ADVERTISEMENT

Trump is holding children hostage

https://www.politico.com/magazine/s...-immigration-economy-unemployment-jobs-214216

Theft.

Both low- and high-skilled natives are affected by the influx of immigrants. But because a disproportionate percentage of immigrants have few skills, it is low-skilled American workers, including many blacks and Hispanics, who have suffered most from this wage dip. The monetary loss is sizable. The typical high school dropout earns about $25,000 annually. According to census data, immigrants admitted in the past two decades lacking a high school diploma have increased the size of the low-skilled workforce by roughly 25 percent. As a result, the earnings of this particularly vulnerable group dropped by between $800 and $1,500 each year.
And besides the guy who breaks in, who is the real beneficiary of the wealth? The fencer...the pawn shop owner.

Somebody’s lower wage is always somebody else’s higher profit. In this case, immigration redistributes wealth from those who compete with immigrants to those who use immigrants—from the employee to the employer. And the additional profits are so large that the economic pie accruing to all natives actually grows. I estimate the current “immigration surplus”—the net increase in the total wealth of the native population—to be about$50 billion annually. But behind that calculation is a much larger shift from one group of Americans to another: The total wealth redistribution from the native losers to the native winners is enormous, roughly a half-trillion dollars a year. Immigrants, too, gain substantially; their total earnings far exceed what their income would have been had they not migrated.
So illegal immigration tends to **** over blue collar American workers. It is great for the immigrants coming into the country, their position massively improved. It is also great for business owners who can now get the same level of production at a much lower rate. When you guys bitch about income inequality, does this ever enter the equation?

Oh but wait, there's more theft.

When we look at the overall value of immigration, there’s one more complicating factor: Immigrants receive government assistance at higher rates than natives. The higher cost of all the services provided to immigrants and the lower taxes they pay (because they have lower earnings) inevitably implies that on a year-to-year basis immigration creates a fiscal hole of at least $50 billion—a burden that falls on the native population.

What does it all add up to? The fiscal burden offsets the gain from the $50 billion immigration surplus, so it’s not too farfetched to conclude that immigration has barely affected the total wealth of natives at all. Instead, it has changed how the pie is split, with the losers—the workers who compete with immigrants, many of those being low-skilled Americans—sending a roughly $500 billion check annually to the winners. Those winners are primarily their employers. And the immigrants themselves come out ahead, too. Put bluntly, immigration turns out to be just another income redistribution program.​

So the powers that be will use emotional appeals and will accuse you of things like racism because they and their corporate backers are getting filthy rich off of this process. If you don't think so, have Rockfish post one of his income inequality graphs and compare the timeframe when income inequality explodes to when Reagan (mistakenly) enacted the first amnesty.

Ever been to Texas? I’ve NEVER heard of blue collar workers complaining of illegal immigrants taking their jobs. That’s because they fill the gap, and do the jobs that no one else really wants to do (construction, landscaping, agriculture, etc).

I’ve heard that many times over the years, and I’ve lived and/or worked in Houston, San Antonio, Corpus Christi, the valley (McAllen, Brownsville), Laredo & Austin.

Without these workers, the economy would literally bottom out in south TX.

You’re clinging on to some Fox News/right wing media talking points. That aren’t accurate (shocker!)

We’re at damn near full employment right now- the problem isn’t the jobs that these folks take- it’s that there aren’t enough GOOD jobs available. The jobs are there- but most natives don’t want to do the jobs these folks are willing to do.

Go talk to some business owners in TX, and then get back with us.

You strike me as a guy that thinks he knows a helluva lot more than he actually knows.

Besides, the topic of this thread isn’t about people coming over solely for work. It’s about folks seeking asylum, and then having their children taken away from them.

When I have time later (working now), I’ll post some links about the situation in Central America. It’s dire- yet somehow you’ve conflated these folks with illegal workers. They’re not remotely related.
 
Meadows intoduced legislation in the House today, "Equal Protection of Unaccompanied Minors Act".
It should be passed right away as this will address family separation. Instead leadership will probably tie it to a controversial amnesty bill later this week. The House should be able to fix this issue immediately since it is bipartisan.
 
In Goat's defense, he at least acknowledges it was a good article. And when he asks me to read it again, he is probably referencing that the professor thinks we should come up with a comprehensive immigration plan and offset the losses to the lower classes by forcing the winners to retrain the losers. I think that is an interesting topic and do not disagree. However, the Professor is speaking of legal immigration at the end of the article.
You got it half right. The other thing you missed in the article is that he's not just talking about legal immigration at the end. He's talking about it throughout. More accurately, he's discussing the effects of all immigration, not just illegal.
 
Ever been to Texas? I’ve NEVER heard of blue collar workers complaining of illegal immigrants taking their jobs. That’s because they fill the gap, and do the jobs that no one else really wants to do (construction, landscaping, agriculture, etc).

I’ve heard that many times over the years, and I’ve lived and/or worked in Houston, San Antonio, Corpus Christi, the valley (McAllen, Brownsville), Laredo & Austin.

Without these workers, the economy would literally bottom out in south TX.

You’re clinging on to some Fox News/right wing media talking points. That aren’t accurate (shocker!)

We’re at damn near full employment right now- the problem isn’t the jobs that these folks take- it’s that there aren’t enough GOOD jobs available. The jobs are there- but most natives don’t want to do the jobs these folks are willing to do.

Go talk to some business owners in TX, and then get back with us.

You strike me as a guy that thinks he knows a helluva lot more than he actually knows.

Besides, the topic of this thread isn’t about people coming over solely for work. It’s about folks seeking asylum, and then having their children taken away from them.

When I have time later (working now), I’ll post some links about the situation in Central America. It’s dire- yet somehow you’ve conflated these folks with illegal workers. They’re not remotely related.

