises wages just flies in the face of reality, I don't care who says different. (unless they are all already rich and looking to hire)

There was all kinds of work in the construction industry when this took place, yet all of a sudden work I was getting paid 20 cents a foot for was being done for 12 by the illegals. That may have been great for the contractor but you can't say it raised wages, no matter what the economists say.

So it was an ad hominem, as I suspected. That's an informal logical fallacy not allowed in high school debate class, let alone a way to prove anything among adults. Secondly, you just admitted all you have are anecdotes to combat my data...which again, is no argument.

You have nothing to disprove free market economists on immigration. You want protectionism, which is anti-free market. Protectionism in labor markets is still Mercantilist protectionism, and still harms the economy.

When you have some solid data to back your claims about immigrants harming the economy, let me know. Anecdotal evidence doesn't qualify...logically.

[ProIndividual]

Which part did I get wrong, and what is the "all data" you are speaking of? You show if first, since you claim to have data.

And there is no such thing as "libertarian organization of repute", at least not on immigration, so the fact you're looking only to there for data and facts, means you'll never find it.

I've repeatedly provided links. Go to them, or refuse the proof you request.

So apparently to YOU, the Cato Institute is not reputable? Either is the Austrian school of economics over at Mises.org? Either is Reason Magazine, the Reason Foundation, and Reason TV? You mean the economics department at George Mason University is not reputable? Don Boudreaux? John Stossel?

You mean if they don't share your anti-free market protectionist ideology on immigration they are not "reputable" to YOU. The rest of people who like facts disagree.

Is this movement turning into paleocons and neocons, and not advancing libertarian philosophy and free market economics anymore? Have we become cheerleaders for Mercantilism and Alexander Hamilton, or what?

[ProIndividual]

Not all immigrants are equal. And the fact we are rich had nothing to do with our incidental discovery of undeveloped land, resources, and wars destroying other countries as competitors?

This isn't an original argument, it's been addressed in the links to videos I provided. Immigrants and technology BOTH cause labor costs to drop while simultaneously raising production. This means more profits and those who keep their jobs get higher total real compensation caused by the higher productivity. Prpductivity is what stadards of living are tied to. When the workers who keep jobs get paid more, and they produce more with less people (or more people and less costs), this makes products cheaper. Cheaper products = richer consumers. Richer consumers = more consumption. More consumption = more profits and more demand. More demand = more hiring of those who would otherwise be displaced by technology and immigrant labor. So immigrants and technology = higher rates of employment and higher standards of living due to the efficiency in the process of production.

This David Ricardo's concepts of 'labor set free' (what we call temporary lay-offs today, and what economists call re-allocation of efficient labor in an economy), and is part of his concept of 'comparative advantage'.

Land can be squandered...china has way more land than us, and so does India, yet their economis are far smaller. Resources? There are countries with more resources, and they squander them. The effects of wars where competitors are destroyed is temporary at best. It is technology and immigrant labor (along with outsourcing when it is at market levels; which it's not right now...it's too high right now because of high taxes and high regulation costs here, not to mention limits on immigrants coming in) that lead to increased productivity and not squandering our opportunities.

How do business owners invest in such big gambles such as technology and unskilled labor?

By accumulating large amounts of capital via profits. This is why the lib talking point of more level income share for rich and por, and middle class, is so full of shit. More even distribution of income share (for the nation) is counter productive to driving down poverty and driving up standards of living. The more money in the hands of those who have PROVEN they deserve it by meeting consumer needs most efficiently in production, the more money re-invested EFFICIENTLY (as opposed to when someone other than that rich producer who earned it does it) in technology and immigrant labor (and if the immigrants can't come to them, they will take the job to the immigrant via outsourcing). So the process is fairly simple in free markets and capitalism in general:

