US Politics: Plan for the Future of Immigration

[Altherion]

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.

This is a classic example of a technically true, but misleading statement. Illegal immigrants do benefit the economy, but "the economy" is a nearly all-encompassing term and the devil is in the details. To wit: whom exactly do the illegal immigrants benefit? To first order, it's the companies they work for. The illegals don't organize, they don't demand higher pay or benefits, they don't balk at long hours -- from the perspective of the capitalist, they are simply more efficient than ordinary workers. Of course they're a net positive for "the economy". Problem is, the lion's share of that net positive goes straight into the pockets of the 1%.

[Suttree]

This is a classic example of a technically true, but misleading statement. Illegal immigrants do benefit the economy, but "the economy" is a nearly all-encompassing term and the devil is in the details. To wit: whom exactly do the illegal immigrants benefit? To first order, it's the companies they work for. The illegals don't organize, they don't demand higher pay or benefits, they don't balk at long hours -- from the perspective of the capitalist, they are simply more efficient than ordinary workers. Of course they're a net positive for "the economy". Problem is, the lion's share of that net positive goes straight into the pockets of the 1%.

Please go back and study up on what has been linked already before commenting. There is nothing misleading given what has already been discussed and you choosing to focus on one sgement and not the overall whole is rather ironic. This response doesn't come across that well given all the studies presented thus far. To recover just a bit of old ground. They pay more into the system than they use and have raised wages across the board except for native born individuals without a HS degree. We are talking different and complimentary skill sets.

Instead of rehashing perhaps you could specify what issues specifically you have? What solutions?

[Commodore]

Guys it's objectively true that illegal immigration is good, how can there possibly be any disagreement about this?

We've linked studies ffs! The cost/benefit analysis has been done. The debate is over.

[Suttree]

Oh hey Commodore, your back. Question do you ever aknowledge when something you've fabricated is debunked or do you just keep the Poe act rolling on?

The topic has been exhaustively studied and even those on the right like George Borjas have reached the following conclusion.

How big is the net benefit of immigration to the native-born population? Harvard Economist George Borjas is probably the most established academic critic of immigration. But even he admits that immigrants create net benefits for the native-born and, in the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, puts this gain at $22 billion a year.2 Using his method of calculation and updating for more recent immigrant flows puts the number at more than $36 billion.

As part of a $14 trillion economy, $36 billion is a rather small number. However, a few words of caution are in order. First, other methods of calculating the net benefits of immigration lead to larger numbers, though all remain modest as a percent of our economy. Second, the current level of benefits that natives derive from immigration is directly related to the U.S. government's restrictive immigration policies. If greater numbers were let in, if the U.S. government didn't severely limit the number of skilled-worker H1-B visas, and if illegal immigrants had better access to formal-sector employment, the net gains could be larger. In any event, economists have wide agreement that immigration, like free trade, brings net benefits to the existing native-born population.

& from the CBO:

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.

So it's been shown they are a net positive, they have raised wages and they aren't a drain on social services. It says a lot about you that you would disparage opinions that have been supported while continuously pushing the same xenophopic old canards. The odd thing is you just disappear when asked to back up your claims or clarify a statement. Why is that?

Lastly given your stance on other topics one would think you would find restricting people flows extremely objectionable.

From Harvard professor Richard Freeman in the National Bureau of Economic Research:

Restrict trade and cries of protectionism resound. Suggest linking labor standards to trade and it's protectionism in disguise. Limit capital flows and the International Monetary Fund is on your back. But restrict people flows? That's just an accepted exercise of national sovereignty! During the last few decades, when most countries reduced barriers to trade in goods and services and liberalized financial capital markets, most also sought to limit immigration.1

[The Fallen]

The "why won't they govern", "politics is broken", "stop obstructing" line is what you hear when Democrats can't win elections or advance unpopular policies, they start throwing tantrums.

A politician's job is to do things that will attract a majority of his voters. Opposition to the party in power is a perfectly legitimate means of achieving that.

This isn't fucking American Idol.

What you're arguing means nothing would ever get done since it would simply be two parties obstructing each other.

If it wasn't for the fact that real people would suffer, I would love for the Republicans to get majorities in every branch of the federal government and enact all their stupid fucking policies and ruin the country so that all these stupid Americans who vote them in office could finally get it through their thick heads that these policies are terrible for all except the .1% and they'd never win an election again.

I mean, you would think that spending billions on a war that was supposed to pay for itself and ruining the world economy would be enough, but I guess it was the Democrats who did that.

[davos]

The "why won't they govern", "politics is broken", "stop obstructing" line is what you hear when Democrats can't win elections or advance unpopular policies, they start throwing tantrums.

A politician's job is to do things that will attract a majority of his voters. Opposition to the party in power is a perfectly legitimate means of achieving that.

Actually a politicians job is to govern. We elect them to preform various governmental functions. The reality of our modern political system is that most of those elected to significant political office must be campaigning in one fashion or another all the time. The idea of a representative republic is that elected officials preform a job and every so often voters can hold them accountable for their actions. Despite how things work at this juncture in history, they still have responsibilities that politicians are elected to fulfill. Their job is not to win election but to preform a job. If the voters don't hold a politician accountable for not doing their job, or in fact approve of it, that is a separate matter.

[Reny of Storms End]

All you have to say is you don't know. That's an acceptable answer. The house bill which isnt amnesty either goes a good deal further than anything the President is saying.

Give you took the time to post a good deal while dodging the question, I have one more. When looking at the "immigration problem". What aspects of the situation are you most concerned with?

Hey he's got a real life remember? No seriously, remember when he tried to claim he couldn't answer people's questions cause he had a real life or some such other bullshit? Sure doesn't seem to stop him from posting frequently though.

