I see you are still ranting your BS with no facts to back it up, try mine:
To: chronic_loser
......They depress wages for legal immigrants and US citizens.
This is simply untrue. If it were true, the FACT that we have had millions of illegals in the country for over 10 years would have depressed wages. It has not. Wages are rising. HINT: YOU ARE ARGUING AGAINST THE FREE MARKET, where people bid on services, goods, and wages. You just want to rig the system to artificially prop up wages. You may not make up imaginary scenarios where wages are declining in order to justify your immigration views. Wages are not declining, and it is simply a falsehood to claim they are.....
Yes wages are depressed. Borjas who is considered a lead expert on the subject concluded a 10% increase of immigrants reduces wages by 3 to 4%....
"Between 1980 and 2000 immigration increased the labor supply of working men by 11.0 percent. Even after accounting for the beneficial cross-effects of low-skill (high-skill) immigration on the earnings of high-skill (low-skill)workers, my analysis implies that this immigration influx reduced the wage of the average native worker by 3.2 percent. The wage impact differed dramatically across education groups with the wage falling by 8.9 percent for high school dropouts, 4.0 percent for college graduates, 2.6 percent for high school graduates,and barely changing for workers with some college." (page 1370(pdf36).
http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~GBorjas/Papers/QJE2003.pdf
......They use more "social" services than they pay for.
1) this is debatable.
2) the answer is not to clean out the illegals you you can spoon yourself more slop from the hog trough. the answer is to do away with the socialistic "social services." I personally would love to see SOMETHING bust the whole damn socialist system and force everyone to "pay as you go" system.....
They do use more social services it is not debatable:
Illegal alien households are estimated to use $2,700 a year more in services than they pay in taxes, creating a total fiscal burden of nearly $10.4 billion on the federal budget in 2002.
Among the largest federal costs: Medicaid ($2.5 billion); treatment for the uninsured ($2.2 billion); food assistance programs ($1.9 billion); the federal prison and court systems ($1.6 billion); and federal aid to schools ($1.4 billion).
IF ILLEGAL ALIENS WERE LEGALIZED AND BEGAN TO PAY TAXES AND USE SERVICES LIKE LEGAL IMMIGRANTS WITH THE SAME EDUCATION LEVELS, THE ESTIMATED ANNUAL FISCAL DEFICIT AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL WOULD INCREASE FROM $2,700 PER HOUSEHOLD TO NEARLY $7,700 FOR A TOTAL FEDERAL DEFICIT OF 29 BILLION.
With nearly two-third of illegals lacking a high school diploma, the primary reason they create a fiscal deficit is their low education levels and resulting low incomes and tax payments not their legal status or their unwillingness to work.
Amnesty increases costs because illegals would still be largely unskilled, and thus their tax payments would continue to be very modest, but once legalized they would be able to access many more government services.
The fact that legal immigrants with little schooling are a fiscal drain on federal coffers does not mean that legal immigrants overall are a drain. Many legal immigrants are highly skilled.
Because many of the costs are due to their U.S.-born children, who are awarded U.S. citizenship at birth, barring illegals themselves from federal programs will not significantly reduce costs.
Although they create a net drain on the federal government, the average illegal household pays more than $4,200 a year in federal taxes, for a total of nearly $16 billion.
However, they impose annual costs of more than $26.3 billion, or about $6,950 per illegal household.
About 43 percent, or $7 billion, of the federal taxes illegals pay go to Social Security and Medicare.
Employers do not see the costs associated with less-educated immigrant workers because the costs are spread out among all taxpayers.
http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalrelease.html
.........They are a burden on taxpayers, who are subsidizing their cheap labor for those that employ them
Yeah, and they shoot flaming monkeys out of their..... well you know. That statement is a complete non sequiter, unless you have a Marxist view of labor.........
See above for facts not flame shooting monkeys.
.........Rewarding lawbreakers with an amnesty, is that the American way?
No. I have never proposed amnesty. I propose a fine, just like I don't propose seizing your vehicle when you break the speed limit. You pay a FINE. I have proposed a $10,000 fee, a clean bill of health, a presentation of 3 years of filed tax forms, a proof that no serious crimes have been committed while here, and proof of continual employment. On that condition, we give you a yearly renewable visa. That is not "amnesty" and it is a despicable lie to claim that it is........
