5 ms·

> "The anti-immigrant, anti-Mexican, anti-Muslim and anti-refugee sentiment expressed by some Americans today echoes nativist lurches of the past—the Alien and

> "The anti-immigrant, anti-Mexican, anti-Muslim and anti-refugee sentiment expressed by some Americans today echoes nativist lurches of the past—the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, the Know-Nothings of the mid-1800s, the anti-Asian sentiment in the late 19th and early 20th centuries..." They are mostly anti illegal immigrants. Obama has been trying to legislate the legalization of illegal immigrants. Legislation is the job of Congress. The Executive (Obama) is supposed to enforce those laws. Obama is not enforcing the laws. These illegal immigrants take jobs away from Americans. Plumbing and electricians are licensed jobs in states and they have Americans working in these jobs as a result. Carpenters and bricklayers are not licensed and as a result illegal immigrants have taken these jobs as well as driven down wage rates. Edit: Also not noted, is the growth of (legal) immigrants from about 9 million in 1970 (less than 5% of the population) to 43 million today (about 14% of the population). Add to this 11 more illegal immigrants and this increases immigrants to 54 million. Moreover, a major cause of inequality is the high cost of rent in cities such as SF, NYC, Boston, DC, LA (and also for example London) is "rent-seeking" of local laws which create artificial scarcity of housing through zoning density restrictions. This transfers income and wealth from tenants to landlords (property owners). Donald Trump holds a large position in Manhattan real estate so he benefits from these unfair laws that benefit special interests e.g., wealthy landlords. The markets can do an efficient job but parties that favored landlords getting more money for their property favor these zoning laws.

