|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 05 2014 10:51 Introvert wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 05 2014 10:29 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 09:31 Introvert wrote:On September 05 2014 02:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 05 2014 02:04 Sub40APM wrote:On September 04 2014 16:10 Introvert wrote:On September 04 2014 15:48 Sub40APM wrote:On September 04 2014 14:54 Introvert wrote:On September 04 2014 13:50 Danglars wrote:A report released Wednesday by researchers at USC found that immigrants who are in California illegally make up nearly 10% of the state's workforce and contribute $130 billion annually to its gross domestic product.
The study, which was conducted in conjunction with the California Immigrant Policy Center, was based on census data and other statistics, including data from the Department of Labor and the Department of Homeland Security. It looked at a variety of ways the estimated 2.6 million immigrants living in California without permission participate in state life.[...]
Among the study's findings:
Immigrants who are in California illegally make up 38% of the agriculture industry and 14% of the construction industry statewide.
Half of the immigrants in the state illegally have been here for at least 10 years.
Roughly 58% do not have health insurance.
Nearly three in four live in households that include U.S. citizens. LA TimesThis drink's to immigration laws! I'm just blown away my state's governor will tell Mexicans they are "Welcome in California", but of course he'd be tarred and feathered if he ever came out in favor of enforcing current federal immigration law. I don't understand this place. I can only hope that our craziness can serve as a warning to other states- "see, this is how you ruin a once great state!" If it weren't for the higher education and natural beauty.... I'd try to leave. What exactly did the immigrants ruin in California? Should have been more clear- I was speaking generally. This story displays what must be a symptom of insanity. That and supporting a failed high speed rail project with billions from taxpayers and magical outside investors who don't appear. Second, the post was about illegal immigrants. Not legal immigrants- I know in the liberal mind they are all the same. Brown certainly think so- he's such a panderer. There's pretty much no major Democrat constituency that he will confront, though he tires to make that impression. Hence the president of Mexico, who I hear isn't even so nice about immigration laws in his own country, comes here and praises us for our "immigrant friendly" laws. Like letting illegal immigrants get driver's licenses. Arizona can't enforce federal immigration law when it wants to, but politicians in California get away with ignoring the law over here. We should get some federal agency on that! We need a lawsuit! It's all just so silly. I'm sure Caesar Chavez would be proud... You'll have to excuse me. Seeing this insanity so close up causes me a large amount of annoyance. But other than describing the fact that there are a lot of illegal immigrants in California and not that many in Mexico you havent explained exactly what the illegal immigrants have done to 'ruin california' Well 'they' didn't and even Californians know that...They do make a great scapegoat though... I find it especially ironic that every once in a while the 'illegal immigrants' sometimes have family ties to the land that go back long before any white people were here to forcibly take it. The US sometimes reminds me of the kid from Big Daddy... Once we gain the advantage, change the rules to prevent anyone from obtaining a similar advantage in a similar way (domestic and foreign). Like families still on the Forbes list today who sold heroin and cocaine to help build that fortune. Or the people who use the historical ties to Israel to justify Jewish occupation but then turn around and say Mexicans historic claims mean nothing... Well, there are the costs of public services for illegals, who don't pay taxes for those services. Things such as education (which the state is required to provide), hospitals (same), etc... but I won't post the data because it wasn't really my point. It's easy to google. Granted, I don't know if it amounts to 130 billion. I could just make the Caesar Chavez argument that importing lower wage illegal immigrants harms the citizen/legal immigrant workers by driving wages down (and in Chavez's day, they were used as strike breakers). But I'm no economist. I do, however, value the citizen/legal worker more than the illegal one. But I was making a general point that actually tied into what GH said about scapegoats. You do realize that in California they are used as political pawns, right? You think Republicans are the only ones who use illegal immigration as an issue? What do you think these laws giving them driver's licenses are? It's not the illegals who can vote for or against that! Nevermind the fact that it gives the perverse incentive for more to come and break the law. So... I saw you agree with xDaunt's simple "close the backdoor, open the front door." This is not what states like CA do. By the way, if your family has roots here, and has stayed here, then you were made a citizen... CA became a state in 1850. Not exactly yesterday. There's more to it than that, but it needn't be said. It wasn't really the point. So are you still (or were you in the first place?) suggesting illegal immigrants ruined California because I didn't really see that argument made? How the hell do you come to the distorted idea that they don't pay taxes towards those services? I just actually have no idea how you could come to that conclusion...? Well making the distinction between the two based purely on their legal status implies that we have a practical/functional way for them to legally immigrate/work in the first place, which I think everyone on all sides of the spectrum agrees doesn't exist. I would agree that immigrants are used as political pawns on both sides, it just so happens one side happens to be arguing to give them a better more American life and the other is just arguing why/how to deny them such. Finally I was talking about most border states(not California exclusively) and as I'm sure you know it wasn't exactly the most hospitable place for people of Mexican heritage at various times. Show nested quote +So are you still (or were you in the first place?) suggesting illegal immigrants ruined California because I didn't really see that argument made?
How the hell do you come to the distorted idea that they don't pay taxes towards those services? I just actually have no idea how you could come to that conclusion...? That wasn't the argument I was making, no. More is going wrong in this state than illegal immigration. We could devote an entire thread to the dysfunction and perhaps even criminality of the state government (4 of 40 state senators are currently suspended, pending criminal charges.) The Democrats in California take affirmative steps to open the "backdoor." The Republicans occasionally try to stop it. It's not like they are re-introducing school segregation. It's a reaction. If the democrats didn't try all this crap there wouldn't be a counter-push. It seems logical to believe that outside of overall GDP growth, that using cheaper laborers that work below the minimum wage probably reinforces the cycle. More Americans won't do those jobs for those wages. This hurts legal workers who need those jobs. I could be wrong here though, as I said. Why reduce their wages or opportunities (the "American life") for the sake of someone who crept over the border? What makes that immigrant more deserving of it than the one who spent the time and toil to follow the rules? Certain sectors are profiting from flat out breaking the law. That's not something I can support, and that's where a lot of my objection to this comes from. Show nested quote +
Well making the distinction between the two based purely on their legal status implies that we have a practical/functional way for them to legally immigrate/work in the first place, which I think everyone on all sides of the spectrum agrees doesn't exist.
I would agree that immigrants are used as political pawns on both sides, it just so happens one side happens to be arguing to give them a better more American life and the other is just arguing why/how to deny them such.
Illegal immigrants don't pay the same taxes that go to things like medical, local taxes that pay for schools, etc. At least not in the same way. Of course they don't avoid ALL taxes, e.g. sales taxes. If this has to be explained to you yet again then there is no point. Let's just say that a broken system isn't an excuse to break the law. If they want to have the "American life" then come in the front. Seriously, if you actually agreed with the closed back door open front then you wouldn't support doing things that open the backdoor wider.
Ok I didn't comment on California specifically but I guess I would support having them get licenses. I see a lot of positives and not a lot of negatives.
Other policies I guess would have to be evaluated on their own merits.
Also you said "I'm not an economist" so I'm not going to go into the wage argument.
I'm also not commenting on the value of either sides argument (narrative) just that one sounds pretty scroogy (It could be true that basically 'we can't afford it' [I don't buy it, but it could be true]).
As for the tax argument since you admitted/clarified that illegal immigrants do pay taxes to pay for the services you mentioned it seems it would be easier to understand what you are trying to say by explaining which taxes, towards which services, you think they are not paying? Numbers/percentages (even estimates) would be nice but I don't expect them.
I'm actually far right of most here on immigration in general. My problem is our hypocrisy more than our policy (though I see it's broken). I used to say tear down the statue of liberty, but now my frugality has kicked in and I say just change the inscription. But having that message and our immigration policy at the same time is far more shameful, than hearing that message and coming here, legally or not...
|
On September 05 2014 09:46 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 01:49 Simberto wrote:On September 05 2014 01:21 IgnE wrote:
It's called economic multipliers . . . That statement doesn't make sense. The GDP per capita in California is 51k. Thus, the average person in California adds ~50k to the GDP total. Unless you want to assume that every person adds the same amount to GDP no matter how much they work, we must assume that there is some difference in how much they add. Thus, some people must add less that 50k. I think it is a reasonable assumption to think that the amount someone adds to the GDP is roughly correlated to their income. Thus, lower income people add less to the GDP. Which sounds fair considering they also get less reward out of the GDP. No amount of "economic multiplying" whatever that is even supposed to mean is going to change that. Let's put it this way. Assume some person in SF makes $1,000,000 a year and has a gigantic yard and they need to maintain it, so they hire some guy for $20k a year to maintain it for them. That rich persons income adds $1,000,000 to the measured economy of California, AND the hiring of the yard worker adds $20k to the measured economy of California as well. From that initial $1,000,000, the total measured GDP of this property is measured at $1,020,000. That is a multiplier. Believe it or not, but economic multipliers are higher for a low-income individual's income than high-income. As they spend roughly their entire paycheck, they provide demand for more products and services, which increases employment and wages, which then does the same thing all over again. As each job is added, as each paycheck is raised, more is added to the economy. At some point, saturation is reached as wages refuse to rise and no more people are hired, because some money always goes to repay capital investment, which is higher income and has a smaller multiplier.
But using your example, GDP per head plummets from $1 million per capita to $510k per capita. The low wage worker helps the economy but if the cost of living in this scenario is $500k, the new worker has become a huge drain on the economy because he requires $480k in welfare from the other person. You're spitting on a cupcake and calling it frosting.
I think it is highly misleading to not figure a real multiplier (simply assuming it is greater, much greater, than 1) and any model that doesn't bake in the law of diminishing returns is just flat out wrong.
|
On September 05 2014 11:12 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 09:46 aksfjh wrote:On September 05 2014 01:49 Simberto wrote:On September 05 2014 01:21 IgnE wrote:
It's called economic multipliers . . . That statement doesn't make sense. The GDP per capita in California is 51k. Thus, the average person in California adds ~50k to the GDP total. Unless you want to assume that every person adds the same amount to GDP no matter how much they work, we must assume that there is some difference in how much they add. Thus, some people must add less that 50k. I think it is a reasonable assumption to think that the amount someone adds to the GDP is roughly correlated to their income. Thus, lower income people add less to the GDP. Which sounds fair considering they also get less reward out of the GDP. No amount of "economic multiplying" whatever that is even supposed to mean is going to change that. Let's put it this way. Assume some person in SF makes $1,000,000 a year and has a gigantic yard and they need to maintain it, so they hire some guy for $20k a year to maintain it for them. That rich persons income adds $1,000,000 to the measured economy of California, AND the hiring of the yard worker adds $20k to the measured economy of California as well. From that initial $1,000,000, the total measured GDP of this property is measured at $1,020,000. That is a multiplier. Believe it or not, but economic multipliers are higher for a low-income individual's income than high-income. As they spend roughly their entire paycheck, they provide demand for more products and services, which increases employment and wages, which then does the same thing all over again. As each job is added, as each paycheck is raised, more is added to the economy. At some point, saturation is reached as wages refuse to rise and no more people are hired, because some money always goes to repay capital investment, which is higher income and has a smaller multiplier. But using your example, GDP per head plummets from $1 million per capita to $510k per capita. The low wage worker helps the economy but if the cost of living in this scenario is $500k, the new worker has become a huge drain on the economy because he requires $480k in welfare from the other person. I think it is highly misleading to not figure a real multiplier (simply assuming it is greater, much greater, than 1) and any model that doesn't bake in the law of diminishing returns is just flat out wrong.
You are assuming it has to be "much greater" than 1 without any data. I also have no clue what you are talking about with "requiring 480k in welfare."
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
On September 05 2014 11:12 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 10:51 Introvert wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 05 2014 10:29 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 09:31 Introvert wrote:On September 05 2014 02:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 05 2014 02:04 Sub40APM wrote:On September 04 2014 16:10 Introvert wrote:On September 04 2014 15:48 Sub40APM wrote:On September 04 2014 14:54 Introvert wrote:On September 04 2014 13:50 Danglars wrote:A report released Wednesday by researchers at USC found that immigrants who are in California illegally make up nearly 10% of the state's workforce and contribute $130 billion annually to its gross domestic product.
The study, which was conducted in conjunction with the California Immigrant Policy Center, was based on census data and other statistics, including data from the Department of Labor and the Department of Homeland Security. It looked at a variety of ways the estimated 2.6 million immigrants living in California without permission participate in state life.[...]
Among the study's findings:
Immigrants who are in California illegally make up 38% of the agriculture industry and 14% of the construction industry statewide.
Half of the immigrants in the state illegally have been here for at least 10 years.
Roughly 58% do not have health insurance.
Nearly three in four live in households that include U.S. citizens. LA TimesThis drink's to immigration laws! I'm just blown away my state's governor will tell Mexicans they are "Welcome in California", but of course he'd be tarred and feathered if he ever came out in favor of enforcing current federal immigration law. I don't understand this place. I can only hope that our craziness can serve as a warning to other states- "see, this is how you ruin a once great state!" If it weren't for the higher education and natural beauty.... I'd try to leave. What exactly did the immigrants ruin in California? Should have been more clear- I was speaking generally. This story displays what must be a symptom of insanity. That and supporting a failed high speed rail project with billions from taxpayers and magical outside investors who don't appear. Second, the post was about illegal immigrants. Not legal immigrants- I know in the liberal mind they are all the same. Brown certainly think so- he's such a panderer. There's pretty much no major Democrat constituency that he will confront, though he tires to make that impression. Hence the president of Mexico, who I hear isn't even so nice about immigration laws in his own country, comes here and praises us for our "immigrant friendly" laws. Like letting illegal immigrants get driver's licenses. Arizona can't enforce federal immigration law when it wants to, but politicians in California get away with ignoring the law over here. We should get some federal agency on that! We need a lawsuit! It's all just so silly. I'm sure Caesar Chavez would be proud... You'll have to excuse me. Seeing this insanity so close up causes me a large amount of annoyance. But other than describing the fact that there are a lot of illegal immigrants in California and not that many in Mexico you havent explained exactly what the illegal immigrants have done to 'ruin california' Well 'they' didn't and even Californians know that...They do make a great scapegoat though... I find it especially ironic that every once in a while the 'illegal immigrants' sometimes have family ties to the land that go back long before any white people were here to forcibly take it. The US sometimes reminds me of the kid from Big Daddy... Once we gain the advantage, change the rules to prevent anyone from obtaining a similar advantage in a similar way (domestic and foreign). http://youtu.be/8HUvTp8ZcJs?t=7sLike families still on the Forbes list today who sold heroin and cocaine to help build that fortune. Or the people who use the historical ties to Israel to justify Jewish occupation but then turn around and say Mexicans historic claims mean nothing... Well, there are the costs of public services for illegals, who don't pay taxes for those services. Things such as education (which the state is required to provide), hospitals (same), etc... but I won't post the data because it wasn't really my point. It's easy to google. Granted, I don't know if it amounts to 130 billion. I could just make the Caesar Chavez argument that importing lower wage illegal immigrants harms the citizen/legal immigrant workers by driving wages down (and in Chavez's day, they were used as strike breakers). But I'm no economist. I do, however, value the citizen/legal worker more than the illegal one. But I was making a general point that actually tied into what GH said about scapegoats. You do realize that in California they are used as political pawns, right? You think Republicans are the only ones who use illegal immigration as an issue? What do you think these laws giving them driver's licenses are? It's not the illegals who can vote for or against that! Nevermind the fact that it gives the perverse incentive for more to come and break the law. So... I saw you agree with xDaunt's simple "close the backdoor, open the front door." This is not what states like CA do. By the way, if your family has roots here, and has stayed here, then you were made a citizen... CA became a state in 1850. Not exactly yesterday. There's more to it than that, but it needn't be said. It wasn't really the point. So are you still (or were you in the first place?) suggesting illegal immigrants ruined California because I didn't really see that argument made? How the hell do you come to the distorted idea that they don't pay taxes towards those services? I just actually have no idea how you could come to that conclusion...? Well making the distinction between the two based purely on their legal status implies that we have a practical/functional way for them to legally immigrate/work in the first place, which I think everyone on all sides of the spectrum agrees doesn't exist. I would agree that immigrants are used as political pawns on both sides, it just so happens one side happens to be arguing to give them a better more American life and the other is just arguing why/how to deny them such. Finally I was talking about most border states(not California exclusively) and as I'm sure you know it wasn't exactly the most hospitable place for people of Mexican heritage at various times. So are you still (or were you in the first place?) suggesting illegal immigrants ruined California because I didn't really see that argument made?
How the hell do you come to the distorted idea that they don't pay taxes towards those services? I just actually have no idea how you could come to that conclusion...? That wasn't the argument I was making, no. More is going wrong in this state than illegal immigration. We could devote an entire thread to the dysfunction and perhaps even criminality of the state government (4 of 40 state senators are currently suspended, pending criminal charges.) The Democrats in California take affirmative steps to open the "backdoor." The Republicans occasionally try to stop it. It's not like they are re-introducing school segregation. It's a reaction. If the democrats didn't try all this crap there wouldn't be a counter-push. It seems logical to believe that outside of overall GDP growth, that using cheaper laborers that work below the minimum wage probably reinforces the cycle. More Americans won't do those jobs for those wages. This hurts legal workers who need those jobs. I could be wrong here though, as I said. Why reduce their wages or opportunities (the "American life") for the sake of someone who crept over the border? What makes that immigrant more deserving of it than the one who spent the time and toil to follow the rules? Certain sectors are profiting from flat out breaking the law. That's not something I can support, and that's where a lot of my objection to this comes from.
Well making the distinction between the two based purely on their legal status implies that we have a practical/functional way for them to legally immigrate/work in the first place, which I think everyone on all sides of the spectrum agrees doesn't exist.
I would agree that immigrants are used as political pawns on both sides, it just so happens one side happens to be arguing to give them a better more American life and the other is just arguing why/how to deny them such.
Illegal immigrants don't pay the same taxes that go to things like medical, local taxes that pay for schools, etc. At least not in the same way. Of course they don't avoid ALL taxes, e.g. sales taxes. If this has to be explained to you yet again then there is no point. Let's just say that a broken system isn't an excuse to break the law. If they want to have the "American life" then come in the front. Seriously, if you actually agreed with the closed back door open front then you wouldn't support doing things that open the backdoor wider. Ok I didn't comment on California specifically but I guess I would support having them get licenses. I see a lot of positives and not a lot of negatives. Other policies I guess would have to be evaluated on their own merits. Also you said "I'm not an economist" so I'm not going to go into the wage argument. I'm also not commenting on the value of either sides argument (narrative) just that one sounds pretty scroogy (It could be true that basically 'we can't afford it' [I don't buy it, but it could be true]). As for the tax argument since you admitted/clarified that illegal immigrants do pay taxes to pay for the services you mentioned it seems it would be easier to understand what you are trying to say by explaining which taxes, towards which services, you think they are not paying? Numbers/percentages (even estimates) would be nice but I don't expect them. I'm actually far right of most here on immigration in general. My problem is our hypocrisy more than our policy (though I see it's broken). I used to say tear down the statue of liberty, but now my frugality has kicked in and I say just change the inscription. But having that message and our immigration policy at the same time is far more shameful, than hearing that message and coming here, legally or not...
I see the granting of driver's licenses as perverse incentives, if you don't want to go into numbers (wasn't my intention either).
Unless you are an economist and could enlighten me  As far as I'm aware though, that used to be the union position- at least in California. And during the time of Chavez it was undeniably true, since illegals were used as strike breakers more than once. The stuff he said and did about illegal Mexican immigrants... it wouldn't be allowed today, lol.
I have seen no proof that they pay (to borrow a liberal phrase) their "fair share." Google quickly leads to groups claiming both sides, but it seems logical that when you have people who are (again, in the words of the Democrat party) "undocumented" that they would pay less in taxes than the average citizen in their position. This is before benefits for citizens, of course.
My main point is that we have politicians, instead of doing something to discourage illegal immigration and fix legal immigration (whatever may be broken), that they just advocate skirting existing law with new, BS laws. This offends my sensibilities towards law and order
IF you come here to play the game, then you have to play by the rules.
On September 05 2014 11:37 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 11:34 Introvert wrote:On September 05 2014 11:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 05 2014 10:51 Introvert wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 05 2014 10:29 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 09:31 Introvert wrote:On September 05 2014 02:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 05 2014 02:04 Sub40APM wrote:On September 04 2014 16:10 Introvert wrote:On September 04 2014 15:48 Sub40APM wrote:On September 04 2014 14:54 Introvert wrote:On September 04 2014 13:50 Danglars wrote:A report released Wednesday by researchers at USC found that immigrants who are in California illegally make up nearly 10% of the state's workforce and contribute $130 billion annually to its gross domestic product.
The study, which was conducted in conjunction with the California Immigrant Policy Center, was based on census data and other statistics, including data from the Department of Labor and the Department of Homeland Security. It looked at a variety of ways the estimated 2.6 million immigrants living in California without permission participate in state life.[...]
Among the study's findings:
Immigrants who are in California illegally make up 38% of the agriculture industry and 14% of the construction industry statewide.
Half of the immigrants in the state illegally have been here for at least 10 years.
Roughly 58% do not have health insurance.
Nearly three in four live in households that include U.S. citizens. LA TimesThis drink's to immigration laws! I'm just blown away my state's governor will tell Mexicans they are "Welcome in California", but of course he'd be tarred and feathered if he ever came out in favor of enforcing current federal immigration law. I don't understand this place. I can only hope that our craziness can serve as a warning to other states- "see, this is how you ruin a once great state!" If it weren't for the higher education and natural beauty.... I'd try to leave. What exactly did the immigrants ruin in California? Should have been more clear- I was speaking generally. This story displays what must be a symptom of insanity. That and supporting a failed high speed rail project with billions from taxpayers and magical outside investors who don't appear. Second, the post was about illegal immigrants. Not legal immigrants- I know in the liberal mind they are all the same. Brown certainly think so- he's such a panderer. There's pretty much no major Democrat constituency that he will confront, though he tires to make that impression. Hence the president of Mexico, who I hear isn't even so nice about immigration laws in his own country, comes here and praises us for our "immigrant friendly" laws. Like letting illegal immigrants get driver's licenses. Arizona can't enforce federal immigration law when it wants to, but politicians in California get away with ignoring the law over here. We should get some federal agency on that! We need a lawsuit! It's all just so silly. I'm sure Caesar Chavez would be proud... You'll have to excuse me. Seeing this insanity so close up causes me a large amount of annoyance. But other than describing the fact that there are a lot of illegal immigrants in California and not that many in Mexico you havent explained exactly what the illegal immigrants have done to 'ruin california' Well 'they' didn't and even Californians know that...They do make a great scapegoat though... I find it especially ironic that every once in a while the 'illegal immigrants' sometimes have family ties to the land that go back long before any white people were here to forcibly take it. The US sometimes reminds me of the kid from Big Daddy... Once we gain the advantage, change the rules to prevent anyone from obtaining a similar advantage in a similar way (domestic and foreign). http://youtu.be/8HUvTp8ZcJs?t=7sLike families still on the Forbes list today who sold heroin and cocaine to help build that fortune. Or the people who use the historical ties to Israel to justify Jewish occupation but then turn around and say Mexicans historic claims mean nothing... Well, there are the costs of public services for illegals, who don't pay taxes for those services. Things such as education (which the state is required to provide), hospitals (same), etc... but I won't post the data because it wasn't really my point. It's easy to google. Granted, I don't know if it amounts to 130 billion. I could just make the Caesar Chavez argument that importing lower wage illegal immigrants harms the citizen/legal immigrant workers by driving wages down (and in Chavez's day, they were used as strike breakers). But I'm no economist. I do, however, value the citizen/legal worker more than the illegal one. But I was making a general point that actually tied into what GH said about scapegoats. You do realize that in California they are used as political pawns, right? You think Republicans are the only ones who use illegal immigration as an issue? What do you think these laws giving them driver's licenses are? It's not the illegals who can vote for or against that! Nevermind the fact that it gives the perverse incentive for more to come and break the law. So... I saw you agree with xDaunt's simple "close the backdoor, open the front door." This is not what states like CA do. By the way, if your family has roots here, and has stayed here, then you were made a citizen... CA became a state in 1850. Not exactly yesterday. There's more to it than that, but it needn't be said. It wasn't really the point. So are you still (or were you in the first place?) suggesting illegal immigrants ruined California because I didn't really see that argument made? How the hell do you come to the distorted idea that they don't pay taxes towards those services? I just actually have no idea how you could come to that conclusion...? Well making the distinction between the two based purely on their legal status implies that we have a practical/functional way for them to legally immigrate/work in the first place, which I think everyone on all sides of the spectrum agrees doesn't exist. I would agree that immigrants are used as political pawns on both sides, it just so happens one side happens to be arguing to give them a better more American life and the other is just arguing why/how to deny them such. Finally I was talking about most border states(not California exclusively) and as I'm sure you know it wasn't exactly the most hospitable place for people of Mexican heritage at various times. So are you still (or were you in the first place?) suggesting illegal immigrants ruined California because I didn't really see that argument made?
How the hell do you come to the distorted idea that they don't pay taxes towards those services? I just actually have no idea how you could come to that conclusion...? That wasn't the argument I was making, no. More is going wrong in this state than illegal immigration. We could devote an entire thread to the dysfunction and perhaps even criminality of the state government (4 of 40 state senators are currently suspended, pending criminal charges.) The Democrats in California take affirmative steps to open the "backdoor." The Republicans occasionally try to stop it. It's not like they are re-introducing school segregation. It's a reaction. If the democrats didn't try all this crap there wouldn't be a counter-push. It seems logical to believe that outside of overall GDP growth, that using cheaper laborers that work below the minimum wage probably reinforces the cycle. More Americans won't do those jobs for those wages. This hurts legal workers who need those jobs. I could be wrong here though, as I said. Why reduce their wages or opportunities (the "American life") for the sake of someone who crept over the border? What makes that immigrant more deserving of it than the one who spent the time and toil to follow the rules? Certain sectors are profiting from flat out breaking the law. That's not something I can support, and that's where a lot of my objection to this comes from.
Well making the distinction between the two based purely on their legal status implies that we have a practical/functional way for them to legally immigrate/work in the first place, which I think everyone on all sides of the spectrum agrees doesn't exist.
I would agree that immigrants are used as political pawns on both sides, it just so happens one side happens to be arguing to give them a better more American life and the other is just arguing why/how to deny them such.
Illegal immigrants don't pay the same taxes that go to things like medical, local taxes that pay for schools, etc. At least not in the same way. Of course they don't avoid ALL taxes, e.g. sales taxes. If this has to be explained to you yet again then there is no point. Let's just say that a broken system isn't an excuse to break the law. If they want to have the "American life" then come in the front. Seriously, if you actually agreed with the closed back door open front then you wouldn't support doing things that open the backdoor wider. Ok I didn't comment on California specifically but I guess I would support having them get licenses. I see a lot of positives and not a lot of negatives. Other policies I guess would have to be evaluated on their own merits. Also you said "I'm not an economist" so I'm not going to go into the wage argument. I'm also not commenting on the value of either sides argument (narrative) just that one sounds pretty scroogy (It could be true that basically 'we can't afford it' [I don't buy it, but it could be true]). As for the tax argument since you admitted/clarified that illegal immigrants do pay taxes to pay for the services you mentioned it seems it would be easier to understand what you are trying to say by explaining which taxes, towards which services, you think they are not paying? Numbers/percentages (even estimates) would be nice but I don't expect them. I'm actually far right of most here on immigration in general. My problem is our hypocrisy more than our policy (though I see it's broken). I used to say tear down the statue of liberty, but now my frugality has kicked in and I say just change the inscription. But having that message and our immigration policy at the same time is far more shameful, than hearing that message and coming here, legally or not... but it seems that logical that when you have people who are (again, in the words of the Democrat party) "undocumented" that they would pay less in taxes than the average citizen in their position. This is before benefits for citizens, of course. What taxes dont illegals pay? Not social security or federal income ? They obviously must pay all the consumption taxes and probably local taxes like property right?
Like I've said- they do pay taxes since there are certain things you buy for which you must pay taxes. Property, for one.
I imagine income being payed under the table is a major player. So I'm not saying that they pay no taxes, but until it's shown to be false, it's probably less than they would were they legal citizens. I admit to having no hard and fast proof, however.
|
On September 05 2014 11:34 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 11:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 05 2014 10:51 Introvert wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 05 2014 10:29 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 09:31 Introvert wrote:On September 05 2014 02:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 05 2014 02:04 Sub40APM wrote:On September 04 2014 16:10 Introvert wrote:On September 04 2014 15:48 Sub40APM wrote:On September 04 2014 14:54 Introvert wrote:On September 04 2014 13:50 Danglars wrote:A report released Wednesday by researchers at USC found that immigrants who are in California illegally make up nearly 10% of the state's workforce and contribute $130 billion annually to its gross domestic product.
The study, which was conducted in conjunction with the California Immigrant Policy Center, was based on census data and other statistics, including data from the Department of Labor and the Department of Homeland Security. It looked at a variety of ways the estimated 2.6 million immigrants living in California without permission participate in state life.[...]
Among the study's findings:
Immigrants who are in California illegally make up 38% of the agriculture industry and 14% of the construction industry statewide.
Half of the immigrants in the state illegally have been here for at least 10 years.
Roughly 58% do not have health insurance.
Nearly three in four live in households that include U.S. citizens. LA TimesThis drink's to immigration laws! I'm just blown away my state's governor will tell Mexicans they are "Welcome in California", but of course he'd be tarred and feathered if he ever came out in favor of enforcing current federal immigration law. I don't understand this place. I can only hope that our craziness can serve as a warning to other states- "see, this is how you ruin a once great state!" If it weren't for the higher education and natural beauty.... I'd try to leave. What exactly did the immigrants ruin in California? Should have been more clear- I was speaking generally. This story displays what must be a symptom of insanity. That and supporting a failed high speed rail project with billions from taxpayers and magical outside investors who don't appear. Second, the post was about illegal immigrants. Not legal immigrants- I know in the liberal mind they are all the same. Brown certainly think so- he's such a panderer. There's pretty much no major Democrat constituency that he will confront, though he tires to make that impression. Hence the president of Mexico, who I hear isn't even so nice about immigration laws in his own country, comes here and praises us for our "immigrant friendly" laws. Like letting illegal immigrants get driver's licenses. Arizona can't enforce federal immigration law when it wants to, but politicians in California get away with ignoring the law over here. We should get some federal agency on that! We need a lawsuit! It's all just so silly. I'm sure Caesar Chavez would be proud... You'll have to excuse me. Seeing this insanity so close up causes me a large amount of annoyance. But other than describing the fact that there are a lot of illegal immigrants in California and not that many in Mexico you havent explained exactly what the illegal immigrants have done to 'ruin california' Well 'they' didn't and even Californians know that...They do make a great scapegoat though... I find it especially ironic that every once in a while the 'illegal immigrants' sometimes have family ties to the land that go back long before any white people were here to forcibly take it. The US sometimes reminds me of the kid from Big Daddy... Once we gain the advantage, change the rules to prevent anyone from obtaining a similar advantage in a similar way (domestic and foreign). http://youtu.be/8HUvTp8ZcJs?t=7sLike families still on the Forbes list today who sold heroin and cocaine to help build that fortune. Or the people who use the historical ties to Israel to justify Jewish occupation but then turn around and say Mexicans historic claims mean nothing... Well, there are the costs of public services for illegals, who don't pay taxes for those services. Things such as education (which the state is required to provide), hospitals (same), etc... but I won't post the data because it wasn't really my point. It's easy to google. Granted, I don't know if it amounts to 130 billion. I could just make the Caesar Chavez argument that importing lower wage illegal immigrants harms the citizen/legal immigrant workers by driving wages down (and in Chavez's day, they were used as strike breakers). But I'm no economist. I do, however, value the citizen/legal worker more than the illegal one. But I was making a general point that actually tied into what GH said about scapegoats. You do realize that in California they are used as political pawns, right? You think Republicans are the only ones who use illegal immigration as an issue? What do you think these laws giving them driver's licenses are? It's not the illegals who can vote for or against that! Nevermind the fact that it gives the perverse incentive for more to come and break the law. So... I saw you agree with xDaunt's simple "close the backdoor, open the front door." This is not what states like CA do. By the way, if your family has roots here, and has stayed here, then you were made a citizen... CA became a state in 1850. Not exactly yesterday. There's more to it than that, but it needn't be said. It wasn't really the point. So are you still (or were you in the first place?) suggesting illegal immigrants ruined California because I didn't really see that argument made? How the hell do you come to the distorted idea that they don't pay taxes towards those services? I just actually have no idea how you could come to that conclusion...? Well making the distinction between the two based purely on their legal status implies that we have a practical/functional way for them to legally immigrate/work in the first place, which I think everyone on all sides of the spectrum agrees doesn't exist. I would agree that immigrants are used as political pawns on both sides, it just so happens one side happens to be arguing to give them a better more American life and the other is just arguing why/how to deny them such. Finally I was talking about most border states(not California exclusively) and as I'm sure you know it wasn't exactly the most hospitable place for people of Mexican heritage at various times. So are you still (or were you in the first place?) suggesting illegal immigrants ruined California because I didn't really see that argument made?
How the hell do you come to the distorted idea that they don't pay taxes towards those services? I just actually have no idea how you could come to that conclusion...? That wasn't the argument I was making, no. More is going wrong in this state than illegal immigration. We could devote an entire thread to the dysfunction and perhaps even criminality of the state government (4 of 40 state senators are currently suspended, pending criminal charges.) The Democrats in California take affirmative steps to open the "backdoor." The Republicans occasionally try to stop it. It's not like they are re-introducing school segregation. It's a reaction. If the democrats didn't try all this crap there wouldn't be a counter-push. It seems logical to believe that outside of overall GDP growth, that using cheaper laborers that work below the minimum wage probably reinforces the cycle. More Americans won't do those jobs for those wages. This hurts legal workers who need those jobs. I could be wrong here though, as I said. Why reduce their wages or opportunities (the "American life") for the sake of someone who crept over the border? What makes that immigrant more deserving of it than the one who spent the time and toil to follow the rules? Certain sectors are profiting from flat out breaking the law. That's not something I can support, and that's where a lot of my objection to this comes from.
Well making the distinction between the two based purely on their legal status implies that we have a practical/functional way for them to legally immigrate/work in the first place, which I think everyone on all sides of the spectrum agrees doesn't exist.
I would agree that immigrants are used as political pawns on both sides, it just so happens one side happens to be arguing to give them a better more American life and the other is just arguing why/how to deny them such.
Illegal immigrants don't pay the same taxes that go to things like medical, local taxes that pay for schools, etc. At least not in the same way. Of course they don't avoid ALL taxes, e.g. sales taxes. If this has to be explained to you yet again then there is no point. Let's just say that a broken system isn't an excuse to break the law. If they want to have the "American life" then come in the front. Seriously, if you actually agreed with the closed back door open front then you wouldn't support doing things that open the backdoor wider. Ok I didn't comment on California specifically but I guess I would support having them get licenses. I see a lot of positives and not a lot of negatives. Other policies I guess would have to be evaluated on their own merits. Also you said "I'm not an economist" so I'm not going to go into the wage argument. I'm also not commenting on the value of either sides argument (narrative) just that one sounds pretty scroogy (It could be true that basically 'we can't afford it' [I don't buy it, but it could be true]). As for the tax argument since you admitted/clarified that illegal immigrants do pay taxes to pay for the services you mentioned it seems it would be easier to understand what you are trying to say by explaining which taxes, towards which services, you think they are not paying? Numbers/percentages (even estimates) would be nice but I don't expect them. I'm actually far right of most here on immigration in general. My problem is our hypocrisy more than our policy (though I see it's broken). I used to say tear down the statue of liberty, but now my frugality has kicked in and I say just change the inscription. But having that message and our immigration policy at the same time is far more shameful, than hearing that message and coming here, legally or not... but it seems that logical that when you have people who are (again, in the words of the Democrat party) "undocumented" that they would pay less in taxes than the average citizen in their position. This is before benefits for citizens, of course.
What taxes dont illegals pay? Not social security or federal income ? They obviously must pay all the consumption taxes and probably local taxes like property right?
|
On September 05 2014 11:12 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 09:46 aksfjh wrote:On September 05 2014 01:49 Simberto wrote:On September 05 2014 01:21 IgnE wrote:
It's called economic multipliers . . . That statement doesn't make sense. The GDP per capita in California is 51k. Thus, the average person in California adds ~50k to the GDP total. Unless you want to assume that every person adds the same amount to GDP no matter how much they work, we must assume that there is some difference in how much they add. Thus, some people must add less that 50k. I think it is a reasonable assumption to think that the amount someone adds to the GDP is roughly correlated to their income. Thus, lower income people add less to the GDP. Which sounds fair considering they also get less reward out of the GDP. No amount of "economic multiplying" whatever that is even supposed to mean is going to change that. Let's put it this way. Assume some person in SF makes $1,000,000 a year and has a gigantic yard and they need to maintain it, so they hire some guy for $20k a year to maintain it for them. That rich persons income adds $1,000,000 to the measured economy of California, AND the hiring of the yard worker adds $20k to the measured economy of California as well. From that initial $1,000,000, the total measured GDP of this property is measured at $1,020,000. That is a multiplier. Believe it or not, but economic multipliers are higher for a low-income individual's income than high-income. As they spend roughly their entire paycheck, they provide demand for more products and services, which increases employment and wages, which then does the same thing all over again. As each job is added, as each paycheck is raised, more is added to the economy. At some point, saturation is reached as wages refuse to rise and no more people are hired, because some money always goes to repay capital investment, which is higher income and has a smaller multiplier. But using your example, GDP per head plummets from $1 million per capita to $510k per capita. The low wage worker helps the economy but if the cost of living in this scenario is $500k, the new worker has become a huge drain on the economy because he requires $480k in welfare from the other person. You're spitting on a cupcake and calling it frosting. I think it is highly misleading to not figure a real multiplier (simply assuming it is greater, much greater, than 1) and any model that doesn't bake in the law of diminishing returns is just flat out wrong.
Are you fucking serious? You're that dense? -_-
The example shows that income from one person doesn't just stop there. You can't just point to somebody making X amount of money a year and say that they only add X to the economy. The million went further than simply being the income of the individual, so the million turned into more. I could have said that he pays the fucker a million dollars so that the economy is now doubled in size, and then he turns around and pays a million for a blowjob and the economy is 3 million in size! That's how it works. Learn how to fucking math.
|
On September 05 2014 11:34 Introvert wrote:
Like I've said- they do pay taxes since there are certain things you buy for which you must pay taxes. Property, for one.
I imagine income being payed under the table is a major player. So I'm not saying that they pay no taxes, but until it's shown to be false, it's probably less than they would were they legal citizens. I admit to having no hard and fast proof, however.
Sure, I dont disagree with the broad claim that they probably overall pay less tax than a comparable citizen but if you look at it from another perspective, the extra 'savings' in tax that they may be canceled out by things like risk of deportation, inability to call the police, risk of property forfeiture, inability to use the legal system fully. So again, I am not quite sure, if we can circle back to your original statement that illegal immigrants ruined California, how they did it. (ie, even the claim that crime increases with illegal immigrants is a questionable statement since crime, at least violent crime, has overall declined.)
But I agree there is a chance that on the margin illegal immigrants have basically (a) stolen low paying jobs from the poor and (b) businesses employing them have ruined their law abiding competitors. But then the 'benefits' in savings are passed onto the consumers/wider economy anyway?
|
A U.S. judge has ruled that BP's recklessness caused 2010's massive Gulf of Mexico oil spill, a move that could cost the company billions. Earlier this week Halliburton, the company in charge of sealing the completed Deepwater Horizon well that spewed millions of gallons of oil into the gulf, agreed to pay $1.1 billion to settle claims arising from its negligence.
U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier will now hold a penalty phase to decide how much BP will pay. The company may face as much as $18 billion in civil penalties under the Clean Water Act, according to The Wall Street Journal.
According to court documents, Clean Water Act civil penalties can total up to $1,100 per barrel spilled in the absence of "gross negligence or willful misconduct." Barbier ruled that the discharge of oil into the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 was the result of negligence, so the maximum penalties will be nearly quadrupled.
Federal officials currently estimate that nearly 4.9 million barrels of oil were released during the spill, but BP says that number is closer to 3.7 million.
BP said it strongly disagrees with the decision issued by the court and will appeal the ruling, according to a statement emailed to The Huffington Post.
"BP believes that the finding that it was grossly negligent with respect to the accident and that its activities at the Macondo well amounted to willful misconduct is not supported by the evidence at trial," it reads in part. "The law is clear that proving gross negligence is a very high bar that was not met in this case."
Source
|
On September 05 2014 12:23 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 11:34 Introvert wrote:
Like I've said- they do pay taxes since there are certain things you buy for which you must pay taxes. Property, for one.
I imagine income being payed under the table is a major player. So I'm not saying that they pay no taxes, but until it's shown to be false, it's probably less than they would were they legal citizens. I admit to having no hard and fast proof, however. Sure, I dont disagree with the broad claim that they probably overall pay less tax than a comparable citizen but if you look at it from another perspective, the extra 'savings' in tax that they may be canceled out by things like risk of deportation, inability to call the police, risk of property forfeiture, inability to use the legal system fully. So again, I am not quite sure, if we can circle back to your original statement that illegal immigrants ruined California, how they did it. (ie, even the claim that crime increases with illegal immigrants is a questionable statement since crime, at least violent crime, has overall declined.) But I agree there is a chance that on the margin illegal immigrants have basically (a) stolen low paying jobs from the poor and (b) businesses employing them have ruined their law abiding competitors. But then the 'benefits' in savings are passed onto the consumers/wider economy anyway?
I think the law and order idea also has good backing, otherwise we have hilarious stuff like this.
I can only make these general statements in terms of economic impact, since I'm not educated in this topic, and all research I've seen is inconclusive. There are services that they do use, however. Schools, for example. By law, children, regardless of status, are entitled to an education (Or at least, "strongly advised"). And the state is on its way to opening up more things to illegal immigrants, possibly cutting into whatever benefit that might exist.
The state (and in this case Gov. Moonbeam) aren't fixing jack all, just making a big mess that's harder to clean up later.
This is also why I emphasized my other concerns 
On September 05 2014 12:53 sc2isnotdying wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 05 2014 11:34 Introvert wrote:
IF you come here to play the game, then you have to play by the rules.
This is essentially the emotional component of the conservative argument towards immigration. The thing is, the rules suck. In my worldview an individual who chooses to break the rules is not necessarily less deserving than individuals who follow the rules. The undocumented hotel maid is no criminal in my mind.
It's to prevent chaos, anarchy, and abuse of power. That's the point of laws. More or less, at least. There's obviously more nuance ("to secure ordered liberty" but that's quite dense). It's not merely emotional. But I really do have more respect for the person who follows the rules, even when they suck, than the person who skirts around them. You need some King George level issues for me to think about violating the laws.
And with that, I bore of this discussion.
|
On September 05 2014 11:34 Introvert wrote:
IF you come here to play the game, then you have to play by the rules.
This is essentially the emotional component of the conservative argument towards immigration. The thing is, the rules suck. In my worldview an individual who chooses to break the rules is not necessarily less deserving than individuals who follow the rules. The undocumented hotel maid is no criminal in my mind.
|
Was King George even really that bad?
|
On September 05 2014 12:40 Introvert wrote:
It's to prevent chaos, anarchy, and abuse of power. That's the point of laws. More or less, at least. There's obviously more nuance ("to secure ordered liberty" but that's quite dense). It's not merely emotional. But I really do have more respect for the person who follows the rules, even when they suck, than the person who skirts around them. You need some King George level issues for me to think about violating the laws.
You understood my point, though. Conservatives tend to value following rules for its own sake. Progressives don't share that value. Civil disobedience is the noblest of protests to the progressive mind. It's a different way of thinking about justice and fairness. As a regular pot-smoker, following laws just to follow them clearly doesn't concern me. I see no value to the prohibition of Marijuana and happily ignore that rule.
So when it comes to immigration, the two sides are having two very different debates and you can see it in the language each side uses. Illegal immigrants versus undocumented worker. It's something I like to point out when I stumble upon immigration debates which so often gets framed by being about jobs or public resources or street crime. Because really it's about values and justice. Two very emotional topics.
|
On September 05 2014 12:40 Introvert wrote:. There are services that they do use, however. Schools, for example. By law, children, regardless of status, are entitled to an education ( Or at least, "strongly advised"). And the state is on its way to opening up more things to illegal immigrants, possibly cutting into whatever benefit that might exist.
Arent schools for the most part paid by property taxes? Illegal immigrants or their land lords pay those no?
|
On September 05 2014 13:46 sc2isnotdying wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 12:40 Introvert wrote:
It's to prevent chaos, anarchy, and abuse of power. That's the point of laws. More or less, at least. There's obviously more nuance ("to secure ordered liberty" but that's quite dense). It's not merely emotional. But I really do have more respect for the person who follows the rules, even when they suck, than the person who skirts around them. You need some King George level issues for me to think about violating the laws.
You understood my point, though. Conservatives tend to value following rules for its own sake. Progressives don't share that value. Civil disobedience is the noblest of protests to the progressive mind. It's a different way of thinking about justice and fairness. As a regular pot-smoker, following laws just to follow them clearly doesn't concern me. I see no value to the prohibition of Marijuana and happily ignore that rule. So when it comes to immigration, the two sides are having two very different debates and you can see it in the language each side uses. Illegal immigrants versus undocumented worker. It's something I like to point out when I stumble upon immigration debates which so often gets framed by being about jobs or public resources or street crime. Because really it's about values and justice. Two very emotional topics.
How foolish it was to think I was done, lol.
How do I say this... there is an emotional (or non-rational, to be more broad) appeal in everything. Just as the left self-identifies as being for civil rights, good laws (like child labor, etc.), they use emotion, in the broadest sense. So I don't think there's a real dichotomy here.
As for "civil disobedience" i saw an interesting study that I'd love to see follow ups to. Basically, those on the left more often oppose those in power because they believe that those in power are conservative. Otherwise, they are just as likely to support their leaders. (Also see the strange Obama love still going on). I don't know if I agree with what he said at some parts, but it was interesting.
But I think the emotion quotient, if you will, varies from person to person. I know conservatives who love their drugs and break all kinds of "stupid" laws. I personally like playing games by the rules; I detest cheating. But maybe I hate it more than others do?
But, admittedly, "law and order" is a staple of conservatism.
I guess in summary I would say it's certainly not more emotional than liberalism or progressivism.
Also, when it comes to polls, it seems clear that it's the politicians screwing things up. The people really share a good amount on the topic, e.g. secure the border.
On September 05 2014 14:04 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 12:40 Introvert wrote:. There are services that they do use, however. Schools, for example. By law, children, regardless of status, are entitled to an education ( Or at least, "strongly advised"). And the state is on its way to opening up more things to illegal immigrants, possibly cutting into whatever benefit that might exist. Arent schools for the most part paid by property taxes? Illegal immigrants or their land lords pay those no?
That wasn't the point. But immigrant families do tend to pack more in the same space, so again that contribution is minimized, espeically compared to the opposite possibility- that illegals don't have rights to public education at all. But this is minutia.
I'll try to be done this time.
|
On September 05 2014 12:40 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 12:23 Sub40APM wrote:On September 05 2014 11:34 Introvert wrote:
Like I've said- they do pay taxes since there are certain things you buy for which you must pay taxes. Property, for one.
I imagine income being payed under the table is a major player. So I'm not saying that they pay no taxes, but until it's shown to be false, it's probably less than they would were they legal citizens. I admit to having no hard and fast proof, however. Sure, I dont disagree with the broad claim that they probably overall pay less tax than a comparable citizen but if you look at it from another perspective, the extra 'savings' in tax that they may be canceled out by things like risk of deportation, inability to call the police, risk of property forfeiture, inability to use the legal system fully. So again, I am not quite sure, if we can circle back to your original statement that illegal immigrants ruined California, how they did it. (ie, even the claim that crime increases with illegal immigrants is a questionable statement since crime, at least violent crime, has overall declined.) But I agree there is a chance that on the margin illegal immigrants have basically (a) stolen low paying jobs from the poor and (b) businesses employing them have ruined their law abiding competitors. But then the 'benefits' in savings are passed onto the consumers/wider economy anyway? I think the law and order idea also has good backing, otherwise we have hilarious stuff like this.I can only make these general statements in terms of economic impact, since I'm not educated in this topic, and all research I've seen is inconclusive. There are services that they do use, however. Schools, for example. By law, children, regardless of status, are entitled to an education ( Or at least, "strongly advised"). And the state is on its way to opening up more things to illegal immigrants, possibly cutting into whatever benefit that might exist. The state (and in this case Gov. Moonbeam) aren't fixing jack all, just making a big mess that's harder to clean up later. This is also why I emphasized my other concerns Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 12:53 sc2isnotdying wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 05 2014 11:34 Introvert wrote:
IF you come here to play the game, then you have to play by the rules.
This is essentially the emotional component of the conservative argument towards immigration. The thing is, the rules suck. In my worldview an individual who chooses to break the rules is not necessarily less deserving than individuals who follow the rules. The undocumented hotel maid is no criminal in my mind. It's to prevent chaos, anarchy, and abuse of power. That's the point of laws. More or less, at least. There's obviously more nuance ("to secure ordered liberty" but that's quite dense). It's not merely emotional. But I really do have more respect for the person who follows the rules, even when they suck, than the person who skirts around them. You need some King George level issues for me to think about violating the laws. And with that, I bore of this discussion.
Oi vay. Conservative cognitive dissonance be thy name. I value property rights, contractual rights, blah blah blah, oh except when it concerns those people from over this here imaginary border, or hey, FedCoats are A-OK in my book when they're harassing businesses and imposing artificial costs and whatnot with E-Verify and a whole bunch of other issues. Then I'm going to strawman and say because of this violation of liberty that other violations are necessary, even judicious!
Conservatives are a bumbling laughingstock on this issue. Yeah, sure, you support markets you say, you support property rights and liberty you say? Hogwash. Individual has right to hire whomever they want, allow onto their property whoever they want, pay them whatever they want, etc. (Don't get this confused for what *is* happening now-a-days) I really get tired of the law and order folks real fast. Their only principle is whatever some local dufus who managed to get a plurality of other dufus' to vote for them says. Their principle is fealty to edicts of their local rulers, no more, no less.
|
On September 05 2014 14:04 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 12:40 Introvert wrote:. There are services that they do use, however. Schools, for example. By law, children, regardless of status, are entitled to an education ( Or at least, "strongly advised"). And the state is on its way to opening up more things to illegal immigrants, possibly cutting into whatever benefit that might exist. Arent schools for the most part paid by property taxes? Illegal immigrants or their land lords pay those no?
It varies. At most (Connecticut) local taxes pay for ~57% of the school budget. At least (Hawaii) local taxes pay for ~ 3%. (source Figure 9)
On September 05 2014 02:10 IgnE wrote:
Immigrants easily add more to the GDP as a percentage of their income than millionaires do. They get paid far less than their work is worth and spend far more of their income in the local economy.
Well, unless you're talking about a short run situation where more spending and less saving is helpful, a dollar is a dollar. One method to calculate GDP is to add up all income. So $10,000 in income adds $10,000 to GDP, $1,000,000 in income adds $1,000,000 to GDP.
As far as the local economy goes, it depends. Someone with a high income may save a lot and have that money invested outside of the local community. But migrants and immigrants typically send a lot 'back home' by way of remittances. I'm not really sure how that washes out.
|
On September 05 2014 14:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 14:04 Sub40APM wrote:On September 05 2014 12:40 Introvert wrote:. There are services that they do use, however. Schools, for example. By law, children, regardless of status, are entitled to an education ( Or at least, "strongly advised"). And the state is on its way to opening up more things to illegal immigrants, possibly cutting into whatever benefit that might exist. Arent schools for the most part paid by property taxes? Illegal immigrants or their land lords pay those no? It varies. At most (Connecticut) local taxes pay for ~57% of the school budget. At least (Hawaii) local taxes pay for ~ 3%. ( source Figure 9)
So it looks like the federal govt pays max 16% and min 4%, and the rest comes from taxes that I think illegals do pay?
|
On September 05 2014 14:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 14:04 Sub40APM wrote:On September 05 2014 12:40 Introvert wrote:. There are services that they do use, however. Schools, for example. By law, children, regardless of status, are entitled to an education ( Or at least, "strongly advised"). And the state is on its way to opening up more things to illegal immigrants, possibly cutting into whatever benefit that might exist. Arent schools for the most part paid by property taxes? Illegal immigrants or their land lords pay those no? It varies. At most (Connecticut) local taxes pay for ~57% of the school budget. At least (Hawaii) local taxes pay for ~ 3%. ( source Figure 9) Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 02:10 IgnE wrote:
Immigrants easily add more to the GDP as a percentage of their income than millionaires do. They get paid far less than their work is worth and spend far more of their income in the local economy. Well, unless you're talking about a short run situation where more spending and less saving is helpful, a dollar is a dollar. One method to calculate GDP is to add up all income. So $10,000 in income adds $10,000 to GDP, $1,000,000 in income adds $1,000,000 to GDP. As far as the local economy goes, it depends. Someone with a high income may save a lot and have that money invested outside of the local community. But migrants and immigrants typically send a lot 'back home' by way of remittances. I'm not really sure how that washes out.
And if the guy with $10k spends it on other goods, that an additional $10k in GDP. If the millionaire only spends $750k, hes only added an additional 75% of his income to GDP.
|
On September 05 2014 14:52 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 14:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 05 2014 14:04 Sub40APM wrote:On September 05 2014 12:40 Introvert wrote:. There are services that they do use, however. Schools, for example. By law, children, regardless of status, are entitled to an education ( Or at least, "strongly advised"). And the state is on its way to opening up more things to illegal immigrants, possibly cutting into whatever benefit that might exist. Arent schools for the most part paid by property taxes? Illegal immigrants or their land lords pay those no? It varies. At most (Connecticut) local taxes pay for ~57% of the school budget. At least (Hawaii) local taxes pay for ~ 3%. ( source Figure 9) So it looks like the federal govt pays max 16% and min 4%, and the rest comes from taxes that I think illegals do pay?
For the most part, sure. Average per pupil spending is ~$10K nationally. If they're taxed at a 10% rate you need $100K in illegal immigrant income per student to break even on the education spend. If a lot of illegals are migrant males (and they are) you can break even pretty easy. If not than it's a net drag. I imagine immigrants use public goods other than education though, so this can get complicated pretty quick. In any case, I imagine them being more of a net benefit to the US as legal immigrants than illegal immigrants.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
