Two-Thirds of Americans Favor Citizenship for Illegal Immigrants

[BehindBlueI's]

1. I've helped people get Visas and I know you know your way around the process because of your spouse. Do you really think the current system is in any way accessible to an uneducated non-English speaker of extremely limited means?

2. Sure, you could get some people to do the work, but you are still drawing from an extremely limited pool unless, as you acknowledge, you dramatically up wages. Upping wages causes the prices of products to go up. The price of products going up reduces demand. Reduced demand causes reduced production. Reduced production causes reduced employment and reduced economic growth. Ergo, the economy contracts. This applies way beyond mere produce. This benefits virtually no one.

3. See 2.

I knew we'd get there. While not 100% on topic, I'll just recycle this:

Doubling wages doesn't double product costs. This would assume that labor is 100% of the cost. Particularly doubling the wages of the lowest wages earners isn't going to cause prices on consumer goods to skyrocket, but it would help the economic recovery. I'm not saying raising minimum wage is the way to do that, there is no simple answer (if there was, it would have already been done), but do we really want to make the argument that workers should remain poor so that prices stay stable?

One of the huge arguments for turning a blind eye to illegal immigrants is that "our food prices will skyrocket" without them because they work so cheaply. Labor costs for farming varies, but 15% is a pretty good average for most types. Fruit tree farms require more labor costs because of the amount of care and the lack of machine harvesting. Massive grain fields require a bit less. Let's take garlic farms. The workers get a piece rate which is less than $2 per 5 gallon bucket of picked and cut garlic heads. Garlic ends up at about $1/oz for processed or $3/lb for fresh at the retail level. You could triple the wages of field workers and not have any noticeable affect on retail prices, because a tiny fraction of the end cost is field worker wages.

Similarly what Americans buy the most is processed foods, which rely heavily on grains, which are machine harvested and have very low percentages of labor per total cost. On average, the entire cost of the farming, including profit, is about 14% of the total cost of retail food. The remainder is in the infrastructure that transports it, wholesalers, jobbers, and retailers.

Doubling the wages of the lowest earners would definitely help the economy. They tend to spend what they earn, and spend a lot of it locally. Doubling the pay of the top 10% might help with investment capital, but those folks are already spending what they want to spend on consumer goods.

Paying a living wage to legal unskilled and semi-skilled workers would be a huge boon to our economy.

(Statistics from "The American Way of Eating")

One thing you are conveniently forgetting is demand is also fueled by workers having money to spend. Poorer workers spend more of their incomes, percentage wise. Money is like water to the water wheel of the economy. If it isn't moving, it's not doing any work.

 

[OakRiver]

You can't remove 11 million people from an economy and not expect that economy to contract. Anytime you remove both production and consumption from an economy it will contract. There are no two ways around that.

You really are comparing apples to oranges. You keep talking about the efficiency of a stable economy while I am talking about the size of economy. They are not the same thing and the efficiency of a stable economy is largely irrelevant to what an economy of a diminishing size will be.

No matter what 11 million people you remove from the US economy, it's going to contract. When you pick almost completely cheap laborers to remove, it's going to contract even more.

So still no figures or evidence to support your claim that deporting illegal aliens would "cripple" the US economy?

 

[OakRiver]

You don't have to cut your hand off if you just make it possible for the non-criminal ones to come work legally as guest workers instead of the ridiculous system we have now where everything is against a law that we choose not to enforce.

No one is objecting to legal migration. Especially not me. But making to make easier for guest workers illegal immigration must be addressed or there is no point to the program

I am awestruck that you know a bunch of young American citizens who would love to lay shingles and pick fruit for a living. Here is a thought, they still can do these things if they apply for those jobs.

At present they are unlikely to get many of these jobs as illegal aliens will do it for a fraction of the price, and the employers don't have to worry about pesky things like rights.