No, people do not want to do those jobs for what they pay. The Harvard Professor of Economics indicates that the average yearly wage for a high school dropout is $25,000 a year. That equates to about $12 an hour (roughly). He goes on to say that the influx of immigrants has caused wages to be depressed by $800 to $1500 a year over the past 2 decades for people on that end of the pay scale. $800 a year for 20 years is $16,000. How many of those blue collar workers would change their tune if they were being offered $41,000 a year to do those jobs. The whole, "Americans will not do those jobs" is a crock of shit. It is the shit you are spoon fed by all of those "native winners" the Professor mentions. And they laugh all the way to the bank.

And the sad thing is, they have you convinced that your position is the humanitarian position.
 
No, people do not want to do those jobs for what they pay. The Harvard Professor of Economics indicates that the average yearly wage for a high school dropout is $25,000 a year. That equates to about $12 an hour (roughly). He goes on to say that the influx of immigrants has caused wages to be depressed by $800 to $1500 a year over the past 2 decades for people on that end of the pay scale. $800 a year for 20 years is $16,000. How many of those blue collar workers would change their tune if they were being offered $41,000 a year to do those jobs. The whole, "Americans will not do those jobs" is a crock of shit. It is the shit you are spoon fed by all of those "native winners" the Professor mentions. And they laugh all the way to the bank.

And the sad thing is, they have you convinced that your position is the humanitarian position.
Huh? How does the number $41K/year come into this?
 
You got it half right. The other thing you missed in the article is that he's not just talking about legal immigration at the end. He's talking about it throughout. More accurately, he's discussing the effects of all immigration, not just illegal.

I did not miss that. Legal immigration is your neighbor asking for the sugar and you giving it to them. You lose out on some sugar but you helped out. And yeah, your kids maybe did not get the benefit of it, but your community is better because of your willingness to help. Nobody is arguing against that.

Illegal immigration, the neighbor steals your sugar. He then sells it back to the grocery store at a reduced rate. You go to the grocery and buy it back at your regular price. There was an economic impact as the grocer and the thief made money on the sugar but it was offset by your loss. That was done without your consent. That is theft.
 
Huh? How does the number $41K/year come into this?

The typical high school dropout earns about $25,000 annually. According to census data, immigrants admitted in the past two decades lacking a high school diploma have increased the size of the low-skilled workforce by roughly 25 percent. As a result, the earnings of this particularly vulnerable group dropped by between $800 and $1,500 each year.​

Currently at $25,000. Earnings have dropped by $800 a year for 2 decades (20 x $800 = $16,000.) $25,000 + $16,000 = $41,000.

My assumption is that the professor is using today's dollars and saying that buying power has decreased or that in 1998, low wage workers made today's equivalent of $41,000. It is a part of his argument that I would like to see the numbers on but that is where I got figure.
 
No, people do not want to do those jobs for what they pay. The Harvard Professor of Economics indicates that the average yearly wage for a high school dropout is $25,000 a year. That equates to about $12 an hour (roughly). He goes on to say that the influx of immigrants has caused wages to be depressed by $800 to $1500 a year over the past 2 decades for people on that end of the pay scale. $800 a year for 20 years is $16,000. How many of those blue collar workers would change their tune if they were being offered $41,000 a year to do those jobs. The whole, "Americans will not do those jobs" is a crock of shit. It is the shit you are spoon fed by all of those "native winners" the Professor mentions. And they laugh all the way to the bank.

And the sad thing is, they have you convinced that your position is the humanitarian position.
I wonder if you might answer my simple question? If it turns out that immigration is actually helpful to low income workers would you change your mind and say immigration is a good idea?

I thought one of the examples in your article was interesting. A chicken plant was discussed in which immediately after an immigration raid got rid of all the labor the company was advertising for workers at higher wages. The implication is that immigrants are decreasing wages for native workers. Get rid of the immigrants and business will be forced to dramatically increase wages in order to hire employees. Perhaps in the short term. But in the medium and long term the business may not be profitable any longer. In that event all the residual employment due to people selling stuff to those who work at the plant will disappear too and the community die off instead. Finally, the example with the chicken plant only happens because the labor did not have valid permits. If, instead, all those people were citizens then they might get higher wages for their work too and put much less downward pressure on wages.
 
Harvard professor of economics or two lawyers, I will let you guys decide who has the gravitas on this subject. Do note however that neither of them really refute what was said.

In Goat's defense, he at least acknowledges it was a good article. And when he asks me to read it again, he is probably referencing that the professor thinks we should come up with a comprehensive immigration plan and offset the losses to the lower classes by forcing the winners to retrain the losers. I think that is an interesting topic and do not disagree. However, the Professor is speaking of legal immigration at the end of the article.

And none of that negates anything that I posted. All immigration is a net loser for those who can least afford to lose and it is a net gain for those who do not need it. For most of us in the middle, it is a bit of a wash. Cheaper goods and services offset by lower pay across the board.
I meant your first sentence.
 
Harvard professor of economics or two lawyers, I will let you guys decide who has the gravitas on this subject. Do note however that neither of them really refute what was said.

In Goat's defense, he at least acknowledges it was a good article. And when he asks me to read it again, he is probably referencing that the professor thinks we should come up with a comprehensive immigration plan and offset the losses to the lower classes by forcing the winners to retrain the losers. I think that is an interesting topic and do not disagree. However, the Professor is speaking of legal immigration at the end of the article.

And none of that negates anything that I posted. All immigration is a net loser for those who can least afford to lose and it is a net gain for those who do not need it. For most of us in the middle, it is a bit of a wash. Cheaper goods and services offset by lower pay across the board.



You are totally off the rails on this issues....so I've mainly ignored you....But.....

Your professor has half-cocked ideas based off of an extreme example (the Mariel Boatlift).

1. “Immigrants will take American jobs, lower our wages, and especially hurt the poor.”

