Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Trump: Anchor babies born in America are not American citizens (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   
Author Topic: Trump: Anchor babies born in America are not American citizens
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Wouldn't that just let them move up the economic ladder and force those industries to hire new illegals to take their place?
Only if we keep making illegal immigrants though overly restrictive immigration policy. Give everyone who applies a work permit unless there is an explicit security or epidemiological reason not to provide it, and there is no more problem, while everyone benefits across the board.
I don't see how this would help solve the job crisis. If getting a work permit in the U.S. was so easy don't you think millions more people who didn't otherwise want to break the law would suddenly apply?
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What specifically is the job crisis?
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'd find the link more credible if I could find the government document referenced online.
Or the fact that the assertion comes from the sentence, "I can only speculate that the State Department is somehow changing the rules." [Roll Eyes]
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
What specifically is the job crisis?

This just in: Well paying jobs have been systematically being outsourced from the U.S. to overseas over the course of 30 years, eliminating local manufacturing and also many service jobs. Unemployment rates are high, full time work is down, and jobs are slowly disappearing on an ongoing basis.

In brief: There just isn't as much work to be done in the U.S. as there are people to do it, and the type of available work is increasingly falling into the extreme categories of either highly-trained professional or tech work, and difficult but unskilled work that pays very little.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

 - posted      Profile for KidTokyo   Email KidTokyo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
We need to cease destroying the lives of farmers and factory workers in the countries where these people are coming from. NAFTA and CAFTA have created and/or greatly exacerbated the situation. These folks have a right to try and survive. You would do the same.
Posts: 2336 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

 - posted      Profile for KidTokyo   Email KidTokyo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
There just isn't as much work to be done in the U.S. as there are people to do it
Wrong, there is plenty of work that needs to be done here. Our infrastructure is antiquated and falling apart, for one thing. There is a widespread need for healthier food in many parts of the country. And there is nothing natural or inevitable about outsourcing whatsoever. There are "fewer jobs" because a few wealthy companies are hoarding our resources, actively preventing the "free market" from supplying the jobs.
Posts: 2336 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by KidTokyo:
quote:
There just isn't as much work to be done in the U.S. as there are people to do it
Wrong, there is plenty of work that needs to be done here. Our infrastructure is antiquated and falling apart, for one thing. There is a widespread need for healthier food in many parts of the country. And there is nothing natural or inevitable about outsourcing whatsoever. There are "fewer jobs" because a few wealthy companies are hoarding our resources, actively preventing the "free market" from supplying the jobs.
I don't mean there are not tasks that could theoretically be done if economics wasn't an issue. I mean that given the economic conditions there are not enough tasks in demand that people are needed to fill. Even profitable companies such as Amazon are verging towards deliberate short-staffing and overloading their employees, and this is to say nothing of jobs that are now or will soon be replaced by technology.

In a way it's not fair to blame wealthy companies themselves, since if the same shirt or stereo is offered from China for cheaper then why wouldn't they buy it from there? It makes no sense to throw away money. And if it's cheaper to move there factories over there then eventually they will actually have to do so to compete. In this sense the blame should go to the system and not to the companies, with the proviso that lobbyists can help to alter the system to their advantage. Overall I'm not sure the garment industry lobby, for instance, had that much of a say in writing international trade treaties, but surely they will act accordingly once the rules are set up.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

 - posted      Profile for KidTokyo   Email KidTokyo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
In this sense the blame should go to the system and not to the companies, with the proviso that lobbyists can help to alter the system to their advantage.
In case I wasn't clear, I am definitely blaming the system. A company will act in its rational self-interest just as surely shark will bite something fat and fleshy.

We need to get serious about democracy in the workplace, and revoke the many, many privileges our government has given to big business over the decades. If we're not taking about that as a top priority, we're just treading water. With sharks in it.

Posts: 2336 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by KidTokyo:
quote:
In this sense the blame should go to the system and not to the companies, with the proviso that lobbyists can help to alter the system to their advantage.
In case I wasn't clear, I am definitely blaming the system. A company will act in its rational self-interest just as surely shark will bite something fat and fleshy.

We need to get serious about democracy in the workplace, and revoke the many, many privileges our government has given to big business over the decades. If we're not taking about that as a top priority, we're just treading water. With sharks in it.

