Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 19, 2014, 08:16:59 PM
What "bull shit"?

Most immigrants who came here in the 19th century were illiterate and low-skilled, they still formed the backbone of this nation.

You're complaining about Mexicans now, being the same as Italians a 100 years ago. Somehow we muddle through it then, so why exactly do you think we can't do so now?

What's more, it's irrefutable immigration then grew our economy, so why would immigration now fail to do so?

They also came because they wanted to be Americans, not hyphenated Americans, they knew, here they could find freedom and liberty and gladly participated in the culture.
Not like those demanding we accept their culture, rather than meld into ours.
Today we have a Marxist letting in murders and sex offenders, and you somehow think that mirrors the 19th century?

Are you willing to let these gang bangers live in your neighborhood?
Would you want a La Raza office in your town?

QuoteThey have a worker participation rate of 93%. Somehow, they find the work, and they find it more consistently then Legal immigrants or the Native Born.

I'm guessing you didn't have to compete for an entry level job, did you?
These illegals you claim have a 93% work participation, legally is another story, but assume that's the case, and with unemployment at historic lows not seen sine the last depression, your evidence supports my claim, they're displacing Americans out of the work force.

QuoteIndeed, this is why Milton Friedman likened Illegal immigration to pre-1914 immigration, calling it "immigration to jobs", whereas the legal sort was more likely to be the "immigration to welfare".
You're once again confusing Fiscal concerns, with Economic ones.

Unless you think the Government is the economy, yes, this is wrong.
Fair enough.

Quoting out of context and comparing it to the current situation does nothing to embolden your point.

What percentage of illegals need government assistance?

Quote from: Solar on August 19, 2014, 08:37:49 PM
They also came because they wanted to be Americans, not hyphenated Americans, they knew, here they could find freedom and liberty and gladly participated in the culture.

Careful, you're speaking like a Progressive.

"In the United States, the term hyphenated American is an epithet commonly used from 1890 to 1920 to disparage Americans who were of foreign birth or origin, and who displayed an allegiance to a foreign country. It was most commonly used to disparage German Americans or Irish Americans (Catholics) who called for U.S. neutrality in World War I. Former President Theodore Roosevelt was an outspoken anti-hyphenate and Woodrow Wilson followed suit."

QuoteNot like those demanding we accept their culture, rather than meld into ours.

Assimilation has always been a  two way street in America

The Founders did not place gifts under a Christmas Tree, that is something we inherited from German immigrants, who certain Founders, like Benjamin Franklin, did not like.

Further, around the turn of the 20th century there were 700 German newspapers being printed around the country, despite the fact that German immigration peaked in 1870s.

And then there's Mutual Aid Societies, which are private-association provided "safety nets" that were intentionally stratified along religious, national, and ethnic lines.

And they work wonderfully, helping to ensure people in America looked to private association to solve their societal issues, rather than Governmental ones.

Which is why Wilson's view on Hyphenated-Americans is in error. He was looking to get everyone invested in the U.S. Federal Government. "We're all in this together" as the liberals like to say.

But that's the wrong model. Any Association Americans are involved in should be one they chose to join. The association should compete, and work to appeal to those they want among their number, not simply take their membership for granted. Doing otherwise just creates a bloated, monolithic system, like we have today.

QuoteToday we have a Marxist letting in murders and sex offenders, and you somehow think that mirrors the 19th century?

In the 19th and early 20th century, we let in people who bombed Wall Street, assassinated the President (now now, don't get any ideas), and German agents that wrecked havoc on our industries before we were even at war.

Murderers? Sure, England intentionally populated us with crime-ridden folk, especially down in Georgia which was originally a Penal colony.

The 19th Century gave us the Irish gangs, and then later the Italian Mafia, people who not only killed but made organized killing an art form. Chinese crime syndicates equally made their way over here.

QuoteI'm guessing you didn't have to compete for an entry level job, did you?

Yes I did, I have immigrant coworkers still.

The issue though, is that I want a meritocracy, I want the best person available to to go for a given job. If the business thinks that's the immigrant, then it's THEIR prerogative to give it to them, because it's THEIR money.

You are trying to treat said business' money, as your own, or something you can at least decide what to do with for the "betterment of all".

That's Socialism.

QuoteThese illegals you claim have a 93% work participation, legally is another story, but assume that's the case, and with unemployment at historic lows not seen sine the last depression, your evidence supports my claim,

They're all against you. There is no connection between unemployment and immigration, everything I have provided establishes this.

You are assuming the economy is a fixed-pie, and that is a common fallacy. To assume Jobs are fixed, you must also assume that Wealth is fixed, as the two are intertwined.

Further, if the economy were a fixed pie, if wealth is fixed, then that means you are admitting the Progressives are right, and that we should be concerned about "Wage inequality". After all, if it's a fixed pie, that means the rich are getting richer off the backs of the poor whenever they increase their share of the wealth.

