Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Also ... when studying the guest worker program, we'd also have to look to see whether the guest workers, as opposed to permanent immigration, has a different impact on the native-born population and the economy. A lot of people here have claimed (against the evidence) that immigrants "steal" american jobs, drain the economy, and consume more in benefits than they contribute. As ALL my research links have shown - this is not true. Immigrants contribute to the economy by consuming goods, creating jobs as entrepeneurs, and their native-born children contribute at a higher level. This all has a positive synergistic effect on the economy, rather than reducing native-born wages. If they are guest workers confined to a single job and short time period, a lot of this positive integration into the economy couldn't really happen, and they would effectively be an "underclass" specifically for the labor use of the industry/employers that hire them. Maybe this is effectively what's happening now anyway with illegal immigrants working in isolated professions (mainly ag) but that would merit examination.

Educated affluent immigrants consume more goods, create more jobs, and their native born children are monopolizing gifted education in this country already as it is. The U.S. has plenty of its own uneducated.

I have to question any research that claims to examine the population that effectively lives in the shadows and isn't all that anxious to be questioned. Research about illegal migrants has to be routed in much projection.

Um ... ok, how about you actually engage in the research? Just saying that you don't believe it is pretty weak. And the whole thing about "living in the shadows" is exactly the point -- regularlize labor, and you're NO LONGER IN THE SHADOWS. You guys not only fail to actually engage in the research, but also refuse logical argument.

Darling, that's not how it works. You make the claim, you bring the evidence. Believing it or not is up to your audience.

Again, no one made you start this thread. No has really has to engage in anything.

With regard to regularizing the labor, no one has shown that labor will behave in the exact same manner once regularized. For all you know, regularizing it will change its behavior to the point of rejigging all economic equations.

Lol. I brought the evidence. Reams of links. When I posted them the response was "too many links." You guys would be so funny, if you weren't so pitiful (and malevolent).

Allright then. This thread has gone on for 19+ pages. I estimate the number of minds you have swayed to be below one. There you go with people being rational actors, expending their energies into a fruitless exercise.

You haven't brought any evidence that favors unskilled immigration over skilled.

You haven't brought any evidence that regularizing illegal labor will not change its economic behavior - for all you know, regularizing will bring its rates up to the point of changing its economics.

You haven't explained the validity of studies on shadow populations and how this type of research is necessarily driven by theories and assumptions, not pure data.

And along the way you managed to alienate the poster whose quality of life was affected by illegal migrants by dismissing his concerns as irrelevant.

All in all, I say excellent job. Carry on. If you are that productive in your day job...

I brought all that evidence, and more. All you brought is fact-free assertions and the fact that you don't like immigrants.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Okay? I’m that PP and I’m not white. I’m scared of myself? Nope. But I do dislike the overcrowding in my neighborhood. I dislike that my kids’ schools have to spend SO much money on ESOL, at the expense of other programs, like Art and Music. I dislike that our once family-friendly park gets overrun by people drinking later at night (yes, we neighbors have called the Park Police and filed complaints, but the MoCO is not very responsive). I dislike that we’ve had more hit and runs where people run into your car and just leave because they are driving illegally and/or don’t have car insurance.

Look, we live in an area in MoCO that was a nice, family-friendly place to live and raise kids. In the last 12 years, we have had a HUGE influx of illegal immigrants from all over the world. And it has led to a decline in my own standard of living, in my own neighborhood. That makes me sad.

I'm sure the OP will call you names and demand research before she acknowledges that you have a point.

In fact, yes, I will. That's what this thread is about, and I'm sorry it pisses people off so much to have to actually show that their opinions are grounded in fact.

Yes, neighborhoods change socioeconomically - that's neither here nor there. I'm sure a lot of people who love to buy giant houses in SE DC but can't because of "those" people.

Right. That's exactly how you win arguments - by dismissing people's personal life stories as unimportant. Where did you go to debate school, Miss Dumbass' Establishment?

She probably lives in a bubble with kids in private. People who suffer no negative consequences from illegal immigration, like Hollywood celebrities and wealthy politicians, tend to advocate for compassion.

