Political Roundtable - Part VII

[nate33]

And it's not just an issue of new people trying to establish roots and understandably working at a disadvantage at first. The situation simply doesn't improve. Immigrants who have been here for 16-21 years are even more likely to be on welfare than new arrivals.

[nate33]

And the worst offenders are our friends south of the border:



Seriously, how can this be a rational policy for the well being of existing poor and middle class Americans? We are bringing in 1.3 million immigrants a year, most from Mexico and Central America, and 73% of them immediately go on welfare, and they tend to stay on welfare for the next 20 years.

This isn't about racism or bigotry. It's about having a rational common-sense approach to immigration that doesn't bankrupt the country.

[Zonkerbl]

False premise. No point in answering a question whose assumptions are false. I've told you once, I'll tell you a thousand times, you can't assume all immigrants, or even a large share of them, are low skilled. It's just wrong. Just because these people are forced to take low-skill jobs does not mean they have no skill. Not speaking English /= no skill. These are highly motivated people, by and large, who took a big risk and made a big investment to come here. They make America great.

Refugees are different but you keep talking about immigration and you are just wrong wrong wrong about them. And yet you continue to let your prejudiced view of them cloud everything you say on this thread.

If I haven't been clear (though I think I have), I'm in favor of immigration of college educated workers. Bring them on. But I question your assertion that most immigrants are not low skill workers. From what I've researched, the educational levels of immigrants are bifurcated. Legal Immigrants are more likely than American born to have a college degree. They are also more likely than Americans to have less than a high school education. And a majority of illegal immigrants have not completed high school.

I'll take the college educated ones. Just not the sub-high-school educated ones.

Being an economist, I am forced to disagree with your narrow definition of "skilled=educated." It's just not true, particularly among citizens of developing countries, where so few people finish high school. I assert that the immigrant population as a whole brings with it a high level of entrepreneurial ability, which cannot be taught, all MBA programs in the country be damned. It's a talent you are born with.

I think we benefit tremendously from the awful conditions in developing countries that drive their most talented citizens to seek opportunity in the United States. It's stupid to spit in those people's faces.

[nate33]

Being an economist, I am forced to disagree with your narrow definition of "skilled=educated." It's just not true, particularly among citizens of developing countries, where so few people finish high school. I assert that the immigrant population as a whole brings with it a high level of entrepreneurial ability, which cannot be taught, all MBA programs in the country be damned. It's a talent you are born with.

I think we benefit tremendously from the awful conditions in developing countries that drive their most talented citizens to seek opportunity in the United States. It's stupid to spit in those people's faces.

Well, based on the graphs I just posted, it appears that your analysis as an economist is flat wrong. If this immigrant population brings such a high level of entrepreneurial ability, then why are 73% of Mexican/Central American immigrants on welfare? Why do they stay on welfare for 20 years?

[Zonkerbl]

And the worst offenders are our friends south of the border:



Seriously, how can this be a rational policy for the well being of existing poor and middle class Americans? We are bringing in 13 million immigrants a year, most from Mexico and Central America, and 73% of them immediately go on welfare, and they tend to stay on welfare for the next 20 years.

This isn't about racism or bigotry. It's about having a rational common-sense approach to immigration that doesn't bankrupt the country.

Ugh, Nate, tired of having this same conversation over and over again! Do you ever listen? How many times do we have to repeat that over an immigrant's lifetime they will pay off whatever assistance they get from welfare programs in increased labor productivity from them and their children that increases the nation's wealth?

Um, and the 13 million figure is for the entire immigrant population, not the the inflow. Stock vs. flow, man, gotta keep 'em straight.

Stay on welfare for 20 years? I don't think I even have to look that up, I know that's wrong.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/09/01/immigrant-welfare-use-report/71517072/

"Immigrants who have been in the U.S. more than 20 years use welfare less often, but their rates remain higher than native-born households."

Dude, it sucks to talk to someone who distorts the truth so emphatically. Just stop.

[Zonkerbl]

Being an economist, I am forced to disagree with your narrow definition of "skilled=educated." It's just not true, particularly among citizens of developing countries, where so few people finish high school. I assert that the immigrant population as a whole brings with it a high level of entrepreneurial ability, which cannot be taught, all MBA programs in the country be damned. It's a talent you are born with.