This is the most common argument and also the one with the greatest amount of evidence rebutting it. First, the displacement effect is small if it even affects natives at all. Immigrants are typically attracted to growing regions and they increase the supply and demand sides of the economy once they are there, expanding employment opportunities. Second, the debate over immigrant impacts on American wagesis confined to the lower single digits—immigrants may increase the relative wages for some Americans by a tiny amount and decrease them by a larger amount for the few Americans who directly compete against them. Immigrants likely compete most directly against other immigrants so the effects on less-skilled native-born Americans might be very small or even positive.

New research by Harvard professor George Borjas on the effect of the Mariel Boatlift—a giant shock to Miami’s labor market that increased the size of its population by 7 percent in 42 days—finds large negative wage effects concentrated on Americans with less than a high school degree. To put the scale of that shock to Miami in context, it would be as if 22.4 million immigrants moved to America in a six-week period—which will not happen. Some doubt Borjas’s finding and Borjas’s response. Even if the Mariel Boatlift had such a large and negative effect on the wages of native-born high-school dropouts in Miami, it had a large positive impact on the wages of natives with only a high school education, to such a degree that the wages of lower-skilled Miamians actually increased. The rapid recovery of Hispanic wages in Miami also produces some doubt as to Mariel’s effect on native wages as Hispanics were the most likely to suffer wage declines from competition with the new Cuban immigrants. Economists Michael Clemens and Jennifer Hunt have the most devastating response to Borjas: His response was due entirely to a different sample collected in Miami over the years where he observed the wage decline. Thus, the data collectors made Mariel look like it had a large negative wage effect by changing whom they surveyed.

Although some doubt Borjas’s finding regarding Mariel, it is not in doubt that immigration has overall increased the wages and income of Americans. The smallest estimated immigration surplus, as it is called, is equal to about 0.24 percent of GDP—which excludes the gains to immigrants and just focuses on those of native-born Americans.​

https://www.cato.org/blog/14-most-common-arguments-against-immigration-why-theyre-wrong
 
You are totally off the rails on this issues....so I've mainly ignored you....But.....

Your professor has half-cocked ideas based off of an extreme example (the Mariel Boatlift).

1. “Immigrants will take American jobs, lower our wages, and especially hurt the poor.”

This is the most common argument and also the one with the greatest amount of evidence rebutting it. First, the displacement effect is small if it even affects natives at all. Immigrants are typically attracted to growing regions and they increase the supply and demand sides of the economy once they are there, expanding employment opportunities. Second, the debate over immigrant impacts on American wagesis confined to the lower single digits—immigrants may increase the relative wages for some Americans by a tiny amount and decrease them by a larger amount for the few Americans who directly compete against them. Immigrants likely compete most directly against other immigrants so the effects on less-skilled native-born Americans might be very small or even positive.

New research by Harvard professor George Borjas on the effect of the Mariel Boatlift—a giant shock to Miami’s labor market that increased the size of its population by 7 percent in 42 days—finds large negative wage effects concentrated on Americans with less than a high school degree. To put the scale of that shock to Miami in context, it would be as if 22.4 million immigrants moved to America in a six-week period—which will not happen. Some doubt Borjas’s finding and Borjas’s response. Even if the Mariel Boatlift had such a large and negative effect on the wages of native-born high-school dropouts in Miami, it had a large positive impact on the wages of natives with only a high school education, to such a degree that the wages of lower-skilled Miamians actually increased. The rapid recovery of Hispanic wages in Miami also produces some doubt as to Mariel’s effect on native wages as Hispanics were the most likely to suffer wage declines from competition with the new Cuban immigrants. Economists Michael Clemens and Jennifer Hunt have the most devastating response to Borjas: His response was due entirely to a different sample collected in Miami over the years where he observed the wage decline. Thus, the data collectors made Mariel look like it had a large negative wage effect by changing whom they surveyed.

Although some doubt Borjas’s finding regarding Mariel, it is not in doubt that immigration has overall increased the wages and income of Americans. The smallest estimated immigration surplus, as it is called, is equal to about 0.24 percent of GDP—which excludes the gains to immigrants and just focuses on those of native-born Americans.​

https://www.cato.org/blog/14-most-common-arguments-against-immigration-why-theyre-wrong

The answer here is obvious. Borjas is an expert. Clemens and Hunt are liberal elites. Duh. o_O
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bill4411
The answer here is obvious. Borjas is an expert. Clemens and Hunt are liberal elites. Duh. o_O

Good to know that you now reject liberal Harvard Professors and now accept the CATO institute as the arbiters of truth....any other link I posted from CATO would normally be shouted down as right wing talking points.

I bet their views on income inequality link up pretty well too. Although if I argued their viewpoint and you posted a rebuttal from a liberal think tank and I dis.issed it, you could make the exact same post.
 
https://www.politico.com/magazine/s...-immigration-economy-unemployment-jobs-214216

Theft.

Both low- and high-skilled natives are affected by the influx of immigrants. But because a disproportionate percentage of immigrants have few skills, it is low-skilled American workers, including many blacks and Hispanics, who have suffered most from this wage dip. The monetary loss is sizable. The typical high school dropout earns about $25,000 annually. According to census data, immigrants admitted in the past two decades lacking a high school diploma have increased the size of the low-skilled workforce by roughly 25 percent. As a result, the earnings of this particularly vulnerable group dropped by between $800 and $1,500 each year.
And besides the guy who breaks in, who is the real beneficiary of the wealth? The fencer...the pawn shop owner.