Solar is a progressive?

Kinky...

Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 19, 2014, 06:00:05 AM
The same way all immigrants have been doing it for centuries "with nothing but the shirts on their backs".

...and their children, and their gang members, and their diseases, and 3rd world culture.

Quote
Either they start new businesses, or they fill pre-existing labor needs.

They should learn Spanish first, then English.  Then, take a bath.  Then, they can go back, because we have plenty of labor for a free market system.

Quote
Here's the Comptroller's report.

Note to self: don't let Susan Combs do any number crunching for me, because she is an idiot.

Quote
Their stated objective was to find that the illegals were a net drag on the State's economy, but they didn't.

That's because they are incompetent, uneducated government idiots who couldn't do financials for a lemonade stand.

Quote
I'm economically minded before I'm political,

Clearly not.

Quote
and even though I don't like what's going on,

Clearly the case.

Quote
especially with the kids wondering over here in this most recent bout, I can't ignore what Supply & Demand tells me.

It tells me that if we supply them with the benefits and subsidies they demand, then they will come here, and then get to be called economically beneficial by you, since Susan Combs said so.

Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 19, 2014, 05:32:26 AM
I have to correct you here, the State's own Comptroller found Illegals added 2.1% to their economy in 2006, or $17.2 Billion.

What happened to confusing "economics" with "fiscal"?

Quote
Immigration is immigration, labor is labor, the economy doesn't care what your political status is.

Hence why it is a fiscal, and economical, drain.

Quote
Now there are sociological effects to be concerned about, so I'm not saying this should be taken as an open pass to let this problem grow.

I'm also really not a fan of those Subsidies,

Gee, don't go out on a limb like that.  Here, let me show you I would make this statement:

"Subsidies are theft and the treasonous scum politicians responsible for implementing this theft should be sent to prison for the rest of their life at worst, at best, hung publicly".

Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 19, 2014, 07:02:40 AM
The American Enterprise Institute only found very small effect on wages.

Nobody is arguing about a supply of legal immigrants satisfying a skill set demand.  You're confusing skilled legal immigration with legal immigration.  Illegals are the ones coming over illegaly.  Why would you post this article to support your position, when it has nothing to do with your position?  I'm curious why you would do this, intellectually.

Quote
Britain, who has had for years a more "neo-liberal" immigration policy than us, saw unemployment shrink as their immigration rate grew.

Please explain this graph to me, if you would be so kind.

Quote
In truth, either it's positive, or there is no connection between Immigration and unemployment.

No, hon.  You are confused.  If there is a demand for a particular skill, that demand can be satisfied by any person legally able to fill it.  This in no way supports your flawed premise that illegal immigrants are an economic benefit.

Quote
To explain:

A job is a zero-sum game, someone takes that job, that job is gone. But when you move to the plural, jobs, you now have to take into account what conditions help to generate jobs.

How does illegal immigration help these conditions?

Quote
Having more people, more ideas, more consumers as well as laborers, tends to makes that generating easier.

How so?

Quote
Texas is the only State to see Illegal immigration grow since 2008. It's not hard to figure why.

You attribute this to illegals boosting the economy.  I attribute this to their border size with Mexico and Texas' strong economy.  It doesn't take a genius to figure this out.

Quote
It was written by a Republican,

Why would that matter?

Quote
who was Perry's replacement as the Texas Agriculture Commissioner. And the stated agenda was to find the opposite of what it concluded.

There was no benefit in the report.  Please highlight one of the benefits.

Quote
Yeah, I get this is a hard pill to swallow, really I do. I have family in Arizona, they've seen the Cartel smugglers come past where they're at, and they live in Wickenburg, which ain't exactly a border town.

You have not made the case yet for how illegal immigrants are a benefit to Texas.

Quote
But at the same time, I'm obligated to say this: economics does not constrain itself to political desires, it has its own laws, and those must be applied to know what it says.

You can worry about politics.  I'll focus on data, common sense, and the free market.  Illegal immigrants are a disaster to our economy.

Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 19, 2014, 09:56:04 PM
Careful, you're speaking like a Progressive.

You already cornered the mkt on that one son.

I'll stop there, the rest of this is pure nonsense, none of these people jumped the border by the thousands, and all melded nicely into society..

But you still didn't answer my question: Are you willing to have a La Rara contingency within your own neighborhood?

Quote from: taxed on August 20, 2014, 02:28:58 AM
What happened to confusing "economics" with "fiscal"?

I didn't, 2.1% was of the State's GDP. GDP is an economic metric.

Hence why it is a fiscal, and economical, drain.[/quote]
The market decides whether or not the labor is needed.

If you are you using the Gov't to decide who or what comes here, you are not being economical, you are being political.

You don't know whether or not economically we need them, only the market knows that, and that knowledge is decentralized.

Quote"Subsidies are theft and the treasonous scum politicians responsible for implementing this theft should be sent to prison for the rest of their life at worst, at best, hung publicly".

