7/20 http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20060719/ts_csm/acoldshoulder
"In 2002, illegal immigrants living in the US used $2,700 worth of
government services per person more than they paid in taxes, according
to the Center for Immigration Studies, an organization that advocates
curtailing immigration levels."
\_ Wow. An anti-immigration lobbying group provided numbers claiming
that illegal immigrants are a drain on the economy. Breaking
fucking news.
\_ Just looking at gov't services is myopic. Illegal immigrants
probably provide more than $2.7k worth of labor, reducing prices,
and benefitting those who paid taxes.
\_ Do they provide the more than $2.7k worth of labor for free?
No, they get paid.
\_ Sorry, I meant 'labor below market rates'.
\_ Which drags down pay scales for citizens, which further
erodes what citizens pay in taxes, increases the amount
of government services citizens require, etc, all so
some people can get a head of lettuce for 10 cents less.
Although if you own a mega agribusiness you're scoring
big time off this scam, more power to you. Everyone
else is getting hurt, at least indirectly.
\_ unless you consume produce
\_ Depends on what % of your budget you spend
on produce.
\_ This is *still* a myopic view on your part.
The rest of the population benefits from the
reduced prices on everything that immigrant
labor goes into. Can you quantify it and
balance it against the costs you correctly
mention? You're giving only one side of the
story. Yes, the gov't gets less taxes, but
is "taxes paid to gov't" the sole benchmark of
a successful economy? Anyway, without said
quantification your assertions are just
^[i.e., illegals are bad]
assertions. I'll find you credible when
you have numbers. And if you *do* back your
assertions with a non-myopic balanced
analysis of real costs and benefits, and
immigration is a downside, you'll have my
vote. Seriously, I admit you might be right,
it's just I don't think you've made your case.
\_ So your line is basically, "I like cheap stuff
so it is up to you to justify enforcing
immigration law". The burden of proof is on
those who flagrantly violate the law or advocate
such violation that the illegal population is
an over all plus for the country. You not only
have to demonstrate that illegals are good for
the country economically but that the benefit
far outweighs the all the other negatives. You
have an additional burden: illegal workers who
are mostly in farming and construction are
getting lower pay than citizens *because* they
are illegal and thus are being abused. How can
you ethically and morally justify paying
unjustifiably low wages for such hard work when
the basis of that low wage is the illegal status
of the worker which puts them at the tender
mercy of their employers? If you own stock in
any of the mega agribusinesses, more power to
you for the money you make on others this way.
\_ Actually, the burden of proof is on
bigoted isolationists who defend current
barriers to legal immigration. Why not
make those workers legal and have them
pay taxes? And incidentally, the entire
argument is a red herring, since poor
people as a group will always pay less in
taxes than they take in in services. -tom
\_ No, I'm not making the claim that immigrants
are good. Did you not get the part where
I said I'd listen to you if you were
convincing? I'm merely pointing out
that immigrants COULD be good, that your
argument that they are bad ignores or
doesn't weigh possible benefits of
illegal immigration compared to the costs.
I'm not standing up for immigrants:
I'm listening to you and finding you
unconvincing because you don't really
address counterarguments. Get it?
Similarly, I'd jump on a pro-immigrant
guy who didn't bother mentioning
consumption of public resources. Right now,
I am neutral: I simply don't know.
All I am saying is that you are not
convincing. You've said nothing
that makes me feel compelled to get
off the fence on your side.
\_ Let's not confuse immigrants who got in
line and followed the law and came here
legally with illegal immigrants who did
not. I'm quite pro-immigrant. Going on
from there: the basis of my argument is
that it doesn't matter if they are good
for the country economically (which many
studies dispute and a visit to your local
emergency ward would empirically confirm)
but the greater issue I raised of 'they
are here *illegally*'. If you want free
and open immigration, that's fine, let's
make that the official on-the-books law
instead of this nonsense where we have
laws we flat out ignore and intentionally
fail to enforce as a matter of official
policy. Then at least everyone would be
legal and the entire issue would settle
itself in a libertarian style truly-free
economic free-for-all. I think that would
be a horror but at least the artificially
low wages and employer control over their
helpless workers would end. If you're not
up for libertarian style border enforcement
then what is wrong with actually enforcing
our laws? I'm unwilling (for example) to
see hospitals going out of business,
reducing service quality while passing
increased costs on to evreyone to provide
basic medical care out of emergency rooms
because the agribusinesses have uninsurable
off-books workers. Or schools getting
crushed with an overload of students. Or
increased crime from multi-national gangs.
Or continuing to let giant agribusinesses
get away with maintaining an underclass of
people to boost their bottom line. And no,
I don't seriously believe produce prices
are lower because of it unless you can
convince me these companies are run by
philanthropists who are trying oh so hard
to give us the best products at the lowest
prices (cough, wheeze, gasp). The only
people benefitting from this are the rich,
the Mexican government, and the very rich.
\_ Um, the original argument started with
illegal immigrants costing $2700 in
gov't services. There was no balanced
view of the economic benefit of their
labor, so the $2700 number is a number
that is useless. And if the economic
benefit really is just to the rich,
then you're right, that benefit should
be discounted.
\- I dont like saying complex public
issues are "simple" but it seems
to me not having serious sanctions
against employers of illegal aliens
[as well as the will and resources
to enforce them] make this largely
shadow boxing ... just like anti-
aff action people who are ok with
major departures from "metritorcratic
admissions" such as legacies are
totally disingenuous ... i'm not
saying college admissions can be
done like the medical residency
match, but it could be a lot cleaner,
if there was a serious desire to be
so [i.e. it was goal directed rather
than politics directed]. this idea
of creating a second class labor
pool shows it is business interests
driving the elite side of the
republican view [BUSHCO] regardless
of the rest of the rhetoric. the
sttements that these insidious
illegal are too clever for tyson
foods are ridiculous ... if anything
those are the easiest employers to
go after. the harder ones to do
go after. the harder ones to go
after are probaby the illegal baby-
care workers of yuppie couples,
and say irish programmers over
staying their visas ... arguably not
a security or economic problem for
the US, but whether this is a prob
depends on your view of equity and
enforcement. |
http://csua.com/feed/