Jump to content

US Politics: Plan for the Future of Immigration


Tywin Manderly

Recommended Posts

So you're not complaining about immigrants, you're complaining about poor people.

About flooding the country with millions of additional poor people.

Just because there is (much more limited) precedent for something, doesn't mean it is legal... It's like saying it's perfectly fine to send Japanese to internment camps again, because FDR did the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, that's true. But the point is : is it good idea to import even more poor people (who can't take care of themselves and their families) to US? Is affordable to have few millions more on welfare when the system has difficulties to deal with existing poor?

The system has little trouble dealing with existing poor, welfare is a small portion of the federal budget and major entitlement programs are solvent, their solvency will be extended by more workers paying into the system.

Yes, they pay, but not enough. Like I said, based on the example of that "Mr. Martinez" - he pays 450$/yr into Medicare. Medicare costs are now 12 000/yr per capita. If he's legalized, later retires and lives 15 years on Medicare it means he'll cost the feds 180k (15x12000). He'd need to work and contribute 400 years (180k/450)to cover his (future) Medicare. This number clearly show how laughably low and blown out of proportion is their contribution to the budget. So people like him are only helping a little (it takes 26 Martinez to cover just one retiree's yearly Medicare cost) in short term, but in long term their presence will be complete fiscal disaster.

There is some chance of upward mobility so he can earn (and contribute) more. But in current situation, when even Americans without colleges have difficulty to find well paid job, how likely is it that someone, who probably doesn't even have HS will be able to do better?

If Mr. Martinez were the only kind of worker in the American economy, reproduced times a couple hundred million, yes, there would be a problem. Research suggests that this is not the case, however, so looking at this specific case does not permit you to extend your conclusion across the rest of the immigrant population, when we know overall there is a benefit to entitlements like Medicare.

They'll either enroll in expanded Medicaid or become eligible for huge subsidies under ACA, like other low income folks. That will make the fiscal situation even worse. Either way they won't be sharing much of costs.

If they're working (and immigrants are coming in order to work), they will absolutely be sharing the cost of Medicaid through taxes in addition to paying for private insurance. The poorest may be subsidized, but even then the ACA is projected to have a positive impact on the budget so that's no issue.

It is unknown if immigration of low income people (compared to more educated better of legal immigrants) boosts the growth at all and especially per capita growth. And if it does, are people better off because of it? The fact, that wages in US have been stagnating for pretty long time suggests that it doesn't help at all.

If growth is boosted, it's boosted per capita, even if it's unevenly distributed. For the purpose of budgets, the salient fact is that a growing economy will produce greater revenues which will help the budget. Immigration certainly increases overall economic growth, and stagnant wages are a separate issue, with evidence suggesting that immigration is not the cause.

Just because there is (much more limited) precedent for something, doesn't mean it is legal... It's like saying it's perfectly fine to send Japanese to internment camps again, because FDR did the same.

I agree, it doesn't mean it's legal. But I'd love to see someone actually make the case for why Reagan, Bush, and Obama's uses of prosecutorial discretion in these cases is illegal instead of just asserting that it is illegal, and is amnesty (which it clearly is not, even if it's illegal). I'm generally sympathetic to criticisms of executive overreach, but I've yet to see anyone actually make a case on this issue. Win me over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously the voters endorsed the political opposition to Obama's agenda, specifically, and especially amnesty.

I swear the way this guy is fucking babied and excuses made for him, you would think no president has had political opposition before.

GWB tried to push through amnesty and got the exact same pushback. But he didn't try to decree it afterward.

A-Fuckin'-Men.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Ramsay, are you now using Commodore's made up definition of amnesty as well?

@Commodore

You seem to be saying that the general public disagrees with immigration reform and that it specifically was a deciding factor in the recent elections. Given the fact that 4 out of 5 Americans do indeed support reform it would appear that yet again you are simply making shit up as you go.