1. Capital is accumulated by efficient producers
2. Capital is re-invested in technology, immigrant labor, and outsourcing (see Ricardo)
3. Tech, immigrant labor, and outsourcing lead to more efficient production and higher productivity with less investment
4. This makes products cheaper to consumers (and all workers are also consumers)
5. This spurs cinsumption, and therefore demand
6. More demand means even more production and more hiring (even if you have to switch jobs to a more efficient sector of the economy...you being comfortable with that is irrelevant)
7. More consumption plus more demand and hiring continues to add even more demand which makes profits soar
8. More profits equal an ability of workers to negotiate for higher compnesation (can't make a deal for more when there isn't any more than before)
9. The remaining accumulated capital is re-invested in technology, immigrant labor, and outsourcing (especially when taxes are high, regulation costs are high, and there are restriction on immigration which make it advantageous financially to take the job to the immigrant)
10. Rinse, wash, repeat (start over at step 1)

That's free market economics in 10 easy steps. I can't make it more simple than that for you.

Notice, the more you limit immigration, the more outsourcing will occur...they are tied. True, taxes and regulation are more of the problem there, but definately limits on immigrant labor (labor market protectionism; anti-free market policy) increase the incentive to take the job to the immigrant (move overseas to the cheap labor).

I hope you can look this up for yourself.

[liberdom]

I've repeatedly provided links. Go to them, or refuse the proof you request.

So apparently to YOU, the Cato Institute is not reputable?


As far as immigration is concerned, yes. They have no credibility.



Either is the Austrian school of economics over at Mises.org? Either is Reason Magazine, the Reason Foundation, and Reason TV?


Same, they all say "let them in because they're good for us" without providing any context, without any predictive power.



You mean the economics department at George Mason University is not reputable? Don Boudreaux? John Stossel?


What are their credentials on immigration?



You mean if they don't share your anti-free market protectionist ideology on immigration they are not "reputable" to YOU. The rest of people who like facts disagree.


Yes, I actually said if they share their free market dogma before reason and facts, and put facts into context, I'd consider them somewhat reliable.



Is this movement turning into paleocons and neocons, and not advancing libertarian philosophy and free market economics anymore?


I can tell you care more about your ideology over facts, which is why you keep asking if somebody favors your ideology, rather than ask for facts, consider you can be wrong. I am willing to be proven wrong. I'll go back and look at any links you posted.



Have we become cheerleaders for Mercantilism and Alexander Hamilton, or what?

And you're accusing people of ad hominem?

[liberdom]

This isn't an original argument, it's been addressed in the links to videos I provided. Immigrants and technology BOTH cause labor costs to drop while simultaneously raising production.


LMAO, did you just admit immigrants drop wages?

What a contradiction to what you originally said.

Immigration is condusive to economic growth, and it historically, in its greatest waves in any country including our own, INCREASES native employment rates and INCREASES native wages.



This means more profits and those who keep their jobs get higher total real compensation caused by the higher productivity. Prpductivity is what stadards of living are tied to.


Yes, that's assuming you keep your job. Higher productivity means lower employment because labor is less in demand.



When the workers who keep jobs get paid more, and they produce more with less people (or more people and less costs), this makes products cheaper.


Yes, it does, which is great. At the expense of some people being laid off, but it's still a good thing. Notice I never said unemployment is bad.



Cheaper products = richer consumers. Richer consumers = more consumption. More consumption = more profits and more demand. More demand = more hiring of those who would otherwise be displaced by technology and immigrant labor. So immigrants and technology = higher rates of employment and higher standards of living due to the efficiency in the process of production.


This is based on the assumption that for every lost job, there's one empty job to replace them. That is simply not the case. A person who stopped buying books and VHS tapes yesterday, is not now starting to buy new iTunes or Kindle books with his money. He's either buying something else you can't predict, or his situation has changed. Employment is not always a good thing, but I can tell you've already fallen for that fallacy to defend your ideology.



This David Ricardo's concepts of 'labor set free' (what we call temporary lay-offs today, and what economists call re-allocation of efficient labor in an economy), and is part of his concept of 'comparative advantage'.

Land can be squandered...china has way more land than us, and so does India

India has more land than us?




, yet their economis are far smaller. Resources? There are countries with more resources, and they squander them.


Let's see, what oil rich country squanders them? Kuwait? Nigeria?