I think we benefit tremendously from the awful conditions in developing countries that drive their most talented citizens to seek opportunity in the United States. It's stupid to spit in those people's faces.

Well, based on the graphs I just posted, it appears that your analysis as an economist is flat wrong. If this immigrant population brings such a high level of entrepreneurial ability, then why are 73% of Mexican/Central American immigrants on welfare? Why do they stay on welfare for 20 years?

Because you're flat out wrong. Get your facts straight and we'll talk.

[nate33]

Um, and the 13 million figure is for the entire immigrant population, not the the inflow. Stock vs. flow, man, gotta keep 'em straight.

My bad. A typo. I meant 1.3 million.

Stay on welfare for 20 years? I don't think I even have to look that up, I know that's wrong.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/09/01/immigrant-welfare-use-report/71517072/

"Immigrants who have been in the U.S. more than 20 years use welfare less often, but their rates remain higher than native-born households."

Dude, it sucks to talk to someone who distorts the truth so emphatically. Just stop.

Dude. I posted the graph literally 2 posts above. Those who have been here 16-21 years draw on welfare at an even higher percentage than new arrivals. It finally dips after 21 years, which is a hell of a long time.

[TGW]

I'll tell you why immigrants are on welfare, Nate. It's because they are the ones who do the low paying, low-skilled, and often dangerous jobs. They do the jobs Americans don't want. And because those jobs are low paying, it means that those immigrants can't afford the cost of living in the United States. It's why they live 15 to a household, and have to be on government assistance.

And as for your point that they've been on welfare for 15-20 years---WELL, DUH. Cost of living as gone up, and wages have stayed stagnant. Of course their going to stay on welfare, because their situation has NOT improved. Why would anyone get off welfare if their wages haven't gone up, their status hasn't improved, and all their expenses have risen?

[nate33]

Ugh, Nate, tired of having this same conversation over and over again! Do you ever listen? How many times do we have to repeat that over an immigrant's lifetime they will pay off whatever assistance they get from welfare programs in increased labor productivity from them and their children that increases the nation's wealth?

This brings up another interesting tangent to this topic.

The children of Mexican immigrants do indeed do better than their immigrant parents on several metrics, including educational achievement and crime rate. (Indeed, second generation immigrants actually have a lower crime rate than the native born average, though that's when Asian, European, African, and Latin American immigrants are combined. I couldn't find data on Mexican immigrants broken out.) However, their educational achievement still does not rival that of "native" Americans and the real disturbing thing is that the improving trend completely reverses itself by the third generation. Third and fourth-generation Mexican Americans regress dramatically so that their educational achievement, poverty rate, and crime rate look as bad or worse than first generation immigrants.







The data supporting this notion that Mexican and Central American immigrants are a vibrant, entrepreneurial, and successful engine to our economy just isn't there. They are a net drag on the economy who pay very little in taxes due to their low income levels, and cost a lot in expenses due to welfare and educational costs. This is not opinion. It is documented fact. Maybe we should continue to import huge quantities of economic liabilities for humanitarian reasons, but just understand that they're not helping economically. They are dragging down the performance of schools, driving up the cost of housing, and competing for a limited supply of low wage jobs, which drives existing Americans into poverty and welfare. And the existing Americans affected the most are blacks. There's a reason black population declines dramatically in towns where Hispanic immigration is prevalent.

[nate33]

I'll tell you why immigrants are on welfare, Nate. It's because they are the ones who do the low paying, low-skilled, and often dangerous jobs. They do the jobs Americans don't want. And because those jobs are low paying, it means that those immigrants can't afford the cost of living in the United States. It's why they live 15 to a household, and have to be on government assistance.

And as for your point that they've been on welfare for 15-20 years---WELL, DUH. Cost of living as gone up, and wages have stayed stagnant. Of course their going to stay on welfare, because their situation has NOT improved. Why would anyone get off welfare if their wages haven't gone up, their status hasn't improved, and all their expenses have risen?

You are making my point! The reason wages are so low for those non-technical jobs is BECAUSE THERE IS A HIGH SUPPLY OF LABORERS THANKS TO IMMIGRATION!

[dckingsfan]

Yep Nate - two different questions that then exacerbate the problems for both.

1) We need immigration for growth to fund our entitlement programs.
2) We have programs that attract those that can't contribute and use those same programs.

