Author Topic: So immigration...  (Read 60235 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Spracne

  • Point Plank'r
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *
  • Posts: 20950
  • Scholar/Gentleman, But Super Earthy/Organic
    • View Profile
Re: So immigration...
« Reply #600 on: January 19, 2017, 03:49:49 PM »


http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/united-states/quick-facts/kansas/hispanic-or-latino-population-percentage

There would be a pretty strong correlation between lunch subsidies and Mexicans if southeast Kansas weren't so poor.

Just because other people also use school lunch subsidies does not negate the strong correlation between non-English speakers (by and large first gen immigrants) and lunch subsidies. I can't believe you're even debating this. It is simply undeniable that illegal immigrants are heavily reliant on public services. That is the only point I was making and you just sound silly to argue otherwise.

So illegal immigrants are poor? I never would have guessed that.

Ok, so sounds like you've conceded the point that illegal immigrants, and particularly their children, are heavily reliant on public welfare. We're making progress. Now we can circle back to your idiotic arguments that illegal immigrants are really conservative and just trying to "live the American Dream" that kicked this all off.

Where is your argument that they are not? Are you claiming that a conservative would never take advantage of government money?


Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 52963
    • View Profile
Re: So immigration...
« Reply #601 on: February 14, 2017, 08:52:39 PM »
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/cuba/article132736944.html

Thanks Obama.   But no marching in the streets, no total meltdowns by the left for these poor people.


Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 10040
    • View Profile
Re: So immigration...
« Reply #602 on: February 28, 2017, 10:45:42 AM »
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/27/opinion/the-immigration-debate-we-need.html?_r=0

By George Borjas, a professor of economics and social policy at the Harvard Kennedy School.

Quote
The first month of the Trump administration has already changed the direction of the immigration debate, with many more changes coming soon. So far, executive orders and deportations dominate the discussion. But the fight over how many refugees to admit or how best to vet those refugees obscures what the debate is really about.

Changes in social policy do not make everyone better off, and immigration policy is no exception. I am a refugee, having fled Cuba as a child in 1962. Not only do I have great sympathy for the immigrant’s desire to build a better life, I am also living proof that immigration policy can benefit some people enormously.

But I am also an economist, and am very much aware of the many trade-offs involved. Inevitably, immigration does not improve everyone’s well-being. There are winners and losers, and we will need to choose among difficult options. The improved lives of the immigrants come at a price. How much of a price are the American people willing to pay, and exactly who will pay it?

This tension permeates the debate over immigration’s effect on the labor market. Those who want more immigration claim that immigrants do jobs that native-born Americans do not want to do. But we all know that the price of gas goes down when the supply of oil goes up. The laws of supply and demand do not evaporate when we talk about the price of labor rather than the price of gas. By now, the well-documented abuses of the H-1B program, such as the Disney workers who had to train their foreign-born replacements, should have obliterated the notion that immigration does not harm competing native workers.

Over the past 30 years, a large fraction of immigrants, nearly a third, were high school dropouts, so the incumbent low-skill work force formed the core group of Americans who paid the price for the influx of millions of workers. Their wages fell as much as 6 percent. Those low-skill Americans included many native-born blacks and Hispanics, as well as earlier waves of immigrants.

But somebody’s lower wage is somebody else’s higher profit. The increase in the profitability of many employers enlarged the economic pie accruing to the entire native population by about $50 billion. So, as proponents of more immigration point out, immigration can increase the aggregate wealth of Americans. But they don’t point out the trade-off involved: Workers in jobs sought by immigrants lose out.

They also don’t point out that low-skill immigration has a side effect that reduces that $50 billion increase in wealth. The National Academy of Sciences recently estimated the impact of immigration on government budgets. On a year-to-year basis, immigrant families, mostly because of their relatively low incomes and higher frequency of participating in government programs like subsidized health care, are a fiscal burden. A comparison of taxes paid and government spending on these families showed that immigrants created an annual fiscal shortfall of $43 billion to $299 billion.

Even the most conservative estimate of the fiscal shortfall wipes out much of the $50 billion increase in native wealth. Remarkably, the size of the native economic pie did not change much after immigration increased the number of workers by more than 15 percent. But the split of the pie certainly changed, giving far less to workers and much more to employers.

The immigration debate will also have to address the long-term impact on American society, raising the freighted issue of immigrant assimilation. In recent decades, there has been a noticeable slowdown in the rate at which the economic status of immigrants improves over time. In the 1970s, the typical immigrant could expect a substantial improvement relative to natives over his or her lifetime. Today, the economic progress of the typical immigrant is much more stagnant.