polyfractal 10y ago
> These illegal immigrants take jobs away from Americans. Eh, this argument gets trotted out a lot, but it isn't exactly clear-cut. The economy isn't a zero-sum game. Sure, illegal immigrants do show up and undercut some jobs. Some percentage of people will find themselves working at a lower wage, or lose their job and need to find a new one. But plenty of other people will find their business increased, higher wages, more profit, etc. All these immigrants require services and commodities too, and have to buy them from somewhere. They need to buy groceries, get hair-cuts, purchase mattresses, buy cars. Illegal or not, they contribute to the economy too. Planet Money did a good piece on the cuban migrations to Miami in the 80's. It was the perfect microcosm to study the phenomenon: many immigrants, contained geographical region, etc. http://www.npr.org/2015/10/01/444912593/when-cuban-migrants-flooded-miami-what-did-it-do-to-the-local-economy http://www.npr.org/2015/10/01/444912593/when-cuban-migrants-... Money quote at the top of the episode: SMITH: So 80,000 refugees came to Miami, and there was no effect on the economy? CARD: You couldn't detect any strong evidence of an effect one way or the other. SMITH: No effect, not on wages, not on unemployment rates. Card says this is because there is not a fixed number of jobs in an economy. When a bunch of new people come, yes, they get jobs. But they also start buying stuff, getting haircuts, going to the grocery store, which means you need more barbers and more grocers. That creates more jobs.
- jklinger410 10y ago
  >zero-sum game This meme is making it's rounds these days. >Sure, illegal immigrants do show up and undercut some jobs. Some percentage of people will find themselves working at a lower wage, or lose their job and need to find a new one. Right? No big deal! >But plenty of other people will find their business increased 2/2 = 1 >have to buy them from somewhere Was money created at some point? They took or undercut a job, and are spending money that...the other employee who they undercut or took their job from would have also spent...? I'm sorry if I'm dense...either I'm missing some fundamental pieces of your argument or there isn't much logic to it.
  - davidw 10y ago
    > I'm missing some fundamental pieces of your argument Yes: economics. We're more prosperous than we were 100 years ago, with far more people.
    - jklinger410 10y ago
      So we have 1,000 jobs filled by 1,000 people and they all have paychecks. We add an extra 1,000 people so we have 2,000 people and 1,000 jobs. 1,000 of those people are unemployed and have no money. Somehow this benefits our economy because those 1,000 unemployed people without jobs are going to buy things. Sorry I don't understand "economics."
      - davidw 10y ago
        > Sorry I don't understand "economics." I would suggest reading this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum_game#Economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum_game#Economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy Paul Graham also has a good article: http://paulgraham.com/wealth.html http://paulgraham.com/wealth.html There are number of good books on the subject. Tim Harford has some pretty approachable books that are aimed at a general audience. Perhaps others have further suggestions. As a consideration to others, strongly arguing something you have little understanding of lowers the signal to noise ratio of this site, and might be avoided.
jklinger410 10y ago
Framing anti-illegal immigration as "anti-immigrant" and "anti-mexican" is classic Democrat double-speak. The idea of not wanting new citizens to enter the work force when our current citizens cannot find work is labeled as xenophobic. Any ideas on why this double-speak is being promoted is labeled as a conspiracy theory.
- anthony_romeo 10y ago
  No to discuss this directly, but Donald Trump himself often conflates immigrant and illegal immigrant in his speeches, mixing statistics from these sets. This was evident in his RNC speech and a number of other speeches. The line is being blurred on both sides.
- lhc- 10y ago
  I mean, Trump has also talked about banning legal muslim immigration from places like Syria; does that not count as anti-immigration?
namecast 10y ago
> These illegal immigrants take jobs away from Americans. Respectfully: that is simply not how labor works. 'Illegal immigrants' may flood the job market with workers that are willing (or forced) to take lower pay than most Americans, work longer hours than most Americans, or deal with more hardships than most Americans - but it is the employers role to decide whether they'd rather take on the risk of employing undocumented workers than fixing these conditions. If an employer says "eff it, I'm willing to turn a blind eye and break the law if it means slightly less money spent on wages" - they're the ones at fault. I'm trying to point out what might seem obvious: focusing on the immigrants here may feel satisfying, but if the employers are not compelled to ameliorate their behavior, then deporting every last immigrant won't change the situation.
- davidf18 10y ago
  It is illegal to hire illegal immigrants but those laws need enforcing. It is the job of The Executive (President Obama) to enforce the laws passed by Congress. But Obama is trying to legislate in place of Congress to allow illegal immigrants to not only remain in the country, but to work here as well. There was a recent Supreme Court case about the issue which left in place a lower court opinion stating that Obama did not have the right to do what he did. Thus, while you are correct, it is a systems issue of our federal government refusing to do the job according to The Constitution and enforce the law that leads to the suffering of many Americans who have lost jobs to illegal immigrants.
venomsnake 10y ago
What really drives me crazy is some parts of the left that treat borders as wishful and not as the ultimate expression of sovereignty paid in blood so a nation can exist. So that is the problem that I have with the illegal-ness of them. The economic benefit or loss is irrelevant. Only invading armies have the "right" to cross a border without permission.

polyfractal 10y ago

> These illegal immigrants take jobs away from Americans. Eh, this argument gets trotted out a lot, but it isn't exactly clear-cut. The economy isn't a zero-sum game. Sure, illegal immigrants do show up and undercut some jobs. Some percentage of people will find themselves working at a lower wage, or lose their job and need to find a new one. But plenty of other people will find their business increased, higher wages, more profit, etc. All these immigrants require services and commodities too, and have to buy them from somewhere. They need to buy groceries, get hair-cuts, purchase mattresses, buy cars. Illegal or not, they contribute to the economy too. Planet Money did a good piece on the cuban migrations to Miami in the 80's. It was the perfect microcosm to study the phenomenon: many immigrants, contained geographical region, etc. http://www.npr.org/2015/10/01/444912593/when-cuban-migrants-flooded-miami-what-did-it-do-to-the-local-economy http://www.npr.org/2015/10/01/444912593/when-cuban-migrants-... Money quote at the top of the episode: SMITH: So 80,000 refugees came to Miami, and there was no effect on the economy? CARD: You couldn't detect any strong evidence of an effect one way or the other. SMITH: No effect, not on wages, not on unemployment rates. Card says this is because there is not a fixed number of jobs in an economy. When a bunch of new people come, yes, they get jobs. But they also start buying stuff, getting haircuts, going to the grocery store, which means you need more barbers and more grocers. That creates more jobs.

