Arch Dornan
Oh, lovely. They've sent me a mo-ron.
If CBP's gone who's going to do the border patrol?
United States The United States and Immigration Policy
- Thread starter Big Steve
- Start date
63% of Non-Citizen Households Access Welfare Programs
In 2014, 63% of households headed by a non-citizen reported that they used at least one welfare program, compared to 35 percent of native-headed households.cis.org
You are also talking immigration as a whole. It is highly likely to me that both can of these can be true. Immigrants as a whole can be more likely to be on welfare, and immigrants as a whole can be a net benefit to the economy. This is because you can have for example, one immigrant create a hundred jobs, 49 create zero, and the net would be two jobs created for every immigrant. That doesnt mean all immigrants are creating jobs, it means just that one immigrant who started a successful company did. What that means is that currently there are immigrants providing heavily, and currently immigrants detracting from the economy. That would mean that just by virtue of being an immigrant you do not provide a net benefit to the economy, and would also mean that simply taking in more and more immigrants would not necessarily benefit the US either.
Do you have any other source that actually supports this conjecture? Your report comes from an organization whose stated purpose is to promote policies to reduce the volume of immigration, so forgive me if I doubt its objectivity--as I said, the vast majority of other analysis of the economic impact of immigration is positive. Even if an immigrant doesn't directly create a job by being a businessperson, they are still purchasing products made by American businesses, working for American companies, paying American taxes, and so forth, all of which contribute positively to the wealth of the country and indirectly create jobs by generating more revenue for other job-creators. That's not even to account for the benefits that they provide by building families, raising children, contributing to civic life, and so forth.
There are gofundmes for a lot of things--the mere fact that many people are willing to give money to a cause says nothing about how wise or effective it is, as the state of plenty of charities should tell you. Local knowledge is certainly not enough to make a decision about the incredibly complex issue of national interest that the wall represents (for one, what about the interests of all the people who don't live on the border but are still being asked to contribute their tax money to this wild scheme?), and as I said it used to be precisely the Republican party that was against this sort of ill-considered populism. That it has abandoned this spirit now is frankly truly a shame.
Arch Dornan
Oh, lovely. They've sent me a mo-ron.
If that's how you feel sure.
Money tends to get wasted anyway somewhere in the budget or go under corruption.
To do something about why you shouldn't go for a wall though requires a bigger platform than this forum.
Im not contesting the idea it is a net positive currently within America. What I am arguing is that I do not believe every last immigrant does so nor is that a guarantee, and that if you change the parameters of allowed immigration as it is now, it is entirely possible to diminish or reverse it from positive to negative. Then there is the factor that the voting patterns and policy support of the current major immigrant groups are for more and larger government, more taxes and government programs and more regulations. I am against all of this, and I believe many politicians who support more immigration cynically support immigration as they know this and knows it wins them votes.
If this sort of thing were that easy, then frankly it would already be done. How exactly do you control for which immigrant will, say, raise children that could become a great doctor, or who might start a business that could employ many people? It's impossible to predict how productive somebody is going to be after they enter the country--we can only work off of generalities, and generally immigrants are economically beneficial, so legal immigration should be expanded.
I'm actually not sure we disagree on this count--if you believe that immigration is currently a net positive, do you also believe that to some extent it could stand to be expanded as a result? I don't see any reason to believe that the current ill-conceived system is ideal, after all, and if we accept that the current immigrants are good then at the very least the arbitrary rate limits that restrict present immigration could stand to be expanded even without touching other qualifications.
You certainly can work to control for that to some degree. I think it should be expanded to some degree and closed in others. Meritorious immigration, immigration of the skilled and wealthy, and also political refugees of communist, socialist and otherwise authoritarian nations are who I think should be favored for us. Chain migration, illegal and low skilled or educated or diversity green cards no. I think its a damn shame we ended the safe harbor for Cubans. There is also the above to consider. If I read you right you come off as something of a libertarian or at least with those leanings. Does the fact that current immigrant groups are likely to vote heavily against most libertarian ideals factor in to you to any capacity?
If you believe that the current American immigration policies are a net positive though, then this applies just as much to the policies you oppose than it does to high-skill immigration. The diversity lottery, for instance, has experience and education requirements on top of the general immigration qualifications—I don’t see any reason why it should be done away with. There’s no reason to believe that a immigrant with a high school education and several years of work experience is going to be any more of a burden to the country than a native citizen with the same qualifications is, and in fact much reason to suspect that they would be less of one. Even if they don’t bring in large amounts of wealth or highly skilled labor, they’re still working in American workplaces, buying American products, paying American taxes, and raising American children, all of which benefit the country on net. We should be taking in more of such people, not less.
I’m not a libertarian, and even if I was the notion that we should not allow people to immigrate purely based on their likely politics strikes me as both incredibly inexact and rather dangerous. Moreover, immigrants have no more opposition to a sensible market system than native citizens do, and in fact the entrepreneurial spirit many immigrants have means they may even have less. That they oppose certain pro-market politicians has far more to do with those own politicians’ failings in the present political climate than any qualify of immigrants
Not politicians, policies. When asked purely on policy they favor bigger government, more regulation, and more government services.
Yes, because political affiliation demonstrably has a sorting effect on people's overall politics--there's no inherent reason why, for instance, black people should be more likely to be tolerant of homosexuality than white people, but they are because black people tend to be politically affiliated with the party and the politicians that are tolerant of homosexuality. Remove that, and I don't see any reason to believe why immigrants will be any more hostile to the free market than native-born Americans.
Odd you used that example because blacks are actually the least likely demographic by race to support same sex marriage.
Attitudes on Same-Sex Marriage
In Pew Research Center polling in 2001, Americans opposed same-sex marriage by a margin of 57% to 35%. Since then, support for same-sex marriage has steadily grown.
www.pewforum.org
Its just frankly not true in the slightest.
Because they tend to come from nations more hostile to the free market and a more hands off government.
Odd you used that example because blacks are actually the least likely demographic by race to support same sex marriage.
Attitudes on Same-Sex Marriage
In Pew Research Center polling in 2001, Americans opposed same-sex marriage by a margin of 57% to 35%. Since then, support for same-sex marriage has steadily grown.
Its just frankly not true in the slightest.
Ah, my apologies--black people are more likely to be tolerant of homosexuality controlling for religiosity than white people was what I meant to say, but I'm having trouble tracking down the source and I might just be misremembering this entirely and I'll retract the point. Nonetheless, I'd argue that the broader argument still stands--political affiliation demonstrably has a powerful sorting effect, given the big tent nature of American parties. Why is somebody who supports socialism also more likely to support social liberalism? These two things aren't actually all that connected, and ex nihilo you would expect an even split between them--it's the sorting effect that tends to make them co-occur.
Cultural faith in the free market is an almost uniquely Anglo-American trait, and it was no more shared by the previous waves of immigration that came to the US from Ireland and Italy and Poland and Russia and so forth than it was by our current immigrants--that culture of the free market was destroyed a long, long time ago, and you can't put that genie back in the bottle again. Present American culture supports the free market not because of any inherent cultural trait but because of its demonstrable success in ensuring prosperity, and I don't see any reason to believe why this won't hold true for the current wave of immigrants in the long-term just as it did for all the past ones, so as long as it continues to demonstrate its success. Almost all the Italians were socialists when they came. Almost all the Poles were socialists when they came. Almost all the Russians were socialists when they came. How true is that now? The history of American socialism is filled with the influence of new immigrant populations, yet somehow we managed. I don't see any reason to believe that won't be true again.
What.
That's not how it is in actuality. Blacks & Hispanics are much more anti-LGBT than whites, on average.
Attitudes on Same-Sex Marriage
In Pew Research Center polling in 2001, Americans opposed same-sex marriage by a margin of 57% to 35%. Since then, support for same-sex marriage has steadily grown.
www.pewforum.org
Because they have been more hostile to it for over 20 years, well before Trump:
Latino vote - Wikipedia
Hispanics Favor Bigger Role for Government
Three-quarters of U.S. Hispanics prefer a big government which provides more services to a small one providing fewer services. This figure is significally lower among the public at large.
www.pewresearch.org
Chapter 9: Social and Political Views
Opposition to same-sex marriage among Latinos has declined in recent years, mirroring a trend seen in the U.S. general public. However, there are
www.pewforum.org
While most of them don't have immigration as priority in proportion to their support of big government:
Top issue for Hispanics? Hint: It’s not immigration
There are several issues that consistently rank higher on the list than immigration.
www.pewresearch.org
It's not that complicated:
In the modern socialist movements I would argue they are highly connected. Its a big tent. You dont believe all the same things but you support enough of them in common with one of the two parties to vote for that party. That doesnt mean you just adopt that parties positions identically.
I would be interested in seeing a citation on the socialist immigrants bit, by the way.
The point about black people and homosexuality was made in error and I apologize for it, as I said earlier I retract the claim.
As for the big government matter--again, are you familiar with the history of American immigrant politics? Most immigrants right now favor big government policy but this has always been true. German-, Irish-, Italian-, and Russian- Americans, for instance, all played a massively important role in the early history of American socialism. It's the demonstrable success of free market policies that has led immigrants to support them, not the other way around. Like I said, cultural dedication to limited government is more or less entirely unique to Anglo-American culture, and that culture was destroyed by immigration a long time ago, and that genie will never be put back into the bottle. Current America supports the free market because it is successful, not because of some inherent cultural quality, and so as long as it continues to be successful, it will continue to win converts.
Obviously given how long ago a lot of this happened opinion polling of politics by demographic doesn't exist for this, but the influence of German, Italian, and Irish immigrants on the early socialist/communist movement in America in particular is well-recorded. Just look at a list of the founders of the CPUSA, for instance--CE Ruthenberg (German), Louis Fraina (Italian), Alfred Wagenknecht (German), Jay Lovestone (Russian), Ben Gitlow (Russian), Alexander Bittleman (Russian). Same goes for the IWW's founders--James Connolly (Irish), Daniel De Leon (Dutch), Thomas Hagarty (Irish), Mother Jones (Irish), Frank Bohn (German), William Trautman (German), etc. Emma Goldman? Russian. Victor Berger? Romanian. Morris Hillquit? Russian. Emil Siedel? German. Carl Ziedler? German. Meyer London? Russian. These people were, of course, a fringe, but this held true generally as well--a cursory examination of the New Deal Coalition will reveal the degree to which it was supported by immigrant populations such as Catholics, Jews, etc., and it's only the demonstrable success of later free market policies that have gradually moved these populations away from the Democrats in periods like the Reagan era.
@OliverCromwell almost all communists being immigrants does not make almost all immigrants communist or socialist, especially when talking about a fringe minority.
I outright said this as well, which is why I also brought up the strong connections between immigrant populations and the New Deal Coalition right afterwards.
You outright said these immigrant groups when arriving in the US were almost all socialist.
Yes, because the New Deal was watered down socialism and these immigrant groups broadly supported that at the time, which is my whole point.
Barely. It was highly favorable to large corporations and gave them a ton of support.
master arminas
New member
Question: if the contributions of illegal aliens (aka non-documented workers) contribute to the economy of these United States, does that mean that they should still be rewarded for violating the border (and the laws) of the US of A? Does that mean that they, by virtue of breaking the laws of the United States (or at least being in violation of various ordinances) have a greater right to stay in the country than the prospective immigrant who files the proper paperwork and waits for approval for his VISA and/or Green Card?
Because, in my own humble opinion, which can--of course--be wrong, rewarding those who break the law by giving them preferential treatment over those those who FOLLOW the laws as written is simply wrong. It isn't right. It is a miscarriage of justice. And by telling people that . . . "well, you came here without having any legal authorization to be in the country, but we are going to let you stay." Well. That is a just a slap in the face of all of those prospective immigrants trying to do it RIGHT. In compliance with the law.
Send the undocumented worker back to his native country. Send his family back to his native country. Let immigration into OUR country be by those who respect our laws.
That is what I believe. That is what I support.
Because, in my own humble opinion, which can--of course--be wrong, rewarding those who break the law by giving them preferential treatment over those those who FOLLOW the laws as written is simply wrong. It isn't right. It is a miscarriage of justice. And by telling people that . . . "well, you came here without having any legal authorization to be in the country, but we are going to let you stay." Well. That is a just a slap in the face of all of those prospective immigrants trying to do it RIGHT. In compliance with the law.
Send the undocumented worker back to his native country. Send his family back to his native country. Let immigration into OUR country be by those who respect our laws.
That is what I believe. That is what I support.