Ok got it. When you mentioned wealthy companies hoarding resources it sounded like you meant their behavior is blameworthy. Maybe it is if one thinks of a corporation as a person, but if viewed as a money-making machine then virtuous conduct and sound business are orthogonal concepts. I agree with you that this system is to blame for bad results, not the individuals and companies that maximize their use of it to their advantage.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

 - posted      Profile for KidTokyo   Email KidTokyo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Fenring,

I think we're on the same page more or less, but I get the idea you want mentally partition "business" from "government" in a way that is not functionally accurate. Government and big business are deeply integrated institutions, and have been for most of the industrial era. It has gotten much worse over recent decades. I'm not anti-business and understand that that you can't blame one business for competing with others. But they are part of the system just the same.

I disagree that "virtuous conduct and sound business are orthogonal concepts". Fiduciary duties and business purpose are heavily codified and litigated legal specifications which could be changed (and have been countless times in the US and elsewhere).

Posts: 2336 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Cherry, why does this completely unimportant issue frighten you so much?

Because our biggest fear is people getting what we don't think they deserve. Even if we are only "deserving" by accident of birth.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cherrypoptart:
Pete, isn't ex-post facto applicable to a new law?

If a law is found to have been interpreted and applied incorrectly, illegally, and indeed unConstitutionally then is it unConstitutional to apply it correctly?


It depends. If a judicial appointment reverses the neutering of legal marriage, there would still be a constitutional problem with taking away marriage status of same sex couples. Legislation based on the misunderstanding is still valid.

5Th amendment prohibits the fed govt from depriving anyone of life, liberty or property without due process. Citizenship applies.

And i am not sure how one would get around the 14th language, unless we want to extend diplomatic immunity to all illegals putting their progeny outside the "jurisdiction" of the USA.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Cherry, why does this completely unimportant issue frighten you so much?

Because our biggest fear is people getting what we don't think they deserve. Even if we are only "deserving" by accident of birth.
There's nothing new or even distinctly american about scapegoating foreign immigrants.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Actually my answer to why unrestricted and unlimited immigration is a problem is the same answer as to why I don't go live into a third world hellhole with rampant violence, corruption, low quality if any education, out of control communicable diseases, crime, overpopulation, hyperinflation, and a whole host of other problems that come with living there.

It is only arrogance to insist that it can't happen here. In fact, we are starting to see precisely many of those problems happen here now because of illegal immigration and as Obama opens the floodgates the problems are getting worse. In short, it's because allowing anyone and everyone to come here with no background check, no health check, no concern about them immediately getting public assistance lowers the quality of life for Americans. If you say not you well good for you. The parents of that poor lady shot and killed in San Francisco probably thought the same thing too until it was too late.

It's kind of weird to me that so many people seem to think it's just bizarre to want to know who exactly is coming into their country.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Looking at the way the Supreme Court decided the latest Obamacare ruling by auguring the intention instead of the actual words state or a state, we can also look to see what the intention of the people who passed the 14th Amendment was.

So was it their intention that tourists and illegals could have a baby granted birthright American citizenship?

Apparently not:

http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction/comment-page-2/

"So what was to be the premise behind America’s first and only constitutional birthright declaration in the year 1866? Simply all children born to parents who owed no foreign allegiance were to be citizens of the United States – that is to say – not only must a child be born but born within the complete allegiance of the United States politically and not merely within its limits.

There could be no alternative as the United States abandoned the English tradition of “perpetual allegiance” for the principal of expatriation, and thus, children inherit the preexisting allegiance of their father because there is no creation of allegiance through birth alone for foreigners in the United States.

Under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes the same Congress who had adopted the Fourteenth Amendment, confirmed this principle: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

Who are the subjects of a foreign power? Thomas Jefferson said “Aliens are the subjects of a foreign power.” Thus, the statute can be read as “All persons born in the United States who are not aliens, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

Sen. Trumbull stated during the drafting of the above national birthright law that it was the goal to “make citizens of everybody born in the United States who owe allegiance to the United States,” and if “the negro or white man belonged to a foreign Government he would not be a citizen.” Obviously he did not have the English common law practice in mind since existing allegiance was largely irrelevant.

Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee (39th Congress), James F. Wilson of Iowa, added on March 1, 1866: “We must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except that of children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments.”

Framer of the Fourteenth Amendments first section, John Bingham, said Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes meant “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” If this statute merely reaffirmed the old common law rule of citizenship by birth then the condition of the parents would be entirely irrelevant."

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
What specifically is the job crisis?

This just in: Well paying jobs have been systematically being outsourced from the U.S. to overseas over the course of 30 years, eliminating local manufacturing and also many service jobs. Unemployment rates are high, full time work is down, and jobs are slowly disappearing on an ongoing basis.

In brief: There just isn't as much work to be done in the U.S. as there are people to do it, and the type of available work is increasingly falling into the extreme categories of either highly-trained professional or tech work, and difficult but unskilled work that pays very little.