This idea that if we magically deported every illegal Mexican national tomorrow it would result in some sort of Utopian panacea is a pipe dream. You can't rip that big of a chunk out of your economy and not expect some harsh results, particularly when "we the people" have created a welfare state which encourages our own citizens to sit at home on the dole rather than go out and do manual labor.

You know that there are more illegal aliens from countries other than Mexico, correct? I don't believe that anyone but yourself has claimed any sort of utopia.

The US economy is based upon a sub-replacement repopulation rate group of citizens. But for immigration, the US population would be falling. Ask any economist what this spells for the future, especially when you have entitlement programs based upon a positive growth rate.

There are a number of ways that this could be solved. Unchecked, illegal immigration (which as shown before is a net drain on society) is not the answer

 

[OakRiver]

2) You and I disagree on how deeps America's "willing to do any work" pool is. This surprises me since you are an inner city cop. You and I both deal with tons of people who choose to sit around rather than work. Rural America, which is where the people you speak of still exist, has been greatly diminished in the last 30 years.

Then put in place programs to encourage people back to work and reform the social security system. Having people who are able to work sit around and drain society's resources should not be off set by tolerating illegal aliens who also drain the resources of society. No reasonable person would argue that if a bucket is leaking through one hole that the best course of action is to put a second hole in it.

 

[Fargo]

Then put in place programs to encourage people back to work and reform the social security system. Having people who are able to work sit around and drain society's resources should not be off set by tolerating illegal aliens who also drain the resources of society. No reasonable person would argue that if a bucket is leaking through one hole that the best course of action is to put a second hole in it.

Dude, pretty much everything in your last three posts is you talking past me, not at me. You impute a half-dozen positions to me that I have never taken. I'm pretty much done with this, our disagreements are far less than you have made them in your mind.

I've never advocated for illegal immigration, I've never advocated for open borders, etc.

All I've advocated for is an enforceable immigration scheme that takes into account the fact that we haven't enforced our immigration laws for decades and that this has left us with a big economic liability.

All the other crap is stuff you and others have inferred from my unwillingness to jump on the GOP bandwagon which lost it the last presidential election.

 

[oldpink]

Dude, pretty much everything in your last three posts is you talking past me, not at me. You impute a half-dozen positions to me that I have never taken. I'm pretty much done with this, our disagreements are far less than you have made them in your mind.

I've never advocated for illegal immigration, I've never advocated for open borders, etc.

All I've advocated for is an enforceable immigration scheme that takes into account the fact that we haven't enforced our immigration laws for decades and that this has left us with a big economic liability.

All the other crap is stuff you and others have inferred from my unwillingness to jump on the GOP bandwagon which lost it the last presidential election.

It would be easy for border enforcement advocates (yes, myself included) to get behind a legal solution the likes of a guest worker program were it not for the politicians on both the left and the right -- the former motivated by a desire for cheap votes and the latter motivated by a desire for cheap labor -- who will turn what was ostensibly a program to permit temporary/seasonal entry to work for a specified period then return to their home country, into yet another way to have people come here, then stay.
It's impossible to negotiate in good faith with people who have repeatedly stabbed us in the back, so why would a sane person give them the imprimatur of legality to only accelerate what's already happening illegally?

 

[cobber]

It would be easy for border enforcement advocates (yes, myself included) to get behind a legal solution the likes of a guest worker program were it not for the politicians on both the left and the right -- the former motivated by a desire for cheap votes and the latter motivated by a desire for cheap labor -- who will turn what was ostensibly a program to permit temporary/seasonal entry to work for a specified period then return to their home country, into yet another way to have people come here, then stay.
It's impossible to negotiate in good faith with people who have repeatedly stabbed us in the back, so why would a sane person give them the imprimatur of legality to only accelerate what's already happening illegally?

Basically the government at all levels is crippling the US. Regardless of party. And I'm sure the Libertarians would find other things to screw up if they ever get elected.

 

[OakRiver]

Dude, pretty much everything in your last three posts is you talking past me, not at me. You impute a half-dozen positions to me that I have never taken. I'm pretty much done with this, our disagreements are far less than you have made them in your mind.