Sure, go ahead.

Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 19, 2014, 08:16:59 PM
What "bull shit"?

Most immigrants who came here in the 19th century were illiterate and low-skilled, they still formed the backbone of this nation.

Yes and they also came here LEGALLY through such places as Ellis Island. They didn't just walk on in across the border.

Just a little point the leftists who want to drag immigration history up, like to ignore.

Quote from: taxed on August 20, 2014, 01:50:56 AM
...and their children, and their gang members, and their diseases, and 3rd world culture.

All of which applied to the Italians, the Irish, the Poles. These aren't new objections.

They should learn Spanish first, then English.  Then, take a bath.  Then, they can go back, because we have plenty of labor for a free market system.[/quote]
You don't know that. You by definition, can't know, because you're not a business who might try to hire them.

QuoteThat's because they are incompetent, uneducated government idiots who couldn't do financials for a lemonade stand.

Actually foreigners are more entrepreneurial than the average American. Since immigration itself is a risk, risk in the wider economy is something they're more willing to take.


Clearly not.
Clearly the case.

QuoteIt tells me that if we supply them with the benefits and subsidies they demand,

Demanded what now? They didn't demand anything, are esteemed progressive friends us offered them to them, and some took 'em.

That's our fault for letting our Government be run by idiots, and our duty to fix the welfare state so it stops.

Quotethen they will come here, and then get to be called economically beneficial by you, since Susan Combs said so.

Since supply & demand says so.

Immigrants are labor, and they offer economic benefit.

"The Open Letter on Immigration reminds President Bush and all members of Congress of America's history as an immigrant nation, the overall economic and social benefits of immigration, and the power of immigration to lift the poor out of poverty."

"Economists disagree about a lot of things but there is a consensus on many of the important issues surrounding immigration," said Alexander Tabarrok, Research Director at the Independent Institute and the primary author of the letter. "The consensus is that most Americans benefit from immigration and that the negative effects on low-skilled workers are somewhere between an 8% wage reduction to no loss in wages at all." Reflecting this consensus the signatories to the Open Letter include prominent economists involved in both Democratic and Republican administrations such as N. Gregory Mankiw (Harvard University), former Chairman of President Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, and J. Bradford DeLong (University of California, Berkeley), Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under President Bill Clinton, as well as Alfred Kahn (Cornell University), Chairman of the Civil Aeronautics Board under President Jimmy Carter, and Paul McCracken (University of Michigan), Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors under President Richard Nixon."

You're in a very Keynesian niche to claim they don't, not Free market.

Oh Jeez, is he still trying to make a case for another 30 thousand kids illegally crossing the border, that somehow they will magically pay their own way, never taking a dime from the American taxpayer?

This is getting way beyond the point of absurd, and bordering on insane.

Quote from: Solar on August 20, 2014, 12:26:08 PM
Oh Jeez, is he still trying to make a case for another 30 thousand kids illegally crossing the border, that somehow they will magically pay their own way, never taking a dime from the American taxpayer?

? No I'm not.

30,000 kids are crossing the border, because we don't have a legal immigration system that works.

When your legal immigration system doesn't work, immigrants have two options:

1. Break the law, or

2. Abuse whatever exceptions there are, like asylum, or in this case, asylum for kids.

And that's what the kids are, they aren't illegal immigrants, they're asylum seekers, and there's far too may for that exception to absorb, as we weren't planning on a Central American melt down.

I also said before that the move there was likely to send the kids back.

Quote from: daidalos on August 20, 2014, 10:44:53 AM
Yes and they also came here LEGALLY through such places as Ellis Island. They didn't just walk on in across the border.

1. Yes they did cross the border, that's why Volunteers along our southern border in the 1890s tried to control the flow of Chinese Immigrants.

But since they were irregulars and there was never more than 75 of them, they didn't get much done.

2. Ellis Island itself didn't start until the 1890s.

Ellis Island, also only rejected 3% of immigrants who ever went there, and it was a very smooth process to get through.

20 second medical exam, sign your name. That's all.

Today we legally reject more like 70%, and it's not because immigrants are appreciably different. It's because our laws changed.

We adopted laws the AFL-CIO wrote. That meant a process far more granular than just a sign-in book and a short check-up.

Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 20, 2014, 12:36:14 PM
? No I'm not.

30,000 kids are crossing the border, because we don't have a legal immigration system that works.

When your legal immigration system doesn't work, immigrants have two options:

The system is not, and never has been broken. We are a Republican form of govt, meaning we are a Nation of laws, and if someone wants to enter the U.S., they, like those before them, follow the law of the land.

No other Nation on the planet has such an open door policy, excluding Europe, who is now dealing with it's own crippling illegal migrants.

Try walking into Mexico to live permanently and see what happens.

I'm curious, why do you advocate breaking the law, and secondly, why are you in support of people putting children in danger this way?