You realize that immigrants actually are net job creators, right? That jobs is not a zero sum game when it comes to increases in population?
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
In fact, we are starting to see precisely many of those problems happen here now because of illegal immigration....
Which ones?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

 - posted      Profile for KidTokyo   Email KidTokyo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Cherry,

Does it matter to you what's driving them here?

Are in interesting solving that problem in a way that would render extreme domestic measures unnecessary?

Posts: 2336 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Kid: I think you are partially right to specify the sometimes lack of distinction between corporations and government, but let's be sure to be clear: There's a difference between corporate law, which obviously ties all corporations to the government in terms of their structure, and then there's actual person-to-person deals and agreement that persons in the private sector and public sector can make together. The latter wheeling-dealing variety isn't fair to ascribe to companies as a whole. For instance when Jeff Bezos decided to create an online book store he certainly utilized corporate law to structure his company but he almost certainly did not literally go to Capitol Hill, meet with lobbyists and Congressmen, and make a formal partnership with them. Fast forward to him being a huge magnate and now the scenario changes and he likely does have material pull in high circles. On the other hand in realms such as oil, rail and even telecomm I would agree with you that the term "private company" certainly doesn't and never did apply to them in the proper sense. Since the biggest winners of the current system seem to me to be the financial sector, the military sector, and a few others like oil and pharmaceuticals, I do think it would be fair to separate these out and distinguish them from ground-up business that came to thrive. And even so companies such as Microsoft and Google are now being co-opted by government as well, but in any event they at least grew up as private ventures.


quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
You realize that immigrants actually are net job creators, right? That jobs is not a zero sum game when it comes to increases in population?

As I mentioned earlier I think outsourcing of labor is vastly the most important element of the job shortage in the U.S. thus far, although in future technology will become the main issue. But in terms of immigrants being job creators and the myth that they take away American jobs, this may be true in some areas and not in others. Perhaps in Texas there are some agricultural businesses that simply would never have existed without the illegal workers, and in this sense we can say they created jobs. But in New York City, with which I am much more familiar, I can assure you the need of Mexicans (and other illegals) to work is great enough that they are willing to work harder and for less than Americans are, and as a result poor Americans trying to pay rent in NYC (students, artists, etc.) actually cannot often get kitchen, barista and server jobs because they're up against competition willing to work like dogs for sub-minimum wage. My friend who was trying to get a crappy job as a barista told me repeatedly that it was very hard to find even a crappy job because to work there you had to be "Mexican fast" and it was hard to keep up with illegals who had been working in and occupying those jobs for years. I don't know about other industries, but everyone in NYC knows that in fancy establishments white people have an edge, but in places like diners and normal restaurants Mexicans often have an unbeatable edge. Many places employ exclusively Mexican illegal labor, and it's right out in the open. I'm not making a case against immigration, but certainly where I lived it's not true that illegals are not taking jobs away from Americas. That being said NYC is a bit of a crazy place, so I'll only speak for what I've seen.

cherry: Based on the wording of what you wrote, how can you ascribe to an unborn fetus "allegiance" to a foreign nation? The parents, yes. But the wording seems to leave it ambiguous whether or not a parent having allegiance to a foreign nation automatically passes that allegiance on to the fetus. Now, if the parent is the King of another nation then it probably stands to reason that the unborn child/heir is automatically allied with that nation. Do you know how that wording has been legally interpreted? I think that may be a key issue in trying to decipher the text you quoted.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
In fact, we are starting to see precisely many of those problems happen here now because of illegal immigration and as Obama opens the floodgates the problems are getting worse.
I question your basic premise - can you show data indicating that illegal immigration is worse under Obama than Bush? My hypothesis is that concern about illegal immigration under Obama is higher than under Bush because of racist bigotry against Obama, and that if we actually looked at data we would find that the level of illegal immigration has gone down but the outrage has increased (and I didn't check any data on that, it's just a guess). Someone care to collect the data and prove me wrong?
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

 - posted      Profile for KidTokyo   Email KidTokyo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Some stats HERE.

Peaked around 2008 after two decades of rapid growth, and has since leveled off a bit. Still very high.

Fenring, will reply tomorrow.

Posts: 2336 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
quote:
In fact, we are starting to see precisely many of those problems happen here now because of illegal immigration and as Obama opens the floodgates the problems are getting worse.
I question your basic premise - can you show data indicating that illegal immigration is worse under Obama than Bush? My hypothesis is that concern about illegal immigration under Obama is higher than under Bush
I question your basic premise. What evidence do you have that concern about illegal immigration is worse under Obama than under Bush?