I've never advocated for illegal immigration, I've never advocated for open borders, etc.

All I've advocated for is an enforceable immigration scheme that takes into account the fact that we haven't enforced our immigration laws for decades and that this has left us with a big economic liability.

All the other crap is stuff you and others have inferred from my unwillingness to jump on the GOP bandwagon which lost it the last presidential election.

Dude, I'm still waiting on figures to show that removing illegal aliens would "cripple" our economy. Everything else I have posted has been a direct repudiation of a point that you have made.

I have not claimed that you are pro-illegal immigration. I haven't jumped on any bandwagon. I'm not a registered member of either party. I'm not yet eligible to vote.

 

[OakRiver]

It would be easy for border enforcement advocates (yes, myself included) to get behind a legal solution the likes of a guest worker program were it not for the politicians on both the left and the right -- the former motivated by a desire for cheap votes and the latter motivated by a desire for cheap labor -- who will turn what was ostensibly a program to permit temporary/seasonal entry to work for a specified period then return to their home country, into yet another way to have people come here, then stay.
It's impossible to negotiate in good faith with people who have repeatedly stabbed us in the back, so why would a sane person give them the imprimatur of legality to only accelerate what's already happening illegally?

I would be happy with a guest worker program that works too. But to make that happen we need border control, the removal of sanctuary cities, and a reduction in the number of illegal aliens. Otherwise the program will be pointless if people have to pay fees, etc. while those ignoring the law can walk across the border and get an off the book job same day.

You are correct about the dishonesty in this debate. The language is consistently twisted so illegal alien becomes undocumented worker/American in Waiting/Dreamer/etc. so that their presence and illegitimate status is sanitized from law breaker to something much more benign. Then we have the willful conflation of legal and illegal immigration, trying to pretend that those against illegal immigrants are somehow against all immigration. Granted a small number may be, but to paint your opponent's position based on an extreme fringe is wholly disingenuous.

 

[Fargo]

Dude, I'm still waiting on figures to show that removing illegal aliens would "cripple" our economy. Everything else I have posted has been a direct repudiation of a point that you have made.

I have not claimed that you are pro-illegal immigration. I haven't jumped on any bandwagon. I'm not a registered member of either party. I'm not yet eligible to vote.

You really need a cite for the proposition that reducing the population by 11 million in a sub-replacement society will cause an economic contraction?

Here you go:

Declining Population Could Reduce Global Economic Growth By 40% - Real Time Economics - WSJ

The U.S. fertility rate fell to another record low in 2012, with 63.0 births per 1,000 women ages 15 to 44 years old, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That's down slightly from the previous low of 63.2 in 2011. It marked the fifth year in a row the U.S. birth rate has declined, and the lowest rate on record since the government started tracking the fertility rate in 1909. In 2007, the rate was 69.3.
Falling birth rates can be considered a challenge to future economic growth and the labor pool.

U.S birth rate falls to record low - Sep. 6, 2013

The nation's fertility rate has slipped below replacement levels partly because of the recession and a decline in immigration. That's raising concern about the nation's future.

As U.S. birth rate drops, concern for the future mounts

I don't even know how to really argue against something that flies in the face of every law of supply and demand. Reducing your population and labor force reduces both demand and production. If you can't see that that causes and economy to become smaller, I don't really know what else to say to you.

You would be equally true regardless of the reason for the population loss; you just seem to be unwilling to consider it because it is in the context of a political pet peeve.

 

[indiucky]

And here is the communist/hippie (sorry, truth hurts...Woody was a commie) point of view...Whenever I get too angry I listen to this and I have a little empathy for about 48 hours...And then I hear of another triple murder by an illegal or see a guy in line in front of me at the quickie mart with MS13 ink all over his arms buying four soft drinks with an EBT card and I get angry again...It's a vicious cycle.....