Part of the slowdown is related to the growth of ethnic enclaves. New immigrants who find few ethnic compatriots get value from acquiring skills that allow more social and economic exchanges, such as becoming proficient in English. But new immigrants who find a large and welcoming community of their countrymen have less need to acquire those skills; they already have a large audience that values whatever they brought with them. Put bluntly, mass migration discourages assimilation.

The trade-offs become even more difficult when we think about the long-term integration of the children and grandchildren of today’s immigrants. Many look back at the melting pot in 20th-century America and assume that history will repeat itself. That’s probably wishful thinking. That melting pot operated in a particular economic, social and political context, and it is doubtful that those conditions can be reproduced today.

Many of the Ellis Island-era immigrants got jobs in manufacturing; Ford’s work force was 75 percent foreign-born in 1914. Those manufacturing jobs evolved into well-paid union jobs, creating a private-sector safety net for the immigrants and their descendants. Does anyone seriously believe that the jobs employing low-skill immigrants today will offer the same economic mobility that unionized manufacturing jobs provided?

Similarly, the ideological climate that encouraged assimilation back then, neatly encapsulated by our motto “E pluribus unum” (Out of many, one), is dead and gone. A recent University of California directive shows the radical shift. The university’s employees were advised to avoid using phrases that can lead to “microaggressions” toward students and one another. One example is the statement “America is a melting pot,” which apparently sends a message to the recipient that they have to “assimilate to the dominant culture.”

Europe is already confronting the difficulties produced by the presence of unassimilated populations. If nothing else, the European experience shows that there is no universal law that guarantees integration even after a few generations. We, too, will need to confront the trade-off between short-term economic gains and the long-term costs of a large, unassimilated minority.

The op-ed goes on to suggest a number of sensible immigration reforms.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning.  They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.

Offline star seed 7

  • hyperactive on the :lol:
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 63770
  • good dog
    • View Profile
Re: So immigration...
« Reply #603 on: February 28, 2017, 10:49:14 AM »
What cuss words did you direct at Bush this morning?
Hyperbolic partisan duplicitous hypocrite

Offline SdK

  • Libertine
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 20951
    • View Profile
Re: So immigration...
« Reply #604 on: February 28, 2017, 11:15:20 AM »
Thanks for sharing

Offline cfbandyman

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 9215
  • To da 'ville.
    • View Profile
Re: So immigration...
« Reply #605 on: February 28, 2017, 11:19:55 AM »
It's such a complex issue, but in general the tenets need to be:

-Work with Mexico and Central America to get those who wish to come here, to come here legally (though as I'll tirelessly say again, most come through an airport, and overstay their visa, no stupid wall is going to do that). It worked well when Mexico was actually extraditing people back to Central America that was using Mexico was a through way. Instead of alienating and antagonizing Mexico/central america.

-Those who are here illegally, if they are committing no crimes other than overstaying, get them on a path to citizenship, that will quickly get them to paying taxes rather than dodging them (though the businesses are doing more of that issue). Deporting noncriminals only costs more money, rips people apart, and takes too much time and resources. 

-Any of those are committing violent crimes and the like, send em out.

-Wall is a waste of time and money. Just patrol better.

-In terms of limits on how many, IDK, it never really worked properly in the 1800s, can't imagine it working that well today. You can try, but ultimately if they want to come and can prove they can make it work here, I don't see a problem.

The assimilation issue is part an immigration, part totally something else. Other groups that came here created little italies, chinatowns, and the like. It may bother you, but you kind of can't stop it. It's not really illegal to only want to speak Spanish. As long as you are adhering to the law, you just kind of have to deal with it. And assimilation goes both ways, you got to walk you walk towards them too, you can't just dictate them to you.   

As for refugees, it's fine to vet them, not sure what "extreme vetting" means to Trump but in general, get them documented, check their background, accept them, disperse among the country, monitor as necessary, and move on. Just don't make it last too long, you're hurting them and not really helping you. The humanitarian benefit makes America look like a partner to the world, which helps our rather tattered image.
A&M Style: 1/19/13 Co-Champion of THE ED's College Basketball Challenge

The art of the deal with it poors

OG Elon hater with a tesla


Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37049
    • View Profile
Re: So immigration...
« Reply #606 on: February 28, 2017, 04:32:30 PM »
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/27/opinion/the-immigration-debate-we-need.html?_r=0

By George Borjas, a professor of economics and social policy at the Harvard Kennedy School.

Quote
The first month of the Trump administration has already changed the direction of the immigration debate, with many more changes coming soon. So far, executive orders and deportations dominate the discussion. But the fight over how many refugees to admit or how best to vet those refugees obscures what the debate is really about.

Changes in social policy do not make everyone better off, and immigration policy is no exception. I am a refugee, having fled Cuba as a child in 1962. Not only do I have great sympathy for the immigrant’s desire to build a better life, I am also living proof that immigration policy can benefit some people enormously.