It is worse under Bush Jr and Obama than it was under Clinton and Bush Sr, because the former two presidents have presided over tougher economic times and over dirtier wars with a more racial component.wars that were dirtier and that are more likely by the way they are fought, to evince hardship.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by KidTokyo:
Some stats HERE.

Peaked around 2008 after two decades of rapid growth, and has since leveled off a bit.

That's right. Economic depression has always been the most effective deterrent to illegal immigration. Indeed, at some stages in America's Great Depression, Americans were immigrating illegally to Mexico.

I'd be happy to concede that Bush Jr. was more effective than Obama at fighting illegal immigration if we assume that bush Jr. caused the 2008 recession. But I've long argued, and still contend, that Bush and Obama have no more to do with the recession than Clinton had to do with the internet bubble that brought America briefly into the black.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"TomDavidson


Which ones?"

All of them. The examples are in the news all the time.

"KidTokyo

Does it matter to you what's driving them here?"

Yes and no. It would be nice if we could help stabilize their terrible countries but we tried that in Somalia and it didn't end well. Much of the aid provided is confiscated by corrupt administrations and used to further solidify their power.

So yes it matters but we can't let ourselves be invaded by millions of people just because their own countries are hell holes.





"cherry: Based on the wording of what you wrote, how can you ascribe to an unborn fetus "allegiance" to a foreign nation? The parents, yes. But the wording seems to leave it ambiguous whether or not a parent having allegiance to a foreign nation automatically passes that allegiance on to the fetus. Now, if the parent is the King of another nation then it probably stands to reason that the unborn child/heir is automatically allied with that nation. Do you know how that wording has been legally interpreted? I think that may be a key issue in trying to decipher the text you quoted."

I don't think the wording of the 14th Amendment on this issue has had a clear legal interpretation of it done yet. The interpretation we are working off of now has to do with a footnote in a different case.


"Greg Davidson

I question your basic premise - can you show data indicating that illegal immigration is worse under Obama than Bush? My hypothesis is that concern about illegal immigration under Obama is higher than under Bush because of racist bigotry against Obama, and that if we actually looked at data we would find that the level of illegal immigration has gone down but the outrage has increased (and I didn't check any data on that, it's just a guess). Someone care to collect the data and prove me wrong?"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigrant_population_of_the_United_States

The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that, in the 1980s, the net advance of the U.S. illegal immigrant population was at 130,000 per year, increasing to 450,000 per year from 1990 through 1994, further increasing to 750,000 per year from 1995 through 1999, and staying at 700,000–850,000+ per year since about 2000. Illegal Mexican immigration amounts to about 500,000 per year of this influx since about 1999. According to the same Pew Hispanic Center study as of March 2005, the undocumented U.S. population had reached 11 million or more, including more than 6.5 million undocumented Mexicans, which is around 60% of all unauthorized immigrants. Assuming the same rate of growth as in recent years gives around 12 million undocumented immigrants in the United States as of January 2006, increasing at 700,000–850,000 per year—with undocumented Mexicans amounting to about 60%+ (7+ million) of the overall total by 2006. By September 2006, the illegal immigrant U.S. population was thought to be around 13 million. About one-sixth of the illegal immigrant population—about 1.7 million people as of 2005—is under 18 years of age.[5]

After 2000, the estimation of the growth of the illegal immigrant population becomes more difficult because of a lack of good information. The rate of growth of the illegal immigrant population is estimated with the Consumer Price Survey data from 2004, which suffers from the same under counting problems of the U.S. Census plus the problem of a much smaller statistical sample used (only 10,000–20,000). Its accuracy may well be suspect due to the lack of a truly representative, "random" sample and due to the well-known, non-random distribution of the illegal immigrant population. Again, using these techniques, Pew comes up with around 12+ million U.S. illegal immigrants in January 2006 (with an estimated growth rate of 700,000–850,000 net unauthorized immigrants per year), and this is the "consensus" number used by most reporters. The unstated cumulative error in total U.S. unauthorized immigrants by 2006 could easily be an additional 8 million unauthorized immigrants or more, and the error in the growth rate since 2000 could also be very large but again is unstated by Pew and others. There is a high probability of the U.S. unauthorized immigrant population's size in 2006 being significantly larger than the 12 million predicted as all additional information points to a significant increase (300+%) in the advance rate of illegal immigrants after 2000, not a reduction as initially predicted by Pew.

-----------------------------------------

So whatever that means.

