Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 20, 2014, 10:38:45 AM
I didn't, 2.1% was of the State's GDP. GDP is an economic metric.

Note the title.  They also reference the intellectually challenged comptroller's report.
http://www.fairus.org/DocServer/research-pub/TexasCostStudy_2014.pdf

Quote
The market decides whether or not the labor is needed.

Correct, but that has nothing to do with illegals being a fiscal drain.  Illegals are a fiscal, and economic drain.

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

Securing borders isn't being political.

Quote
You don't know whether or not economically we need them,

Yes I do.  We don't need them.

Quote
only the market knows that, and that knowledge is decentralized.

Everybody knows.  Why do you not know?

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:

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.

So, since "legal" immigration is not working we should just ignore existing laws and allow all "illegals" to enter? Perosnally, once I get to "illegal" that means they should not be allowed in.

Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 20, 2014, 10:49:14 AM
All of which applied to the Italians, the Irish, the Poles. These aren't new objections.

We're talking about illegals.  Do you know the difference between a legal and an illegal?

Quote
You don't know that.

Yes I do.

Quote
You by definition, can't know, because you're not a business who might try to hire them.

You're right, I'm not.  That's because I sold my company that I started, that I grew to several states, that did.  Part of that business was also understanding the economic and fiscal impact to the community.  They are a net drain in a major way.

Quote
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.

Again, we're not talking about legals.  We're talking about illegals.

Quote
Demanded what now?

When you discuss supply and demand, you shouldn't take those words literal.  They are concepts.  The consumer doesn't walk into the store and say "I DEMAND YOU SELL ME THIS WIDGET!".  I'm sorry I confused you.

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

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=illegals+demanding

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

It's not my fault.  It's the Democrat's and RINO's fault.

Quote
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.

I didn't say anything about immigrants.

Please don't confuse those again.

Slim, I just read a few other of your posts.  Stop intentionally conflating illegals with legals.  That won't fly here.

Quote from: taxed on August 20, 2014, 01:29:25 PM
Slim, I just read a few other of your posts.  Stop intentionally conflating illegals with legals.  That won't fly here.

The only groups in favor of what he contends, is socialist RINO and commies.
Can you say, Agenda?

Quote from: Solar on August 20, 2014, 12:49:30 PM
The system is not, and never has been broken.

The law is broken.

There are only 4 points of legal entry, most of which Immigrants neither today nor in the past could have met.

1. You need to have skills a Bureaucrat is looking for. You may have skills in a trade, but if they aren't the ones the Government wants (say, a clocksmith, or a cable installer) regardless of if there is demand by business here for your particular skills, you can't come here.

2. You need to have family legally living within the United States, who are willing to vouch for you.

3. Failing the first two, you might qualify for the "Diversity Lottery" (Don't you just the love the PC name?)
The "Diversity Lottery", is where you're immigrating from a country where we don't get a lot of immigration from, some small-name European or African nation most likely.

If so, you have a 1 in 7 chance to get a slot. A slot to possibly get in, pending a few more transaction costs, and not living within the general area of some group we don't like, even if you weren't a member.

4. The Final method, the EB-5 visa, be prepared to spend $500,000-$1M dollars in a ten year process where you must either start, transform, or save a business.


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.

QuoteNo other Nation on the planet has such an open door policy

If you mean "more open then us", yes there is.

Singapore just approved a measure where they predict their native population will be outnumbered by the "foreign worker" by over a million.

John Stossel, a (then) ABC reporter, managed to go to Hong Kong and start a business selling T-shirts, all within a single day.

Both places are essentially microcosms of what we used to be. The 19th century, when we experienced more economic growth than at any other point in our history before or since.

I want that back.

QuoteI'm curious, why do you advocate breaking the law,

The law was written by a Union.

I worked for a Union once, can't say I'd recommend the experience.

In this country, we're seeing people all over revolt against laws written by or for Unions. Take this case in California, of people rejecting overtures by Hugo Chavez's Union no less.

Now I would prefer the law to be followed, but the law, equally, should be tied to market forces. If it isn't, the law will be broken, it doesn't matter what you or I feel on the matter.

Supply & Demand is stronger than any man-made law, it is stronger than fiat.

Quoteand secondly, why are you in support of people putting children in danger this way?

I have said twice now "Send the kids back".

In their particular case, they aren't breaking the law, simply taking advantage of an exception we put in it.

Quote from: Solar on August 20, 2014, 01:32:40 PM
The only groups in favor of what he contends, is socialist RINO and commies.
Can you say, Agenda?

Can you say, Judge Napiltano?

"As President Obama and Congress grapple for prominence in the debate over immigration, both have lost sight of the true nature of the issue at hand.

The issue the politicians and bureaucrats would rather avoid is the natural law. The natural law is a term used to refer to human rights that all persons possess by virtue of our humanity. These rights encompass areas of human behavior where individuals are sovereign and thus need no permission from the government before making choices in those areas. Truly, in the Judeo-Christian tradition, only God is sovereign – meaning He is the source of His own power.

