Does DACA and open immigration = leaders giving up on urban & flyover USA?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These arguments about immigrant labor keep ignoring the most obvious solution - limit the immigrant pool of workers by going after employers that hire them.

The only need filled by this ongoing debate is those of employers who want to keep wages and standards as low as possible. Racism and xenophobia have always worked well as a way to get the workforce to agree to management's needs.

Tighten the borders. I'm a liberal who can agree with that. But raise standards and wages within the borders.

Why is that so hard? Because the employers who buy policymakers at every level of government don't want to raise standards and wages. It's that simple.

why are the Democrats against eVerify??

answer that and you will understand why they abandoned the working class.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/make-e-verify-mandatory-when-hiring-and-that-will-help-stop-illegal-immigration-2016-11-02

The answer is in the article you linked:

1) Employers who want to keep hiring illegal labor. There are too many with lobbying power to push the levers of
2) Politics. As long as we can keep immigration an unsolvable solution, they can keep issue #1 as status quo.

Amnesty for people who are already here is essential to productivity and the economy. The article gives passing mention to farming, but agribusiness would come to a painful and screeching halt if you made the majority of its laborers illegal tomorrow. And if you made them legal, the law would also require that you adhere to the law on wages, occupational safety, and other laws that protect workers.

We can look to the coal industry for workers who just don't give a damn about any of that. If you say something about safety violations or the fact that you generally can't breathe, you're looking to become unemployed. Outside of coal, the easiest and enormously successful way of accomplishing the feat of a workforce that will accept any abuse is finding a workforce that has no other choice. Thus, illegal immigration goes on.

amnesty for people here is democratic politics. more votes. a giant f you to the US workers to get more votes.

That is why Democrats will not accept eVerify. They want amnesty to get 40 million more votes for democrats.

Yeah, it would definitely increase the number of workers with rights. Guess which party doesn't want that.

Give them amnesty and they might start protesting abuse. Might start looking around and figuring out how to get a better life. Might start voting for policies that make the lives of US workers better.

We - no, Republicans - can't have that. Best to keep immigration reform an ongoing political controversy than a policy solution.

[Anonymous]

If I were Donald Trump, the way I would argue it is this. This is an issue of morals and loyalty.

It is as if the Dreamer’s parents robbed a bank, and died, and the Dreamers inherited the money from the bank robbery. Now old ladies can’t pay their mortgages and are losing their farmhouses, because the Dreamer’s parent’s stole the money that was in their bank accounts. Meanwhile the Dreamers are reclining by the pools in their mansions, dreaming of all the ways they are going to spend the money their parents gave them. What do you do? It is simple. They have to return the money. You have to stop letting them take advantage of the crimes of their parents.

It is unpleasant, but their parents set this up when they came. Their parents created a situation where you would have to decide whether to inflict unpleasantness on the children of the illegals, or to inflict unpleasantness on your fellow Americans by letting the illegals take their jobs and their place in society.

It is a real example, because these dreamers are taking jobs and opportunities, and therefore money, from real Americans, and are thereby benefiting from the criminal acts of their parents at the expense of our fellow countrymen. What will Donald Trump say to an unemployed or under-employed father, who is not able to adequately feed his kids now, who is getting screwed by law-breakers who are about to be rewarded, should they be allowed to stay?

Both, from an issue of morals (not allowing the benefitting from criminal acts), and from loyalty (not screwing over fellow Americans for foreigners who broke our laws) this is an open and shut case. They have to go back.

Of course it makes sense from a political perspective too. We made these laws. If you start letting law breakers inhabit our country that will only benefit the Democrats, because these people, and the children they will eventually produce, will support the party of criminality. To let them remain, and increase support for democrats, and supply manpower for violent protests against our side is madness. It is not like anyone will ever vote for Trump because of his support for Dreamers. Dreamers will always oppose him, while Republican support will weaken, and the idiot moderates will do whatever the media tells them. Supporting Dreamers will only be a loss politically.