There are several things we can do to improve the current status, ex: offer anyone who graduates from college here citizenship. Go back to truly screening for all immigration. (As a note: the group that wanted the open immigration early was business (Rs) vs Labor (Ds), the reason was to obtain competitive labor); ex: offer anyone with an advanced degree in science a fast track to citizenship, etc.

Also, this doesn't take into account generational aspects of immigrants. If you looked at a longitudinal study, I think you would find something entirely different, no?

But, the additional burden from immigrants is a rounding error compared to our fundamental problem of an aging society.

[nate33]

Yep Nate - two different questions that then exacerbate the problems for both.

1) We need immigration for growth to fund our entitlement programs.
2) We have programs that attract those that can't contribute and use those same programs.

There are several things we can do to improve the current status, ex: offer anyone who graduates from college here citizenship. Go back to truly screening for all immigration. (As a note: the group that wanted the open immigration early was business (Rs) vs Labor (Ds), the reason was to obtain competitive labor); ex: offer anyone with an advanced degree in science a fast track to citizenship, etc.

Also, this doesn't take into account generational aspects of immigrants. If you looked at a longitudinal study, I think you would find something entirely different, no?

But, the additional burden from immigrants is a rounding error compared to our fundamental problem of an aging society.

You are looking at the problem from the wrong perspective.

Social Security and Medicare are Ponzi schemes based on never-ending increase in population. You don't address the issue by trying desperately to add one more layer to the Ponzi scheme. You have to restructure the programs so that they're solvent. It's illogical to import a bunch of people who cost more than they contribute because you are expecting them to contribute more than they cost.

And yes, our immigration policy should take steps to only add those immigrants whom we can reasonably expect to contribute more than they cost - or at least break even.

[dckingsfan]

Yep Nate - two different questions that then exacerbate the problems for both.

1) We need immigration for growth to fund our entitlement programs.
2) We have programs that attract those that can't contribute and use those same programs.

There are several things we can do to improve the current status, ex: offer anyone who graduates from college here citizenship. Go back to truly screening for all immigration. (As a note: the group that wanted the open immigration early was business (Rs) vs Labor (Ds), the reason was to obtain competitive labor); ex: offer anyone with an advanced degree in science a fast track to citizenship, etc.

Also, this doesn't take into account generational aspects of immigrants. If you looked at a longitudinal study, I think you would find something entirely different, no?

But, the additional burden from immigrants is a rounding error compared to our fundamental problem of an aging society.

You are looking at the problem from the wrong perspective.

Social Security and Medicare are Ponzi schemes based on never-ending increase in population. You don't address the issue by trying desperately to add one more layer to the Ponzi scheme. You have to restructure the programs so that they're solvent. It's illogical to import a bunch of people who cost more than they contribute because you are expecting them to contribute more than they cost.

And yes, our immigration policy should take steps to only add those immigrants whom we can reasonably expect to contribute more than they cost - or at least break even.

You are preaching to the choir on entitlements. But we still have the aging demographic problem. There are two ways to deal with the problem.

1) Reform entitlements (I like you so don't hold your breath)
2) Expand the economy (and that will require immigration)

The red herring is the illegal immigrants that are already here. They are unfortunately our problem because we tacitly let them come to our country when we did need cheap labor (now we have an oversupply).

[TGW]

I'll tell you why immigrants are on welfare, Nate. It's because they are the ones who do the low paying, low-skilled, and often dangerous jobs. They do the jobs Americans don't want. And because those jobs are low paying, it means that those immigrants can't afford the cost of living in the United States. It's why they live 15 to a household, and have to be on government assistance.

And as for your point that they've been on welfare for 15-20 years---WELL, DUH. Cost of living as gone up, and wages have stayed stagnant. Of course their going to stay on welfare, because their situation has NOT improved. Why would anyone get off welfare if their wages haven't gone up, their status hasn't improved, and all their expenses have risen?

You are making my point! The reason wages are so low for those non-technical jobs is BECAUSE THERE IS A HIGH SUPPLY OF LABORERS THANKS TO IMMIGRATION!

Fine Nate--so stop immigration, eliminate the low wage immigrant worker from the workplace, and give those same jobs to Americans for 2-3x the salary. And then guess what happens...those huge corporations who sponsored these immigrants--your Doles, Del Monte's, restaurants, hotels, janitorial staffing companies--are all going to cry foul because they now have to pay American workers more money, which leads to less available jobs. And don't act like this isn't the truth.