Having received freedom from our Creator and, in America, thanks to the values embraced by most of the Founding Fathers, individuals are sovereign with respect to our natural rights. St. Thomas Aquinas taught that our sovereignty is a part of our human nature, and our humanity is a gift from God. In 1776, Thomas Jefferson himself recognized personal sovereignty in the Declaration of Independence when he wrote about Nature's God as the Creator and thus the originator of our inalienable human rights."

He applies the Textual school of the Constitution.

Natural Law, was cited as precedent by Founding Era Jurists in many of their decisions. It is the cornerstone to English Common Law, which was the framework for the Constitution.

It's alright if you don't agree with it, but if you're not first disproving its claims, then you are, off-hand, rejecting our heritage.

And no, by "heritage", I' am not referring to us being a "nation of immigrants". I'm referring to treating the Individual, as Sovereign.

Slim, you are becoming boring. You have yet to address the difference between legal and illegal.

Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 20, 2014, 01:40:13 PM
The law is broken.

No it's not! And try keeping your answers a bit shorter, if possible.

QuoteThere are only 4 points of legal entry, most of which Immigrants neither today nor in the past could have met.

Too damn bad!

Quote1. You need to have skills a Bureaucrat is looking for. You may have skills in a trade, but if they aren't the ones the Government wants (say, a clocksmith, or a cable installer) regardless of if there is demand by business here for your particular skills, you can't come here.

Irrelevant!

Quote2. You need to have family legally living within the United States, who are willing to vouch for you.

That's a start.

Quote3. Failing the first two, you might qualify for the "Diversity Lottery" (Don't you just the love the PC name?)
The "Diversity Lottery", is where you're immigrating from a country where we don't get a lot of immigration from, some small-name European or African nation most likely.

It's called balance.

QuoteIf so, you have a 1 in 7 chance to get a slot. A slot to possibly get in, pending a few more transaction costs, and not living within the general area of some group we don't like, even if you weren't a member.

Tough break, isn't it?

Quote4. The Final method, the EB-5 visa, be prepared to spend $500,000-$1M dollars in a ten year process where you must either start, transform, or save a business.

Money you'll get back, it's called "Investment". Nice try at sleight of hand there.

QuoteWe 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.
If you mean "more open then us", yes there is.

Singapore just approved a measure where they predict their native population will be outnumbered by the "foreign worker" by over a million.

John Stossel, a (then) ABC reporter, managed to go to Hong Kong and start a business selling T-shirts, all within a single day.

Both places are essentially microcosms of what we used to be. The 19th century, when we experienced more economic growth than at any other point in our history before or since.

I want that back.

Singapore has their own reasons for lax immigration laws, they are trying to become autonomous.

QuoteThe law was written by a Union.

I worked for a Union once, can't say I'd recommend the experience.

In this country, we're seeing people all over revolt against laws written by or for Unions. Take this case in California, of people rejecting overtures by Hugo Chavez's Union no less.

So that's your reasoning for breaking the law, you believe it was written by unions?
I believe you're referring to the Bracero program.
Read and learn. http://www.fairus.org/facts/us_laws

QuoteNow I would prefer the law to be followed, but the law, equally, should be tied to market forces. If it isn't, the law will be broken, it doesn't matter what you or I feel on the matter.

Supply & Demand is stronger than any man-made law, it is stronger than fiat.
I have said twice now "Send the kids back".

In their particular case, they aren't breaking the law, simply taking advantage of an exception we put in it.

No it should not, it should be based on ones ability to pay their own way, not become a burden on the taxpayer, it's really that simple.
Try Australia, they have a simple requirement, prove you have a much needed skill and can show you can support yourself, or someone that will in the country.

Quote from: taxed on August 20, 2014, 01:16:36 PM
Note the title. 

Why does that matter? They don't mention a single statistic from the comptrollers report, neither 2.1%, nor $17.2 billion is mentioned anywhere in this source of yours, and that's your basis for saying I confused fiscal with economic.

QuoteCorrect, but that has nothing to do with illegals being a fiscal drain.

Fiscal drain is a tangent, what I stated is that they are an economic benefit because immigration is an economic benefit.

That they're illegal doesn't matter to the economy, because "illegal" is a political distinction, not an economic one.

Economics, doesn't conform to political desires.

France would get an economic benefit from going through with their sale of that carrier to Russia. They'd be breaking their own trade laws as well as their sanctions in doing it, but economically and economically alone, it's a beneficial action.

The same to blood diamonds. Engaging in the trade is economically beneficial, that people suffer because of it, to the economy, is beside the point.

The economy can be amoral, and it can invite dumb actions. It is not mutually exclusive to "good things" or "good actions", or in this case, legal actions.

QuoteYes I do.  We don't need them.

No you don't, you don't know how many laborers we need because that is a moving target. Collecting the information to figure out takes so long, that it would be out of date the moment you compiled it.