Somebody’s lower wage is always somebody else’s higher profit. In this case, immigration redistributes wealth from those who compete with immigrants to those who use immigrants—from the employee to the employer. And the additional profits are so large that the economic pie accruing to all natives actually grows. I estimate the current “immigration surplus”—the net increase in the total wealth of the native population—to be about$50 billion annually. But behind that calculation is a much larger shift from one group of Americans to another: The total wealth redistribution from the native losers to the native winners is enormous, roughly a half-trillion dollars a year. Immigrants, too, gain substantially; their total earnings far exceed what their income would have been had they not migrated.
So illegal immigration tends to **** over blue collar American workers. It is great for the immigrants coming into the country, their position massively improved. It is also great for business owners who can now get the same level of production at a much lower rate. When you guys bitch about income inequality, does this ever enter the equation?

.

Blue collar wages have been depressed but I believe part of that can be placed at the feet of the Republicans that successfully convinced those same people that they are looking out for them. Two (of many) policies that have impacted blue collar wages:
1) in 1983 20.1% of the workforce was unionized. For the most part those jobs had decent wages and good benefits. In 2017 the unionized rate was nearly cut in half at 10.7%. A substantial reason for the decline was due to changes Republicans made to legislation and policies (on a side note in many cases I think unions “cooked the golden goose” by making unrealistic demands but, that being said, less union workers means less well-paid blue collar workers).
2) Republicans have strongly fought every single increase of the minimum wage. From 1997 to 2007 (many of the years the author covered) the minimum wage did not change at all and then finally moved from 5.15 to 5.75 which certainly assisted in depressing wages.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HoosierPeach
Under the Obama Admin thousands of kids were separated from their parents. That is fact. Whether it was intentional or not is very likely irrelevant to the parents who were separated from the kids.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/25/parents-deportation_n_5531552.html

You do know that American citizens are separated from their kids during legal proceedings. Why is the immigration procedure any different.

"While most of the parents of U.S.-born children deported last year had been convicted of a crime, about 10,700 had no criminal convictions, although they may have fit other ICE priorities for removal, according to the reports." Quote

Do you understand that when you deport the illegal parents of children who are citizens you are sending the parents to who knows where but long distances from the children and in the current situations the kids will be placed back with their parents. For me I don't think we should treat foreign people better than our own citizens. I guess that doesn't matter as long as Trump takes a hit over it.
 
Good to know that you now reject liberal Harvard Professors and now accept the CATO institute as the arbiters of truth....any other link I posted from CATO would normally be shouted down as right wing talking points.

I bet their views on income inequality link up pretty well too. Although if I argued their viewpoint and you posted a rebuttal from a liberal think tank and I dis.issed it, you could make the exact same post.


Well, you are turning traditional conservative philosophy entirely on its head with your economic arguments.

Trumpian populists have latched onto this position in the modern era....but it isn't a modern phenomenon. Anti-immigrant populism has always existed as an undercurrent of American politics since the very early years of our nation.

But if someone is a high school dropout with so few skills that a dirt poor immigrant that doesn't even speak the language displaces them....isn't that more on that person? Where is the conservative pillar of personal responsibility that's so fervently leaned on in basically every other public policy arena?

If studies broadly show immigration raises overall GDP....shouldn't that be the main focus of policy makers?

No different than free trade policies for goods? (not surprisingly, also under attack by the Trumpian populists)
 
Illegal immigration is theft. It is the same thing as breaking into your neighbor's house and then when you get caught, claim you were just there to borrow sugar (asylum).
..........................
Jesus says that if your neighbor asks for your coat, you should give that to him along with your shirt. But the opening sequence in that transaction is to ask, not to take. Taking makes you a thief. And yes, all of those people have a hard luck story, so do most thieves. There are people all over the U.S. trying to make a better life for their family who commit crimes and end up in jail, separated from their families and children, because they committed a crime.

Illegal immigrants are thieves. They steal time and resources from the most needy among us. These resources are something we may have willingly offered them had they asked, but after you break in, game over.
How did these folks just take it? My hunch is that they asked and were turned down. I have been wondering for some time why you chose your moniker as IUCrazy. Now, I know. Thanks for the answer.
 
"While most of the parents of U.S.-born children deported last year had been convicted of a crime, about 10,700 had no criminal convictions, although they may have fit other ICE priorities for removal, according to the reports." Quote

Do you understand that when you deport the illegal parents of children who are citizens you are sending the parents to who knows where but long distances from the children and in the current situations the kids will be placed back with their parents. For me I don't think we should treat foreign people better than our own citizens. I guess that doesn't matter as long as Trump takes a hit over it.

There’s absolutely no guarantee that the current situation ensures that kids are placed back with their parents. That’s a fallacy.

And in your original example, two things differ from the current situation.

First, the deported kids are citizens, that presumably would have some type of family already here in the states. And, their parents had to do something fairly “bad” to be deported. They basically did it to themselves, but their kids are safe.

Second, the kids are safely in the US in your original example. They aren’t being sent back with a parent to a horrible situation from their home country. I don’t think you realize how awful the conditions are in the Central American countries right now- these folks are fleeing because they fear for their lives. Their choices are bad and worse at the moment they decide to try for asylum.

So, the situations aren’t the same, as you claim. Not even close.

Because Trump wants his border wall, he’s willing to hold kids hostage. Literally.
 
Well, you are turning traditional conservative philosophy entirely on its head with your economic arguments.

Trumpian populists have latched onto this position in the modern era....but it isn't a modern phenomenon. Anti-immigrant populism has always existed as an undercurrent of American politics since the very early years of our nation.

But if someone is a high school dropout with so few skills that a dirt poor immigrant that doesn't even speak the language displaces them....isn't that more on that person? Where is the conservative pillar of personal responsibility that's so fervently leaned on in basically every other public policy arena?

If studies broadly show immigration raises overall GDP....shouldn't that be the main focus of policy makers?