[video=youtube;c2eO65BqxBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2eO65BqxBE[/video]

 

[17 squirrel]

We already have two guestworker programs for temporary work lasting less than a year: the H-2A program, for temporary agricultural work, and the H-2B program, for temporary nonagricultural work.These programs allow employers to obtain permission to hire foreign workers on temporary visas after engaging in recruitment in the U.S. and promising to meet certain requirements regarding recruitment, wages and/or working conditions. Each program imposes on foreign workers a temporary, non-immigrant status that ties workers to particular employers and makes their ability to obtain a visa dependent on the willingness of the employer to make a request to the U.S. government.

I have a sister and her and her husband own a large Irrigation co in MD. They have used the H-2B program for well over 15 years. They bring in about 50 men each spring and they work no more than 9 months and go home for the winter.
As employers they give them a room with required amenities and the workers all pay the correct taxes and are great full hard working employees. You as a employer have certain hoops to jump through before you are granted permission from the Feds. The big one is you have to advertise in different ways looking for employees among other things. The plus's are reasonably priced labor that wants to work, all employees have valid green cards and have or can get drivers licenses easily. It's a win, win for everybody.

 

[Fred78]

That's the way it should be done, there isn't a reason in the world this country shouldn't stop the flood of people into this country.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I fully support citizenship for illegal aliens, and their prompt return to whatever country in which that citizenship is held.

 

[OakRiver]

You really need a cite for the proposition that reducing the population by 11 million in a sub-replacement society will cause an economic contraction?

Here you go:

Declining Population Could Reduce Global Economic Growth By 40% - Real Time Economics - WSJ

Global. Not US. Global. You still have not been able to give figures on how this would "cripple" the US economy, much less how removing 11 million people who are a net drain will somehow make society worse

I don't even know how to really argue against something that flies in the face of every law of supply and demand. Reducing your population and labor force reduces both demand and production. If you can't see that that causes and economy to become smaller, I don't really know what else to say to you.

You could try relevant facts, studies, etc. Those are usually a good place to start

You would be equally true regardless of the reason for the population loss; you just seem to be unwilling to consider it because it is in the context of a political pet peeve.

I know, imagine believing that the law should be enforced fairly as part of a democratic society. The nerve. . .

 

[Fargo]

I know, imagine believing that the law should be enforced fairly as part of a democratic society. The nerve. . .

That's the umpteenth straw man position you have ascribed to me, I see no point in trying to have a discussion with a person who has no interest in actually addressing my position but would rather fight imaginary battles against things I never said. Have a nice day.

 

[BugI02]

I knew we'd get there. While not 100% on topic, I'll just recycle this:



One thing you are conveniently forgetting is demand is also fueled by workers having money to spend. Poorer workers spend more of their incomes, percentage wise. Money is like water to the water wheel of the economy. If it isn't moving, it's not doing any work.

Your understanding of economics, revealed in your ability to explain complex problems succinctly and simply, is simply awesome!

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to BehindBlueI's again."

Damn commie rep system

 

[OakRiver]

As a snippet from the unrelated links that you provided;
Declining Population Could Reduce Global Economic Growth By 40% - Real Time Economics - WSJ

The big question: Can productivity make up for the declining growth in employment?


McKinsey says the answer is yes, but it won’t be easy. Researchers estimate that for the 20 countries as a whole, around three-quarters of the needed productivity acceleration can come from using things that governments and businesses already know how to do, or what they term catching up to best practices. For developed nations, best practices can account for around 55% of the productivity spurt to close the growth gap.


The rest of the productivity boost will have to come from innovations that don’t currently exist. Among a broader debate among economists over whether the biggest innovations have already been discovered, McKinsey puts itself firmly in the camp that says they haven’t been.


To get there, the researchers offer a list of 10 potential enablers to fuel long-term growth. It includes several well-known-but-harder-to-execute tasks like boosting workforce participation among women, the young and the elderly; improving education and job-market flexibility; and increasing cross-border trade and infrastructure investment.

You will note that out of the suggestions given to mitigate against any impact on the economy from a shrinking labor pool that illegal immigration was not given as a solution.