[Anonymous]

You guys know less than nothing about economics. There are more jobs and better economies in places that have immigrant workers than in places that do not; not just more jobs for the immigrants but for everyone. There are no places with sustained economic growth without immigrant labor.

[Anonymous]

DACA is for illegal immigrants. Obama had 3 year work permits but that went back to 2 years. What about children of illegals born outside the US on or after June 15, 2007? Does DACA continuously expand?

D=deferred. It is not amnesty. The USA has enough problems with it's own citizens and education, un/under employment. Our decaying cities, empty factories. I really do not think we are obligated to pay any grant money for illegals via FEMA. Plus we fund Puerto Rico and that is getting a hurricane.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You guys know less than nothing about economics. There are more jobs and better economies in places that have immigrant workers than in places that do not; not just more jobs for the immigrants but for everyone. There are no places with sustained economic growth without immigrant labor.

And the US has a generous immigration policy.
It doesn't mean we need to allow people who are here illegally to stay here.

It may suit your talking points to pretend legal and illegal immigration are the same thing, but they aren't.

[Anonymous]

If illegals have enough money to buy houses in the USA and as per some news articles do not have a mortgage then they have enough money to self-relocate back to their own country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If illegals have enough money to buy houses in the USA and as per some news articles do not have a mortgage then they have enough money to self-relocate back to their own country.

How do they get loans? More stolen social security numbers and fraudulent documents?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You guys know less than nothing about economics. There are more jobs and better economies in places that have immigrant workers than in places that do not; not just more jobs for the immigrants but for everyone. There are no places with sustained economic growth without immigrant labor.

The 1990 act cemented in place the corporatization of our immigration system, producing disastrous externalities ever since. Cutting wages by artificially expanding the labor supply increases private wealth at the public’s expense, acting like a highly regressive tax on the lower and middle classes.

Two and a half decades of this "immigration tax" has doubtlessly attributed to today’s growing income inequality with over half the nation now earning less than $30,000 a year. What will we be the state of American labor if we let the immigration status quo persist for another 25 years? For the American worker and our tech professionals in particular, true reform of our immigration system cannot wait.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If illegals have enough money to buy houses in the USA and as per some news articles do not have a mortgage then they have enough money to self-relocate back to their own country.

How do they get loans? More stolen social security numbers and fraudulent documents?

Ask the NY Times https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/04/us/daca-trump-hurricane-harvey.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/04/opinion/trump-daca-repeal-security.html

Its repeal would upend the lives not only of these “Dreamers,” as participants are called, but also of their families, co-workers and employers.
Until the White House makes an official announcement, it’s unclear what ending DACA in six months means. Does it mean that individuals can continue applying for DACA in the next six months, and obtain permits that will expire two years afterward? Does it mean that all DACA permits that have been issued will expire in six months, regardless of when the government approved them? Is an employer required to fire a worker in six months because her DACA permit has expired?

So yes. Employers should fire DACA persons with expired permits. Drive through and visit Philly, Baltimore, DC. Look at those cities and then tell me we don't have US citizens who deserve those jobs. Apple has 250 DACA employees? Apple has the money to go to our urban centers, hire interns and provide education to build a work force. US companies with training and education programs for US citizens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You guys know less than nothing about economics. There are more jobs and better economies in places that have immigrant workers than in places that do not; not just more jobs for the immigrants but for everyone. There are no places with sustained economic growth without immigrant labor.

sorry, you seemed to have failed the fundamental lesson of supply and demand. The only people that benefit from large immigration are corporate CEOs. There is no shortage of workers in US. There are bunch of corporations working the political system for their own profits, at the expense of workers.

"[To attract] workers, the employer may have to increase his wage offer. ... So when you hear an employer saying he needs immigrants to fill a "labor shortage'', remember what you are hearing: a cry for a labor subsidy to allow the employer to avoid the normal functioning of the labor market."

-1990 Congressional Testimony of Dr. Michael S. Teitelbaum

http://users.nber.org/~sewp/references/archive/weinsteinhowandwhygovernment.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If illegals have enough money to buy houses in the USA and as per some news articles do not have a mortgage then they have enough money to self-relocate back to their own country.

How do they get loans? More stolen social security numbers and fraudulent documents?

Ask the NY Times https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/04/us/daca-trump-hurricane-harvey.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/04/opinion/trump-daca-repeal-security.html

Its repeal would upend the lives not only of these “Dreamers,” as participants are called, but also of their families, co-workers and employers.
Until the White House makes an official announcement, it’s unclear what ending DACA in six months means. Does it mean that individuals can continue applying for DACA in the next six months, and obtain permits that will expire two years afterward? Does it mean that all DACA permits that have been issued will expire in six months, regardless of when the government approved them? Is an employer required to fire a worker in six months because her DACA permit has expired?

So yes. Employers should fire DACA persons with expired permits. Drive through and visit Philly, Baltimore, DC. Look at those cities and then tell me we don't have US citizens who deserve those jobs. Apple has 250 DACA employees? Apple has the money to go to our urban centers, hire interns and provide education to build a work force. US companies with training and education programs for US citizens.

If my young adult children, after graduating from college that I paid for, were losing out on jobs to DACA kids, I'd be pissed. Times are tough enough as it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You guys know less than nothing about economics. There are more jobs and better economies in places that have immigrant workers than in places that do not; not just more jobs for the immigrants but for everyone. There are no places with sustained economic growth without immigrant labor.

There is a difference between illegal immigrant labour and immigrant labour. One has to pay competitive wages, the other can pay less than the going rate as it is off the books.

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2016/11/03/occupations-of-unauthorized-immigrant-workers/

This article is somewhat interesting in that the influx of hispanics, legal and illegal, caused the construction industry to go from being heavily unionized to mostly unionless as immigrants were willing to work for less.

http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-fi-construction-trump/

[Anonymous]

I know people whose young adult children [including STEM AA] who lost out on jobs due to HB1's. I have posted here about my single AA mom friends whose kids have huge debt from college.

What more can be said? Illegals want FEMA money and if they have an anchor they get it. I look at that money as less for US citizens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If illegals have enough money to buy houses in the USA and as per some news articles do not have a mortgage then they have enough money to self-relocate back to their own country.

How do they get loans? More stolen social security numbers and fraudulent documents?

Ask the NY Times https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/04/us/daca-trump-hurricane-harvey.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/04/opinion/trump-daca-repeal-security.html

Its repeal would upend the lives not only of these “Dreamers,” as participants are called, but also of their families, co-workers and employers.
Until the White House makes an official announcement, it’s unclear what ending DACA in six months means. Does it mean that individuals can continue applying for DACA in the next six months, and obtain permits that will expire two years afterward? Does it mean that all DACA permits that have been issued will expire in six months, regardless of when the government approved them? Is an employer required to fire a worker in six months because her DACA permit has expired?

So yes. Employers should fire DACA persons with expired permits. Drive through and visit Philly, Baltimore, DC. Look at those cities and then tell me we don't have US citizens who deserve those jobs. Apple has 250 DACA employees? Apple has the money to go to our urban centers, hire interns and provide education to build a work force. US companies with training and education programs for US citizens.

If my young adult children, after graduating from college that I paid for, were losing out on jobs to DACA kids, I'd be pissed. Times are tough enough as it is.

We're at 4% unemployment. There are enough jobs for your college grads as well as other college grads, some of whom are also Dreamers.

If your college grad is living in your basement playing video games instead of working, that is not because of a lack of jobs or because of too many Dreamers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know people whose young adult children [including STEM AA] who lost out on jobs due to HB1's. I have posted here about my single AA mom friends whose kids have huge debt from college.

What more can be said? Illegals want FEMA money and if they have an anchor they get it. I look at that money as less for US citizens.

That's one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is those aren't good jobs, they won't pay well or give loyalty to their employees or treat them well. The young adult children of your friends should get better jobs than those.