Either way you slice it, if you limit immigration, the groups that benefit from it (mostly large corporations) are going to cry foul. And you know damn well the Republicans aren't going to pass anything that hurts large corporations.

[dckingsfan]

I'll tell you why immigrants are on welfare, Nate. It's because they are the ones who do the low paying, low-skilled, and often dangerous jobs. They do the jobs Americans don't want. And because those jobs are low paying, it means that those immigrants can't afford the cost of living in the United States. It's why they live 15 to a household, and have to be on government assistance.

And as for your point that they've been on welfare for 15-20 years---WELL, DUH. Cost of living as gone up, and wages have stayed stagnant. Of course their going to stay on welfare, because their situation has NOT improved. Why would anyone get off welfare if their wages haven't gone up, their status hasn't improved, and all their expenses have risen?

You are making my point! The reason wages are so low for those non-technical jobs is BECAUSE THERE IS A HIGH SUPPLY OF LABORERS THANKS TO IMMIGRATION!

Fine Nate--so stop immigration, eliminate the low wage immigrant worker from the workplace, and give those same jobs to Americans for 2-3x the salary. And then guess what happens...those huge corporations who sponsored these immigrants--your Doles, Del Monte's, restaurants, hotels, janitorial staffing companies--are all going to cry foul because they now have to pay American workers more money, which leads to less available jobs. And don't act like this isn't the truth.

Either way you slice it, if you limit immigration, the groups that benefit from it (mostly large corporations) are going to cry foul. And you know damn well the Republicans aren't going to pass anything that hurts large corporations.

And at the same time the Ds are going to protect the Entitlements - and there you have it...

[nate33]

You are preaching to the choir on entitlements. But we still have the aging demographic problem. There are two ways to deal with the problem.

1) Reform entitlements (I like you so don't hold your breath)
2) Expand the economy (and that will require immigration)

The red herring is the illegal immigrants that are already here. They are unfortunately our problem because we tacitly let them come to our country when we did need cheap labor (now we have an oversupply).

I'm always amazed at how the Narrative can influence so many on this. I hear you saying that the illegal immigrants already here are such a problem, as if they can't be possibly removed. I heard Nivek yesterday say something about "if we could somehow magically stop illegal border crossings." This defeatist narrative has been intentionally disseminated by the open-borders plutocrats who run the media.

This is the United States of America and it is 2015. We've put men on the moon. We can bomb a place from 50,000 feet in the air, and then send a second bomb through the hole created by the first bomb. Do you mean to tell me we can't build a working fence? That's ridiculous. Israel has done it. Saudi Arabia is doing. Heck, China did it 2000 years ago.

Build a fence, in all densely populated areas and man it. In remote areas, a fence may not be necessary and drones can handle manning it. Domestically, we simply enforce existing rules. If you knowingly hire illegal immigrants, you go to jail. Don't give illegal immigrants the ability to get a license, credit card, buy property, vote, go to school, receive welfare, or otherwise do the things one needs to do to live conveniently in America. We won't need to go door-to-door and round them up. If they can't drive, get credit, go to school, receive welfare checks, or go to work, they'll go home on their own.

[dckingsfan]

You are preaching to the choir on entitlements. But we still have the aging demographic problem. There are two ways to deal with the problem.

1) Reform entitlements (I like you so don't hold your breath)
2) Expand the economy (and that will require immigration)

The red herring is the illegal immigrants that are already here. They are unfortunately our problem because we tacitly let them come to our country when we did need cheap labor (now we have an oversupply).

I'm always amazed at how the Narrative can influence so many on this. I hear you saying that the illegal immigrants already here are such a problem, as if they can't be possibly removed. I heard Nivek yesterday say something about "if we could somehow magically stop illegal border crossings." This defeatist narrative has been intentionally disseminated by the open-borders plutocrats who run the media.

This is the United States of America and it is 2015. We've put men on the moon. We can bomb a place from 50,000 feet in the air, and then send a second bomb through the hole created by the first bomb. Do you mean to tell me we can't build a working fence? That's ridiculous. Israel has done it. Saudi Arabia is doing. Heck, China did it 2000 years ago.

