30 ms·

I would express the same sentiment about illegal immigrants. This is to all the people who support Donald Trump's rhetoric about deporting all 11 million undocu

• frozenport 10y ago
  >>The fact is, immigrants have higher labor participation, lower crime rate than the native born population. Do you believe their higher labor participation is due to the pressures we put on them? What about their children? At face value, the proposition for wholesale legalization of illegal immigrants is to create several million low income Americans.
• andrewflnr 10y ago
  To be fair, I'm guessing most of the hard line conservatives advocating mass deportation actually don't smoke pot at all.
  • InclinedPlane 10y ago
    You're right, they're much more likely to have a prescription opiate habit.
    • brohee 10y ago
      If you're poor and black, it's a crime a and should be sternly punished, if you're rich and white, it's youthful experimentation and should be glossed over. Easy.
      • InclinedPlane 10y ago
        Or a "public health crisis" (which it's always been, but now that it's white folks, the public have dug up some compassion). Relevant: https://twitter.com/kjhealy/status/781557015843856385 https://twitter.com/kjhealy/status/781557015843856385
  • CydeWeys 10y ago
    I think you'd be surprised how many older staunch conservatives nevertheless experimented with drugs at some point earlier in their lives. And if not drugs, something else that is illegal and carries stiff penalties. The point is the hypocrisy of demanding such stiff penalties for classes of crimes that most people are guilty of at least one at some point in their lives.
• drcode 10y ago
  Your argument is basically "everybody's doing it, everybody is breaking a law somewhere" and that it's OK for people to break one law because other people are breaking a different law. I think a more sensible approach than saying "lawbreaking is OK" is for the parties on Capitol Hill to forge a compromise that involves (1) easier legal immigration (2) better funding and more enforcement of existing immigration laws (yes, including significant deportation for illegal immigrants that moved to the US as an adult) The only way to make progress is to move further away from casual law breaking, not to continue encouraging it. (And yes, a "one time amnesty" as you suggest would encourage more people to break the law.) Side note: My own personal opinion is that legal immigration should be so easy that virtually anyone can come to our country who doesn't have a criminal history, but that's not on the table as a viable option.
  • dwaxe 10y ago
    Sometimes a law is detrimental to human good. In such cases we should break it.
    • AstralStorm 10y ago
      No, the companies involved have clout to lobby to change it. Instead of breaking it in the dark, apply sunlight and expose the problem, then fix it. This used to be how the US operated, how both majorities (women) and minorities got the right to vote, and more. Apparently certain countries have no such problems, with near full employment. For instance, South Korea, and it's a pretty rich country. So it is not impossible to do legally.
      • dylanfw 10y ago
        > No, the companies involved have clout to lobby to change it. > This used to be how the US operated, how both majorities (women) and minorities got the right to vote, and more. You might be giving a bit too much credit to company lobbyists and not enough to law-breaking activists. Both examples involved extensive illegal actions to accelerate change.
  • 10y ago
• mc32 10y ago
  A fair immigration policy for US citizens would take into account the effects of immigration on them and also take their concerns into account --with rigorous studies, not just cherry picked ones (higher income immigrants, for example, contribute more to the economy than unskilled immigrants, irrespective of country) That said, to be fair to all potential immigrants, we should grant all of them equal potential access (i.e. someone from South Africa having the same chance to legally ingress into the US as a Canadian or Mexican who are right next door --it might also take into account their population, so someone form Indonesia has the same odds as someone from Belize. And, to be fair to the American population, we should ensure those who come here are here to fill gaps in our society --so ensuring they don't undercut Americans jobs (that is let meat packers have to pay $25/hr to get locals to do that job rather than say have them say that no American wants to do that job. I'd bet many poor whites as well as many poor blacks would take those jobs at those wages. Also, any underdeveloped population which moves to the US (or Kuwait or Chile) will typically increase their own per capita consumption (from a global perspective) also if they come from a country wallowing in economic mismanagement (say Albania) allowing Albanians (or Georgians) to flee means even less stability for those locales as it takes their motivated people and transplant them into a place that doesn't need them as much. There are many incidental things which a policy can affect. We're not a nation of 120 million or 200, we're at 330 and climbing and most with a voracious appetite for consumption (including the fast learning newcomers). That said, fairness in immigration should be a priority rather than just allow those who runt the gauntlet successfully. And in addition, tie it to the ease of Americans's ability to migrate into these other countries, if we choose.