The effects of wars where competitors are destroyed is temporary at best.


If by temporary you mean it's not 200 years, I agree with you. Ask any Katrina victim how temporary their destruction is, before asking how temporary Iraqis and Germans had to suffer.



It is technology and immigrant labor (along with outsourcing when it is at market levels; which it's not right now...it's too high right now because of high taxes and high regulation costs here, not to mention limits on immigrants coming in) that lead to increased productivity and not squandering our opportunities.


I think I agree with you that immigration and labor, plus outsourcing increases productivity, but not without expenses. Consider why India has cheap labor? It's because they have too many people. They are in high supply of labor and skills, at the expense of high density, higher poverty.



How do business owners invest in such big gambles such as technology and unskilled labor?

By accumulating large amounts of capital via profits. This is why the lib talking point of more level income share for rich and por, and middle class, is so full of shit. More even distribution of income share (for the nation) is counter productive to driving down poverty and driving up standards of living.


cite examples?




The more money in the hands of those who have PROVEN they deserve it by meeting consumer needs most efficiently in production, the more money re-invested EFFICIENTLY (as opposed to when someone other than that rich producer who earned it does it) in technology and immigrant labor (and if the immigrants can't come to them, they will take the job to the immigrant via outsourcing). So the process is fairly simple in free markets and capitalism in general:

1. Capital is accumulated by efficient producers
2. Capital is re-invested in technology, immigrant labor, and outsourcing (see Ricardo)
3. Tech, immigrant labor, and outsourcing lead to more efficient production and higher productivity with less investment
4. This makes products cheaper to consumers (and all workers are also consumers)
5. This spurs cinsumption, and therefore demand
6. More demand means even more production and more hiring (even if you have to switch jobs to a more efficient sector of the economy...you being comfortable with that is irrelevant)
7. More consumption plus more demand and hiring continues to add even more demand which makes profits soar
8. More profits equal an ability of workers to negotiate for higher compnesation (can't make a deal for more when there isn't any more than before)
9. The remaining accumulated capital is re-invested in technology, immigrant labor, and outsourcing (especially when taxes are high, regulation costs are high, and there are restriction on immigration which make it advantageous financially to take the job to the immigrant)
10. Rinse, wash, repeat (start over at step 1)

That's free market economics in 10 easy steps. I can't make it more simple than that for you.

Notice, the more you limit immigration, the more outsourcing will occur...they are tied. True, taxes and regulation are more of the problem there, but definately limits on immigrant labor (labor market protectionism; anti-free market policy) increase the incentive to take the job to the immigrant (move overseas to the cheap labor).

I hope you can look this up for yourself.
I'll reply this later.

[liberdom]

So it was an ad hominem, as I suspected. That's an informal logical fallacy not allowed in high school debate class, let alone a way to prove anything among adults. Secondly, you just admitted all you have are anecdotes to combat my data...which again, is no argument.

You have nothing to disprove free market economists on immigration. You want protectionism, which is anti-free market. Protectionism in labor markets is still Mercantilist protectionism, and still harms the economy.

When you have some solid data to back your claims about immigrants harming the economy, let me know. Anecdotal evidence doesn't qualify...logically.

Anecdotal evidence isn't perfect, but far better than you, pure theory with no evidence.

That is why he asked you what you do for a living, you don't sound like a person who knows either economics or job market. Asking whether you have real world experience is not ad hominem, it's entirely relevant to the discussion and your credibility.

[Origanalist]

Anecdotal evidence isn't perfect, but far better than you, pure theory with no evidence.

That is why he asked you what you do for a living, you don't sound like a person who knows either economics or job market. Asking whether you have real world experience is not ad hominem, it's entirely relevant to the discussion and your credibility.

Thank you

[cheapseats]

1. Capital is accumulated by efficient producers



Among others.

[Origanalist]

Among others.

True that.