No different than free trade policies for goods? (not surprisingly, also under attack by the Trumpian populists)
You notice that he never answered my question of whether he actually cares about any of this. He doesn't answer because he doesn't actually care. For my part I actually do care about this. We don't do nearly enough to redistribute from the winners in trade deals to the losers. The research as I read it is positive on immigration from economists across the political spectrum. The biggest problem is exploitation of people without legal status by unscrupulous business. The easiest solution to that is to make sure that we have enough legal immigration and to move immigrants more quickly to full citizenship. That we don't do this is much more a consequence of political/cultural concerns rather than economic concerns.
There’s absolutely no guarantee that the current situation ensures that kids are placed back with their parents. That’s a fallacy.

And in your original example, two things differ from the current situation.

First, the deported kids are citizens, that presumably would have some type of family already here in the states. And, their parents had to do something fairly “bad” to be deported. They basically did it to themselves, but their kids are safe.

Second, the kids are safely in the US in your original example. They aren’t being sent back with a parent to a horrible situation from their home country. I don’t think you realize how awful the conditions are in the Central American countries right now- these folks are fleeing because they fear for their lives. Their choices are bad and worse at the moment they decide to try for asylum.

So, the situations aren’t the same, as you claim. Not even close.

Because Trump wants his border wall, he’s willing to hold kids hostage. Literally.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livew...-admins-family-separations-could-be-permanent
The former acting director of ICE says many of the kids that have been separated from the parents will become, effectively, orphans.
“If they don’t reunite these kids with their parents right away, what can happen is the kids will be stuck here in the United States for years. Guardians will be appointed. And the parent will be down in Honduras or Guatemala with no idea where their child is and no meaningful way to reunite.”​
 
I did not miss that. Legal immigration is your neighbor asking for the sugar and you giving it to them. You lose out on some sugar but you helped out. And yeah, your kids maybe did not get the benefit of it, but your community is better because of your willingness to help. Nobody is arguing against that.

Illegal immigration, the neighbor steals your sugar. He then sells it back to the grocery store at a reduced rate. You go to the grocery and buy it back at your regular price. There was an economic impact as the grocer and the thief made money on the sugar but it was offset by your loss. That was done without your consent. That is theft.
Your analogy is ridiculous, but most importantly, it's not supported by the article you shared. The article makes no distinction between legal and illegal immigration. That is a distinction you are making and forcing on it. You are trying to suggest there is some sort of disparate economic impact (selling it to the grocer? really?), but the article doesn't say that.
 
An interesting legal read on the separation policy/non-policy at Lawfare.
The current border situation seems ripe for potential violations, particularly if the agents are not receiving guidance about the appropriate length of detention, ages of children that may be separated, or the combined detention of young children and teenagers. This is not at all to suggest that border patrol agents, or government or contract workers in HHS-supervised facilities are ill-intentioned or lawless. On the contrary, my concern stems from the lack of policy, guidance and oversight they appear to have been given in carrying out a very difficult job.​
 
You notice that he never answered my question of whether he actually cares about any of this. He doesn't answer because he doesn't actually care. For my part I actually do care about this. We don't do nearly enough to redistribute from the winners in trade deals to the losers. The research as I read it is positive on immigration from economists across the political spectrum. The biggest problem is exploitation of people without legal status by unscrupulous business. The easiest solution to that is to make sure that we have enough legal immigration and to move immigrants more quickly to full citizenship. That we don't do this is much more a consequence of political/cultural concerns rather than economic concerns.
The clearest tell is that IUCrazy has linked to a legitimate scholar in an intellectually incoherent way.
  • If IUCrazy were independently concerned about rising income inequality, this wouldn't even hit his radar screen because that phenomenon overwhelmingly occurs at the top of the income distribution and not among low-skill workers.
  • If IUCrazy were independently concerned about low-skill native workers, that concern would presumably manifest in threads that weren't about his president holding migrant children hostage.
  • If IUCrazy were independently concerned about the wage and income effects of immigrants, he'd already know that there's a vast literature on this subject. At one end of the relevant range, scholars find small negative effects on low-skill natives (and other immigrants) but substantial positive effects for everyone else and the economy as a whole. At the other end, scholars find no negative effects and substantial positive effects for everyone. He doesn't recognize that he's just happened into the work of someone at the end of the range that's least unfavorable to his policy prescriptions. And he suggests that small uncertain effects on the wages of low-skill natives have some relevance in a discussion about tearing migrant children from their parents and throwing them in cages.
IUCrazy wants fewer immigrants because he does. He opportunistically makes whatever arguments come to hand, propping up unhinged slurs and lies about "libs" and "open borders". That's bad faith. And for emphasis, it's bad faith in a thread where he and his familiars are acting as apologists for a Deplorable policy decision.
 
The clearest tell is that IUCrazy has linked to a legitimate scholar in an intellectually incoherent way.
  • If IUCrazy were independently concerned about rising income inequality, this wouldn't even hit his radar screen because that phenomenon overwhelmingly occurs at the top of the income distribution and not among low-skill workers.
  • If IUCrazy were independently concerned about low-skill native workers, that concern would presumably manifest in threads that weren't about his president holding migrant children hostage.
  • If IUCrazy were independently concerned about the wage and income effects of immigrants, he'd already know that there's a vast literature on this subject. At one end of the relevant range, scholars find small negative effects on low-skill natives (and other immigrants) but substantial positive effects for everyone else and the economy as a whole. At the other end, scholars find no negative effects and substantial positive effects for everyone. He doesn't recognize that he's just happened into the work of someone at the end of the range that's least unfavorable to his policy prescriptions. And he suggests that small uncertain effects on the wages of low-skill natives have some relevance in a discussion about tearing migrant children from their parents and throwing them in cages.
IUCrazy wants fewer immigrants because he does. He opportunistically makes whatever arguments come to hand, propping up unhinged slurs and lies about "libs" and "open borders". That's bad faith. And for emphasis, it's bad faith in a thread where he and his familiars are acting as apologists for a Deplorable policy decision.
Well, I was happy that Twenty jumped in with good resources on trade. I didn't think IUCrazy was concerned about this on his own behalf. On the other hand lefties like me are concerned. I don't think I learned to much I didn't know.
 
