Isn't the discussion more like paying $7 instead of $10? If a business needs illegals lower wages in order to survive that means their competition is doing the same thing, isn't it?Originally Posted by Madison320
You want American businesses to be forced by the government to pay more for labor.
Partisan politics, misleading or emotional bill titles, and 4D chess theories are manifestations of the same lie—that the text of the Constitution, the text of legislation, and plain facts do not matter; what matters is what you want to believe. From this comes hypocrisy. And where hypocrisy thrives, virtue recedes. Without virtue, liberty dies. - Justin Amash, March 2018
How could I be wrong when we know a glut of workers in a field reduces wages? That's basic economics. Your referring to immigrants. I'm referring to illegals.
Whereas studies of highly educated immigrants consider the contribution that these workers make to firms and industries, especially the ways they support innovation and the development of new knowledge practices (Saxenian 1999, 2006; Wadhwa et al. 2007; Qin 2007), studies of less educated workers instead emphasize their downward pressure on the wages and jobs of native-born workers
Native-born workers have long benefited from access to formal training and credentialing supports for tacit knowledge development, including
those supported by labor unions. In contrast, immigrant workers, and undocumented immigrants in particular, have limited access to these programs; and as a result, their ability both to represent their tacit knowledge and to advocate for the job opportunities and compensation that corresponds to
their skill level has been severely curtailed
Understood. Not intending to hijack but is this relating to open borders and how many to let in even if there is not a welfare state?
Is this true? It would explain the point in the video about not all the jobs are lower paying for illegals.
According to EEO laws, under the auspices of their guiding principle of Disparate Impact (in discrimination rulings), a business cannot use any employment eligibility standard that disqualifies a federally protected category (in this example ethnicity) from employment.
Here’s how it works on Main Street – If you require all applicants to be legally eligible to work in the U.S., and part of that application process is the applicant providing you documents to prove that eligibility, you cannot verify those documents –> if the verification of those documents would exclude a larger percentage of ethnic applicants, protected class applicants, than the general application pool.
Meaning, as an example, if you check Social Security numbers (example E-Verify) and that verification disqualifies a disproportionate amount more Latinos than all other applicants, then the verification process itself is unlawful because it creates a “Disparate Impact” against Latinos and you are guilty of violating EEOC law.
That risk is why most U.S. businesses do not use E-Verify.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com...in-employment/
I'm sorry. I wasn't aware that John Locke and Thomas Fricking Jefferson were "anarchists."
Sorry, not everyone is an anarchist. Hell, most anarchists aren't really anarchists.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." -Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence, 1776.
"To understand political power, we must consider the condition in which nature puts all men. It is a state of perfect freedom to do as they wish and dispose of themselves and their possessions as they think fit, within the bounds of the laws of nature. They need not ask permission or the consent of any other man.
The state of nature is also a state of equality. No one has more power or authority than another. Since all human beings have the same advantages and the use of the same skills, they should be equal to each other. The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it. Reason is the law. It teaches that all men are equal and independent, and that no one ought to harm another in his life, liberty, or possessions. All men are made by one all-powerful and wise Maker. " -John Locke, Two Treatise On Government, 1690.
Here is the problem as I see it: You are completely and wholly ignorant of what Natural Law is, how that influences the ideals of the American Founders, or even what natural rights are. You may try and fake it, but it isn't working. There are no arguments from any source that actually understands human liberty and human rights that can justify anything you argue in regards to immigration. Not the Constitution. Not the Declaration of Independence. Nothing. This is because your ideas are anti-libertarian. They are anti-liberty. They are anti-free market. They are unconstitutional. They are illegal, immoral, and wrong.
It has nothing to do with anarchy. Your own governing documents, the legal ideas and codes that found the country you claim to follow, not only do not support this idea but the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution actively and absolutely forbids federal regulation of immigration in any way because such a power is not delegated to the federal government in the Constitution.