  • JoeAltmaier 10y ago
    Fair? You mean, maximum benefit to Americans. We're supposed to believe all people have inalienable rights to life, liberty etc. I'm willing to allow folks suffering abroad to find a haven here. That sounds fair to me.
    • mc32 10y ago
      Of course I mean fair to Americans (just as every other country wants to maximize things for their own populations). Do you think when immigrants come to the US _they_ are not going to try to maximize their own advantage? It's not like they're going to say, ha, we made it, time to underachieve, let's not ask too much. It's not as if we don't have our own poor --blacks and whites.
• fiblye 10y ago
  One thing I find worrying about arguments in favor of illegal immigration/very lax immigration policies is how easily it can come across as being in favor of indentured servitude and having a lower class to support the upper class. We say they do jobs "nobody else wants to do" for suboptimal wages, and they do it right because they fear what'll happen if they don't. And we proudly say that they contribute by paying taxes that support citizens while taking nothing in return. You could honestly make a solid argument in favor of slavery using the same exact points. Go to a poor, dangerous country like Yemen, offer someone a contract saying they can live in a safe country so long as they accept that they get zero benefits, they'll be deported should they mess up their job, and a large portion of their income will support their citizens. Of course, this sounds terrible, because you're making them sign a contract and this is seen as taking advantage of them, when it's entirely their choice to go for it. But when no written contract is involved, we sweep it under the rug and even get people saying it's great because it boosts our economy.
  • IPbanned 10y ago
    The comparison to slavery is apt. It's all part of a scheme to replace the empowered middle classes with powerless wage slaves. That, and to encourage violence from immigrants while taking arms and will to resist away from citizens, to necessitate the further militarizing our police force and forceful control of the population.
  • ap3 10y ago
    Unfortunately there will always be those for whom this modern day slavery is better than the prospects they have at home. You do them no favors by keeping them out because they never had access to "benefits" in the first place
  • bruno_samar 10y ago
    I think this comes down to the contract really, and you could make an argument about many contracts which are not morally right (like marrying a 50 year old grandma on her death-bed and going away with all the inheritance. Is that right?). Sweeping under a rug will not be solved by banning immigration, or making it stricter, that would exclusively make it worse. Lax laws would actually tremendously help those kind of modern slaves. So i dont really see your point.
• prostoalex 10y ago
  Are you then in favor of removing visa entry requirements for the citizens of Mexico? The current status quo of mandating that legal visitors to the United States adhere to the terms of their visas, but looking the other way for anyone entering illegally seems just a tiny bit hypocritical to someone on the Mexican side.
• Kadin 10y ago
  > came to work jobs no one else would take This is a particular piece of rhetoric I find distasteful. If there are jobs that are structured such that only an illegal immigrant, who by definition exists outside the normal labor pool and its protections, will take, that job should not exist in that form or at that pay rate. Full stop. So the fact that jobs that "no one else would take" exist and are being taken by illegal immigrants isn't a good thing. If you're in favor of expanded immigration, making that claim doesn't help your case. It substantiates the case that anti-immigration proponents have always made, which is that immigrants take the bottom out of the labor market and help keep salaries down. After all, if nobody would take a job doing some particularly onerous job at a pittance per hour, then the employer would have to pay more, or automate, or find a more efficient way of doing the job. Refusing to do these jobs is the correct response when they are clearly undercompensated. There are lots of people in the legal labor market who do terribly unpleasant, physically strenuous, or frankly dangerous jobs, but they typically (outside of illegal or exploitative markets) do them for reasonable wages. Someone who SCUBA dives in raw sewage or nuclear waste, for instance, is probably going to demand a fair compensation for the unpleasantness of the job. The same should be true with people who work in slaughterhouses or picking strawberries or tarring asphalt roofs. The narrative that "Americans just won't do" certain jobs is one that is created by cheapskate, exploitative employers who don't want to pay the market rate for particularly ugly jobs. Parroting it is water-carrying for these exploitative industries.