[liberdom]

It's not pretending to have 100 years of data vs your anecdote in a recession. We are, afterall, a nation of immigration...how do you think we got so damn rich? You don't think capital accumlation invested in technology, immigrant labor, and outsourcing did it (ala David Ricardo's 'labor set free', and his 'comparative advantage')? SHOW ME DATA TO PROVE YOUR POINT. I have data to prove mine. SHOW ME ONE libertarian organization of repute that backs you claim, as all of them seem to back mine.

This is almost funny, if it weren't so tragic. NO FREE MARKET ECONOMIST (a non-Keynesian) says that immigration is anything but CONDUSIVE to economic growth, native wages, and native employment rates. Show me otherwise (excluding Milton Friedman, who was a Keynesian, and Hoppe who I've been criticizing on immigration for days now with data to show why other libertarians say he's wrong).

Just so everybody knows.

This guy said India has more land than "us", I hope he doesn't mean the United States.

How did India having more land than us combat my point? It doesn't. I said China has more land and SQUANDERS it by having a much smaller economy than ours. I'm already aware India has more land than us, and also SQUANDERS it. My point was clear: more land does not = more economic success...which was one of your assertions.

For the record, I NEVER ONCE SAID that more land equals more economic success. One thing I can promise I will almost never say is that any one thing equals or causes economic success. I merely brought up additional factors worth considering. Also, there is no evidence that freer economies always predict higher economic success. The bullshit Heritage list that people like to cite has no evidence behind it, and can't even confirm to GDP ranking.

[soulcyon]

I live in Jersey and I'm proud to be part of the legal immigrants community here :P

It's basically a trend in India - do your highschool/college there, then come to America for masters. Go back to India, find a wife, move to USA with a VISA sponsored by your job, then have kids here. Of course the parents may wait 15 years for citizenship, but at least all their kids/grandkids can be American citizens.

*gnoz* indians <3

[susano]

No Japan....

I am disappoint :(

Me, too! With Fukushima being an open ended nuclear disaster, a lot of Japanese might be needing to get out of Dodge. I would love to see them here.

[susano]

What type of immigrants? What type of citizens? There are subgroups within both groups that barely commit any crimes at all, and other subgroups which commit crimes at rates massively out of proportion to their numbers. A certain type of immigrant moving in to a certain type of neighborhood will undoubtedly lessen the overall crime rate of the community just as surely as the same type of immigrant group moving in to a different type of neighborhood would increase it. Ultimately, immigration involves more complicated factors of race and culture that are taboo to discuss in American politics and which aren't even allowed to be discussed on this board. So this whole debate is kind of pointless. You can't have a productive debate about a policy issue where it is forbidden to discuss the relevant issues. That's a big reason our immigration policy is and will for the foreseeable future remain a mess.

What can't be discussed on this board?

[DerailingDaTrain]

What can't be discussed on this board?

I think he means "cultural differences" and things like that. But that can be discussed here so I don't get it. Unless he wants to talk about some extremely controversial things that would get him banned I don't understand why he just can't say what he wants.

[RonPaulMall]

What can't be discussed on this board?

The admins of this site do not allow discussions about race or cultural differences relating to ethnicity on this board. It is their board so I am perfectly cool with their rules, but obviously that rule precludes having a true informed debate about immigration.

More significantly, the same "rule" exists in mainstream American political discourse. Any mention of racial or cultural implications of immigration policy are strictly verboten, but of course racial and cultural differences are the crux of the entire immigration "debate" in the first place. So everybody in America is talking past each other. In other nations, where PC forces aren't so dominant, the discussion is often no less contentious, but it is at least more open and nuanced. In America, everybody is forced in to either an "anti-immigration" or "open borders" position because the rationale for any sort of in between position is taboo. That's the only point I was making. And it applies to Ron Paul too. If you've listened carefully to Ron Paul on immigration over the years, he's repeated phrases and briefly forayed in to arguments that make pretty clear he adheres to the great anarcho-capitalist scholar Hans-Hermann Hoppe's position on the matter. But clearly articulating that position would expose him to politically correct landmines, so Paul instead mostly sticks to his jumbled and somewhat non libertarian sounding "protect our borders" mantra.