If you actually believed the words of the Founders of the United States you would recognize your duty not just to refuse to allow the federal government to regulate immigration you would push your state to actively disobey such unconstitutional laws in an act of what Jefferson and Madison called nullification.
So don't even try and ascribe this to anarchy. We're just actually follow the US Constitution and founding ideals and calling upon you cowards to do the same.
Only the CATO fellow actually had sources, that was telling. Also, what was interesting to me were the three things Carlson brought up as "proof" that illegal immigrants are a net drain on national resources. He mentioned:
1) Roads
2) Schools
3) Healthcare
Of those three, really only the healthcare argument has any legs to stand on. But that is also true for anyone who is poor and lives on subsidized health insurance or ER visits. There are many, many more poor citizens than there are illegal immigrants.
Roads - unless illegal immigrants are buying gas illegally and not paying gasoline tax, they are paying for the roads they use when they buy the gas their vehicles run off of.
Schools - unless illegal immigrants are living rent free they are paying rent to landlords who pay property tax which funds the schools they use.
Carlson is fun to watch, but he's a fraud like everyone else in the MSM.
Responses in bold.
And you are wrong. I encourage you to actually follow the links above and read the provided studies there. You might learn something.
The issue is competition. Immigrants are not competing against native born people. Most immigrants fill jobs native born people wouldn't have filled anyway. Again, actually read the linked studies. The evidence is there if you're willing to learn.
Last edited by PierzStyx; 02-27-2017 at 06:45 PM.
What's wrong with the studies I provided? The illegals are competing in the fields I mentioned.
Calling an illegal immigrant illegal is immoral? Really?
Last edited by loveshiscountry; 02-27-2017 at 07:04 PM.
The gas tax doesn't cover all the costs as far as roads go does it?
School you've got illegals whose parents are of little help since they don't know the system. Other students suffer scholastically. Plus many of them are on free or assisted lunches. Two schools next to where I used to live were both over 90% when it came to free or assisted lunches. Only 2 data points, I know. Texas avg ~50%
Did that make you feel better?
"Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
"Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Pharma-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
"Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
"Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul
Proponent of real science.
The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.
If the illegal worker and legal worker are both making the same the cost to the employer of the legal worker is much higher, usually more than double the rate of pay.
Not sure your question about competition.
I agree, it's hard to tell if the net affect from illegal immigration is economically positive or negative. Both sides distort data.
One thing that bother me about illegals is they or their children almost always vote for socialism. That's the ONLY reason democrats like them and republicans don't by the way.
On the plus side, illegal immigrants provide cheap labor. That's a big plus for the economy.
You haven't provided a single study. You've thrown some random names and numbers together. That isn't evidence. Provide some links.
In fact as I have tried to do some research on your "sources" I've only come up with evidence against your claims. Take this study from Saenian for example:
"Rather than a “brain drain” from the sending countries, Saxenian sees the emergence of a “brain circulation” as immigrants return to their
home countries to take advantage of promising opportunities or play a key role in building markets in their native countries from a California base. Saxenian suggests that there is a healthy flow of financial and intellectual capital between Taiwan, India, and California and that this flow has made a major contribution to technological innovation and to the economic expansion of the state."
http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_699ASR.pdf
Your own sources claim that immigrants create more jobs and more wealth for natives than otherwise would exist. So you are wrong.
And it certainly is. There is no such things as an "illegal" person. Well, maybe if you're a nationalist or a socialist who doesn't believe in individual humanity.
Last edited by PierzStyx; 02-28-2017 at 11:58 AM.
Yes. Your business should be allowed to hire whomever it wants, wherever they're from, at whatever payscale you and the worker agree on.
Partisan politics, misleading or emotional bill titles, and 4D chess theories are manifestations of the same lie—that the text of the Constitution, the text of legislation, and plain facts do not matter; what matters is what you want to believe. From this comes hypocrisy. And where hypocrisy thrives, virtue recedes. Without virtue, liberty dies. - Justin Amash, March 2018
I quoted from this which quoted the source you linked. http://nicholalowe.web.unc.edu/files...alent-2010.pdf
It's pages 132-146 on a study on skill-building opportunities and practices among immigrants typically considered low-skilled.