Good to know that you now reject liberal Harvard Professors and now accept the CATO institute as the arbiters of truth....any other link I posted from CATO would normally be shouted down as right wing talking points.

I bet their views on income inequality link up pretty well too. Although if I argued their viewpoint and you posted a rebuttal from a liberal think tank and I dis.issed it, you could make the exact same post.

I'm not concerned with liberal or conservative sources, so I don't reject or accept them based upon their political leaning. I'm concerned with sources that have factual backing that stands up to analysis and peer review. That's how scientific research works even in the soft sciences.

You don't like the criticism, back up Borjas' analysis with some peer review that supports it...or whine and be butthurt. You chose the latter. Sucks to be you.
 
Illegal immigration is theft. It is the same thing as breaking into your neighbor's house and then when you get caught, claim you were just there to borrow sugar (asylum).

Well the proper way to ask for sugar (asylum) is to knock on the front door (port of entry) and ask. Reality is that you are not there for sugar, you were there to get a piece of what your neighbor had. And he may have given it to you if you had properly asked. But you don't get to break into your neighbor's house first and then get to ask nicely after the fact. That is not how the world works.

Jesus says that if your neighbor asks for your coat, you should give that to him along with your shirt. But the opening sequence in that transaction is to ask, not to take. Taking makes you a thief. And yes, all of those people have a hard luck story, so do most thieves. There are people all over the U.S. trying to make a better life for their family who commit crimes and end up in jail, separated from their families and children, because they committed a crime.

Illegal immigrants are thieves. They steal time and resources from the most needy among us. These resources are something we may have willingly offered them had they asked, but after you break in, game over.

It's a bit rich coming from a country of immigrants.
 
https://www.politico.com/magazine/s...-immigration-economy-unemployment-jobs-214216

Theft.

Both low- and high-skilled natives are affected by the influx of immigrants. But because a disproportionate percentage of immigrants have few skills, it is low-skilled American workers, including many blacks and Hispanics, who have suffered most from this wage dip. The monetary loss is sizable. The typical high school dropout earns about $25,000 annually. According to census data, immigrants admitted in the past two decades lacking a high school diploma have increased the size of the low-skilled workforce by roughly 25 percent. As a result, the earnings of this particularly vulnerable group dropped by between $800 and $1,500 each year.
And besides the guy who breaks in, who is the real beneficiary of the wealth? The fencer...the pawn shop owner.

Somebody’s lower wage is always somebody else’s higher profit. In this case, immigration redistributes wealth from those who compete with immigrants to those who use immigrants—from the employee to the employer. And the additional profits are so large that the economic pie accruing to all natives actually grows. I estimate the current “immigration surplus”—the net increase in the total wealth of the native population—to be about$50 billion annually. But behind that calculation is a much larger shift from one group of Americans to another: The total wealth redistribution from the native losers to the native winners is enormous, roughly a half-trillion dollars a year. Immigrants, too, gain substantially; their total earnings far exceed what their income would have been had they not migrated.
So illegal immigration tends to **** over blue collar American workers. It is great for the immigrants coming into the country, their position massively improved. It is also great for business owners who can now get the same level of production at a much lower rate. When you guys bitch about income inequality, does this ever enter the equation?

Oh but wait, there's more theft.

When we look at the overall value of immigration, there’s one more complicating factor: Immigrants receive government assistance at higher rates than natives. The higher cost of all the services provided to immigrants and the lower taxes they pay (because they have lower earnings) inevitably implies that on a year-to-year basis immigration creates a fiscal hole of at least $50 billion—a burden that falls on the native population.

What does it all add up to? The fiscal burden offsets the gain from the $50 billion immigration surplus, so it’s not too farfetched to conclude that immigration has barely affected the total wealth of natives at all. Instead, it has changed how the pie is split, with the losers—the workers who compete with immigrants, many of those being low-skilled Americans—sending a roughly $500 billion check annually to the winners. Those winners are primarily their employers. And the immigrants themselves come out ahead, too. Put bluntly, immigration turns out to be just another income redistribution program.​

So the powers that be will use emotional appeals and will accuse you of things like racism because they and their corporate backers are getting filthy rich off of this process. If you don't think so, have Rockfish post one of his income inequality graphs and compare the timeframe when income inequality explodes to when Reagan (mistakenly) enacted the first amnesty.

yes, the working class has absolutely taken a huge financial hit from mass immigration.

and a psychological one as well, as their employment stability and working conditions take on huge punches to the gut as well, not to mention their ability to take care of their family.

on the other side, even you yourself would never back a world were a person's and his family's entire lot in life, and their safety, all hinges on which side of a man made line drawn on a map they were born, were it you born on the wrong side of that line.

we can all claim our ancestors did this or that to make this nation what it is, but we aren't the ones who built it, and we're just taking credit for the deeds of others when we think we deserve the privilege of being born on the lucky side of the line.

while you totally grasped the message in the article that addressed that absolute fact that the working class have had their lives significantly altered in a negative way by mass immigration, you totally missed the main point of the article.

which was, that there are 2 sides to this crisis, and that both sides have valid life altering ramifications hanging in the balance.

that said, nobody else on this board grasps the "2 sides to the story" thing either, nor is getting that point even of importance to them.

neither you nor the other posters from both sides here are concerned with solving the crisis, only with using it flame the divide.

the political strategy of "never let a good tragedy go to waste", is never so played out than with the immigration debate by both sides.

neither side makes any attempt what so ever to solve the problem for both the working class and the immigrants, but only care about solving it for one side while giving a big "fk u" to the other.

and not solving it for both sides will never bring a lasting solution, because until it's solved for both sides, the other side will never stop attacking a one sided solution that only solves anything for the other side.