We are going to become Brazil pretty soon.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Um ... ok, how about you actually engage in the research? Just saying that you don't believe it is pretty weak. And the whole thing about "living in the shadows" is exactly the point -- regularlize labor, and you're NO LONGER IN THE SHADOWS. You guys not only fail to actually engage in the research, but also refuse logical argument.

Except that old-timers like me remember when we tried that. The 1986 immigration act provided citizenship to one time iamnesty to illegal immigrants, but the problem persisted. So after you regularlize labor, what do you do when the next wave of illegal immigration comes?

You figure out how to integrate them into the society so that you can harness their productivity and potential. Otherwise, the Chinese who have 1.3 billion people are going to eat our lunch.

Let go of your world domination fantasy and life will become much pleasanter.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Okay? I’m that PP and I’m not white. I’m scared of myself? Nope. But I do dislike the overcrowding in my neighborhood. I dislike that my kids’ schools have to spend SO much money on ESOL, at the expense of other programs, like Art and Music. I dislike that our once family-friendly park gets overrun by people drinking later at night (yes, we neighbors have called the Park Police and filed complaints, but the MoCO is not very responsive). I dislike that we’ve had more hit and runs where people run into your car and just leave because they are driving illegally and/or don’t have car insurance.

Look, we live in an area in MoCO that was a nice, family-friendly place to live and raise kids. In the last 12 years, we have had a HUGE influx of illegal immigrants from all over the world. And it has led to a decline in my own standard of living, in my own neighborhood. That makes me sad.

I'm sure the OP will call you names and demand research before she acknowledges that you have a point.

In fact, yes, I will. That's what this thread is about, and I'm sorry it pisses people off so much to have to actually show that their opinions are grounded in fact.

Yes, neighborhoods change socioeconomically - that's neither here nor there. I'm sure a lot of people who love to buy giant houses in SE DC but can't because of "those" people.

Right. That's exactly how you win arguments - by dismissing people's personal life stories as unimportant. Where did you go to debate school, Miss Dumbass' Establishment?

Anonymous wrote:We've had an influx of Asians - E & W - in our Frederick 'hood.

It's been interesting to see people leave Mo Co & parts of N Va.

And Latinos!

My Latino co-worker (who is here legally) fled her Germantown neighborhood for Frederick County. Happier with the schools. Less overcrowding. Better quality of life.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Um ... ok, how about you actually engage in the research? Just saying that you don't believe it is pretty weak. And the whole thing about "living in the shadows" is exactly the point -- regularlize labor, and you're NO LONGER IN THE SHADOWS. You guys not only fail to actually engage in the research, but also refuse logical argument.

Except that old-timers like me remember when we tried that. The 1986 immigration act provided citizenship to one time iamnesty to illegal immigrants, but the problem persisted. So after you regularlize labor, what do you do when the next wave of illegal immigration comes?

You figure out how to integrate them into the society so that you can harness their productivity and potential. Otherwise, the Chinese who have 1.3 billion people are going to eat our lunch.

We've had an influx of Asians - E & W - in our Frederick 'hood.

It's been interesting to see people leave Mo Co & parts of N Va.

Anonymous wrote:
Um ... ok, how about you actually engage in the research? Just saying that you don't believe it is pretty weak. And the whole thing about "living in the shadows" is exactly the point -- regularlize labor, and you're NO LONGER IN THE SHADOWS. You guys not only fail to actually engage in the research, but also refuse logical argument.

Except that old-timers like me remember when we tried that. The 1986 immigration act provided citizenship to one time iamnesty to illegal immigrants, but the problem persisted. So after you regularlize labor, what do you do when the next wave of illegal immigration comes?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Also ... when studying the guest worker program, we'd also have to look to see whether the guest workers, as opposed to permanent immigration, has a different impact on the native-born population and the economy. A lot of people here have claimed (against the evidence) that immigrants "steal" american jobs, drain the economy, and consume more in benefits than they contribute. As ALL my research links have shown - this is not true. Immigrants contribute to the economy by consuming goods, creating jobs as entrepeneurs, and their native-born children contribute at a higher level. This all has a positive synergistic effect on the economy, rather than reducing native-born wages. If they are guest workers confined to a single job and short time period, a lot of this positive integration into the economy couldn't really happen, and they would effectively be an "underclass" specifically for the labor use of the industry/employers that hire them. Maybe this is effectively what's happening now anyway with illegal immigrants working in isolated professions (mainly ag) but that would merit examination.

Educated affluent immigrants consume more goods, create more jobs, and their native born children are monopolizing gifted education in this country already as it is. The U.S. has plenty of its own uneducated.

I have to question any research that claims to examine the population that effectively lives in the shadows and isn't all that anxious to be questioned. Research about illegal migrants has to be routed in much projection.

Um ... ok, how about you actually engage in the research? Just saying that you don't believe it is pretty weak. And the whole thing about "living in the shadows" is exactly the point -- regularlize labor, and you're NO LONGER IN THE SHADOWS. You guys not only fail to actually engage in the research, but also refuse logical argument.

Darling, that's not how it works. You make the claim, you bring the evidence. Believing it or not is up to your audience.

Again, no one made you start this thread. No has really has to engage in anything.

With regard to regularizing the labor, no one has shown that labor will behave in the exact same manner once regularized. For all you know, regularizing it will change its behavior to the point of rejigging all economic equations.

Lol. I brought the evidence. Reams of links. When I posted them the response was "too many links." You guys would be so funny, if you weren't so pitiful (and malevolent).

Allright then. This thread has gone on for 19+ pages. I estimate the number of minds you have swayed to be below one. There you go with people being rational actors, expending their energies into a fruitless exercise.

You haven't brought any evidence that favors unskilled immigration over skilled.

You haven't brought any evidence that regularizing illegal labor will not change its economic behavior - for all you know, regularizing will bring its rates up to the point of changing its economics.

You haven't explained the validity of studies on shadow populations and how this type of research is necessarily driven by theories and assumptions, not pure data.

And along the way you managed to alienate the poster whose quality of life was affected by illegal migrants by dismissing his concerns as irrelevant.

All in all, I say excellent job. Carry on. If you are that productive in your day job...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Also ... when studying the guest worker program, we'd also have to look to see whether the guest workers, as opposed to permanent immigration, has a different impact on the native-born population and the economy. A lot of people here have claimed (against the evidence) that immigrants "steal" american jobs, drain the economy, and consume more in benefits than they contribute. As ALL my research links have shown - this is not true. Immigrants contribute to the economy by consuming goods, creating jobs as entrepeneurs, and their native-born children contribute at a higher level. This all has a positive synergistic effect on the economy, rather than reducing native-born wages. If they are guest workers confined to a single job and short time period, a lot of this positive integration into the economy couldn't really happen, and they would effectively be an "underclass" specifically for the labor use of the industry/employers that hire them. Maybe this is effectively what's happening now anyway with illegal immigrants working in isolated professions (mainly ag) but that would merit examination.

Educated affluent immigrants consume more goods, create more jobs, and their native born children are monopolizing gifted education in this country already as it is. The U.S. has plenty of its own uneducated.

I have to question any research that claims to examine the population that effectively lives in the shadows and isn't all that anxious to be questioned. Research about illegal migrants has to be routed in much projection.

Um ... ok, how about you actually engage in the research? Just saying that you don't believe it is pretty weak. And the whole thing about "living in the shadows" is exactly the point -- regularlize labor, and you're NO LONGER IN THE SHADOWS. You guys not only fail to actually engage in the research, but also refuse logical argument.

Darling, that's not how it works. You make the claim, you bring the evidence. Believing it or not is up to your audience.

Again, no one made you start this thread. No has really has to engage in anything.

With regard to regularizing the labor, no one has shown that labor will behave in the exact same manner once regularized. For all you know, regularizing it will change its behavior to the point of rejigging all economic equations.

Lol. I brought the evidence. Reams of links. When I posted them the response was "too many links." You guys would be so funny, if you weren't so pitiful (and malevolent).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Also ... when studying the guest worker program, we'd also have to look to see whether the guest workers, as opposed to permanent immigration, has a different impact on the native-born population and the economy. A lot of people here have claimed (against the evidence) that immigrants "steal" american jobs, drain the economy, and consume more in benefits than they contribute. As ALL my research links have shown - this is not true. Immigrants contribute to the economy by consuming goods, creating jobs as entrepeneurs, and their native-born children contribute at a higher level. This all has a positive synergistic effect on the economy, rather than reducing native-born wages. If they are guest workers confined to a single job and short time period, a lot of this positive integration into the economy couldn't really happen, and they would effectively be an "underclass" specifically for the labor use of the industry/employers that hire them. Maybe this is effectively what's happening now anyway with illegal immigrants working in isolated professions (mainly ag) but that would merit examination.

Educated affluent immigrants consume more goods, create more jobs, and their native born children are monopolizing gifted education in this country already as it is. The U.S. has plenty of its own uneducated.

I have to question any research that claims to examine the population that effectively lives in the shadows and isn't all that anxious to be questioned. Research about illegal migrants has to be routed in much projection.

Um ... ok, how about you actually engage in the research? Just saying that you don't believe it is pretty weak. And the whole thing about "living in the shadows" is exactly the point -- regularlize labor, and you're NO LONGER IN THE SHADOWS. You guys not only fail to actually engage in the research, but also refuse logical argument.

Darling, that's not how it works. You make the claim, you bring the evidence. Believing it or not is up to your audience.

Again, no one made you start this thread. No has really has to engage in anything.

With regard to regularizing the labor, no one has shown that labor will behave in the exact same manner once regularized. For all you know, regularizing it will change its behavior to the point of rejigging all economic equations.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Okay? I’m that PP and I’m not white. I’m scared of myself? Nope. But I do dislike the overcrowding in my neighborhood. I dislike that my kids’ schools have to spend SO much money on ESOL, at the expense of other programs, like Art and Music. I dislike that our once family-friendly park gets overrun by people drinking later at night (yes, we neighbors have called the Park Police and filed complaints, but the MoCO is not very responsive). I dislike that we’ve had more hit and runs where people run into your car and just leave because they are driving illegally and/or don’t have car insurance.

Look, we live in an area in MoCO that was a nice, family-friendly place to live and raise kids. In the last 12 years, we have had a HUGE influx of illegal immigrants from all over the world. And it has led to a decline in my own standard of living, in my own neighborhood. That makes me sad.

I'm sure the OP will call you names and demand research before she acknowledges that you have a point.

In fact, yes, I will. That's what this thread is about, and I'm sorry it pisses people off so much to have to actually show that their opinions are grounded in fact.

Yes, neighborhoods change socioeconomically - that's neither here nor there. I'm sure a lot of people who love to buy giant houses in SE DC but can't because of "those" people.

How about you acknowledge MY facts?

The fact that my kids’ school gets less and less parental involvement year after year as the demographics have changed. We try to translate as much as we can and try to engage different groups at our ES. But this year, at several of my DS’ class parties, DW or I were the only volunteers. And yes, we both work, before you accuse us of being wealthy SAHPs. One classroom did not have enough volunteers for a field trip.

My facts are that most of the families in my neighborhood used to utilize the public school, but the quality of that school has decreased tremendously.

My facts are that the park where my kids used to play is now usually covered in trash. We have tried to organize cleanups and get people involved, but when you’re illegally renting or when you’re transient in a neighborhood, people don’t seem to care as much. It becomes an uphill battle.

My fact is that we have several homes on our street that are owned by investors who are illegally renting out to multiple families. No rental licenses and the homes are clearly not up to code. The County refuses to crack down because they don’t want to push to hard asking for ‘documentation’ lest they come across as unfriendly to illegal immigrants.

I truly don’t care about any studies or any data because none of that will convince me more than what I see with my own eyes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Okay? I’m that PP and I’m not white. I’m scared of myself? Nope. But I do dislike the overcrowding in my neighborhood. I dislike that my kids’ schools have to spend SO much money on ESOL, at the expense of other programs, like Art and Music. I dislike that our once family-friendly park gets overrun by people drinking later at night (yes, we neighbors have called the Park Police and filed complaints, but the MoCO is not very responsive). I dislike that we’ve had more hit and runs where people run into your car and just leave because they are driving illegally and/or don’t have car insurance.

Look, we live in an area in MoCO that was a nice, family-friendly place to live and raise kids. In the last 12 years, we have had a HUGE influx of illegal immigrants from all over the world. And it has led to a decline in my own standard of living, in my own neighborhood. That makes me sad.

I'm sure the OP will call you names and demand research before she acknowledges that you have a point.

In fact, yes, I will. That's what this thread is about, and I'm sorry it pisses people off so much to have to actually show that their opinions are grounded in fact.

Yes, neighborhoods change socioeconomically - that's neither here nor there. I'm sure a lot of people who love to buy giant houses in SE DC but can't because of "those" people.

What? No one has to show you a damn thing. Remember, you are the one who opened this thread. You are the one making arguments and asking for understanding. You are the one throwing tantrums like a little baby demanding people agree with you. And now you're stomping your little feet because it didn't go the way you wanted.

And now let's translate your second paragraph into straight English. "I don't care about your property values, your children's schooling, your quality of life. I have research! and research is more important than you. Go away with your stupid experiences and life stories. So what that "those" people affected your life, you aren't really all that important."

Huh someone is having a tantrum in the face of objective research, and it's not me ...

If you want to post actual research on property values etc, bring it on. If all you want to do is complain about immigrants in your neighborhood .... then yeah, not giving it that much creedance. Sorry.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Also ... when studying the guest worker program, we'd also have to look to see whether the guest workers, as opposed to permanent immigration, has a different impact on the native-born population and the economy. A lot of people here have claimed (against the evidence) that immigrants "steal" american jobs, drain the economy, and consume more in benefits than they contribute. As ALL my research links have shown - this is not true. Immigrants contribute to the economy by consuming goods, creating jobs as entrepeneurs, and their native-born children contribute at a higher level. This all has a positive synergistic effect on the economy, rather than reducing native-born wages. If they are guest workers confined to a single job and short time period, a lot of this positive integration into the economy couldn't really happen, and they would effectively be an "underclass" specifically for the labor use of the industry/employers that hire them. Maybe this is effectively what's happening now anyway with illegal immigrants working in isolated professions (mainly ag) but that would merit examination.

Educated affluent immigrants consume more goods, create more jobs, and their native born children are monopolizing gifted education in this country already as it is. The U.S. has plenty of its own uneducated.

I have to question any research that claims to examine the population that effectively lives in the shadows and isn't all that anxious to be questioned. Research about illegal migrants has to be routed in much projection.

Um ... ok, how about you actually engage in the research? Just saying that you don't believe it is pretty weak. And the whole thing about "living in the shadows" is exactly the point -- regularlize labor, and you're NO LONGER IN THE SHADOWS. You guys not only fail to actually engage in the research, but also refuse logical argument.

Anonymous wrote:
Also ... when studying the guest worker program, we'd also have to look to see whether the guest workers, as opposed to permanent immigration, has a different impact on the native-born population and the economy. A lot of people here have claimed (against the evidence) that immigrants "steal" american jobs, drain the economy, and consume more in benefits than they contribute. As ALL my research links have shown - this is not true. Immigrants contribute to the economy by consuming goods, creating jobs as entrepeneurs, and their native-born children contribute at a higher level. This all has a positive synergistic effect on the economy, rather than reducing native-born wages. If they are guest workers confined to a single job and short time period, a lot of this positive integration into the economy couldn't really happen, and they would effectively be an "underclass" specifically for the labor use of the industry/employers that hire them. Maybe this is effectively what's happening now anyway with illegal immigrants working in isolated professions (mainly ag) but that would merit examination.

Educated affluent immigrants consume more goods, create more jobs, and their native born children are monopolizing gifted education in this country already as it is. The U.S. has plenty of its own uneducated.

I have to question any research that claims to examine the population that effectively lives in the shadows and isn't all that anxious to be questioned. Research about illegal migrants has to be routed in much projection.