Congress in Sync with us? - Page 5

Kerostasis · 07-01-2007, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arf

Here's a good explanation as to why 0% unemployment is bad if you don't believe me:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arf

Now you pull us off on some ridiculous tangent under the argument that zero percent unemployment is good for the economy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arf

I Nobody said anything about your goal being 0% unemployment. You've simply said that 0% unemployment would be beneficial to the economy. I have argued that it would burden employers too greatly and that your opinion is often disputed by the experts of the field which is why I asked that you find a respected expert that agrees with you, if it's basic economics I wouldn't be asking that much.

Unfortunately, Arf, the whole 0% unemployment red herring was brought up by you, based on your strange belief that the number of JOBS in the economy is fixed and cant change . The rest of us are operating under the normal economic assumption that job supply and job demand are both curves. As wages go up, the number of workers willing to do the jobs increase while the number of employers willing to hire new workers decreases. As wages go down, the opposite occurs. It is quite possible to add 10 million workers to an economy without significantly impacting the actual unemployment rate--but that doesn't mean the economy isn't changed. The biggest change is the general reduction in wages at the low end of the payscale.

Lebanon9999 · 07-01-2007, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arf

If we want to talk red herrings let's talk about your claim that immigrants deal significant damage to the economy. When you asked I posted support to my claims that some unemployment is good for the economy and illegals do negligible damage. You on the other hand have refused to stand to the same standard you hold others. When you make the claim that illegals do significant damage to the economy that's an argument that should come with some evidence. Somewhere out there you should be able to find some damage to the economy and support your claim unless you truly believe this is magic economic damage that nobody can see. You should also be able to find a respected economist who agrees that Zero Percent Unemployment is a plus for the economy. So far you've decided to ignore the lack of substance in your own argument, do you have a specific reason why your arguments are exempt from scrutiny?

Arf the problem with illegal immigrants is that most of them are unskilled workers and therefore cannot make money to pay back the government. for a family of illegals it costs the government 45,000 dollars. But because the workers of the family are unskilled only 40,000 dollars gets paid back to the government. with 12 million illegals that adds up. And if you want to have proof you should tune into CNN once in a while things like this come up all the time.

ScratchMonkey · 07-01-2007, 07:22 PM

If poor people costing more is a problem, it shouldn't matter where they were born. Perhaps the costs should be reduced (by reducing benefits). Or we crank up the price, perhaps by providing benefits only on proof of paying a higher tax rate. People who show up at school with an inadequate tax bill get turned away.

Lucky Shot · 07-01-2007, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arf

You can throw out numbers like 9 billion but let's be intellectually honest. In a state with a gross revenue of 1.55 trillion dollars 9 billion dollars is a cost worth paying if industries such as agriculture which produces 31.8 billion dollars in revenue depend on it. Your argument is a straw man, you pull the numbers out of context to make them seem like they have weight. Once put in context we can see that a reasonable person would consider returns of at least 3 times the original investment as a gain, not a loss and certainly not significant damage to the economy.

Wow. Your saying a $9 Billion dollar damage to the economy is an investment. That would of course not figure on the balance sheet of the corporate farmers in California and would also not include the farm subsidies and tax breaks already in the mix. What if we didn't suffer from a $9 Billion loss and either found a way to give it back to the people, or invested in updating our failing schools? By the way, that $9 Billion GDP loss is more then what 80 countries GDP's are. That is a significant cost and remember, this is one state of 50.

I'll help you with the straw man thing too.

Quote:

Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.

This fits your attempt to over exaggerate my position into 0% employment. You took it to the Nth degree to put words into my mouth and then attempt to "defeat" it. Textbook strawman.

The quality of health care in California is deteriorating and due to Illegal Immigration, those hospitals are no longer around to accept California's legal poor as well as regular US citizens. It's a shame that your placing the needs of illegal immigrants above those of our legally poor. It's interesting that you use a joke as your argument and perhaps it's fair to treat the remainder of your posts in the same light.

Some parting facts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by http://www.cis.org/articles/2007/welfarerelease.html

51% of all Mexican immigrant households use at least one major welfare program and 28% use more than one program.
– 40% use food assistance, 35% use Medicaid, 6% use cash assistance.

45% of all Latin American immigrant households use at least one welfare program and 24% use more than one program.
– 32% use food assistance, 31% use Medicaid, 6% use cash assistance.