And that's what you missed. The low skilled part.
It's not about "personhood". It's about citizenship status.
Because I have no problem with the word illegal doesn't mean I'm a nationalist or socialist.
Last edited by loveshiscountry; 02-28-2017 at 12:21 PM.
The link I provided only has 105 pages. The link your provided only has 16. None of them have 132 pages. So try again. So far, no evidence for your claims.
Actually it demonstrates perfectly that you're a nationalist. You think national laws can alter basic human rights, such as the rights to move unhindered across unowned land, and regulate the market, as you want to be a protectionist and use national policing violence to regulate the free flow of human capital. You're arguing that the "good of the nation" -a collectivist term- is more important than the individual. And if you claim that the government can regulate land it doesn't own for the good of the collective then you're essentially asserting the collective ownership of land by the state for the good of the people -a basic stance of socialism's dictatorship of the proletariat.
There is no such thing as an illegal person. Just those who may or may not be citizens. But citizenship is irrelevant when it comes to protecting your natural human rights.
And the low skilled aspect is important.
Check out another CATO study unless you're allergic to CATO - https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.o...df/tpa-040.pdf
EDIT: Hmmm... the file isn't coming up for me right now.
As I recall, the gist of it is that if employers didn't have to be so under-the-table about their undocumented workers, then more skills training would take place, worker paranoia and insecurity would drop, and productivity would increase. If I remember correctly, they conservatively calculate a $250B annual difference to the US economy between deporting undocumented workers (-$250B) vs. making it legal for them to reside here and work (+$250B). And of course the resulting higher-skilled workers are going to be able to ask for higher wages, creating prosperity for them, more spending in their community, more tax revenues and another positive competitive dynamic in the market.
Partisan politics, misleading or emotional bill titles, and 4D chess theories are manifestations of the same lie—that the text of the Constitution, the text of legislation, and plain facts do not matter; what matters is what you want to believe. From this comes hypocrisy. And where hypocrisy thrives, virtue recedes. Without virtue, liberty dies. - Justin Amash, March 2018
As long as we have the welfare state yes there should be borders.
No ones saying they are illegal "people" but you.
Wow. Did you really mean to put people in quotes?
Partisan politics, misleading or emotional bill titles, and 4D chess theories are manifestations of the same lie—that the text of the Constitution, the text of legislation, and plain facts do not matter; what matters is what you want to believe. From this comes hypocrisy. And where hypocrisy thrives, virtue recedes. Without virtue, liberty dies. - Justin Amash, March 2018
I'm conflicted on this. I believe in the real world you're always going to have a government, therefore the best path to maximizing liberty is to have the "best" government possible. So I'm not sure if there's a way to maintain a government without having some sort of registration process.
Suppose you and a group of libertarians decided to form their own island nation. Would it be against libertarian rules to restrict outsiders from your island? Do outsiders have a natural right to move to your island?
What if we grant immediate legal status to anyone willing to sign a contract that they will never use welfare? At least welfare on a national level, states would have the right to do as they wish.
Correct me here on this. Most job fields don't have a shortage. Dont bring people into that field unless there is a shortage. We can tell if there is a shortage when that industry gets backlogged. I would be curious too see what the employment levels of the fields illegals are working in vs say 30 years ago. Hard to find workers vs easy now in those fields.
If one wants to make the discussion around costs and what it adds or takes away from the economy. I have no problem with that. I just don't see the studies that include things like
What about the affect on the economy of those losing jobs, working less and receiving entitlements because of the glut of labor?
Or that illegals here with family back home, send their money out of the country instead of spending it here.
People usually stay at their same economic level. Why bring lower earnings into the country who will continue to earn low wages?
All of what you said about training, a secure work place, lowering turnover to keep the costs of training down which is huge, is always a smart move. So aren't we going back to not enough Americans who want to work or be trained. I see this as too much of the welfare state and that some of what is presented is a symptom.