I wonder if Hillary becomes President will people say that animus and hate against illegal immigrants is higher because many of them are women and having a woman President has just brought that misogynist bigotry out in the open.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
What evidence do you have that concern about illegal immigration is worse under Obama than under Bush?
This is the first time that the birthright citizenship has been seriously questioned by the leading Presidential candidate in one of the two major parties (and probably most of the other Republicans will soon fall into place).

As with concern about the deficit, the Republicans using these topics for demogogic purposes apparently care less about the issue in question than its ability to inspire anger, because when things improve under Obama they neglect to mention that and assert that things have gotten worse.

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Which ones?"

All of them. The examples are in the news all the time.

Which ones, again? I'm looking for a) evidence that it's gotten worse in aggregate; and b) evidence that this is due to illegal immigration.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Perhaps in Texas there are some agricultural businesses that simply would never have existed without the illegal workers, and in this sense we can say they created jobs.
That's filling jobs, not creating them. They create jobs when they buy the food they need to eat, pay for the utilities and day to day items that they need to get by, plus whatever small margin of entertainment or luxury that they can afford.

Consumers create jobs- anyone else in the process is either a labor provider or a broker of that labor that tries to profit on the margin by reducing the number of people needed to fill consumer demand.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
They create jobs when they buy the food they need to eat, pay for the utilities and day to day items that they need to get by, plus whatever small margin of entertainment or luxury that they can afford.

Yes, I've heard this before. Mathematically it seems tautological to say that demand for goods enables the existence of companies that provide those goods. But to specifically say that poor illegals single-handedly create new jobs (i.e. businesses that wouldn't have been able to make it without their consumption) you'd have to do more than make the tautological argument - you'd have to show that in some industries such as food there are certain companies that cater to the Mexican palate (if I can say that) and whose main clientele are illegal Mexicans. Because otherwise you're stuck with the fact that otherwise existing food and goods merchants, when they receive larger orders than normal due to the Mexican demand, don't necessarily need to create new jobs to deal with the demand. In a typical warehouse if a guy is moving one palate of goods and next week the order is 25% larger and he has to move two palates, that's easy to do and doesn't require a new employee. Data entry for larger orders takes no more manpower than it does for smaller orders (which is a serious problem for small companies that have a downsizing floor in times of recession). Farmers are going to grow to maximum capacity regardless of demand (as the amount of wastage currently is gargantuan), and ordering larger quantities of goods from overseas is likewise as simple as the stroke of a pen. In some case a company might have to hire one or two people extra for the warehouse to deal with larger amounts of merchandise moving, but otherwise you don't really need extra personnel to cope with whatever demands on goods and services people who are rather poor will add to the system. I'm not saying their spending has zero effect, but it's quite another thing to posit definitively that they 'create jobs.' Do you have specific data that indicates they do?

[ August 20, 2015, 11:46 AM: Message edited by: Fenring ]

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Perhaps in Texas there are some agricultural businesses that simply would never have existed without the illegal workers, and in this sense we can say they created jobs.
That's filling jobs, not creating them. They create jobs when they buy the food they need to eat, pay for the utilities and day to day items that they need to get by, plus whatever small margin of entertainment or luxury that they can afford.

Consumers create jobs- anyone else in the process is either a labor provider or a broker of that labor that tries to profit on the margin by reducing the number of people needed to fill consumer demand.

Hmm. If just buying food is "creating jobs" then the whole ethanol scam is a great job creation program. [Roll Eyes]

Look, having worked with and lived with these people, they eat food that is an order of magnitude lower than the average anglo poor person. Who do you know that cooks beans from scratch? They often live in places that our society and laws say should not be lived in by human beings. They typically work long hard hours under conditions that our laws have determined are unsuitable for humans. In most states excepting Colorado, they are denied worker's compensation should they be injured. And despite these low wages, they save money and send it out of circulation to the home country, to family members who often use it in turn to pay organized crime to send more extended family members up north.

The solution as I've said before is to allow more legal immigration and to screen in favor of bringing whole extended families up here, and restrict the transfer of monies. And allow illegals to sue their employers for inhuman working conditions

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
quote:
What evidence do you have that concern about illegal immigration is worse under Obama than under Bush?
This is the first time that the birthright citizenship has been seriously questioned by the leading Presidential candidate in one of the two major parties
It's the first time that a president came in with a blatantly foreign name and a foreign father. If in word war II, the Republican party had chosen a candidate named Albert Kitler, with a German father and American mother, whose family had lived years in Germany during much of the candidate's history ... there would have been some serious birthright questioning. Especially if his only political experience was in the Senate rather than some state governor's office.