[K-26dp]

Reagan and Bush the First didn't hear a whisper of impeachment threats when they used executive authority to extend deportation protections to certain immigrants.

[Altherion]

Please go back and study up on what has been linked already before commenting. There is nothing misleading given what has already been discussed and you choosing to focus on one sgement and not the overall whole is rather ironic. This response doesn't come across that well given all the studies presented thus far. To recover just a bit of old ground. They pay more into the system than they use and have raised wages across the board except for native born individuals without a HS degree. We are talking different and complimentary skill sets.

The only thing I've found linked before which addresses this subject is this libertarian ode to illegal immigration which advocates open borders and the end of "the welfare state". It's not all that trustworthy. I can use Google too: here is a study (by a Harvard professor, no less) which more or less confirms what I've said. From the conclusion of the Executive Summary:

Economists have long known that immigration redistributes income in the receiving society. Although immigration makes the aggregate economy larger, the actual net benefit accruing to natives is small, equal to an estimated two-tenths of 1 percent of GDP. There is little evidence indicating that immigration (legal and/or illegal) creates large net gains for native-born Americans.

Even though the overall net impact on natives is small, this does not mean that the wage losses suffered by some natives or the income gains accruing to other natives are not substantial. Some groups of workers face a great deal of competition from immigrants. These workers are primarily, but by no means exclusively, at the bottom end of the skill distribution, doing low-wage jobs that require modest levels of education. Such workers make up a significant share of the nations working poor. The biggest winners from immigration are owners of businesses that employ a lot of immigrant labor and other users of immigrant labor. The other big winners are the immigrants themselves.

In other words, most people are nearly unaffected, the illegal immigrants and the businesses which employ them gain while the native poor lose. It's not actually that different from your links, but it does a better jobs of quantifying the scale of the overall gain as well as the emphasizing the crucial fact that immigration is redistributive.

Instead of rehashing perhaps you could specify what issues specifically you have? What solutions?

We could try following the law rather than allowing it to be broken on a massive scale because the executive branch chooses not to enforce it.

[Suttree]

We could try following the law rather than allowing it to be broken on a massive scale because the executive branch chooses not to enforce it.

Since you keep focusing in on this one small segment, should we assume the issue for you is income inequality?

Or since you you quoted my response to stoned cat are we to take it you agree with his stance of suppressed wages(we know that this is only true for natives without a HS degree and then only in the short term.) That immigrants are drains on the system? Why restrict people flows when it benefits the native born population? As an aside the flaws in Borjas' model have already been discussed as he makes no distinction between HS dropouts and those with a degree.

Seriously though this conversation has been on going through a few locked threads. Please read what has come before.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Let's walk and chew gum- immigration reform while also doing something about income inequality, much more progressive taxation and an expansion of redistributive entitlements and spending. It will be even easier to do this because immigration will boost economic growth and increase tax revenue.

[TerraPrime]

[mod hat]

New Rule: Less pointless bickering (see last 3 to 4 pages of last thread, as an example), and more arguing of actual point. If someone is unable to provide a source, or they provide a source that you find inappropriate or inadequate, address it a couple times, and move on. Don't keep gnawing at it and end in a one-liner shouting match - that does nobody any good.

I will allow time for the new rule to set in, and no warnings will be given for deletions related to this so that people have time to adjust. I will also re-post this mod post another time, given how fast this thread moves.

Thanks.

[/mod hat]

[Commodore]

Actually a politicians job is to govern.

No, it's the voters' job to make governing politically valuable.

[Larry of the Lawn]

No, it's the voters' job to make governing politically valuable.

So what is a politician's job then?

[Commodore]

So what is a politician's job then?

To satisfy the customer (or their employer if you like), their voting constituents.

[TerraPrime]

To satisfy the customer (or their employer if you like), their voting constituents.

You know that even in the most homogenous district there are voters who want opposing and mutually exclusive things, right? And hence, a politician's job is not as simple as executing the will of the electorate because there isn't a single electorate will.

[aceluby]

To satisfy the customer (or their employer if you like), their voting constituents.

So basically you think our politicians job is to win elections.

No wonder this country is so fucked up.

[Commodore]

So basically you think our politicians job is to win elections.

Of course, and it's your job to make it politically profitable for them to do the right thing (whatever that may be).

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Yes, but make sure you make it politically profitable to an extent that it can overcome a supermajority requirement for everything, a standard you were not aware of because it hadn't existed for the first 230 or so years of American history. Sorry, new rules, fuck silly things like allowing recently elected wide majorities to implement the policies they support.

Also, too fucking bad if your electoral chances in the House of Representatives have been gerrymandered into oblivion. The house majority voted in without even a plurality of votes has a MANDATE to oppose the entire agenda of the reelected President, whose reelection was not at all a mandate, and not evidence that the the minority party should compromise and participate in governance.

Finally, fuck off if you can't vote due to new more stringent voting requirements. You are obviously too lazy and impoverished to even be allowed to participate in making governing politically profitable.

[TerraPrime]

Re: Altherion

I am a union member and a supporter of unions. I am very sympathetic to one part of your argument, which is that illegal status workers are exploited and their wages are significantly lower than their American citizen counterparts so that the benefit is disproportionately in favor of the capitalists (as opposed to labor). For the sake of solidarity for labor, unions ought to support immigration reforms that promote extending protections to the new segment of labor. However, in some (a lot?) of the cases, the unions are against it because they see the influx of labor as competitors for limited jobs, but I think that's a wrong-headed way of analyzing it. These illegal workers are ALREADY employed. Making them legal workers is not going to significantly reduce the available slots. But legalizing these workers will indeed broaden the base of labor and provide us with new members.