20% of native households use at least one welfare program and 11% multiple programs.
– 11% use food assistance, 15% use Medicaid, 5% use cash assistance.

Among Mexican and Latin American households, welfare use is somewhat higher for households headed by legal, as opposed to illegal, immigrants. Thus legalization will likely increase welfare costs still further.

90% of Mexican and Latin American households have at least one worker. Their heavy welfare use reflects their low education levels and resulting low incomes – and not an unwillingness work.
– 61% of all Mexican immigrants have not graduated high school.
– 48% of all Latin American immigrants have not graduated high school.

There is a common but mistaken belief that welfare programs are only for those who don’t work. Actually, the welfare system is designed to provide low-wage workers, or more often their children, things like food assistance and health care.

It is the presence of their U.S.-born children coupled with their low education levels that explains why so many immigrant households use the welfare system.

Most recently arrived immigrants are barred from using welfare programs and this would likely apply to those legalized by the Senate bill – however this is not true in every state, nor does not apply to all programs. Most important, the bar does not apply to the U.S.-born children of immigrants, who are immediately eligible.

There are an estimated 1.4 million households headed by illegal aliens using at least one major welfare program. If even half these families returned to their home countries, the savings for taxpayers could be substantial.

Again, I don't see the benefit and think that $9 Billion could be spent better elsewhere. Ease the burden on Legal Immigration for those who want to do it the right way.

Lucky Shot

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 07-01-2007, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

Please read the paragraphs that you quoted again. "Changing the law" to allow people to come here is one thing. Pardoning the millions of people that have already committed federal crimes to be here is quite another. It's an amnesty by definition. How can you argue this?

Yes! It would prevent this program from rewarding the commission of federal crimes, while allowing the USA to have a bit more control over the admission process. Is it too much to ask? Is that too much of an inconvenience for someone that wants to immigrate to our country and has already criminally crossed our border?

Ok. So what you propose, by your definition, is also amnesty. You know the person applying for the visa broke the law and you are not going to do anything about it. Right? Not only that but your are going to give them permission to go back to the U.S. knowing that they have broken the law.

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 07-01-2007, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

Unfortunately, you don't understand correctly. Not that its your fault, this bill was thousands of pages long and designed with the hopes that the average american would never have any clue what was actually in it...

But the way it worked was this: If that bill was signed, every illegal immigrant in the country would immediately see his chances of deportation drop to precisely zero, as long as he didn't commit any new major crimes that might involve deportation. (Murder perhaps? I'm not quite sure.) Then, if he wanted to, he could choose to pay the fines to begin the process of becoming a US citizen. But if he didn't want to become a citizen, he could just stay here forever as a newly dubbed "legal immigrant" without paying a dime.

I did not read the entire bill. But I did read a summery.

As far as I can tell all they are doing is changing the legal status of undocumented people. And if I understood my lawyer correctly being undocumented is not illegal. It is the crossing of the boarder or violation of Visa rules that is illegal and punishable.

And I don't think we prosecute those violations very often. We usually simply deport the person. And that is not technically a punishment. It is a correction of a legal status. According to my mothers neighbor we also do not punish those leaving voluntarily. He says he has no problem going back to Mexico. It is the getting back in that is the pain.

So why don't we stop all these horrible law breakers as they leave the country. Why do we give them amnesty?

And here is another situation where "amnesty" is given. A person comes over illegally and buys property, vehicles and has a bank account etc. There is a long paper trail pretty much proving that this person was in the US illegally. This person decides to go back to his country, get a legal visa then return. Or this person marries an American and obtains legal status that way.

Does that person gain amnesty? No. That persons legal status simply changed. That person still committed the original crime. The question is should that person be prosecuted for it.

The same apples to the failed bill. All that is happening is the legal status of those undocumented people are being set. Previously to that legal status the undocumented person had no legal status allowing deportation. The illegal act, crossing the boarder, is assumed.

You are correct that the bill would decrease the risk of deportation to zero. But you are not deported because you crossed the border illegally, you are deported becaus of you legal status or lack there of. (Crimes you commit do affect said legal status.)

The failed bill did not absolve the illegal act of crossing the boarder or any other crimes committed as far as I can tell. So I still do not see where the amnesty is.

This is just my understanding. Immigration law is excruciatingly complex and I am far from an expert. A friend of the family is much more knowledgeable and in a discussion (this is before the last round of amendments where attached) he said people could still be prosecuted for the illegal crossing they did but that crime is rather minor especially for a first offense. And they could be deported for other reasons. But they could not be deported simply because they had no legal status.