U.S birth rate falls to record low - Sep. 6, 2013

But here's the good news: The declines have slowed and demographers believe the birth rate may level off going forward.
"The decline in fertility rates, which had been dramatic, is stabilizing," Johnson said.
Demographic Intelligence, a firm that forecasts birth rates for clients like Disney (DIS), Fisher-Price, Gerber and Procter & Gamble (PG), predicts the birth rate will rise in 2013, to 1.9 children per woman.
"We think that this fertility decline is now over. As the economy rebounds and women have the children they postponed immediately after the Great Recession, we are seeing an uptick in U.S fertility," Sam Sturgeon, president of Demographic Intelligence, said in a statement.

Population downturn shown as a side effect of economic shrinkage and that it is no longer considered an issue

Your third link needs read before the CNN Money link (your second link) as it was written before the CNN article was posted. The worry in the USA Today link is that "Whether births will bounce back along with the economy this time is not clear". The CNN link makes it clear that this concern has now abated. In fact the article notes that "The fertility rate was even lower in the 1970s, when it dipped to 1.7", yet our economy managed to survive that and also grow.

That's the umpteenth straw man position you have ascribed to me, I see no point in trying to have a discussion with a person who has no interest in actually addressing my position but would rather fight imaginary battles against things I never said. Have a nice day.

You accused me of being unable to acquiesce to your point because of a "political pet peeve" rather than your inability to provide evidence to substantiate your claim. If you wish to yield the field that is your right to do so. But given your unwillingness to actually address my position do not ascribe bad faith to me.

 

[BugI02]

You really need a cite for the proposition that reducing the population by 11 million in a sub-replacement society will cause an economic contraction?

Here you go:

Declining Population Could Reduce Global Economic Growth By 40% - Real Time Economics - WSJ



U.S birth rate falls to record low - Sep. 6, 2013



As U.S. birth rate drops, concern for the future mounts

I don't even know how to really argue against something that flies in the face of every law of supply and demand. Reducing your population and labor force reduces both demand and production. If you can't see that that causes and economy to become smaller, I don't really know what else to say to you.

You would be equally true regardless of the reason for the population loss; you just seem to be unwilling to consider it because it is in the context of a political pet peeve.

The unemployment figures released by BLS 7 Aug 2015 give total unemployed as 8.3 million. Are not people counted as unemployed required to be looking for work? It would seem as a start you could deport 80% of those 11 million undocumented workers without affecting your available work force at all. Again, industry would have to offer first world working conditions and obey workers comp laws etc so they might find it wrenching. As far as undocumented workers returning, put in place hugely confiscatory fines. Employ an undocumented gardener,$10000. A corporation employs undocumented workers, $100000 per occurrence. Convicted of fascilitating illegal immigration to staff your factory/plant $1000000 per occurrence. If such fines bankrupt people or force companies out of business se la vie. Dont do the crime if you cant do the punishment

 

[BehindBlueI's]

You really need a cite for the proposition that reducing the population by 11 million in a sub-replacement society will cause an economic contraction?

How about a cite about where this 11 million reduction is coming from. Other than "we don't currently have a working immigrant visa system" argument, which I'd counter with "we don't have a working method of dealing with illegal immigrants, either."

If we need immigrant workers, we can set up a workable visa system just the same as we can fix illegal immigration. But we don't, because too many people that matter profit from the way things are.

So instead of looking at 11 million people just disappearing into a vacuum, let's look at it in context of the big picture.

1) New workers will take the jobs if we still want the jobs done. Resulting in:
Higher wages
More money spent in the country
More money (water) moves the economy (water wheel)

If we really can't find enough Americans to do the work we can still import labor:

2) Immigrant workers would be here legally
Pay their share of taxes
Can bring families, buy property, use bank accounts, etc. so more money is spent in the US instead of being sent "back home"
Money (water) moves the economy (water wheel)

The number of consumers is one variable. How much they have to spend is another, and where they spend it is yet another.