jklinger410 10y ago
>zero-sum game This meme is making it's rounds these days. >Sure, illegal immigrants do show up and undercut some jobs. Some percentage of people will find themselves working at a lower wage, or lose their job and need to find a new one. Right? No big deal! >But plenty of other people will find their business increased 2/2 = 1 >have to buy them from somewhere Was money created at some point? They took or undercut a job, and are spending money that...the other employee who they undercut or took their job from would have also spent...? I'm sorry if I'm dense...either I'm missing some fundamental pieces of your argument or there isn't much logic to it.
- davidw 10y ago
  > I'm missing some fundamental pieces of your argument Yes: economics. We're more prosperous than we were 100 years ago, with far more people.
  - jklinger410 10y ago
    So we have 1,000 jobs filled by 1,000 people and they all have paychecks. We add an extra 1,000 people so we have 2,000 people and 1,000 jobs. 1,000 of those people are unemployed and have no money. Somehow this benefits our economy because those 1,000 unemployed people without jobs are going to buy things. Sorry I don't understand "economics."
    - davidw 10y ago
      > Sorry I don't understand "economics." I would suggest reading this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum_game#Economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum_game#Economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy Paul Graham also has a good article: http://paulgraham.com/wealth.html http://paulgraham.com/wealth.html There are number of good books on the subject. Tim Harford has some pretty approachable books that are aimed at a general audience. Perhaps others have further suggestions. As a consideration to others, strongly arguing something you have little understanding of lowers the signal to noise ratio of this site, and might be avoided.

jklinger410 10y ago

Framing anti-illegal immigration as "anti-immigrant" and "anti-mexican" is classic Democrat double-speak. The idea of not wanting new citizens to enter the work force when our current citizens cannot find work is labeled as xenophobic. Any ideas on why this double-speak is being promoted is labeled as a conspiracy theory.

anthony_romeo 10y ago
No to discuss this directly, but Donald Trump himself often conflates immigrant and illegal immigrant in his speeches, mixing statistics from these sets. This was evident in his RNC speech and a number of other speeches. The line is being blurred on both sides.
lhc- 10y ago
I mean, Trump has also talked about banning legal muslim immigration from places like Syria; does that not count as anti-immigration?

namecast 10y ago

> These illegal immigrants take jobs away from Americans. Respectfully: that is simply not how labor works. 'Illegal immigrants' may flood the job market with workers that are willing (or forced) to take lower pay than most Americans, work longer hours than most Americans, or deal with more hardships than most Americans - but it is the employers role to decide whether they'd rather take on the risk of employing undocumented workers than fixing these conditions. If an employer says "eff it, I'm willing to turn a blind eye and break the law if it means slightly less money spent on wages" - they're the ones at fault. I'm trying to point out what might seem obvious: focusing on the immigrants here may feel satisfying, but if the employers are not compelled to ameliorate their behavior, then deporting every last immigrant won't change the situation.

davidf18 10y ago
It is illegal to hire illegal immigrants but those laws need enforcing. It is the job of The Executive (President Obama) to enforce the laws passed by Congress. But Obama is trying to legislate in place of Congress to allow illegal immigrants to not only remain in the country, but to work here as well. There was a recent Supreme Court case about the issue which left in place a lower court opinion stating that Obama did not have the right to do what he did. Thus, while you are correct, it is a systems issue of our federal government refusing to do the job according to The Constitution and enforce the law that leads to the suffering of many Americans who have lost jobs to illegal immigrants.

venomsnake 10y ago

What really drives me crazy is some parts of the left that treat borders as wishful and not as the ultimate expression of sovereignty paid in blood so a nation can exist. So that is the problem that I have with the illegal-ness of them. The economic benefit or loss is irrelevant. Only invading armies have the "right" to cross a border without permission.