Hell's bells, closest that's been was George Romney who was born in Mexico to American parents, and he wasn't the final candidate but there was objections already, even though he'd been governor of Michingan.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
It's the first time that a president came in with a blatantly foreign name and a foreign father.
Of course, that's why Trump wants to make the repeal of birthright citizenship retroactive.

Then he can declare that Obama wasn't a citizen because of his birth in Hawaii. And since his mother was too young to have lived long enough to bestow citizenship on Obama, he was not a citizen, natural born or not, of the U.S., and therefore ineligible to be President. Trump could then retroactively undo everything that Obama did, effectively erasing the entire 8 years of the Presidency. In the ensuring chaos, he will declare martial law, appoint himself as CEO of the United States for life, and become the King of all of Westeros, even if he has to burn it all to ashes to do so. (Or was it Little Finger who wanted to do that... [Wink] )

Anyway, a brilliant (if stupid) plan! [Big Grin]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

 - posted      Profile for KidTokyo   Email KidTokyo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Cherry

quote:
Yes and no. It would be nice if we could help stabilize their terrible countries but we tried that in Somalia and it didn't end well. Much of the aid provided is confiscated by corrupt administrations and used to further solidify their power.

So yes it matters but we can't let ourselves be invaded by millions of people just because their own countries are hell holes.

I'm not suggesting we solve their internal problems. I'm pointing out that illegal immigration has quadrupled in the last 20 years, which directly corresponds to the introduction and expansion of our "free trade" agreements, first with Mexico, and then with central America. Even those economists who dispute a direct cause and effect still acknowledge that farmers in these countries would benefit if America ended its corn subsidies, among other things.

Many aspects of our trade policies are hurting the poorest in these countries, and that is something we can solve internally, ourselves, without any direct intervention in the affairs of another country. It is more likely to solve the problem and would cost us much less than any post-facto measures involving border walls and mass deportation. Wouldn't you prefer the simpler, cheaper solution that addresses the source of the problem? Reigning in big business would also have many domestic benefits.

Fenring

quote:
The latter wheeling-dealing variety isn't fair to ascribe to companies as a whole. For instance when Jeff Bezos decided to create an online book store he certainly utilized corporate law to structure his company but he almost certainly did not literally go to Capitol Hill, meet with lobbyists and Congressmen, and make a formal partnership with them. Fast forward to him being a huge magnate and now the scenario changes and he likely does have material pull in high circles. On the other hand in realms such as oil, rail and even telecomm I would agree with you that the term "private company" certainly doesn't and never did apply to them in the proper sense. Since the biggest winners of the current system seem to me to be the financial sector, the military sector, and a few others like oil and pharmaceuticals, I do think it would be fair to separate these out and distinguish them from ground-up business that came to thrive.
I don't ascribe it to businesses as a whole. But regardless of how recent their ascension, the largest companies will inevitably make use of the the power they have obtained in the political realm. Which is by the issue of bigness, and why our system supports and enables it to such a degree, has to be solved -- i.e, we need to repeal the government support systems which enable such concentrations of wealth.

[ August 20, 2015, 12:48 PM: Message edited by: KidTokyo ]

Posts: 2336 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
armers are going to grow to maximum capacity regardless of demand
No, they do that because we have federal strategic reserve programs that will always buy the balance of their produce at a flat floor price. (The phrase "government cheese" directly refers to the process of converting the excess milk bought into cheese for longer term storage, which was, in turn, distributed as part of aide programs when needed.)

quote:
I'm not saying their spending has zero effect, but it's quite another thing to posit definitively that they 'create jobs.'
How many employees would a company with zero customers sustainably hire? The fact that consumer demand/spending is what creates jobs is fundamental to how trade works. You only have a job producing something for someone else when someone approaches you with something you want or need to encourage you to produce it for them. When enough people approach you that you cannot personally keep up with demand, then you either have to turn them away (such that they approach someone else) or hire someone to help you. You didn't create the job- the need for labor- they did, you just chose whether you'd broker the work for them or task them with finding someone else to trade with.

Everything you said previously is evidence of how underpaying them is shooting ourselves in the foot because it suppresses their demand- forces them to find ways to live frugally instead of allowing their consumption to grow in the way that our labor laws exist to ensure will happen when they are not exploited. (The notion that we lose anything when currency goes into wider circulation is absurd, because the only reason that it has value in wider circulation is that it can eventually be used by a recipient to but goods from the US, make deposits at US institutions, or pay US tax obligations that foreign citizens may incur.)

