Lightysnake88 Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 I can see someone doesn't like Keynesian economics much. 50 to a 100 billion, really I've no idea and I don't care. Considering how much the government wastes on completely useless shit then I'm happy to pay. And they built a fence from Hawaii to Maine? Tell me more. Ah the old 'immigrants are only doing the jobs Americans don't want' argument. Which is actually saying working class people are lazy and entitled. We're hearing how minority communitites in particular have not enjoyed the benefits of the economic recovery (such that it is). Might that have something to do with the massive pool of cheap surplus illegal labor on tap crowding them out of the job market? Teach me to post while planning my vacations. Let's go over this, though: You don't care how much we spend on a wall that won't work? I'm also being serious: how much are you willing to actually pay for this? How much is too much? asically, we're looking to spend an astronomical amount on a wall that won't work out of...spite? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerraPrime Posted August 30, 2015 Author Share Posted August 30, 2015 Ah the old 'immigrants are only doing the jobs Americans don't want' argument. Which is actually saying working class people are lazy and entitled. We're hearing how minority communitites in particular have not enjoyed the benefits of the economic recovery (such that it is). Might that have something to do with the massive pool of cheap surplus illegal labor on tap crowding them out of the job market? No. The wage stagnation for lower economic classes started in the 70s and accelerated in the 80s and beyond. The economic pie is being divided into more uneven slices than it was before. This all took place before illegal workers from Mexico was even an issue. When you have, in some cases, WalMart being the most prominent employer in an area and paying its workers a wage that doesn't allow for sustaining a family, that issue is irrelevant from whether field work in agriculture sector is being taken away by illegal workers, or not. Those field labor jobs were unsustainable even before illegal workers were a thing. This is rich coming from the person who caricatured my actual position on immigration just a page ago, and has been deliberately confusing the issue this whole thread. How to deal with the immigrants already living in the U.S. is a very different question than how to address immigration going forward. Hayyoth and I are arguing that America belongs to the people already living here, including the illegals. It does not belong to people all over the world who intend to come here. We don't owe the latter group shit, and can restrict, pick and choose as we please. The argument is not, least from me, to not have regulations on who gets to immigrate here and who doesn't. The argument is that the criteria you want to use sounds fucking xenophobic and racist as hell. WASPs don't own America. We're not going to want an immigration policy driven by the concern that the skin color of Americans is trending darker, or that the majority religion might soon no longer be Protestanism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paladin of Ice Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 Reports say that GE rules out moving global headquarters to Dallas due to Cruz and other pols opposing the Import-Export bank Neither Dallas Mayor Mike Rawlings nor officials from General Electric would confirm on Friday reports that General Electric Co. had decided against relocating its global headquarters to the city because of Texas politicians’ opposition to the Export-Import Bank. Republicans Rep. Jeb Hensarling and Sen. Ted Cruz have each been outspoken in their opposition to the Ex-Im Bank, a federal agency that offers loans, loan guarantees and credit insurance to help U.S. firms sell their products overseas. Hensarling’s opposition to the bank has grown from a small movement two years ago to a full-scale rebellion, dismaying the bank’s supporters among major business lobbying groups. The bank’s charter expired June 30, and it had to suspend consideration of new deals. Its funding to operate runs out at the end of this fiscal year, and it remains uncertain whether Congress will vote to revive it. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said he opposes the bank but that there are enough votes in the Senate to restore its charter if a measure makes it to the floor. Good job, GOP! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokisnow Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 It is interesting that as the gop gets more ideological they may lose more support from the business community, particularly the large multinationals who have departments to run the metrics that disprove gop ideology is good for business. I doubt business has failed to notice Obamas seven years of steady growth and that Europe had double dip recession and slower growth or no growth following gop ideological prescriptions. The export import bank was a good target for the gop because it was small enough to drown in a bathtub, and inaction would effectively drown it. It would be interesting if it became a symbol to the business world of how serious the gop is about not governing the system as it is (and putting their own stamp on it) rather taking an axe to the system when possible regardless of facts or consequences. By and large business wants a functioning system, they are realizing that today's republicans are like Russian communists of yore, they do not want a functioning system if that system is ideologically impure or is not "their" sort system. Just because you have the tools to take apart a car does not mean you can build a better one while only using some of the pieces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodRider Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 I can see someone doesn't like Keynesian economics much. 50 to a 100 billion, really I've no idea and I don't care. Considering how much the government wastes on completely useless shit then I'm happy to pay. I don't think you understand how Keynsian economics work. Gov't spending is a) not supposed to happen all the time, and b ) not an obligation to do every