@SC

1. It's been clearly shown that immigrants are a net positive and benefit the economy. This isn't even debatable at this point, there is a consensus on the topic from economists on both the left and right. Why do you keep ignoring that with your posts?

2. You've been asked numerous times to back up these claims about immigrants being a drain on the system. Curious that you haven't even attempted to do so. Here I'll save you the time.

But what about the immense strain on social services and money spent on welfare for these law breakers? The Congressional Budget Office in 2007 answered this question in the following manner: “Over the past two decades, most efforts to estimate the fiscal impact of immigration in the United States have concluded that, in aggregate and over the long term, tax revenues of all types generated by immigrants—both legal and unauthorized—exceed the cost of the services they use.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So just starting to read Subversives by Seth Rosenfeld. How had I never heard that good ol' St. Ronnie the White Washed was a snitch?



"Starting in Hollywood in the 1940s, Ronald Reagan developed a special relationship with the FBI. He became an FBI informer, reporting other actors whom he suspected of subversive activities, and later, when he became president of the Screen Actors Guild, the FBI had wide access to the guild's information on various actors. At one point, the guild turned over information on 54 actors it was investigating as possible subversives — so the FBI viewed Reagan as an extremely cooperative source in Hollywood. He was far more active than we know from previously released FBI records. As a result of this, Hoover repaid him with personal and political favors later."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

prince,

I know your'e one of our members most concerned about the poor. Thus, I am here to tell you that the issue of poverty can be eradicated through basic income (http://www.vox.com/2014/11/14/7220291/basic-income-poverty-plan). Essentially, we would give every American an X amount of money monthly that they can live off of. This would assure that no one would be poor and it would lessen the need for the welfare programs you so hate.

This is a plan that has been supported by the likes of President Richard Nixon - who tried passing it in the early 1970's - and libertarian economists Milton Friedman, Veronique de Rugy and Charles Murray - the last two included because they're right-wing hacks and even they're in favor of the plan. Of course, there are also left-leaning economists that support it, such as Emmanuel Saez and Jonathan Gruber.

It was tried in several U.S. cities in the 1970's and the results are deemed controversial. It seems that the controversial part was that work hours went down slightly (it seems more people stayed in school longer) and unemployment went up as more people chose to hold out for a better job rather than settling for a second choice. But income and health was improved.

There are also critics, both on the left and right, that criticize the plan. But the criticism isn't that it won't end poverty, but rather with how responsible people would be with the money received and such. The U.K. has a similar, albeit smaller, program with criteria for meeting the requirements. Maybe some of our U.K. members can share with us how, and if, it works.

I think it's a step in the right direction. How do our more knowledgeable members feel about it?

Jonathan Gruber knows your dumb enough to fall for it
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Ramsay, are you now using Commodore's made up definition of amnesty as well?

I'd have to see it. But he's definitely right about the liberal outrage re. Republican opposition. The President does not get to unilaterally enact a sweeping new policy just because he can't get it through Congress, and crying "obstructionism!" doesn't change that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the supply of labor increases, the price of labor (wages) goes down relative to if the supply of labor did not increase.

Now perhaps the immigrants start businesses and hire people, or their productivity leads to growth/expansion/hiring. Or the influx of cheap labor reduces the cost of the items/services they provide, improving everyone's purchasing power. Everything has a trade off, cost and benefit.

But the notion that millions of poor unskilled laborers entering the work force has no impact on wages... Correlation doesn't mean causation, but we've had flat-lining wages to go along with waves of illegal immigrants for awhile now.

That's why we must raise the minimum wage. Then everyone can work at McDonald's for $15/hr at 30 hours a week. Utopia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The President does not get to unilaterally enact a sweeping new policy just because he can't get it through Congress, and crying "obstructionism!" doesn't change that.