the working class took a huge financial and mental hit from mass immigration.

most everyone else financially benefited from it. some immensely.

that said, the working class isn't some obscure niche group. they are the majority of Americans, and the ones who make everything work.

the owner class has made out like bandits financially from mass immigration.

immigrants are never going to stop trying to get into the US, NEVER, and for the economics and financial winners and losers of immigration, it's really totally irrelevant whether they are legal or illegal, as the financial impact, negative or positive, is the same regardless of legal status.

the only lasting, as well as fair, solution to the issue is to allow those unlucky enough to be born on the wrong side of the line to be able to cross to the better side of the line, and for the working class to NOT have to take a life changing financial hit for allowing the less lucky to make that crossing, while the already financially better off make out like bandits financially.

easier said than done, but a living minimum wage, more protectionist policies that keep jobs on shore, a union friendly environment where the ones doing most of the work can leverage some of the gains as well, and a medicare for all type universal health care system, would be good starting points.

as far as who finances things, you can't get blood out of a turnip, and those making the big bucks, are also the ones who have made out great financially from mass immigration.

thus we need tax policies more akin to the days when things weren't so unequal financially, and to shift much of the mass immigration costs from those being killed financially from mass immigration, to those benefiting greatly from it.

immigrants looking for a better life will be much more accepted by the working class, when the working class aren't the ones taking it up the backside from mass immigration, while everyone else benefits from it and can easily take the high road, because it isn't their ox that's being gored.

of course to get that done, everyone needs to say fk u to both political parties and both parties' Wall St mandated economic agendas, and start addressing all issues on their own merit.
 


Youngest migrants held in 'tender age' shelters

https://www.wlns.com/ap-top-news/youngest-migrants-held-in-tender-age-shelters/1249899611

Trump administration officials have been sending babies and other young children forcibly separated from their parents at the U.S.-Mexico border to at least three "tender age" shelters in South Texas, The Associated Press has learned.
Lawyers and medical providers who have visited the Rio Grande Valley shelters described play rooms of crying preschool-age children in crisis. The government also plans to open a fourth shelter to house hundreds of young migrant children in Houston, where city leaders denounced the move Tuesday.

"The thought that they are going to be putting such little kids in an institutional setting? I mean it is hard for me to even wrap my mind around it," said Kay Bellor, vice president for programs at Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, which provides foster care and other child welfare services to migrant children. "Toddlers are being detained."

'Tender Age shelters'. This is what happens when you start to sub-humanise other people. They are part of a process or some legal framework only.

Start to reference them as cockroaches etc next.. ... oh wait!
 
Last edited:
yes, the working class has absolutely taken a huge financial hit from mass immigration.

and a psychological one as well, as their employment stability and working conditions take on huge punches to the gut as well, not to mention their ability to take care of their family.

on the other side, even you yourself would never back a world were a person's and his family's entire lot in life, and their safety, all hinges on which side of a man made line drawn on a map they were born, were it you born on the wrong side of that line.

we can all claim our ancestors did this or that to make this nation what it is, but we aren't the ones who built it, and we're just taking credit for the deeds of others when we think we deserve the privilege of being born on the lucky side of the line.

while you totally grasped the message in the article that addressed that absolute fact that the working class have had their lives significantly altered in a negative way by mass immigration, you totally missed the main point of the article.

which was, that there are 2 sides to this crisis, and that both sides have valid life altering ramifications hanging in the balance.

that said, nobody else on this board grasps the "2 sides to the story" thing either, nor is getting that point even of importance to them.

neither you nor the other posters from both sides here are concerned with solving the crisis, only with using it flame the divide.

the political strategy of "never let a good tragedy go to waste", is never so played out than with the immigration debate by both sides.

neither side makes any attempt what so ever to solve the problem for both the working class and the immigrants, but only care about solving it for one side while giving a big "fk u" to the other.

and not solving it for both sides will never bring a lasting solution, because until it's solved for both sides, the other side will never stop attacking a one sided solution that only solves anything for the other side.

the working class took a huge financial and mental hit from mass immigration.

most everyone else financially benefited from it. some immensely.

that said, the working class isn't some obscure niche group. they are the majority of Americans, and the ones who make everything work.

the owner class has made out like bandits financially from mass immigration.

immigrants are never going to stop trying to get into the US, NEVER, and for the economics and financial winners and losers of immigration, it's really totally irrelevant whether they are legal or illegal, as the financial impact, negative or positive, is the same regardless of legal status.

the only lasting, as well as fair, solution to the issue is to allow those unlucky enough to be born on the wrong side of the line to be able to cross to the better side of the line, and for the working class to NOT have to take a life changing financial hit for allowing the less lucky to make that crossing, while the already financially better off make out like bandits financially.

easier said than done, but a living minimum wage, more protectionist policies that keep jobs on shore, a union friendly environment where the ones doing most of the work can leverage some of the gains as well, and a medicare for all type universal health care system, would be good starting points.

as far as who finances things, you can't get blood out of a turnip, and those making the big bucks, are also the ones who have made out great financially from mass immigration.

thus we need tax policies more akin to the days when things weren't so unequal financially, and to shift much of the mass immigration costs from those being killed financially from mass immigration, to those benefiting greatly from it.

immigrants looking for a better life will be much more accepted by the working class, when the working class aren't the ones taking it up the backside from mass immigration, while everyone else benefits from it and can easily take the high road, because it isn't their ox that's being gored.

of course to get that done, everyone needs to say fk u to both political parties and both parties' Wall St mandated economic agendas, and start addressing all issues on their own merit.
Wowl That’s a whole lot of effort to type something very few will attempt to read. Why do you post that way? There has to be a reason. With today’s autocorrect technology you have to be spending a ton of time uncorrecting the correcting . . . Your posting style is a mystery I’d love to solve.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrBing
Wowl That’s a whole lot of effort to type something very few will attempt to read. Why do you post that way? There has to be a reason. With today’s autocorrect technology you have to be spending a ton of time uncorrecting the correcting . . . Your posting style is a mystery I’d love to solve.
Why don't you just put him on ignore?
 