[AuH20]

The admins of this site do not allow discussions about race or cultural differences relating to ethnicity on this board. It is their board so I am perfectly cool with their rules, but obviously that rule precludes having a true informed debate about immigration.

More significantly, the same "rule" exists in mainstream American political discourse. Any mention of racial or cultural implications of immigration policy are strictly verboten, but of course racial and cultural differences are the crux of the entire immigration "debate" in the first place. So everybody in America is talking past each other. In other nations, where PC forces aren't so dominant, the discussion is often no less contentious, but it is at least more open and nuanced. In America, everybody is forced in to either an "anti-immigration" or "open borders" position because the rationale for any sort of in between position is taboo. That's the only point I was making. And it applies to Ron Paul too. If you've listened carefully to Ron Paul on immigration over the years, he's repeated phrases and briefly forayed in to arguments that make pretty clear he adheres to the great anarcho-capitalist scholar Hans-Hermann Hoppe's position on the matter. But clearly articulating that position would expose him to politically correct landmines, so Paul instead mostly sticks to his jumbled and somewhat non libertarian sounding "protect our borders" mantra.

Triple H sighting.... :)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsQo0dhfTaw

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

This isn't an original argument, it's been addressed in the links to videos I provided. Immigrants and technology BOTH cause labor costs to drop while simultaneously raising production. This means more profits and those who keep their jobs get higher total real compensation caused by the higher productivity. Prpductivity is what stadards of living are tied to. When the workers who keep jobs get paid more, and they produce more with less people (or more people and less costs), this makes products cheaper. Cheaper products = richer consumers. Richer consumers = more consumption. More consumption = more profits and more demand. More demand = more hiring of those who would otherwise be displaced by technology and immigrant labor. So immigrants and technology = higher rates of employment and higher standards of living due to the efficiency in the process of production.

This David Ricardo's concepts of 'labor set free' (what we call temporary lay-offs today, and what economists call re-allocation of efficient labor in an economy), and is part of his concept of 'comparative advantage'.

Land can be squandered...china has way more land than us, and so does India, yet their economis are far smaller. Resources? There are countries with more resources, and they squander them. The effects of wars where competitors are destroyed is temporary at best. It is technology and immigrant labor (along with outsourcing when it is at market levels; which it's not right now...it's too high right now because of high taxes and high regulation costs here, not to mention limits on immigrants coming in) that lead to increased productivity and not squandering our opportunities.

How do business owners invest in such big gambles such as technology and unskilled labor?

By accumulating large amounts of capital via profits. This is why the lib talking point of more level income share for rich and por, and middle class, is so full of shit. More even distribution of income share (for the nation) is counter productive to driving down poverty and driving up standards of living. The more money in the hands of those who have PROVEN they deserve it by meeting consumer needs most efficiently in production, the more money re-invested EFFICIENTLY (as opposed to when someone other than that rich producer who earned it does it) in technology and immigrant labor (and if the immigrants can't come to them, they will take the job to the immigrant via outsourcing). So the process is fairly simple in free markets and capitalism in general:

1. Capital is accumulated by efficient producers
2. Capital is re-invested in technology, immigrant labor, and outsourcing (see Ricardo)
3. Tech, immigrant labor, and outsourcing lead to more efficient production and higher productivity with less investment
4. This makes products cheaper to consumers (and all workers are also consumers)
5. This spurs cinsumption, and therefore demand
6. More demand means even more production and more hiring (even if you have to switch jobs to a more efficient sector of the economy...you being comfortable with that is irrelevant)
7. More consumption plus more demand and hiring continues to add even more demand which makes profits soar
8. More profits equal an ability of workers to negotiate for higher compnesation (can't make a deal for more when there isn't any more than before)
9. The remaining accumulated capital is re-invested in technology, immigrant labor, and outsourcing (especially when taxes are high, regulation costs are high, and there are restriction on immigration which make it advantageous financially to take the job to the immigrant)
10. Rinse, wash, repeat (start over at step 1)

That's free market economics in 10 easy steps. I can't make it more simple than that for you.