So it's your assertion that Obama hasn't faced unprecedented obstructionism? I would be interested to hear what you would consider comparable? I always thought Chuck Todd had a good take on this:

Here’s a thought exercise on this summer morning: Imagine that after the controversial Medicare prescription-drug legislation was passed into law in 2003, Democrats did everything they could to thwart one of George W. Bush’s top domestic achievements. They launched Senate filibusters to block essential HHS appointees from administering the law; they warned the sports and entertainment industries from participating in any public service announcements to help seniors understand how the law works; and, after taking control of the House of Representatives in 2007, they used the power of the purse to prohibit any more federal funds from being used to implement the law. As it turns out, none of that happened. And despite Democratic warnings that the law would be a bust — we remember the 2004 Dem presidential candidates campaigning against it — the Medicare prescription-drug law has been, for the most part, a pretty big success.

But that thought exercise has become a reality 10 years later as Republicans have worked to thwart/stymie/sabotage — pick your word — the implementation of President Obama’s health-care and financial-reform laws.

Recently, the top-two Senate Republicans — Mitch McConnell and John Cornyn — wrote a letter to the NFL and other major sports leagues warning them not to participate in any campaign to promote implementation of Obamacare. The Koch Brothers-backed Americans for Prosperity is in unchartered waters running TV ads to help prevent the law from being implemented, while the Obama political arm is also on the air promoting implementation. And Senate Republicans have vowed to filibuster any nominee (no matter how qualified) to run the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau under the financial-reform law. [...]

And this all raises the question: What’s the line between fighting for your ideology and ensuring that the government that pays your salaries actually works — or even attempts to work? At some point, governing has to take place, but when does that begin? ...

But I’d take it further; it goes well beyond Obamacare implementation and the relentless blockading of Obama nominees for the explicit purpose of preventing democratically-created agencies from functioning. We’ve slowly crossed over into something a bit different. It’s now become accepted as normal that Republicans will threaten explicitly to allow harm to the country to get what they want, and will allow untold numbers of Americans to be hurt rather than even enter into negotiations over the sort of compromises that lie at the heart of basic governing.

In addition there is no "amnesty" going on here. It's a loaded term in regards to immigration and once again a President has the "constitutional responsibility to decide how to enforce laws and focus scarce enforcement resources."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama, September 2008.

“The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the Executive Branch and not go through Congress at all, and that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m President of the United States of America."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So it's your assertion that Obama hasn't faced unprecedented obstructionism? I would be interested to hear what you would consider comparable? I always thought Chuck Todd had a good take on this:

In addition there is no "amnesty" going on here. It's a loaded term in regards to immigration and once again a President has the "constitutional responsibility to decide how to enforce laws and focus scarce enforcement resources."

amnesty

[am-nuh-stee]

noun, plural amnesties.

1. a general pardon for offenses, especially political offenses,

against a government, often granted before any trial or conviction.

Sounds like Obama's plan...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like Obama's plan...

Really, which part? We know, we know "all of it!" But seriously you've dodged that question through a few version of this discussion so just once an actual answer would be nice. Please detail exactly which part of his plan you feel meets the definition of amnesty and why.

From one of factchecks linked las thread:

As we have noted before, “amnesty” is a loaded phrase when used in the context of illegal immigration. The dictionary definition is: “The act of an authority (as a government) by which pardon is granted to a large group of individuals.”

But the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act, which was approved in the Senate in 2013 on a vote of 68 to 32, including the support of 14 Republicans, did not contain anything as sweeping as that dictionary definition of amnesty.

If the bill had become law, undocumented aliens would have had to jump through all sorts of hoops before they could be considered for legal permanent residence, including registering with the government, having a steady job, paying a fine, paying back taxes, passing background checks, learning English — and then getting in line behind immigrants who had entered the country legally. It would have taken at least 13 years before citizenship could be obtained.

By its very nature, a presidential executive order would be even less than that, since an executive order does not permanently change the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jonathan Gruber knows your dumb enough to fall for it

I know you're trying to be witty, but if I take your answer seriously it makes absolutely no sense. But you've yet to answer any of the questions I've posed, so this is par for the course.

he's sick of opposition?

welcome to democracy

Then Republicans shouldn't cry when they meet with the opposition; the veto pen.