Consumers create jobs. That's just a fundamental market rule. Businesses are constructs that exist to reduce the number of jobs needed by brokering the labor and facilitating specialization- far from creating jobs, their entire point is to reduce the number of jobs required by enhancing productivity. (Which is, in and of itself a good thing, once you discard the dogma that "jobs" are an unqualified good thing, rather than simple a necessary artifact of the market process that we should be circulating enough money to allow the market to decide what to value as technology displaces the need for basic labor)

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Look, having worked with and lived with these people, they eat food that is an order of magnitude lower than the average anglo poor person. Who do you know that cooks beans from scratch? They often live in places that our society and laws say should not be lived in by human beings. They typically work long hard hours under conditions that our laws have determined are unsuitable for humans.
Do you assert that that is the best they aspire to? That, given the same income and employment protections as regular citizens, such taht hey could earn significantly more, they would choose to continue living the same way, even once they'd assured enough support for their families at home to either immigrate as well or afford the security necessary to be productive and prosper? You're pointing to the effect of exploitation, not evidence that they have no aspirations to more than the most basic possible existence they can eke out. Sure tier direct contribution to consumer demand is as low as they can keep it, but that's still a positive contribution, and the answer there is still to change the law to protect them from the kind of exploitation that keeps them there, rather that passing stricter laws that will only make their situation more desperate and thus increase the degree to which they will tolerate exploitation.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
farmers are going to grow to maximum capacity regardless of demand
No, they do that because we have federal strategic reserve programs that will always buy the balance of their produce at a flat floor price. (The phrase "government cheese" directly refers to the process of converting the excess milk bought into cheese for longer term storage, which was, in turn, distributed as part of aide programs when needed.)
This is bull. Production capabilities in the meat industry are arduous enough that it's likely they anticipate demand in order to determine the quantity they should raise and slaughter. But even then it just means one more pen and it doesn't take a new employee to do this. But in the cases of grain, corn, milk, vegetables, fruit, and so forth, they are simply going to overfarm no matter what the demand is. Perhaps you haven't seen the numbers in terms of wheat and corn wastage? It may well be because of subsidies but that has zero to do with the demand created by illegals pushing up production needs.

quote:
How many employees would a company with zero customers sustainably hire? The fact that consumer demand/spending is what creates jobs is fundamental to how trade works.
So basically you ignored everything I wrote in my last post? If you're not going to reply with substantive answers I'm not sure what the point is. You've made a claim, and I've asked you for evidence that what you say is more than just a rhetorical tautology. Or are you claiming that there are businesses out there that, without the illegal Mexican consumption, would have "zero customers"? We are not discussing whether a company could exist without any customers, we are discussing whether a company could exist as it is without illegals as customers, because that's the claim you are making when you say their demand creates jobs.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
> TomDavidson

> Which ones, again? I'm looking for a) evidence that it's gotten worse in aggregate; and b) evidence that this is due to illegal immigration.

Well if you're looking for it then let me know what you find.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Production capabilities in the meat industry are arduous enough that it's likely they anticipate demand in order to determine the quantity they should raise and slaughter. But even then it just means one more pen and it doesn't take a new employee to do this.
Which is why supply is plentiful and prices remain low and flat? One more pen could feed millions of people? I don't see that happening. For a given small farm, that's not, even a 10% increase might mean 11 pens instead of 10, and maybe the current staff could just absorb it, because it would be operating pretty close to a skeleton crew already. If 1000 going to 1100? A company operating with the employee slack to accommodate that big of a shift would have already laid off a fair portion of its employee base because that's an absurd amount of aggregate time that is going to waste.

You'd be right on a one-off basis, but not once you pass the critical thresholds where you can't simply just add one more thing to a given person. At some point the aggregate adds up to enough that it overloads capacity and forces an additional hire. You pass that several times over when its millions of people, even at the bare minimum. And then there's the fact that each additional animal needs to be fed, so it means proportionally more demand in the agricultural fields that produce feed, in the transportation industry moving food from place to place, etc...

quote:
But in the cases of grain, corn, milk, vegetables, fruit, and so forth, they are simply going to overfarm no matter what the demand is. Perhaps you haven't seen the numbers in terms of wheat and corn wastage? It may well be because of subsidies but that has zero to do with the demand created by illegals pushing up production needs.
Okay, lets just look at wastage and assume that that's all that's affected. More consumers means less wastage, right. How much revenue does wastage bring? Who much revenue does more goods sold bring? Less wastage = more revenue, so _someone_ in chain has more money to spend, which means more people hired to meet whatever that money gets spent on (not to mention more trucks moving around the crops that aren't being plowed back into the ground, and knockdown employment all along the supply chain.)