  • hackuser 10y ago
    >> came to work jobs no one else would take > If there are jobs that are structured such that only an illegal immigrant, who by definition exists outside the normal labor pool and its protections, will take Typically, that statement also refers to jobs that are perfectly legal, but most Americans wouldn't take anyway. For example, many of the experienced people reading this wouldn't drive a cab, deliver pizzas, work as unskilled construction labor, a dishwasher or a janitor if they became unemployed. They'd continue to look for their next IT job. And they'd be choosy about that - not selling computers at Best Buy, for example. (I'm not putting down those jobs; personally I respect any work.)
    • 10y ago
• jethro_tell 10y ago
  Another benefit of immigration (legal and illegal) you didn't mention is that they cover the population shrinkage from being heavily populated in the boomer age range. That's actually good for the economy. In some places that's a crisis.
• IndianAstronaut 10y ago
  Another important note is every worker is also a consumer. Every worker will consume food, movies, construction services, etc.
• partycoder 10y ago
  The trend is that more Mexicans have left the US rather than entered it. http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/11/19/more-mexicans-leaving-than-coming-to-the-u-s/ http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/11/19/more-mexicans-leaving-... Then, you used Mexican immigrant and illegal immigrant interchangeably. Not all Mexican immigrants are illegal or financially distressed, or seeking to do jobs that no one else wants to do. This pisses me off. The US entertainment industry is hostile towards Mexico in a very passive aggressive way. It spends significant resources reinforcing the idea of Mexico being poor and unsafe, as well as Mexicans being poor, violent and unattractive by designing characters and casting for actors with substantially different traits.
  • elboru 10y ago
    You made a great point, I'm Mexican so I'm aware of all the ideas and stereotypes the entertainment industry spread to the whole globe about Mexicans. I've met people from other countries who really think we live in a desert (old west style), with a poncho and a sombrero. I can't really count all the American movies or shows where they show Mexico in a old west style, sepia background, sand and cactus everywhere, women using old style dresses, people armed everywhere. I love Terminator and Breaking bad, but the way they show Mexico, wow, it's so laughable. People tend to think we all Mexicans are just looking for an opportunity to go to the US, they don't stop for a second and think that that might not be true for most cases, I have family over there that would give everything to come back to Mexico if they could find a good job. You know it's not easy crossing a desert risking your life, leaving your whole family behind, knowing that you might never see them again, just to take an unpleasant job cleaning someone's else toilet, just to live in a small house in an ugly neighborhood, experiencing racism, facing cultural and language barriers, praying God for good health. I'm a developer so I have a reasonably good job over here, I've had a lot of offers from American companies but I've rejected all of them because I just don't see it as a necessity, right know money is not a factor to consider facing all the downsides a Mexican will face in the US, here I have everything that I need and want.
• icc97 10y ago
  I actually think it would be a great idea to explicitly start a company that only wanted to hire immigrants especially Syrian refugees: - they're more motivated (they have people lives depending on them making money and sending it back, they actually want to move here rather than just being born here) - they're often richer (i.e. they don't come to live off the state) than those that stay in their own country as they have to have the money to pay the people to get them across [1] - the fact that they got through demonstrates a level skill and intelligence. It's not just luck that means people survive 5,000-mile, 2-month journeys illegally I'd say any of these tasks are way above what would be asked on The Apprentice. [1]: https://web.archive.org/web/20160305124312/http://www.rescue.org/blog/mapping-syrian-refugees-danger-filled-journey-europe
  • dummkopf99 10y ago
    You ignore the most important characteristic of these refugees.
    • icc97 10y ago
      Which ones did I miss?
• TheBeardKing 10y ago
  I've never taken an economics class so forgive me, but hypothetically, what would the effects be if everyone was given citizenship today? All jobs in agriculture, construction, services, etc. would require minimum wages and benefits and the costs of many basic things would increase drastically. Imported produce would be much cheaper than domestic, making it ineffective for farmers here to compete. That would severely reduce the number of agricultural jobs here, further reducing the low skill labor market. What do you do with all these people, who now qualify for unemployment insurance? Not to mention that low income people can no longer afford basic goods and services, and housing prices would go up. Perhaps I'm way off base, but would appreciate some clarification on these issues.
  • brokenmachine 10y ago
    > All jobs in agriculture, construction, services, etc. would require minimum wages and benefits Aren't all jobs meant to require minimum wages and benefits now? Just kidding, of course not! We have immigrants to do those jobs!