Obviously the voters endorsed the political opposition to Obama's agenda, specifically, and especially amnesty.

I swear the way this guy is fucking babied and excuses made for him, you would think no president has had political opposition before.

GWB tried to push through amnesty and got the exact same pushback. But he didn't try to decree it afterward.

I don't recall George W. Bush facing eight years of obstruction. And lets be real, what the Republicans have done to Obama is obstruct, not oppose. The Republican leadership has stated as much. They've yet to genuinely attempt to work with the president in good faith. And now they expect, no demand, Obama work with them - a courtesy they wouldn't pay him when he was bending over backwards to work with Republicans in the name of bipartisanship. The gall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't recall George W. Bush facing eight years of obstruction. And lets be real, what the Republicans have done to Obama is obstruct, not oppose. The Republican leadership has stated as much. They've yet to genuinely attempt to work with the president in good faith. And now they expect, no demand, Obama work with them - a courtesy they wouldn't pay him when he was bending over backwards to work with Republicans in the name of bipartisanship. The gall.

They literally had a meeting before he was sworn in and laid out a strategy to obstruct everything he did to deny him anything he was after.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really, which part? We know, we know "all of it!" But seriously you've dodged that question through a few version of this discussion so just once an actual answer would be nice. Please detail exactly which part of his plan you feel meets the definition of amnesty and why.

From one of factchecks linked las thread:

What part? Are you serious? Let's look at the definition again and I'll walk you through it suttree.

amnesty

a general pardon (the executive action)for offenses(the illegal immigration),especially political offenses, against a government(U.S.), often granted before any trial or conviction.

The bill you sight is not relevant in the slightest. You're right about the law not changing, it would more than likely be a two year amnesty until Obama leaves office.

I don't remember if it was you or onion that were pointing to Regan to justify the amnesty. But that is exactly why Republicans don't have faith about comprehensive immigration reform. Regan granted amnesty with the reassurance from the legislative branch that immigration enforcement would be tightened. And of course, it wasn't. In fact, illegal immigration increased 44% from '87 to '89.

So here we are, almost 30 years later, with the same immigration problem. Only the number of illegals are upwards of 15-20 million. Regan's amnesty is the reason Republicans want something done about the border first, then deal with the illegal immigrants here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you guys think of H1B visa employees? I think that they're unfairly targeted (or have you discussed it already ? )

I think it's an unethical category of visa, since the worker is entirely dependent on the company's good will to say in the US while working. The whole thing is rife for labor abuses, and there have been plenty of claims of that happening. If we want more skilled and educated immigrants, we should just create more green cards for them to get - or temporary work visas that let them work wherever in the country.

In general, my view on immigration is that if you've been in the country for more than three years without a felony, and/or have a US citizen child who is over the age of four, they should give you a green card. Maybe include a fee to be paid that can be waived if you pass a test proving English written and spoken fluency. That might seem unfair to people who go through the legal immigration process, but the legal process is fucked up too - it's way too goddamn slow and bureaucratic.

Good for Obama for pressing ahead with a deferral for the parents of US citizen children, assuming he has to. The whole thing's going to end up in the courts anyways, and there's zero chance that the xenophobic Republican-dominated House is going to pass an immigration bill any time soon. He might as well use what authority he has as President on the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know you're trying to be witty, but if I take your answer seriously it makes absolutely no sense. But you've yet to answer any of the questions I've posed, so this is par for the course.

Then Republicans shouldn't cry when they meet with the opposition; the veto pen.

I don't recall George W. Bush facing eight years of obstruction. And lets be real, what the Republicans have done to Obama is obstruct, not oppose. The Republican leadership has stated as much. They've yet to genuinely attempt to work with the president in good faith. And now they expect, no demand, Obama work with them - a courtesy they wouldn't pay him when he was bending over backwards to work with Republicans in the name of bipartisanship. The gall.

When Landrieu losses her run off, we'll be able to get the 60 votes to veto the veto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...