LOL of course it is amnesty you are rewarding their illegal behavior. What about the millions who are waiting to enter legally, you are pushing these people ahead of those who obeyed the law, thus a reward!
.....Why is crime so prevalent among this group?
good question:
1) for the same reason that it is less than one third what it is among US citizens...... who are black. Are you advocating revoking their citizenship?......
No I am not advocating revoking citizenship, I am advocating keeping illegal aliens out of this country so they commit their crimes in their homeland.
.......2) one serious reason is the nature of the idiotic choice I originally referenced. The REAL security problem we have with Latinos is that choice #3 has made it possible (nay, PROBABLE) that a career criminal can go al norte and establish a completely new identity. Rapists, Murderers, Thieves, all can come in with the good people because we have no border controls. ON THAT I am in complete agreement with the Freepers. We need to control our border. My difference is on HOW we do so......
ok so your not totally OBL, you want to fine them and make more money off them?
............You spout freedom and free markets, so tell me how many illegals is enough?
The question is stupid and unfair. We are talking about what to do with the illegals we have. My proposal is to offer them a path that would bring them "above ground" and reduce the incentive for others to sneak in, not to simply allow "more illegals." However, since you ask an idiot question, I will give you an idiot answer. It is "zero.".....
It is not a stupid question and why is it unfair? By offering an amnesty we will be encouraging millions more to enter illegally just as happened after the 1986 amnesty which is how we got into this mess in the first place. How do you propose to reduce the incentive to sneak in by granting amnesty? Are you going to give 20 million more temporary guest worker visas? What is your plan for those that are not here YET?
....You have the same chicken little scenario arguments that people spouted against the Irish, the Italians, the Chinese, the Germans and virtually every other people group that has come here, some of which have had GREATER percentages of immigrants compared to the citizen population than the current wave. They were all going to crush our wage structure and reduce our working class to poverty......
No there is a big difference, we controlled the amount of legal immigration, and at times they did depress wages.
......Are you so special or so skilled that we shouldn't let a few million people in to compete with your skills(whatever they are)?
Sure. Let em in. It is called "competition" and it lets the best rise to the top......
So you do want to let as many people in as want to come here, before you answered Zero. Make up your mind.
......the only people I see support illegals are those profiting from them or liberal bleeding hearts who don't have a clue.
you have neither one here......
Both?
148 posted on 12/01/2005 12:22:29 PM PST by rolling_stone
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1531590/posts?page=148#148
Borjas who is considered a lead expert on the subject concluded a 10% increase of immigrants reduces wages by 3 to 4%....
"Between 1980 and 2000 immigration increased the labor supply of working men by 11.0 percent. Even after accounting for the beneficial cross-effects of low-skill (high-skill) immigration on the earnings of high-skill (low-skill)workers, my analysis implies that this immigration influx reduced the wage of the average native worker by 3.2 percent. The wage impact differed dramatically across education groups with the wage falling by 8.9 percent for high school dropouts, 4.0 percent for college graduates, 2.6 percent for high school graduates,and barely changing for workers with some college." (page 1370(pdf36).
http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~GBorjas/Papers/QJE2003.pdf
I had noted the Borjas stuff. I pulled down all the bureau of labor stats I just referenced this morning to look at. One of several problems with all this is the way you play with "real" wages. Leftist economists play with all types of numbers (not accusing Borjas of anything, just giving an example) to "prove" that "real" wages have been declining for years. The problem is that we can't decide how much money we "really" have because 1) the amount of money in circulation keeps increasing 2) the fractional reserve system the fed uses allows 1st DooDip bank in Oshkawashkie Minnesota to "generate" moneys into the system by "lending" on a fractional system. (see Gary North's little tract on HONEST MONEY). You can do all kinds of monkey business wiht "real wages" because no one has a damn clue as to how much "real" money is out there. All we can accurately measure is the amount of stipulated income people are receiving. If you want to compare that against some chart of core inflation, then we are still talking about an honest analysis. Anything else is like astrology, you can make the tables say anything you like.
I have a more full response coming in my special STFU file, but that will have to do for now on real wages.