Objectively speaking, what harm is caused by illegal immigration? (Thought experiment)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We shouldn’t have illegal immigration because it’s illegal. Our country is based on the rule of law. Don’t do illegal stuff. This goes for Trump as well. I’m opposed to law-breaking. It’s unfair to everyone else and causes disorder and chaos.

I’m fine with lots of high-quality immigrants who are smart and hard-working and can support themselves and their family and love America, as long as it’s through legal channels.

"High quality immigrants"? WTAF.

Ask Canada. Literally. Canada’s immigration system is based on “points.” You only get in if you have a degree or you invest 1 million+ Canadian dollars.

Unskilled worker? ZERO points. Canada only allows high quality immigrants; others caught illegally are deported by Canadian authorities.

That’s not true you ignorant wretch.

[Anonymous]

Well for starters you should look into the studies on illegal immigrants and driving related crimes. I personally know two people (a cousin and a co-worker) who were seriously injured by drunk drivers who were undocumented.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We shouldn’t have illegal immigration because it’s illegal. Our country is based on the rule of law. Don’t do illegal stuff. This goes for Trump as well. I’m opposed to law-breaking. It’s unfair to everyone else and causes disorder and chaos.

I’m fine with lots of high-quality immigrants who are smart and hard-working and can support themselves and their family and love America, as long as it’s through legal channels.

"High quality immigrants"? WTAF.

Ask Canada. Literally. Canada’s immigration system is based on “points.” You only get in if you have a degree or you invest 1 million+ Canadian dollars.

Unskilled worker? ZERO points. Canada only allows high quality immigrants; others caught illegally are deported by Canadian authorities.

This is inaccurate. Canada has a very controversial temporary foreign worker program that is hated by young Canadians and exploitive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If we got rid of all immigrants, we'd be left with Native Americans only. Each and every one of us who is not a Native American is an immigrant.

I'm not for that.

I do think we have to have sane immigration, not thousands of people flooding over the border, released to our equally insane immigration system.

We had a bipartisan bill that Trump told the GOP to kill because he wanted to use immigration to help his re-election efforts.

Of course we need immigration. One of my kids goes to a prestigious grad program, and 3/4 of my kid's cohort is from outside the US. These people are brilliant, the best and the brightest IN THE WORLD. Many of them have brown skin. Why would we want to keep them out of the US?

So people who came over on slave ships are immigrants?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let's say all the undocumented immigrants and asylees and refugees were suddenly, magically removed from the country and replaced by citizens. What would be different? I'm going to assume that these citizens would be employed in the same jobs as this group of people currently is, so I'm not talking about shortages of landscape workers, slaughterhouse workers, ag workers, disaster cleanup workers, and so forth. According to statistics we would have a somewhat higher crime rate. Probably a somewhat higher rate of illegal drug use (migrants are less likely to use drugs). I'm assuming we need the population numbers, including to support the social security retirement program. We might have a larger burden on assistance programs if pay rates for the people who replaced them did not change, but we wouldn't be able to blame immigrants for that. Seriously, I wonder what the actual threat to borders has been. While supposedly Biden opened the borders we didn't have terrorist attacks from people who had slipped through as far as I know.

If in this thought experiment these people were not replaced magically, we would certainly have shortages of healthcare aides, maintenance workers, ag workers, meat processors, roofers, and disaster cleanup workers. Not only would there be fewer people to care for elderly people who need to be cared for, there'd be fewer people paying into Social Security to pay for their retirement income (which, in long term care, usually goes to the LTC facility).

I also wonder about the issue with assimilation. What exactly does that mean? Learning English? Most people who are able to do so to learn English one way or another, but if not, so what? It seems to me most people who complain about lack of assimilation are complaining about language and clothing as the most visible attributes of a population that is not assimilation.

Is it the slippery slope theory? That if a significant number of people manage to cross the border illegally every year and to stay for an extended period of time it will become an uncontrolled avalanche? Would it have been a bad thing if immigration laws had been changed to make immigration much, much more accessible legally and reduce the burden on the systems set up to deal with illegal immigration?

I'm truly trying to consider a blank slate take on this.

Meatpacking used to be a stable, middle-class union job, with multiple generations of families working at the same plant. In 1960, the industry was 95% unionized, paying wages that were comparable to those in the auto and steel industries. Meatpacking was skilled labor. A meatpacker was trained like an old-fashioned butcher to take an animal from slaughter to final cuts.

In the 1960s, a company called IBP (Iowa Beef Packers) figured out that you didn't need skilled labor if you didn't care about your workers. Instead of workers doing a variety of jobs, IBP had workers do one cut all day long, maybe separate the hind quarter from the carcass, or slice a single cut of steak.

Meatpacking wages across the industry stayed high through the early 1980s, but then started to fall, as more companies adopted the IBP method. After all, anyone could be trained to do a single cut. By the mid-80s, wages had plunged and unions were disappearing. It was a race to the bottom and meatpacking was quickly becoming the worst job in America.

One reason it was now so awful, was that the IBP method resulted in a huge rise in repetitive stress injuries and debilitating knife cuts caused by inattention and fatigue. Doing one cut all day long on a speeding factory line was good for corporate profits but disastrously bad for actual humans.

Today, Places like Tyson Chicken and Smithfield Ham need an endless supply of 3rd world immigrants to keep wages low and unions busted, but also because it's a job that destroys the human body and spirit. Even if you're not injured, the work is so grueling that most immigrants can only do it for a couple of years before they move on. That's why you'll see that the ethnic composition of rural meatpacking towns goes through successive waves of foreigners-- Mexicans, Somalis, Sudanese, Guatemalans, Haitians-- as each group gets brought in and burned out, while management goes looking for another group of suckers.

Shutting down the immigration pipeline and deporting the illegals will go a long way to restoring the balance between workers and corporations. Likewise, we need to go back to a system with lots of small-scale regional meat processors staffed by skilled workers, something that will require breaking up these abusive corporations and overhauling the USDA inspection program.

Yes, prices of meat will certainly rise, but you already shouldn't be eating factory-farmed meat and you shouldn't be patronizing corporations that are actively wrecking America.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We shouldn’t have illegal immigration because it’s illegal. Our country is based on the rule of law. Don’t do illegal stuff. This goes for Trump as well. I’m opposed to law-breaking. It’s unfair to everyone else and causes disorder and chaos.

I’m fine with lots of high-quality immigrants who are smart and hard-working and can support themselves and their family and love America, as long as it’s through legal channels.

"High quality immigrants"? WTAF.

means not Somalis

Nearly every Somali household with children (89 percent) receives some form of welfare.

https://cis.org/Report/Somali-Immigrants-Minnesota

https://www.startribune.com/mn-feeding-our-future-autism-housing-programs/601467847

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let's say all the undocumented immigrants and asylees and refugees were suddenly, magically removed from the country and replaced by citizens. What would be different? I'm going to assume that these citizens would be employed in the same jobs as this group of people currently is, so I'm not talking about shortages of landscape workers, slaughterhouse workers, ag workers, disaster cleanup workers, and so forth. According to statistics we would have a somewhat higher crime rate. Probably a somewhat higher rate of illegal drug use (migrants are less likely to use drugs). I'm assuming we need the population numbers, including to support the social security retirement program. We might have a larger burden on assistance programs if pay rates for the people who replaced them did not change, but we wouldn't be able to blame immigrants for that. Seriously, I wonder what the actual threat to borders has been. While supposedly Biden opened the borders we didn't have terrorist attacks from people who had slipped through as far as I know.

If in this thought experiment these people were not replaced magically, we would certainly have shortages of healthcare aides, maintenance workers, ag workers, meat processors, roofers, and disaster cleanup workers. Not only would there be fewer people to care for elderly people who need to be cared for, there'd be fewer people paying into Social Security to pay for their retirement income (which, in long term care, usually goes to the LTC facility).

I also wonder about the issue with assimilation. What exactly does that mean? Learning English? Most people who are able to do so to learn English one way or another, but if not, so what? It seems to me most people who complain about lack of assimilation are complaining about language and clothing as the most visible attributes of a population that is not assimilation.

Is it the slippery slope theory? That if a significant number of people manage to cross the border illegally every year and to stay for an extended period of time it will become an uncontrolled avalanche? Would it have been a bad thing if immigration laws had been changed to make immigration much, much more accessible legally and reduce the burden on the systems set up to deal with illegal immigration?

I'm truly trying to consider a blank slate take on this.

Ethnic diversity is increasing in most advanced countries, driven mostly by sharp increases in immigration. In the long run immigration and diversity are likely to have important cultural, economic, fiscal, and developmental benefits. In the short run, however, immigration and ethnic diversity tend to reduce social solidarity and social capital. New evidence from the US suggests that in ethnically diverse neighbourhoods residents of all races tend to ‘hunker down’. Trust (even of one's own race) is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friends fewer. In the long run, however, successful immigrant societies have overcome such fragmentation by creating new, cross-cutting forms of social solidarity and more encompassing identities. Illustrations of becoming comfortable with diversity are drawn from the US military, religious institutions, and earlier waves of American immigration.

Robert D. Putnam, "E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-First Century", Scandinavian Political Studies, Vol. 30 (2007), pp. 137-174. -> https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is significant cost to school systems for the extra seats, plus extra ESL and other services.

What I wonder about is families of English Learners are paying taxes towards those seats. They pay rent and their landlord then pays taxes from that rent, or they own and pay taxes. So, yeah when enrollment goes up, then costs go up, but more people living in an area means more money for the township. My experiences teaching in schools has demonstrated that while yes, EL's need special services, they truly get next to nothing. I mean, I taught in a city school with 500 kids and I was the only EL teacher. 200/500 qualified for services. So, they were getting maybe 30 minutes of push in support each week. It isn't much. Plus,most of the kids who qualify for EL support come from families who are here legally. So, not sure how much money having undocumented folks actually "cost". Plus when you figure in the tremendous amount of economic activity immigrants bring in, the amount of taxes their businesses bring, the amount they pay in stores, etc, I suspect they give more than they take.
I live in Chicago and while everyone knows about Michigan Avenue, many people don't know about 26th Street in Little Village that is the 2nd highest economic generator in the entire state. That area is nearly entirely Spanish speaking with lots of immigrants, documented and undocumented.

You think their landlords are reporting the income they receive, likely in cash, from illegal aliens? Bless you.

Probably the loudest MAGA landlords are the ones that cheat on the taxes. Also slumlords because their tenants are too scared to report no heat or hot water.

Immigration is nothing new but Trump has latched on to the hate for immigrants, which also isn’t new and has repeated over and over that they are all criminals and he’s getting rid of the criminals. Which would be nice if it were true.

[Anonymous]

Florida is on the verge of SLAMMING the door on illegal immigration in a way no other state has dared to do.

A new bill would BAN illegal aliens from sending remittances, holding bank accounts, receiving loans, accessing home ownership assistance, getting licenses and more.

Even bigger. If an illegal alien is involved in a car crash, they are AUTOMATICALLY at fault for insurance purposes. No games. No loopholes.

The bill also massively INCREASES penalties on the companies that knowingly employ illegals. Employers are finally on notice.

This is what real enforcement looks like. This is what America First policy looks like.

Pushed by Florida CFO Blaise Ingoglia and filed by Rep. Berny Jacques and Sen. Jon Martin.

No virtue signaling. No excuses. Just consequences.

FLORIDIANS FIRST.

[Anonymous]

Harm? Lots of harm.....

Illegal Immigration Threatens Our National Sovereignty

Illegal Immigration Undermines the Rule of Law

Illegal Immigration Undercuts Legal Immigration

Illegal Immigration Contributes to Unsustainable Population Growth, Affecting the Environment

Illegal Immigration Harms American Workers

Illegal Immigration Threatens Americans’ Safety and Well-Being

Illegal Immigration is a Burden on the Taxpayer

There is NO upside to illegal immigration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is significant cost to school systems for the extra seats, plus extra ESL and other services.

What I wonder about is families of English Learners are paying taxes towards those seats. They pay rent and their landlord then pays taxes from that rent, or they own and pay taxes. So, yeah when enrollment goes up, then costs go up, but more people living in an area means more money for the township. My experiences teaching in schools has demonstrated that while yes, EL's need special services, they truly get next to nothing. I mean, I taught in a city school with 500 kids and I was the only EL teacher. 200/500 qualified for services. So, they were getting maybe 30 minutes of push in support each week. It isn't much. Plus,most of the kids who qualify for EL support come from families who are here legally. So, not sure how much money having undocumented folks actually "cost". Plus when you figure in the tremendous amount of economic activity immigrants bring in, the amount of taxes their businesses bring, the amount they pay in stores, etc, I suspect they give more than they take.
I live in Chicago and while everyone knows about Michigan Avenue, many people don't know about 26th Street in Little Village that is the 2nd highest economic generator in the entire state. That area is nearly entirely Spanish speaking with lots of immigrants, documented and undocumented.

I'd be interested in knowing more about best ideas for ESL teaching, I'm vaguely aware of different opinions as to how best to do this. Where I used to live in the midwest, Hispanic population grew a great deal a few decades ago as itinerant Spanish speaking farmworkers were mechanized out of their ag jobs and stayed permanently. They started a Spanish immersion program at one elementary school that attracted both immigrant and non-immigrant families, and the program has become increasingly popular among non-immigrant families, so there is an elementary school that is 100% Spanish immersion.

Districts aren't hiring where it comes to ESL, at least not in Pennsylvania. My niece has a teaching certificate and a degree in Spanish and was putting hundreds of applications and resumes out, trying, trying, trying until finally she took a job in a totally different field. Maybe they think they no longer need to hire anyone because they think Trump will somehow manage to get rid of them all?

[Anonymous]

Objectively speaking, what harm would there be in eliminating nation states and borders all together.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Yet MAGA doesn't give a shit about teenagers raped by rich and powerful men in Epstein and Trump's circle?

Or women beaten, raped or killed by MAGA domestic abusers?

I guess if you're white you can rape and harm women with impunity?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's say all the undocumented immigrants and asylees and refugees were suddenly, magically removed from the country and replaced by citizens. What would be different? I'm going to assume that these citizens would be employed in the same jobs as this group of people currently is, so I'm not talking about shortages of landscape workers, slaughterhouse workers, ag workers, disaster cleanup workers, and so forth. According to statistics we would have a somewhat higher crime rate. Probably a somewhat higher rate of illegal drug use (migrants are less likely to use drugs). I'm assuming we need the population numbers, including to support the social security retirement program. We might have a larger burden on assistance programs if pay rates for the people who replaced them did not change, but we wouldn't be able to blame immigrants for that. Seriously, I wonder what the actual threat to borders has been. While supposedly Biden opened the borders we didn't have terrorist attacks from people who had slipped through as far as I know.

If in this thought experiment these people were not replaced magically, we would certainly have shortages of healthcare aides, maintenance workers, ag workers, meat processors, roofers, and disaster cleanup workers. Not only would there be fewer people to care for elderly people who need to be cared for, there'd be fewer people paying into Social Security to pay for their retirement income (which, in long term care, usually goes to the LTC facility).

I also wonder about the issue with assimilation. What exactly does that mean? Learning English? Most people who are able to do so to learn English one way or another, but if not, so what? It seems to me most people who complain about lack of assimilation are complaining about language and clothing as the most visible attributes of a population that is not assimilation.

Is it the slippery slope theory? That if a significant number of people manage to cross the border illegally every year and to stay for an extended period of time it will become an uncontrolled avalanche? Would it have been a bad thing if immigration laws had been changed to make immigration much, much more accessible legally and reduce the burden on the systems set up to deal with illegal immigration?

I'm truly trying to consider a blank slate take on this.

Meatpacking used to be a stable, middle-class union job, with multiple generations of families working at the same plant. In 1960, the industry was 95% unionized, paying wages that were comparable to those in the auto and steel industries. Meatpacking was skilled labor. A meatpacker was trained like an old-fashioned butcher to take an animal from slaughter to final cuts.

In the 1960s, a company called IBP (Iowa Beef Packers) figured out that you didn't need skilled labor if you didn't care about your workers. Instead of workers doing a variety of jobs, IBP had workers do one cut all day long, maybe separate the hind quarter from the carcass, or slice a single cut of steak.

Meatpacking wages across the industry stayed high through the early 1980s, but then started to fall, as more companies adopted the IBP method. After all, anyone could be trained to do a single cut. By the mid-80s, wages had plunged and unions were disappearing. It was a race to the bottom and meatpacking was quickly becoming the worst job in America.

One reason it was now so awful, was that the IBP method resulted in a huge rise in repetitive stress injuries and debilitating knife cuts caused by inattention and fatigue. Doing one cut all day long on a speeding factory line was good for corporate profits but disastrously bad for actual humans.

Today, Places like Tyson Chicken and Smithfield Ham need an endless supply of 3rd world immigrants to keep wages low and unions busted, but also because it's a job that destroys the human body and spirit. Even if you're not injured, the work is so grueling that most immigrants can only do it for a couple of years before they move on. That's why you'll see that the ethnic composition of rural meatpacking towns goes through successive waves of foreigners-- Mexicans, Somalis, Sudanese, Guatemalans, Haitians-- as each group gets brought in and burned out, while management goes looking for another group of suckers.

Shutting down the immigration pipeline and deporting the illegals will go a long way to restoring the balance between workers and corporations. Likewise, we need to go back to a system with lots of small-scale regional meat processors staffed by skilled workers, something that will require breaking up these abusive corporations and overhauling the USDA inspection program.

Yes, prices of meat will certainly rise, but you already shouldn't be eating factory-farmed meat and you shouldn't be patronizing corporations that are actively wrecking America.

1980s. What happened then? That's when Reagan economics turned us into a k-shaped economy, where wages stagnated but the rich started getting richer, and so on. Sorry but merely deporting illegals isn't going to magically solve everything. It's economic policy - trickle down, tax policies favoring the rich and everything else that's made things worse.