Only the market knows the answer to this in real time, thus, it should be the market to determine it.

Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 20, 2014, 10:00:00 PM
That they're illegal doesn't matter to the economy, because "illegal" is a political distinction, not an economic one.

Economics, doesn't conform to political desires.

So to you there is no difference between wetback trash who do not deserve air, and the LEGAL immigrants who followed the rules?

Quote from: Solar on August 20, 2014, 02:46:18 PM
No it's not!

Yes it is, there are only 4 point of legal entry, and none of them balance out with the labor demands immigration is apart of. We are incentivizing illegal immigration by not addressing it.

We for instance reject over 100,000 high skilled immigrants each year, because we don't offer enough H1B visas.

Companies still need them, so they go cynical to get them. Either they hire them when they "show up" at the door, and go to bat for them in the courts so they can stay, or they'll intentionally get them the wrong visa (like a visitor one) so they can at least be legal temporarily. Or for good if our officials don't notice the "error".

And remember, nigh-half of illegal immigrants, once were legal.

QuoteMoney you'll get back, it's called "Investment". Nice try at sleight of hand there.

No slight.

You only get your money back if the business succeeds. Since "save a business" is one, guess how many do that, and get their money back?

But I'm not worried about investors. I'm worried about anyone who doesn't have cash like that upfront, who wouldn't qualify.

QuoteSingapore has their own reasons for lax immigration laws, they are trying to become autonomous.

How far back are you thinking? They've been independent since 1965. And they didn't always have an immigration policy this lax, they built up to it.

QuoteSo that's your reasoning for breaking the law, you believe it was written by unions?

Yeah, because the Unions of course are rent seekers looking to protect their turf.

They shouldn't be "at the table" for immigration policy, much less writing it in their back rooms.

QuoteI believe you're referring to the Bracero program.

Not exactly. Bracero had existed for decades, what concerns me is the period it was managed under Eisenhower.

Under his purview, illegal immigration dropped by 95%, and he did it without adding a single border agent to the 1,000 numbered roster.

I say he built a model to follow, a model we should return to. It would address what is actually causing illegal immigration, and solve it in a way that wouldn't grow the government.

Quote from: quiller on August 20, 2014, 10:10:24 PM
So to you there is no difference between wetback trash who do not deserve air, and the LEGAL immigrants who followed the rules?

Nearly Half of illegals, once were legal. What do you think the economic distinction is for them?

It's also pretty rash to call them "wetback", considering more and more of them are Asian.

Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 20, 2014, 10:31:39 PM
Nearly Half of illegals, once were legal. What do you think the economic distinction is for them?

You did not answer my question, and I too am tired of your troll behavior evading why you conflate legal and illegal, when it is a matter of established laws, and the utter failure of the Democratic Party to enforce those laws.

Yes, troll. You're a total lying fraud.

PROVE WHAT I QUOTED ABOVE. I want an established legitimate source. Don't offload by saying I need to read a whole site or book or library. I want the link and direct quote applying to YOUR QUOTED STATEMENT ONLY.

QuoteIt's also pretty rash to call them "wetback", considering more and more of them are Asian.

I wasn't even starting to warm up. My ancestors were legal, learned English, worked hard and didn't suck welfare dollars or squirt out fatherless children. You bet your lying troll arse I have things to say about wetbacks, and if they're Asian they're Cargotainer fodder, which is far more cumbersome to say. Get used to expediency.

Quote from: quiller on August 20, 2014, 11:47:04 PM
You did not answer my question, and I too am tired of your troll behavior evading why you conflate legal and illegal

Show me an economic difference.

Or to make this easier...

Show me how or why Illegal immigrants don't contribute to the economy.

At a 93% labor participation rate, you're at an uphill battle.

QuoteYes, troll. You're a total lying fraud.

Trolls are people who incite argument for its own sake. You can be rest assured that I believe every single word that I have posted here.

QuotePROVE WHAT I QUOTED ABOVE.

Okay... I already posted one:

Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 19, 2014, 09:46:34 AM
1. That illegal immigrants aren't high skilled.

Indeed, almost half of illegal immigrants were once legal immigrants with visas, we brought them here because they had skills (it's also why nearly 40% of them are an Asian of some sort). They simply overstayed.

QuoteI wasn't even starting to warm up. My ancestors were legal, learned English, worked hard

And likely dealt with a far better immigration system then what we have today.

Let me put this way, dealing with our immigration system today compared to then, is like dealing with our TAX system today, compared to then.

Only, you're livelihood is more consistently on the line, and you don't always understand the language being thrown at you over a "problem" when they come up.

You also can't outsource the problem to an expert, unless you're rich, or have an employer willing to go to bat for you.

Quoteand didn't suck welfare dollars or squirt out fatherless children.

Actually, they're more solid on families than native African-Americans.

Women may have kids out of wedlock, but they're more likely to marry someone afterwards. At a higher rate than whites actually.

I *blame* the culture. BP