Wowl That’s a whole lot of effort to type something very few will attempt to read. Why do you post that way? There has to be a reason. With today’s autocorrect technology you have to be spending a ton of time uncorrecting the correcting . . . Your posting style is a mystery I’d love to solve.

I use Grammarly as an extension on my browser -- makes life easy but man, does it screw up with my ability to spell without it. I cant retrieve from my memory bank the letters without it now!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aloha Hoosier
Now we know what is happening to the babies, toddlers, and young children. They are being held in three "tender age shelters," with a fourth already planned. Lawyers and doctors who visited the sites say they appear to be clean and well-run, but also described playrooms full of crying children.

https://apnews.com/dc0c9a5134d14862...n=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP
These people are sociopaths. Pro Publica puts out a gut-wrenching audio of distraught children sobbing and begging for their parents. But 90 percent of Republicans approve of what Trump is doing. Because the hostage children are placed in what Laura Ingraham calls summer camp. And that's the right thing to do because [dishonest incoherent bullshit].

For reasons best known to themselves, Trump supporters have decided to double down on terrorizing children to accomplish their ends. If only there were no annoying liberals like me to trigger this reprehensible behavior. One can only gape in wonder at the reality that they became capable of such obstinate dumbassery before liberals triggered it. How can such a thing possibly have occurred?
 
Now we know what is happening to the babies, toddlers, and young children. They are being held in three "tender age shelters," with a fourth already planned. Lawyers and doctors who visited the sites say they appear to be clean and well-run, but also described playrooms full of crying children.

https://apnews.com/dc0c9a5134d14862...n=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP

So this is what happens when the “Christians” take over the government.
 
These people are sociopaths. Pro Publica puts out a gut-wrenching audio of distraught children sobbing and begging for their parents. But 90 percent of Republicans approve of what Trump is doing. Because the hostage children are placed in what Laura Ingraham calls summer camp. And that's the right thing to do because [dishonest incoherent bullshit].

For reasons best known to themselves, Trump supporters have decided to double down on terrorizing children to accomplish their ends. If only there were no annoying liberals like me to trigger this reprehensible behavior. One can only gape in wonder at the reality that they became capable of such obstinate dumbassery before liberals triggered it. How can such a thing possibly have occurred?

It’s too bad you democrats have to be so cruel to these children.
 
Or maybe they are knocking the growing evidence the NYC FBI was working for Trump off of the front page?

We need a solution to this problem. The link posted elsewhere, by Bruce I believe, spoke of progressive dissatisfaction with Obama's policies. It was from a liberal source. There is a problem to just handing the kids over to people in the US as we know some of these kids are victims of human trafficking. A paternity test, a decent one, can take 1-2 days. Maybe we could require DNA testing and if the test fails, the kids are placed in facilities. If successful, housed with parents?
Marvin, this is a general comment I am making now. But in the past I have seen Democrats hate the consequences of laws they pass, and then their solution is to have more government. Reagan was right when he said that many times government is the problem. If Congress wants to pass a law which allows parents and children to be together as the parent's claim assylum (which is the reason why they are separated in the first place) then let them battle it out in the House and Senate. Their job is the pass laws not complain when written laws are followed.
 
These people are sociopaths. Pro Publica puts out a gut-wrenching audio of distraught children sobbing and begging for their parents. But 90 percent of Republicans approve of what Trump is doing. Because the hostage children are placed in what Laura Ingraham calls summer camp. And that's the right thing to do because [dishonest incoherent bullshit].

For reasons best known to themselves, Trump supporters have decided to double down on terrorizing children to accomplish their ends. If only there were no annoying liberals like me to trigger this reprehensible behavior. One can only gape in wonder at the reality that they became capable of such obstinate dumbassery before liberals triggered it. How can such a thing possibly have occurred?
Who put those children in that position? It was their parents who sent them here, many times in dangerous circumstances. Rock be honest would you send your children with strangers on a trip lasting many months without you being with them? It was the parents fault. We can't have people who think they can flood into a nation illegally. It's amazing how many of you lawyers don't understand illegal. I thought this was what lawyers understood and fought for.
 
It's a bit rich coming from a country of immigrants.
Legal immigrants. The Italians who came here illegally without going through Ellis Island were called WOPS. With out Papers. They were looked down upon. Bobby Kennedy actually deported a mobster named Carlos Marcello, sent him down to South America because he was in the country illegally. People gloss over this word illegal all the time these days. Illegal means it should not be done. If people want to come here let them go through the front door which is legal. I am all for this by the way. With all the jobs in this country we can use more people to fill them.
 
Legal immigrants. The Italians who came here illegally without going through Ellis Island were called WOPS. With out Papers. They were looked down upon. Bobby Kennedy actually deported a mobster named Carlos Marcello, sent him down to South America because he was in the country illegally. People gloss over this word illegal all the time these days. Illegal means it should not be done. If people want to come here let them go through the front door which is legal. I am all for this by the way. With all the jobs in this country we can use more people to fill them.
This is incorrect. "Wop" is a degraded form of the southern Italian word for "pimp" and has nothing to do with legality. They were hated for being Italian. Nothing more.
 
Marvin, this is a general comment I am making now. But in the past I have seen Democrats hate the consequences of laws they pass, and then their solution is to have more government. Reagan was right when he said that many times government is the problem. If Congress wants to pass a law which allows parents and children to be together as the parent's claim assylum (which is the reason why they are separated in the first place) then let them battle it out in the House and Senate. Their job is the pass laws not complain when written laws are followed.

WTF are you talking about?
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT