• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Judge halts Obama's Executive Order on Immigration

I'm more than willing to concede the fact that increasing population regardless of how will indeed put more of a burden on municipal providers. Sure. I'm not willing to concede this point with the attached part of the sentence from above which is "that is not overcome by the very substantial economic benefit brought by immigrants or that could in any way be described as "overwhelming."

Your statement is like saying "I think A occurs, but I don't know that it matters since it's balanced out by B and doesn't reach a level of C," and then saying..."HOLD ON NOW! YOU DON'T THINK A OCCURS?"
 
Okay, but you are basically saying the inverse. "I admit/know that A occurs, but I think it might be offset by B , and I certainly don't believe that it reaches a level of C", and then saying "HOLD ON NOW, YOU THINK A MATTERS?"
 
Deacon923 said:
it is true that Cato is libertarian and shares my view on the drug war. that's why i have their site bookmarked and read their stuff pretty frequently. they are also very anti-Obama and historically tied to the Koch brothers, and I have found that their work during the last few years has tended to skew toward right wing partisan point scoring and away from some of the other libertarian groups, like Reason.

But I digress from my original quest, which was to discover the overwhelming burdens being placed on the states by immigration. So far I have learned that they must issue drivers' licenses (the horror). I have also learned that we currently have an unfettered immigration policy, but have been invited just use my common sense to consider what might happen if there was an influx of third world citizens. If we have an unfettered immigration policy, why is it that we don't already have an influx of third world citizens?

So, notwithstanding my newfound knowledge regarding the burden of issuing drivers licenses to immigrants, I am still searching for any burden on the states that is not overcome by the very substantial economic benefit brought by immigrants, or that could in any way be described as "overwhelming".
Click to expand...

Cato is always going to be perceived as aligning with the RW because the RW is more libertarian than the LW. Deregulation and De-federalization are hallmarks of conservatism.

What is the economic boom in the form of? Increased tax receipts? We are talking about a population that is largely unskilled and not making a lot of wages. How many of these folks are actually going to end up paying federal taxes? Half the population doesn't pay federal income tax. Businesses and libertarians want them here because they drive down labor costs. They also create a glut in the unskilled labor pool which will keep wages low for a while.

So, no real tax benefit. No real labor benefit. Are we thinking there's more purchasing power? Maybe, but I'm skeptical of there being more if they're already here.

Illegal immigrants are a burden to the states. That much is well-established. From schooling to medical care to law enforcement to whatever the government has a hand in (which is pretty much everything), the costs are enormous. Some states are hit harder than others, like California and Texas. Simply waving the magic wand of amnesty doesn't make the problem go away. It actually makes the problem stay.

This is not the America of the early 1900s or even the America of mom and dad. Those Americas had a more jobs than it knew what to do with, and most of those jobs were unskilled or required menial skills. Anybody could go work on a farm, or in manufacturing, or whatever. The world has changed and the jobs we have a need for are the skilled variety. We need people with degrees, not farm hands. That is what our legal immigration system recognizes and favors. I think they could and should relax the H2A and H2B visa quotas (and have said so for years) to recognize and accommodate the need for unskilled labor. But even in that case it is still done in a regulated and legal manner, and we aren't just encouraging blanket immigration with all our amnesty talk and policies.
 
Again, I want to know what these burdens are. You say they are "well established" "overwhelming" and now "enormous". Surely you must have some kind of evidence to back up such claims.

Cato says:
Economists overwhelmingly accept the economic gains of immigration, but are less certain about immigrants’ impact on government budgets. Contention over this issue is fueled by the numerous methodologies and complexity of analysis that obscure the fiscal costs of immigration.
Click to expand...

Seems to me that the anti-immigration folks just want to completely ignore the other side of the ledger, like it doesn't exist at all, and that the only thing we should even consider or think about in immigration policy is whether or not one extra Mexican is using the ER or sitting at a desk at school.

If immigration sucking up state resources is such an "overwhelming burden" on the states, why is it that states are proud when they get internal immigration from other US states? It's because they know that all those people moving in from other US states are attracted by a growing economy, a business favorable environment, nice weather, or whatever. Nobody ever complains about those Californians moving into Texas sucking up space in the schools and ERs. They know that the positives of a growing tax base and increased spending by the new arrivals outweigh the burdens.

Just saying over and over that these "burdens" are "enormous" and "overwhelming" doesn't make it so. And it especially doesn't jive when you just steadfastly refuse to consider the evidence on the other side of the ledger.

Cato again:

Immigrants are advantageous to the United States for several reasons: (1) Since they are willing to take a chance in a new land, they are self-selected on the basis on motivation, risk taking, work ethic, and other attributes beneficial to a nation. (2) They tend to come to the United States during their prime working years (the average age is 28), and they contribute to the workforce and make huge net contributions to old-age entitlement programs, primarily Social Security. (3) Immigrants tend to fill niches in the labor market where demand is highest relative to supply, complementing rather than directly competing with American workers. (4) Many immigrants arrive with extremely high skill levels, and virtually all, regardless of skill level, bring a strong desire to work. (5) Their children tend to reach high levels of achievement in American schools and in society at large.
Click to expand...
 
I also want to address this notion that just talking about immigration policy encourages illegal immigration. First, I think it's wildly overblown by the right wing media. Second, to the extent that some small number of people come to the US who otherwise wouldn't if there wasn't a national debate on immigration policy - so freaking what? Is it now disloyal or treasonous to talk about changing any law if some person somewhere might be influenced by that? Can we not talk about changing the marijuana laws because it might encourage some guy to start growing plants in his basement in preparation for the upcoming legalization? Can we not talk about fixing the mandatory minimums for nonviolent crimes because some thug somewhere might hear about it and decide to sling crack? It's a ridiculous right wing talking point meant to shut down debate and cast aspersions on the good faith and loyalty of their political opponents.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
Okay, but you are basically saying the inverse. "I admit/know that A occurs, but I think it might be offset by B , and I certainly don't believe that it reaches a level of C", and then saying "HOLD ON NOW, YOU THINK A MATTERS?"
Click to expand...

No. What I said was an increase in population definitely places more of a burden on municipal service and that I'm not willing to concede the rest.
 
I'm sure you won't find FAIR to be too fair, but I don't find Cato's analysis to be convincing either.

http://www.fairus.org/publications/the-fiscal-burden-of-illegal-immigration-on-texans
http://www.fairus.org/publications/the-fiscal-burden-of-illegal-immigration-on-california-taxpayers

And while I haven't gone in and read Cato's policy paper, their blurbs appear to be speaking ambiguously about immigration as a generality, and not dividing it into illegal/legal and skilled/unskilled.

State to state migration is not the issue here. When a business relocates from California to Texas, it is relocating its business taxes (although those are often waived as a condition of moving for a few years) and tax paying professional employees to Texas. Toyota moving 500 employees to Texas is a bit different from, say, 500 unskilled Latin Americans jumping the fence into Texas. I don't even know why you would seriously compare the two scenarios. My guess is the war on drugs has taken its toll on your brain and you had one too many bong hits this afternoon.

Discussion of immigration policy doesn't encourage illegal immigration. Amnesty talk does. Simple talk is one thing, but ongoing discussion combined with action absolutely does. The reason is they want to get into the US so they can apply for any amnesty that crops up. Whether or not they are in the US before the deadline doesn't really matter because the deadline is never known until the final bill is passed and they'll just forge paperwork to show they were in the US before that date even if they weren't.

This is what happened when Clinton did his, and particularly when he extended his program. It happened initially when Bush talked about doing the same, but was quickly quelled by 9/11. It most certainly did when Obama announced his plan to act unilaterally with DACA and actually even a bit before that as it was discussed and was made clear that the administration would create "enforcement priorities" that let most illegals off the hook. I know some would like to buy it when he and his administration act befuddled, throw their hands up, and shrug off all responsibility as trainloads of illegals and especially kids started pouring across the border, but common sense says otherwise. I'm sorry to apply dreaded common sense here, but I've worked in the field for 20 years and have seen the consequences of immigrations policy firsthand. I interact on a daily basis with others who have even more years of experience. Not everybody who works in the field is a RW shill, believe it or not. We have enough reasons to shake our head at the things that come out of DC as it is, and something like DACA insures job security for years, but it most certainly has an effect on our illegal immigration and the behavior of illegal immigrants.

And again, your comparisons of amnesty talks to drug legalization or nonviolent crime punishment discussions are a bit ridiculous. People don't go out and grow farms of weed or prostitute themselves in front of cops because they hope for change. The consequence of that is jail. People do jump the border because the worst that can happen is they are sent back. And in today's climate, they aren't even sent back once they are safely inside.
 
I notice that the FAIR analysis focuses only on first generation costs to taxpayers, and chooses to ignore completely the economic benefits of the immigrant population. Which pretty much makes my point. Every person who moves to a state from somewhere else increases the government burden of providing services. But they also bring economic benefits. This is well understood, but ignored in the immigration debate. the FAIR numbers are intended to scare and enrage people, and so they completely leave out any discussion of the benefits of migration. The CATO study acknowledged that there are real fiscal costs to state budgets from immigration, but concluded that they were outweighed by increases in Federal tax receipts and in any case were small overall.

With regard to domestic migration - not all, and probably not even close to a majority, of domestic migration is a result of corporate relocations, and the movement of executive types is a vanishingly small percentage I'm sure. Americans (including poor unemployed Americans) move to states where they have a job or think they have the best chance of getting a job, or for family or other reasons. Which, of course, are exactly the same reasons Mexicans jump the fence, because there is more economic opportunity in Texas than in Guadalajara. Once those people get to where they are going, they contribute to the economy.

Which also gets directly to the bullshit "stop talking about amnesty" crap. Why do people want to be in the US when an amnesty is declared? Because the US is a hell of a lot better place than where they were born. The giant boom in illegal immigration 2000-2008 didn't happen because people were talking about amnesty. It happened because Americans were building 3x as many houses as we need and we needed illegal immigrants to swing hammers. When Obama was elected and started talking about immigration reform we were actually seeing reverse migration because our economy was screwed and things had gotten marginally better in Mexico. The little anecdotal blips in illegal immigration that you allege to be associated with amnesty talk are rounding errors, and certainly do not justify squelching legitimate political debate. The only people talking about "amnesty" are immigrant activists anyway, all Obama or the Gang of Eight ever proposed was a go to the back of the line path to citizenship. Fox News is the only group who thinks that is "amnesty".
 
Last edited:
Deacon923 said:
I notice that the FAIR analysis focuses only on first generation costs to taxpayers, and chooses to ignore completely the economic benefits of the immigrant population. Which pretty much makes my point. Every person who moves to a state from somewhere else increases the government burden of providing services. But they also bring economic benefits. This is well understood, but ignored in the immigration debate. the FAIR numbers are intended to scare and enrage people, and so they completely leave out any discussion of the benefits of migration. The CATO study acknowledged that there are real fiscal costs to state budgets from immigration, but concluded that they were outweighed by increases in Federal tax receipts and in any case were small overall.

With regard to domestic migration - not all, and probably not even close to a majority, of domestic migration is a result of corporate relocations, and the movement of executive types is a vanishingly small percentage I'm sure. Americans (including poor unemployed Americans) move to states where they have a job or think they have the best chance of getting a job, or for family or other reasons. Which, of course, are exactly the same reasons Mexicans jump the fence, because there is more economic opportunity in Texas than in Guadalajara. Once those people get to where they are going, they contribute to the economy.

Which also gets directly to the bullshit "stop talking about amnesty" crap. Why do people want to be in the US when an amnesty is declared? Because the US is a hell of a lot better place than where they were born. The giant boom in illegal immigration 2000-2008 didn't happen because people were talking about amnesty. It happened because Americans were building 3x as many houses as we need and we needed illegal immigrants to swing hammers. When Obama was elected and started talking about immigration reform we were actually seeing reverse migration because our economy was screwed and things had gotten marginally better in Mexico. The little anecdotal blips in illegal immigration that you allege to be associated with amnesty talk are rounding errors, and certainly do not justify squelching legitimate political debate. The only people talking about "amnesty" are immigrant activists anyway, all Obama or the Gang of Eight ever proposed was a go to the back of the line path to citizenship. Fox News is the only group who thinks that is "amnesty".
Click to expand...

You can't ignore a first generation analysis when amnesties every 10-15 years create an ongoing and increasing first generation. You also can't just assume a degree of assimilation and upward mobility when the types of immigrants who benefit from an amnesty are largely poor and unskilled. The people benefiting from amnesty are not Ajay the IT guy or Xiefeng the PhD. They will come here, live in some shitty apartment complex somewhere in some shitty neighborhood and their children will in turn be influenced by a lot of shitty factors. Some of the second generation kids will turn out well and own their own auto shop or something like that. I dare say that most will not. Poverty perpetuates itself, unfortunately, even when the opportunities are available to "bootstrap."

The kind of domestic migration that is lauded and praised by governors is not Mexicans migrating from California. The domestic migration that people hold up to praise are exactly what I identified-- corporate migration which in turn brings jobs. There are also a great deal of retirees that migrate who favor lower taxes, property values, and snowfall amounts.

LOL @ "rounding errors," whatever that means. Everything proposed is an amnesty. Even the Gang Of Eight proposition. Just because you have to pay for somebody to go through the paperwork doesn't make it less of an amnesty. That's just RJ talk.
 
EatLeadCommie said:
You can't ignore a first generation analysis when amnesties every 10-15 years create an ongoing and increasing first generation. You also can't just assume a degree of assimilation and upward mobility when the types of immigrants who benefit from an amnesty are largely poor and unskilled. The people benefiting from amnesty are not Ajay the IT guy or Xiefeng the PhD. They will come here, live in some shitty apartment complex somewhere in some shitty neighborhood and their children will in turn be influenced by a lot of shitty factors. Some of the second generation kids will turn out well and own their own auto shop or something like that. I dare say that most will not. Poverty perpetuates itself, unfortunately, even when the opportunities are available to "bootstrap."

The kind of domestic migration that is lauded and praised by governors is not Mexicans migrating from California. The domestic migration that people hold up to praise are exactly what I identified-- corporate migration which in turn brings jobs. There are also a great deal of retirees that migrate who favor lower taxes, property values, and snowfall amounts.

LOL @ "rounding errors," whatever that means. Everything proposed is an amnesty. Even the Gang Of Eight proposition. Just because you have to pay for somebody to go through the paperwork doesn't make it less of an amnesty. That's just RJ talk.
Click to expand...


Solutions?
 
There is no solution, per se. You are never going to deport everybody and you can't just cave in and do an amnesty every time the number gets too big. IMO, the best thing to do is to lift the caps on H2 visas so that guys can come here and do their seasonal work. I have proposed more detailed ideas in the past, but I can't honestly recall all of them right now. I know that was a part of it. Let ICE and BP enforce the laws they were hired to enforce. Continue with a fence. They'll still go around it, over it, or under it where they can, but it funnels traffic and makes enforcement more predictable. No amnesty ever again. Amend the law if need be to require congressional authorization for any and all benefits conferred, to include stuff that's rather innocuous like TPS, so that we can avoid messes like the one we currently have.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top