If I am wrong please point me to a place where I can read more and understand my errors. After the ordeal me and my wife went through I read as much as I can and try and learn as much as I can about the whole situation.

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 07-01-2007, 09:02 PM

And I meant to add that the legal status that they gained was very limited.

They could not travel abroad. It would be more difficult for them to do some types of travel within the US. Many jobs would be closed off to them. Many areas would also be closed off to them.

The best thing about it would be harder for employers to exploit them.

Of course all this is moot since it died. And now they are still going to stay and their chance of being deported is only slightly above zero. They can be exploited as always. The boarder patrol agents gained no support or additional funding. Many will still be paid under the table and they will use social services without always contributing to them. They will influence politics because their legal relatives and friends will be influenced by there presence.

YEA! WE DID NOTHING!

**CingularDuality** · 07-01-2007, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by El_Gringo_Grande

Ok. So what you propose, by your definition, is also amnesty. You know the person applying for the visa broke the law and you are not going to do anything about it. Right? Not only that but your are going to give them permission to go back to the U.S. knowing that they have broken the law.

No, we're requiring that they remove themselves from the United States before letting them apply for a new type of visa. That would be exactly like the administrative decisions handed down by Immigration Officers and Immigration Judges thousands of times every day when they offer a voluntary departure with a 6 month deadline instead of keeping illegal aliens in custody until they are deported at government expense.

And, folks, we have a border around our country. A boarder is somebody that stays in, say, a boarding home.

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 07-01-2007, 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

No, we're requiring that they remove themselves from the United States before letting them apply for a new type of visa. That would be exactly like the administrative decisions handed down by Immigration Officers and Immigration Judges thousands of times every day when they offer a voluntary departure with a 6 month deadline instead of keeping illegal aliens in custody until they are deported at government expense.

And, folks, we have a border around our country. A boarder is somebody that stays in, say, a boarding home.

Alas spell check is not perfect. You should have seen it before the computer helped me!

But you still forgive the original infraction of the law, no?

But at any rate I don't mind that method of dealing with the situation. Seems a bit unfair to those that came from far away as compared to illegal Canadians and Mexicans. They would have to pay much more to get the same treatment. But I suppose something could be worked out.

My main problem with your solution is that there seems to be a large amount of symbolic action to achieve the same end. (ie Crossing the border.) Why not just issue the new Visas at a government office? It really is symbolic unless I don't understand something. But then again many people take symbolism very seriously. I will never understand symbolism myself.

I don't even mind shipping some/many of them back to their home country provided a few things. Some of them do want to go back but they are afraid that once they get there they will never make it back to work.

The problem as I see it is we have a closed but uncontrolled boarder. Having a open but controlled boarder would be a much better thing.

**Switchcraft** · 07-02-2007, 07:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by El_Gringo_Grande

Why not just issue the new Visas at a government office? It really is symbolic unless I don't understand something. But then again many people take symbolism very seriously. I will never understand symbolism myself.

What about fairness? My best friend and business partner is a Canadian married to an American soldier. After her initial application for a visa, she had to wait 10 months outside the country in which her husband lives before being allowed to enter. She couldn't even visit as a tourist! No matter how horrid the system is that causes such delays, it seem ridiculous to me that she should have to endure such a hardship while someone else could be told "well, since you already trespassed, go ahead and make yourself comfortable."

The "Z" visas proposed under the now dead legislation were a terrible idea...wait till you get caught, then apply for a visa, and if Homeland Security can't find anything bad on you by the close of the next business day, you're allowed to stay indefinitely.

Rewarding criminal behavior, especially by granting benefits not available to those who followed the rules, is not how I want my laws enforced.

xTYBALTx · 07-02-2007, 11:10 AM

It seems pretty clear, then, that the best solution is to both grant amnesty AND make it easier for others to enter.

ednos · 07-02-2007, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xTYBALTx

It seems pretty clear, then, that the best solution is to both grant amnesty AND make it easier for others to enter.

We can't have that! Our country will be overrun by FOREIGNERS! You unpatriotic swine!

**CingularDuality** · 07-02-2007, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xTYBALTx

It seems pretty clear, then, that the best solution is to both grant amnesty AND make it easier for others to enter.