But I am also an economist, and am very much aware of the many trade-offs involved. Inevitably, immigration does not improve everyone’s well-being. There are winners and losers, and we will need to choose among difficult options. The improved lives of the immigrants come at a price. How much of a price are the American people willing to pay, and exactly who will pay it?

This tension permeates the debate over immigration’s effect on the labor market. Those who want more immigration claim that immigrants do jobs that native-born Americans do not want to do. But we all know that the price of gas goes down when the supply of oil goes up. The laws of supply and demand do not evaporate when we talk about the price of labor rather than the price of gas. By now, the well-documented abuses of the H-1B program, such as the Disney workers who had to train their foreign-born replacements, should have obliterated the notion that immigration does not harm competing native workers.

Over the past 30 years, a large fraction of immigrants, nearly a third, were high school dropouts, so the incumbent low-skill work force formed the core group of Americans who paid the price for the influx of millions of workers. Their wages fell as much as 6 percent. Those low-skill Americans included many native-born blacks and Hispanics, as well as earlier waves of immigrants.

But somebody’s lower wage is somebody else’s higher profit. The increase in the profitability of many employers enlarged the economic pie accruing to the entire native population by about $50 billion. So, as proponents of more immigration point out, immigration can increase the aggregate wealth of Americans. But they don’t point out the trade-off involved: Workers in jobs sought by immigrants lose out.

They also don’t point out that low-skill immigration has a side effect that reduces that $50 billion increase in wealth. The National Academy of Sciences recently estimated the impact of immigration on government budgets. On a year-to-year basis, immigrant families, mostly because of their relatively low incomes and higher frequency of participating in government programs like subsidized health care, are a fiscal burden. A comparison of taxes paid and government spending on these families showed that immigrants created an annual fiscal shortfall of $43 billion to $299 billion.

Even the most conservative estimate of the fiscal shortfall wipes out much of the $50 billion increase in native wealth. Remarkably, the size of the native economic pie did not change much after immigration increased the number of workers by more than 15 percent. But the split of the pie certainly changed, giving far less to workers and much more to employers.

The immigration debate will also have to address the long-term impact on American society, raising the freighted issue of immigrant assimilation. In recent decades, there has been a noticeable slowdown in the rate at which the economic status of immigrants improves over time. In the 1970s, the typical immigrant could expect a substantial improvement relative to natives over his or her lifetime. Today, the economic progress of the typical immigrant is much more stagnant.

Part of the slowdown is related to the growth of ethnic enclaves. New immigrants who find few ethnic compatriots get value from acquiring skills that allow more social and economic exchanges, such as becoming proficient in English. But new immigrants who find a large and welcoming community of their countrymen have less need to acquire those skills; they already have a large audience that values whatever they brought with them. Put bluntly, mass migration discourages assimilation.

The trade-offs become even more difficult when we think about the long-term integration of the children and grandchildren of today’s immigrants. Many look back at the melting pot in 20th-century America and assume that history will repeat itself. That’s probably wishful thinking. That melting pot operated in a particular economic, social and political context, and it is doubtful that those conditions can be reproduced today.

Many of the Ellis Island-era immigrants got jobs in manufacturing; Ford’s work force was 75 percent foreign-born in 1914. Those manufacturing jobs evolved into well-paid union jobs, creating a private-sector safety net for the immigrants and their descendants. Does anyone seriously believe that the jobs employing low-skill immigrants today will offer the same economic mobility that unionized manufacturing jobs provided?

Similarly, the ideological climate that encouraged assimilation back then, neatly encapsulated by our motto “E pluribus unum” (Out of many, one), is dead and gone. A recent University of California directive shows the radical shift. The university’s employees were advised to avoid using phrases that can lead to “microaggressions” toward students and one another. One example is the statement “America is a melting pot,” which apparently sends a message to the recipient that they have to “assimilate to the dominant culture.”

Europe is already confronting the difficulties produced by the presence of unassimilated populations. If nothing else, the European experience shows that there is no universal law that guarantees integration even after a few generations. We, too, will need to confront the trade-off between short-term economic gains and the long-term costs of a large, unassimilated minority.

The op-ed goes on to suggest a number of sensible immigration reforms.

People growing commodities are not going to increase wages in the absence of cheap labor because they don't have the ability to increase the cost of their goods. They will just stop growing that commodity until the price goes up enough to support the higher wages, and in most cases that will never happen. A low-regulation, free market approach is the best approach to immigration.

Offline renocat

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 5971
    • View Profile
Re: So immigration...
« Reply #607 on: February 28, 2017, 08:08:05 PM »
So what do the kill and hate mexican bloodlust wing of the republican party think of trump supporting an immigration reform bill.  Good move in my opinion.  Solve this.