Last edited by loveshiscountry; 02-28-2017 at 02:11 PM.
See Nowrasteh's "Building a Wall around the Welfare State, Instead of the Country." https://www.cato.org/publications/co...nstead-country
There' s a pdf that goes more in-depth, but CATO PDF's aren't accessible today for some reason.
Partisan politics, misleading or emotional bill titles, and 4D chess theories are manifestations of the same lie—that the text of the Constitution, the text of legislation, and plain facts do not matter; what matters is what you want to believe. From this comes hypocrisy. And where hypocrisy thrives, virtue recedes. Without virtue, liberty dies. - Justin Amash, March 2018
You'd either have to have unanimous buy-in on the restriction by all property owners, which might be withdrawn if one has a change of heart. Or they'd have to submit to a majority decision, which I'd argue is very, very unlibertarian. Or the island could be owned by a libertarian person who would basically be "selling" property with freedom of association strings attached. That person could require a contract.
Partisan politics, misleading or emotional bill titles, and 4D chess theories are manifestations of the same lie—that the text of the Constitution, the text of legislation, and plain facts do not matter; what matters is what you want to believe. From this comes hypocrisy. And where hypocrisy thrives, virtue recedes. Without virtue, liberty dies. - Justin Amash, March 2018
What would happen is even if all of the original owners agreed to restrict outsiders, eventually some of their heirs or other future owners of the property would have different ideas. There is no method of ensuring philosophical purity of every member of a society across generations. At that point, the community would have to decide which is more important to them: their own freedoms, or the their desired restriction against outsiders. Historically it seems that freedom has always lost out in these cases. The result would be some level of coercive government that could range between an HOA and a nation.
Your example is the opposite of the United States. Here, we began with freedom and later generations decided that they were more interested in ownership of other peoples' property than their own.
Last edited by TheCount; 02-28-2017 at 02:32 PM.
You see that happening? Or is this another analogy thing?
Good questions.
The things that needs to be understood is the difference between citizen and immigrant and what property rights are.
For the first 100 years of its history the USA didn't have any immigration restrictions. The federal government, then and now, can, according to the Constitution, determine citizenship rules. The main impact of this was who got to vote since all people have the rights laid out in the Bill of Rights, which was the point of the document in the first place -to recognize ALL people, irregardless of origin or citizenship, have rights that must be protected from federal intrusion. People came and went as they chose. They were not required to register and it did not imperil the government or culture of the US in any way.
As for your question about a libertarian island -yes and no. People have a natural right to move across any unowned property as no one has the right to regulate land they do not own. If this libertarian island had unowned land on it then people could move across that land or to that land as they chose. If this land is entirely privately owned then the ability of another to enter that owned land is determined on an owner to owner basis. If you and I lived on this island you could block anyone from crossing your land but you cannot prevent me from allowing people to cross my land.
This is the basic issue here in the US, and another way immigration laws or unlibertarian and violate natural rights. When you undertake to regulate my land you are becoming a tyrant, commanding I obey your will and threatening violence against anyone who doesn't.
It's a question.
Do I see it happening? No. But if it did my guess is that you see the parties flip flop. Democrats would hate immigrants and republicans would like them since their voting patterns would switch.
Report: America attracting poor, uneducated immigrants
In analyzing new Census reports, the Center for Immigration Studies found that immigrant families with one or more children use welfare far more than "native" American families.
"Welfare use by illegal immigrant households is certainly a concern, but the bigger issue is welfare use by legal immigrants," said Steven Camarota, the Center's director of research and author of the report.
"Three-fourths of immigrant households using welfare are headed by legal immigrants. Legal immigration is supposed to benefit the country, yet so many legal immigrants are not able to support themselves or their children. This raises important questions about the selection criteria used for legal immigration," said Camarota.
Of households headed by legal immigrants without a high school diploma, 75 percent use one or more welfare programs, as do 64 percent of households headed by legal immigrants with only a high school education.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/on...rticle/2571730
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us