Why not issue work visas to people that apply from outside the USA? Anyone already waiting for some other visa can switch to this new visa if they want, so nobody is going to be "cutting in line" in front of somebody that has been waiting years to move to the USA.

It may be symbolic, but I can't help but think that our country would be better off if new immigrants don't start their new life with the commission of a federal crime.

I'm still waiting for somebody to tell me WHY THIS ISN'T A GOOD IDEA.

xTYBALTx · 07-02-2007, 12:58 PM

Because your idea is not simple. And it involves uprooting people who are living perfectly productive, happy lives.

If enforcement of crime is so important in every circumstance, then why don't you advocate pulling out the newsreels from the '50s and '60s to track down black people who violated Jim Crow laws and the white people who aided them?

Because Jim Crow laws were repugnant. Just as our current immigration policy is repugnant. So, in both cases, we refuse to prosecute the people who violate repugnant laws.

**Switchcraft** · 07-02-2007, 02:20 PM

Because we have enough crime in modern times to deal with, don't we? Nearly 30% of people currently in federal prisons are illegal aliens. My understanding is state prisons have similar numbers. For a relatively small segment of the population to engage is a much larger percentage of criminal enterprise, it stands to reason that they are not just leading "perfectly productive" lives.

It's certainly not xenophobia to desire to keep crime to a minimum, is it?

07-01-2007, 07:22 PM	#63 (permalink)
ScratchMonkey Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: San Pablo, California Posts: 3,903	Re: Congress in Sync with us? If poor people costing more is a problem, it shouldn't matter where they were born. Perhaps the costs should be reduced (by reducing benefits). Or we crank up the price, perhaps by providing benefits only on proof of paying a higher tax rate. People who show up at school with an inadequate tax bill get turned away. __________________ Sig

07-01-2007, 09:02 PM	#67 (permalink)
El_Gringo_Grande Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: OKIE HOMY Age: 39 Posts: 2,324	Re: Congress in Sync with us? And I meant to add that the legal status that they gained was very limited. They could not travel abroad. It would be more difficult for them to do some types of travel within the US. Many jobs would be closed off to them. Many areas would also be closed off to them. The best thing about it would be harder for employers to exploit them. Of course all this is moot since it died. And now they are still going to stay and their chance of being deported is only slightly above zero. They can be exploited as always. The boarder patrol agents gained no support or additional funding. Many will still be paid under the table and they will use social services without always contributing to them. They will influence politics because their legal relatives and friends will be influenced by there presence. YEA! WE DID NOTHING! __________________ Sen. John McCain (AZ) For President '08 --- I’m not racists, I have republican friends. Radio show host. - "The essence of tyranny is the denial of complexity". -Jacob Burkhardt - "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Emerson - "People should not be afraid of it's government, government should be afraid of it's People." - Line from V for Vendetta - If software were as unreliable as economic theory, there wouldn't be a plane made of anything other than paper that could get off the ground. Jim Fawcette

07-02-2007, 11:10 AM	#71 (permalink)
xTYBALTx Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 3,762	Re: Congress in Sync with us? It seems pretty clear, then, that the best solution is to both grant amnesty AND make it easier for others to enter. __________________ Current good song: Justice - Stress "$250,000 a year won't get me to Central Park West."

07-02-2007, 12:58 PM	#74 (permalink)
xTYBALTx Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 3,762	Re: Congress in Sync with us? Because your idea is not simple. And it involves uprooting people who are living perfectly productive, happy lives. If enforcement of crime is so important in every circumstance, then why don't you advocate pulling out the newsreels from the '50s and '60s to track down black people who violated Jim Crow laws and the white people who aided them? Because Jim Crow laws were repugnant. Just as our current immigration policy is repugnant. So, in both cases, we refuse to prosecute the people who violate repugnant laws. __________________ Current good song: Justice - Stress "$250,000 a year won't get me to Central Park West."

07-02-2007, 02:20 PM	#75 (permalink)
Switchcraft Join Date: May 2003 Location: New York, NY Age: 30 Posts: 904	Re: Congress in Sync with us? Because we have enough crime in modern times to deal with, don't we? Nearly 30% of people currently in federal prisons are illegal aliens. My understanding is state prisons have similar numbers. For a relatively small segment of the population to engage is a much larger percentage of criminal enterprise, it stands to reason that they are not just leading "perfectly productive" lives. It's certainly not xenophobia to desire to keep crime to a minimum, is it?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links