Offline Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)

  • Racist Piece of Shit
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 18431
  • Kiss my ass and suck my dick
    • View Profile
    • I am the one and only Sugar Dick
Re: So immigration...
« Reply #608 on: February 28, 2017, 08:12:25 PM »
I genuinely had no idea there were people who believed illegal immigration resulted in a net positive economically. That's lol levels of Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).
goEMAW Karmic BBS Shepherd

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37049
    • View Profile
Re: So immigration...
« Reply #609 on: February 28, 2017, 10:29:58 PM »
I genuinely had no idea there were people who believed illegal immigration resulted in a net positive economically. That's lol levels of Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).

Of course it's a net positive, just like free trade and fewer regulations are a net positive.

Offline SdK

  • Libertine
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 20951
    • View Profile
Re: So immigration...
« Reply #610 on: February 28, 2017, 10:37:22 PM »
The one thing from the article that I took issue with is that I don't think America has ever been a melting pot. So this assimilation talk as a negative, I think is crap. Other than that the article did make me reevaluate some things and I'm glad I was shared.

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 52963
    • View Profile
Re: So immigration...
« Reply #611 on: May 24, 2017, 07:10:22 AM »
So U.K. Bomber just returned from Libya a country destroyed by Obama and now full of AQ and ISIS terrorists.

SMDH thanks Obama

Offline SdK

  • Libertine
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 20951
    • View Profile
Re: So immigration...
« Reply #612 on: May 24, 2017, 09:11:13 AM »
Yet another FSD troll post. He's on a roll.

Offline star seed 7

  • hyperactive on the :lol:
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 63770
  • good dog
    • View Profile
Re: So immigration...
« Reply #613 on: May 24, 2017, 09:16:28 AM »
More like on a psychotic break
Hyperbolic partisan duplicitous hypocrite

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 52963
    • View Profile
Re: So immigration...
« Reply #614 on: May 24, 2017, 09:42:50 AM »
Hillary and Barrack's regime change(s) are the gifts that just keep on giving. 

Offline SdK

  • Libertine
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 20951
    • View Profile
Re: So immigration...
« Reply #615 on: May 24, 2017, 10:07:12 AM »
Do your real life conversations consist of much the same material or do you get it out of the way here?

Offline Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)

  • Racist Piece of Shit
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 18431
  • Kiss my ass and suck my dick
    • View Profile
    • I am the one and only Sugar Dick
Re: So immigration...
« Reply #616 on: May 24, 2017, 10:11:21 AM »
Let's all just agree b.o. and hillary royally mumped the ME worse than it's been in our lifetimes.

There's really no reason yo deny that.
goEMAW Karmic BBS Shepherd

Offline SdK

  • Libertine
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 20951
    • View Profile
Re: So immigration...
« Reply #617 on: May 24, 2017, 10:14:02 AM »
Ok. Agreed. Can we move on now?

Offline Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)

  • Racist Piece of Shit
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 18431
  • Kiss my ass and suck my dick
    • View Profile
    • I am the one and only Sugar Dick
Re: So immigration...
« Reply #618 on: May 24, 2017, 10:14:52 AM »
 :thumbs:
goEMAW Karmic BBS Shepherd

Offline SdK

  • Libertine
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 20951
    • View Profile
Re: So immigration...
« Reply #619 on: May 24, 2017, 10:17:34 AM »
Hell yeah! Bipartisan pitting here we come! :D

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 52963
    • View Profile
Re: So immigration...
« Reply #620 on: May 25, 2017, 06:48:35 AM »
Nope.  Not moving on. 

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 52963
    • View Profile
Re: So immigration...
« Reply #621 on: May 25, 2017, 04:36:11 PM »
But ya see, you can't suspend immigration from countries we (Obama) bombed.

Quote
“I think he saw children—Muslim children—dying everywhere, and wanted revenge. He saw the explosives America drops on children in Syria, and he wanted revenge,” she said. “Whether he got that is between him and God.”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/manchester-bomber-fought-in-libya-1495662073

The Big Train

  • Guest
Re: So immigration...
« Reply #622 on: May 25, 2017, 11:02:41 PM »
Hillary and Barrack's regime change(s) are the gifts that just keep on giving.

I think this is a quote worth saving.  :thumbs:

Offline renocat

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 5971
    • View Profile
Re: So immigration...
« Reply #623 on: August 02, 2017, 01:35:47 PM »
https://www.google.com/amp/www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/08/02/trump-announces-proposed-change-to-legal-immigration-policy-live-blog.amp.html
I like this green card proposal.   Trump does good occasionally.  Preference will be given to immogrunts who speak English, can support their family, and have skills we need.  Good job.

Offline Institutional Control

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 14934
    • View Profile
Re: So immigration...
« Reply #624 on: August 03, 2017, 08:21:27 AM »
I think half of MLB would not be given green cards.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk