ajax18 wrote:Even if illegal immigration ultimately lowered the average native born Americans' net income by 40% ...
This figure seems strangely arbitrary. Can you shed some light on the rationale behind it?
From your own perspective, how would a flood of immigrants affect your own income by this percentage? Is there a horde of Central American optometrists gathered at the border and ready to infiltrate the profession?
It has already been established, many times now, that illegal immigration only has a negative economic impact on a small segment of the workforce. I think it was EA who produced this some time ago. For the rest of America, they produce a benefit or no change at all.
From your own perspective, how would a flood of immigrants affect your own income by this percentage? Is there a horde of Central American optometrists gathered at the border and ready to infiltrate the profession?
From my perspective it's been great lately. I don't think it's necessarily fair to some of my fellow optometrists who are discriminated against for not being fluent in Spanish. But for me that's not a problem as long as the Medicaid gravy train keeps rolling.
But there is no denying immigration is a huge cost to most of us in the form of taxes and wealth redistribution. I get a lot of that back with my business but most taxpayers do not. Impoverished people who have kids at a faster rate need lots of welfare and it's expensive. If you don't pay it willingly, you'll pay for it unwillingly in the form of crime. When you're not allowed to set a limit to the rate of immigration you might as well say that citizens cannot legally lock their houses, cars, or even bank accounts because the results will be similar.
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
not on that side of the fence... (and let us not pretend that you advocate due process, your hand has already been folded on that deal)
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
If "open borders" is defined as allowing anyone into the country, then the answer you'll find is that the US should reserve the right to screen out dangerous people such as those with serious prior felony convictions, those carrying dangerous diseases that cannot be quarantined, those with provable intentions to commit terrorism, etc. Otherwise, yeah, the net economic benefit of immigration to the US is a good reason to have relatively open immigration. And that is factually the case. Taking up the contrary position in willful ignorance of the evidence is no virtue.
I'm skeptical that these statistics even count the cost of illegal immigrant's children to the taxpayer. Does it count the court costs imposed upon the US by this international law that doesn't allow us to just keep people out of the country before they get their foot in the door and impose a tidal wave of court, incarceration, medical, housing costs? The worst part of this law requiring the US to offer and review asylum claims to anyone and everyone is that it doesn't have any limit. Once they get a foot on American soil, the taxpayer never gets off the hook.
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
not on that side of the fence... (and let us not pretend that you advocate due process, your hand has already been folded on that deal)
Under US and international law, the government is required to hear the case of asylum seekers. Refusing to let them cross the border to apply for asylum is illegal. But Republicans only talk about "enforcing the rule of law" when discussing misdemeanors among brown immigrants. In reality they don't give a flying damn about the rule of law. Just look at the lawless idiot they elected President.
And go ahead and show where I "folded my hand" on due process.
ajax18 wrote:I'm skeptical that these statistics even count the cost of illegal immigrant's children to the taxpayer.
They do, dumbass, and it isn't what you think or hope for. This has been shown to you many times in the past but you can't get your head around the fact that immigrants pose no economic threat to us. They benefit the economy greatly.
Does it count the court costs imposed upon the US by this international law that doesn't allow us to just keep people out of the country before they get their foot in the door and impose a tidal wave of court, incarceration, medical, housing costs?
It is far less expensive than building an idiotic $30-50 billion wall and spending a quarter billion on troop deployments to the border every time a caravan travels north. Stop pretending that you're suddenly worried about tax payer money being spent. You'd break the bank in a heartbeat if you thought it would decrease immigration by 5%.
The worst part of this law requiring the US to offer and review asylum claims to anyone and everyone is that it doesn't have any limit. Once they get a foot on American soil, the taxpayer never gets off the hook.
You're just a very, very stupid person. And this isn't just international law, it is US law as well.
If "open borders" is defined as allowing anyone into the country, then the answer you'll find is that the US should reserve the right to screen out dangerous people such as those with serious prior felony convictions, those carrying dangerous diseases that cannot be quarantined, those with provable intentions to commit terrorism, etc. Otherwise, yeah, the net economic benefit of immigration to the US is a good reason to have relatively open immigration. And that is factually the case. Taking up the contrary position in willful ignorance of the evidence is no virtue.
I'm skeptical that these statistics even count the cost of illegal immigrant's children to the taxpayer. Does it count the court costs imposed upon the US by this international law that doesn't allow us to just keep people out of the country before they get their foot in the door and impose a tidal wave of court, incarceration, medical, housing costs? The worst part of this law requiring the US to offer and review asylum claims to anyone and everyone is that it doesn't have any limit. Once they get a foot on American soil, the taxpayer never gets off the hook.
Analyses have been repeatedly linked to you do take into account the generational impact of immigration on the economy. In point of fact, the children of immigrants tend to be more productive as net contributors to the economy than first generation immigrants. The fact that you say this strongly suggests you don't even bother to read the academic studies you keep rejecting before you reject them because they disagree with what you want to believe for other reasons.
It's even better than that, now that I think about it. Anti-immigrant think tanks that produce xenophobic propaganda that Ajax occasionally links often produce "cost of immigration" analyses that specifically avoid taking into account generational impacts because of its multiplier effect on benefits. So not only is Ajax accusing studies he has commented for lacking something they do not, his preferred sources are guilty of what he's complaining about.
It goes without saying that if Ajax were reasoning his position from the facts rather than coming up with facts based on the position he wants to hold, he'd think something completely different.
On this board, Ajax repeatedly claims to oppose immigration because it is a net drain on government resources and depresses wages. If you try to engage him on the academic literature on those claims that show them to be dubious, he takes off, then returns making the same claims again.
On the white supremacist message board he used to post on, the one that he described as his family and where he felt at home to say what he really thinks, Ajax was opposed to immigration because he favored the existence of a white ethnostate due to his belief in the genetic intellectual and moral superiority of whites.
EAllusion wrote:On the white supremacist message board he used to post on, the one that he described as his family and where he felt at home to say what he really thinks, Ajax was opposed to immigration because he favored the existence of a white ethnostate due to his belief in the genetic intellectual and moral superiority of whites.
I never actually read that thread but I remember you guys talking about it back when you found him there. When ajax wonders why people think he's human garbage or worse, this is why.