single project proposed no matter how stupid. Ah the old 'immigrants are only doing the jobs Americans don't want' argument. Which is actually saying working class people are lazy and entitled. We're hearing how minority communitites in particular have not enjoyed the benefits of the economic recovery (such that it is). Might that have something to do with the massive pool of cheap surplus illegal labor on tap crowding them out of the job market? Ummmm no. Its a way of saying that the working class is not willing to devolve their standard of living. If it is an increase in the standard of living for an immigrant, then great. Otherwise why should the working class (whose wages haven't kept up with increases in production or inflation since Bush I) take a pay cut so companies can pay their CEO more? EDIT: I see onion covered this as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 Explain how encouraging illegal immigration is good for the American working class? Take your time. You like cheap produce? I like cheap produce. You hankering to pick vegetables and fruit in 100 degree heat for $8.00 an hour? No? Then you benefit from illegal labor. , Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramsay Gimp Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 There's nothing actually wrong with a bunch of people in your country speaking another language. Just, you know, accept that the US is becoming more bilingual. No thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramsay Gimp Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 WASPs don't own America. We're not going to want an immigration policy driven by the concern that the skin color of Americans is trending darker, or that the majority religion might soon no longer be Protestanism. IQ and economic standing were the criteria I mentioned, actually. But cultural factors (like "do you believe women should be forced to wear burqas?") should play a role as well. If the majority of illegal immigrants spoke english and had college degrees I'd have very little problem with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkynJay Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 No thanks I fail to see a single way having more people fluent in multiple languages is a bad thing. Hell, I think it is one of the largest issues in our educational system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 I fail to see a single way having more people fluent in multiple languages is a bad thing. Hell, I think it is one of the largest issues in our educational system. Having people fluent in multiple languages is great, but that is not what is being discussed here. The problem is people only being fluent in a single language and that language not being the one that the overwhelming majority of people in the country can speak. That said, the US actually has a framework for dealing with this situation. If you go to a big city like New York, there are neighborhoods where many of the shops have signs in both English and, Russian or Chinese or several other languages depending on the neighborhood. I was in California recently and there is a suburb of LA which even has the same phenomenon with Armenian so I suspect it will happen with any language. Likewise, the government forms are all translated into various languages as are things like driving license tests. It's certainly an extra strain on the system, but it's a familiar strain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IamMe90 Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 IQ and economic standing were the criteria I mentioned, actually. But cultural factors (like "do you believe women should be forced to wear burqas?") should play a role as well. If the majority of illegal immigrants spoke english and had college degrees I'd have very little problem with it. You also mentioned your fear of suddenly waking up to a world where most people no longer look like you in your country. Which is just overtly SOMETHING bad - racist, xenophobic, some combination of the two - I'm not sure. But that's probably what he was talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkynJay Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 Having people fluent in multiple languages is great, but that is not what is being discussed here. The problem is people only being fluent in a single language and that language not being the one that the overwhelming majority of people in the country can speak. I responded specifically to someone saying 'no thanks' to the thought of the nation's populace drifting toward being bilingual. Which is, by definition, not a single language. I then expanded on my thought. So please, what is really being discussed? I do know one thing though; there is more than one way to lessen the language barrier between first generation immigrants and the citizens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramsay Gimp Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 You also mentioned your fear of suddenly waking up to a world where most people no longer look like you in your country. Which is just overtly SOMETHING bad - racist, xenophobic, some combination of the two - I'm not sure. But that's probably what he was talking about. Why do I get the feeling you live in a community that is disproportionately white? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IamMe90 Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 Why do I get the feeling you live in a community that is disproportionately white? I grew up in a public school system that had more black people than white people in it, and about a 15% Latino population, so I've had plenty of exposure to other cultures. However, none of this really has anything to do with the fact that being afraid of the ways in which people look different from you is practically the definition of xenophobic. And why is THIS relevant to anything? Well, it's kind of hard to take your repeated claims of the so called "race card" being "played out" when you've full stop admitted that you're afraid of America ceasing to be a white majority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerraPrime Posted August 30, 2015 Author Share Posted August 30, 2015 Yeah having 20 million illegals competing at the lower end of the job market doesn't supress wage rates, sure it doesn't. It's one of those things, employers openly flouting labor laws, that liberals turn a blind eye to because they like the theoretical pay off from illegal migration and eventual amnesty, Dems in power. I don't even think you're following the discussion. Your original point was that illegal workers are the cause of continued disparity in economic gains in the largely ethnic minority groups that are disproportionately poor. My counter-argument is that wage gap has begun well in the 70s prior to illegal workers becoming a big issue. In fact, the suppressing of wage for basic labor work probably contributed to the pressure to utilize illegal workers in the first place. Right now, a farm worker/field laborer will earn roughly $10k a year based on the on-the-book rate, because a lot of the pay is based on per-piece harvested/planted/gathered, and not on a per-hour rate. That's right at the national poverty level for an individual, give or take a couple hundred dollars. It is difficult to see how it will benefit any of us to enforce a law that will drive people to work very hard just to attain the edge of being in poverty. Will getting rid of a substantial number of illegal workers raise the wage for farm workers? That is a complex question, because we are not only looking at the issue of labor availability, but also the benefits to the employers for using illegal workers, such as dodging payroll taxes and insurance. You can probably find various predictive models that argue one way or another. As for the Democrats as a whole, I think it's tinfoil hat territory to suggest that consideration for voting power is a driving force here (that's what you meant by "pay off" right?). Many of the leftists in my circle at least are actually worried about things like exploitative labor practices and lack of protection for illegal workers. Crazy to people like you, probably, but there we are. For the record, I do not support full amnesty. I support granting of citizenship to some of these illegal workers who have been in the U.S. for a substantial length of time and who have family and roots here already established. I also support various reforms that will make use of the labor available to us in a more responsible and accountable way, such as using easier-to-get labor VISAs along with a small tax on companies who hire labor VISA workers. Of course, being able to document, monitor, and enforce labor practices is critical to any type of proposal, and that is usually met with resistance from the Tea Party and Small-Government GOP folks. They'd rather the government allocate resources to build and then staff a wall to stop illegal workers from entering, than to empower agencies to hire agents to monitor companies for compliance, it seems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 I responded specifically to someone saying 'no thanks' to the thought of the nation's populace drifting toward being bilingual. Which is, by definition, not a single language. I then expanded on my thought. So please, what is really being discussed? I do know one thing though; there is more than one way to lessen the language barrier between first generation immigrants and the citizens. The nation becoming bilingual is not the same thing as individuals within the nation becoming bilingual. The latter is not happening in the US: most people speak English and, despite the various high school and college requirements, basically only English. A small minority (fewer than 10%) speaks only Spanish and even smaller minorities (mainly the elderly from immigrant families) speak only other languages. The main change in recent years is that the minority that speaks only Spanish has grown somewhat larger, though it is very from the nation being bilingual (although this is not true for some specific states). As to lessening the barrier: either the immigrants learn English or the natives learn the language of the immigrants. The latter isn't happening. English is actually special in this regard because an amazing number of people speaks it well enough for the type of interactions generally required by an American, even in countries where you would not expect English at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThinkerX Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 Ok, been wondering something about Trumps stated positions these past few days.At the current time, he comes across as real extreme on immigration, foreign policy, and other topics, yet in the past his stances were much 'softer' - sort of in bombastic line with the Democratic Party, get right down to it.Plus, he's never held elective office, and I don't recollect him being appointed to any high level government position either. But, say what you will, he is a successful businessman.So, taking all this together...Are Trumps extreme positions on things like foreign policy and immigration 'firm' - or are they 'opening negotiating positions?' Aka, he starts by stating an extreme, unacceptable stance, see's what the other sides toss out, then responds with something less extreme, eventually reaching a more acceptable position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 I wonder if under the Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Scott Walker will allow Canadian steel to be used in his wall. Go ahead and build it, you Bastards! Keep the American riffraff out of Canada. :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThinkerX Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 Hmm...Canada starts building a wall along the US border and the Tea Party will go into meltdown mode. After all, from their POV, Canada is really just an extension of the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramsay Gimp Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 Are Trumps extreme positions on things like foreign policy and immigration 'firm' - or are they 'opening negotiating positions?' Aka, he starts by stating an extreme, unacceptable stance, see's what the other sides toss out, then responds with something less extreme, eventually reaching a more acceptable position. Very possible. He's shifting the "overtown window", i.e. the range of acceptable discussion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.