What you don't seem to be accounting for is that, sure an operation that has only one person that's being used at 75% capacity won't lay off 25% of that one person. It can certainly absorb a 25% increase in business without any changes. But a farm that has 100 workers that are operating at 75% capacity is going to lay off about 25 workers so it's not wasting money paying for nothing. Any increase in demand will require more workers to be hired because it's not going to pay for capacity until it needs it. As you noted, for the meat industry- it will run as tight a ship as it can. If there are enough people working there that it could run an extra pen, it will either run that extra pen or lay off workers until it's not paying for slack capacity in all but the smallest cases.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Or are you claiming that there are businesses out there that, without the illegal Mexican consumption, would have "zero customers"? We are not discussing whether a company could exist without any customers, we are discussing whether a company could exist as it is without illegals as customers, because that's the claim you are making when you say their demand creates jobs.
Without the demand from undocumented workers, there are absolutely businesses that would lay off workers that they no longer need to meet the reduced demand levels and only keep them employed because they're the minimum necessary to meet current demand levels. Some might fall below the critical threshold such that they can't operate at all, but whether they exist isn't relevant, whether hey (short union contracts that require otherwise) retain one more employee than they actually need given that they exist is the issue in question. Unless the business is extremely small, or otherwise has an external factor that encourages it to overhire- it's not going to keep idle workers around just incase there's an unexpected jump in demand. It'll lay off workers until it has the least possible level of slack, especially if it has to answer to shareholders instead of being able to overpay based on the personal desires of a single owner.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Well if you're looking for it then let me know what you find.
And if he can't find it, will you accept the fact that it isn't there? [Smile]
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:

Okay, lets just look at wastage and assume that that's all that's affected. More consumers means less wastage, right. How much revenue does wastage bring? Who much revenue does more goods sold bring? Less wastage = more revenue, so _someone_ in chain has more money to spend, which means more people hired to meet whatever that money gets spent on (not to mention more trucks moving around the crops that aren't being plowed back into the ground, and knockdown employment all along the supply chain.)


Ironically you are actually making a supply-side trickle down economics argument here. I agree that making this kind of statement seems intuitively correct, but I think as we've seen it is not in fact a rule that when a company suddenly has increased profits that will translate into good things like increased wages, more jobs, and better working conditions. If nothing changes except wastage now being sold, this is free money for the company but is no difficulty for them to handle since it actually alleviates the difficulty they previously faced in having to dispose of the product and instead turns that work into profit.

quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
What you don't seem to be accounting for is that, sure an operation that has only one person that's being used at 75% capacity won't lay off 25% of that one person. It can certainly absorb a 25% increase in business without any changes. But a farm that has 100 workers that are operating at 75% capacity is going to lay off about 25 workers so it's not wasting money paying for nothing. Any increase in demand will require more workers to be hired because it's not going to pay for capacity until it needs it. As you noted, for the meat industry- it will run as tight a ship as it can. If there are enough people working there that it could run an extra pen, it will either run that extra pen or lay off workers until it's not paying for slack capacity in all but the smallest cases.

Let me put it this way. Productivity has become so high that one additional person employed can manage a huge amount of increase in production demands. A company who employs data entry people, managers, transportation, etc., as well as the actual hands who manage the product is going to possibly need to hire a few extra hands if the demand for product goes up, but it won't take many more people because one person alone can handle quite a lot of product if that's his whole job. Adding one new guy to the meat company, for instance, won't just facilitate one new pen but rather many of them, and so while it's no doubt true that a few paltry jobs are created as a result of some marginal increase in aggregate demand it won't be a) educated work, and b) it won't be that many news jobs anyhow in an overproductive field. Even if a few hundred low-pay jobs are needed here and there to manage extra pig pens it won't be significant on the national scale, unless you have figures that say otherwise? Don't forget it's your express claim that illegal immigrants are job creators, and for this kind of statement to have merit the numbers have to reflect that in more than a trivial way. It is 100% certain that illegals do occupy many jobs that Americans otherwise would have, and so I would say the threshold for "illegals create jobs" to have any meaning is if they specifically create more jobs than they take away from Americans.

Also note Pete's good point about the low-cost foods illegals eat. You seemed to largely dismiss his comment, but if, indeed, illegals are typically eating what they ate back home (beans, grains, wheat products) then this will primarily utilize the industries that are already overproducing. I believe ground beef is also a common staple, so there's that, but an illegal worker probably isn't buying steaks. The fact of increased profits for those overproducing companies is nice for the owners, but I believe you would agree that the trickle-down from this translating directly into jobs and benefits for the working American is something that is frequently not reflected in reality.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1