Notice, the more you limit immigration, the more outsourcing will occur...they are tied. True, taxes and regulation are more of the problem there, but definately limits on immigrant labor (labor market protectionism; anti-free market policy) increase the incentive to take the job to the immigrant (move overseas to the cheap labor).

I hope you can look this up for yourself.

Failure to begin discussions by first reducing in terms has long been a trick utilized by many an eloquent sophist in history in order to both baffle his or her opponent and to sway his or her audience.
Please reduce the discussion to tyranny. You know, the master class versus the slave class, the ruling elite versus the serving commoners, pimp versus whore in other words.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Triple H sighting.... :)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsQo0dhfTaw

Right off in this video, a fallacy is brought up about behaving leftist or lefty, politically speaking. This is a misinterpretation of Aristotle's golden mean. In actuality, Aristotle created his political spectrum of left and right in an effort to bring extremist Greek viewpoint towards a more moderate one.
These supercharged, highly sophisticated gentlemen are totally unaware of this fallacy. Beware of any discussion which doesn't begin by way of reduction in terminology.

[liberdom]

Failure to begin discussions by first reducing in terms has long been a trick utilized by many an eloquent sophist in history in order to both baffle his or her opponent and to sway his or her audience.
Please reduce the discussion to tyranny. You know, the master class versus the slave class, the ruling elite versus the serving commoners, pimp versus whore in other words.

Add to that, he thinks India has more land than US. He didn't even remember what he said when I reminded him either.

[heavenlyboy34]

Failure to begin discussions by first reducing in terms has long been a trick utilized by many an eloquent sophist in history in order to both baffle his or her opponent and to sway his or her audience.
Please reduce the discussion to tyranny. You know, the master class versus the slave class, the ruling elite versus the serving commoners, pimp versus whore in other words.
Such dialectics are also a common tool used by sophists. Your proposition actually makes the conversation less productive and rational.

[heavenlyboy34]

Right off in this video, a fallacy is brought up about behaving leftist or lefty, politically speaking. This is a misinterpretation of Aristotle's golden mean. In actuality, Aristotle created his political spectrum of left and right in an effort to bring extremist Greek viewpoint towards a more moderate one.
These supercharged, highly sophisticated gentlemen are totally unaware of this fallacy. Beware of any discussion which doesn't begin by way of reduction in terminology.
So, you want a simple two sided argument and don't want one at the same time? Make up your mind.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

So, you want a simple two sided argument and don't want one at the same time? Make up your mind.

Aristotle's golden mean was a model. Because the greeks tended to be extremist in their views, a fact that they weren't aware of and Aristotle was, he created the model for the purpose of showing a left and a right with hopes of pulling them inwards towards a more bipartisan moderate middle. The commercial media uses this model without having any idea about this. So do wise eloquent looking gentlemen like the ones I referenced.

[AGRP]

http://www.freakyts.com/siteimages/So%20you%20dont%20like%20illegals%20A%20bit%20like %20the%20pot%20calling%20the%20kettle%20black%20do nt%20ya%20think.jpg

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Such dialectics are also a common tool used by sophists. Your proposition actually makes the conversation less productive and rational.

The sophists confounded the Greeks by proclaiming there existed no such thing as "truth." They made a fabulous living arguing this point by quite eloquently presenting one side of an issue, taking a break, and then presenting the other side. Modern science manages the same lucrative situation with their usage of theory. Did you read my thread on the paradox created by criterion versus criteria? Does one conclude by reducing to a single criterion, or does one conclude by expanding to an infinite criteria of it? Neither actually.
Instead, there exists a formal dichotomy. As "Truth" as a conclusion is unapproachable and thus incomprehensible, the best an individual's mind can interpret of it as their own personal reality is a dichotomy. However, it is possible to be mislead by a false dichotomy.
This is why it is important to first reduce down to ones dichotomy. In my case, I've reduced down to a king sitting on the throne as the owner of all things versus a homeless prostitute as the owner of nothing as she herself lives as someone else's property.
If the fellow was a Chinese person making an argument, he wouldn't have to show reverence by bowing to the social contract between the people and their government establised long ago by Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle.

[Vanilluxe]

The admins of this site do not allow discussions about race or cultural differences relating to ethnicity on this board. It is their board so I am perfectly cool with their rules, but obviously that rule precludes having a true informed debate about immigration.

More significantly, the same "rule" exists in mainstream American political discourse. Any mention of racial or cultural implications of immigration policy are strictly verboten, but of course racial and cultural differences are the crux of the entire immigration "debate" in the first place. So everybody in America is talking past each other. In other nations, where PC forces aren't so dominant, the discussion is often no less contentious, but it is at least more open and nuanced. In America, everybody is forced in to either an "anti-immigration" or "open borders" position because the rationale for any sort of in between position is taboo. That's the only point I was making. And it applies to Ron Paul too. If you've listened carefully to Ron Paul on immigration over the years, he's repeated phrases and briefly forayed in to arguments that make pretty clear he adheres to the great anarcho-capitalist scholar Hans-Hermann Hoppe's position on the matter. But clearly articulating that position would expose him to politically correct landmines, so Paul instead mostly sticks to his jumbled and somewhat non libertarian sounding "protect our borders" mantra.

Well the reason why race and ethnicity is not being discussed is the fear of certain ethnicity or race being singled out and treated differently than other ethnic groups which which could cause high racial tensions. After all, we are one race, we are **** Sapiens, or in "english" humans.

[liberdom]

http://www.freakyts.com/siteimages/So%20you%20dont%20like%20illegals%20A%20bit%20like %20the%20pot%20calling%20the%20kettle%20black%20do nt%20ya%20think.jpg

a little bit, but not too much.

[Dsylexic]

the arrogance of people whose ancestors first depeopled natives and now act as if they have a god given right to their passport protected 'high wages' at the cost of the rest of the people is amazing.

30% wage loss? get over it.buggy makers had a 100% wage cut when the car was invented.

[liberdom]

the arrogance of people whose ancestors first depeopled natives and now act as if they have a god given right to their passport protected 'high wages' at the cost of the rest of the people is amazing.

30% wage loss? get over it.buggy makers had a 100% wage cut when the car was invented.

not arrogance, just selfishness. The same is true with outsourcing, people only think about themselves.

[Dsylexic]

when a paradigm shift happens, 30 years of 'skills' are worthless. you might as well wish people do not to change their subjective preferences.
so WHAT if your wages went down due to legal or illegal immigrants.join the statist if you want to put people in jail for choosing freely.you have NO RIGHT TO A GUARANTEED HIGH wage if you dont satisfy the market.

[Dsylexic]

not arrogance, just selfishness. The same is true with outsourcing, people only think about themselves.
selfishness alright.but it would be mere moaning unless they had gun owning statists on their side.
people lose jobs and wages all the time.i have. i changed countries when things didnt work out.

[liberdom]

when a paradigm shift happens, 30 years of 'skills' are worthless. you might as well wish people do not to change their subjective preferences.


definitely.



so WHAT if your wages went down due to legal or illegal immigrants.join the statist if you want to put people in jail for choosing freely.you have NO RIGHT TO A GUARANTEED HIGH wage if you dont satisfy the market.

Good question. One question that sometimes even libertarians and free market capitalists don't want to answer is "why is unemployment bad, and why are wages the only measure of quality of life?" I agree we have no right to wealth, which is why people who are angry at the federal reserve, bankers, corporations...etc are just whiny kids who are jealous they didn't get a piece of the loot.

[liberdom]

Just so everybody knows, this proindividiual kid is all over the place. He first says that immigrants cause countries to be wealthy, then when I ask him why the richest countries are not the most immigrated, or vice versa, he has no answer.

I then ask him why the richest people are not the most wise on economics, or vice versa, he said "I never said that rich = smart in economics". So his original point about how immigrants are good for economy or cause a nation to be wealthy is either untrue or coincidence at best. Too bad, I'd rather be rich than knowledgeable about economics, and I don't know many people here who would disagree with me. If I can have both, I wouldn't mind, but who wouldn't rather be rich?