Build a fence, in all densely populated areas and man it. In remote areas, a fence may not be necessary and drones can handle manning it. Domestically, we simply enforce existing rules. If you knowingly hire illegal immigrants, you go to jail. Don't give illegal immigrants the ability to get a license, credit card, buy property, vote, go to school, receive welfare, or otherwise do the things one needs to do to live conveniently in America. We won't need to go door-to-door and round them up. If they can't drive, get credit, go to school, receive welfare checks, or go to work, they'll go home on their own.

1) You have a current problem with the illegal immigrants that are already here
- arguably one that we have tacitly allowed, difficult to solve
2) You have a future problem of continued immigration
- an easier problem to solve

It isn't a problem that can't be solved. It is a political problem that can't be solved. Businesses (many Rs) want cheap labor and don't want the rules enforced. Democrats want the demographic change to enhance their party. Where are you going to get the plurality to do this enforcement?

[nate33]

I'll tell you why immigrants are on welfare, Nate. It's because they are the ones who do the low paying, low-skilled, and often dangerous jobs. They do the jobs Americans don't want. And because those jobs are low paying, it means that those immigrants can't afford the cost of living in the United States. It's why they live 15 to a household, and have to be on government assistance.

And as for your point that they've been on welfare for 15-20 years---WELL, DUH. Cost of living as gone up, and wages have stayed stagnant. Of course their going to stay on welfare, because their situation has NOT improved. Why would anyone get off welfare if their wages haven't gone up, their status hasn't improved, and all their expenses have risen?

You are making my point! The reason wages are so low for those non-technical jobs is BECAUSE THERE IS A HIGH SUPPLY OF LABORERS THANKS TO IMMIGRATION!

Fine Nate--so stop immigration, eliminate the low wage immigrant worker from the workplace, and give those same jobs to Americans for 2-3x the salary. And then guess what happens...those huge corporations who sponsored these immigrants--your Doles, Del Monte's, restaurants, hotels, janitorial staffing companies--are all going to cry foul because they now have to pay American workers more money, which leads to less available jobs. And don't act like this isn't the truth.

Either way you slice it, if you limit immigration, the groups that benefit from it (mostly large corporations) are going to cry foul. And you know damn well the Republicans aren't going to pass anything that hurts large corporations.

You can't have it both ways. You can't expect people to make more money than say that the corporations won't pay for it. Which is going to be? Are you going to continue to implement a policy that generates a dependent underclass, are will you implement a policy that makes things a bit more expensive for big business. Heck, I'll bet you are for raising the minimum wage. How is this any different?

The bottom line is that service sector work can't be exported. If we constrain the labor supply, wages will go up because corporations will have no choice. Their profit margins will take a small hit, and prices will go up. Ultimately, it will result in a modest wealth transfer from the rich to the poor, which is exactly what everyone wants. Only it does so in a way that stimulates a work ethic rather than a welfare dependency mentality.

When considering the manufacturing jobs that might get exported if this policy were implemented, I think we address that with tariffs. If companies go overseas to make stuff, charge them even more money to send it back here. What people don't seem to understand is that we have leverage in a trade war. We can slap tariffs on Chinese and Mexican goods and they pretty much have to take it. They have no choice because they are more dependent on our consumer demand than we are dependent on their supply. If China stops making stuff for us, we'll build it here (and employ more workers in the process). If we stop buying their stuff, they get internal conflict and revolution as their disgruntled middle class rise up against their elites.

Everybody can see that we have a huge problem with income inequality. I'm very much in favor of addressing this problem because it's corrosive to society and ultimately leads to mistrust, anger and violence. But my methods of dealing with it isn't to play Robin Hood. You don't point a gun at the rich, take their money and give it to the poor because you create a permanent dependent underclass and a whole lot of corruption in the process. What you do is give the poor the opportunity to make a living wage by increase wage levels through policies that nudge the economy in ways we want it to go.

[nate33]

It isn't a problem that can't be solved. It is a political problem that can't be solved. Businesses (many Rs) want cheap labor and don't want the rules enforced. Democrats want the demographic change to enhance their party. Where are you going to get the plurality to do this enforcement?

Agreed. It's a political problem which requires a political solution.

My first step would be to inform the electorate. Help working class Democrats and Republicans understand that current policies are designed to drive down wages for the good of the plutocrats. I think the argument is pretty easy, the difficulty is reaching the audience because you have to go through the media which is owned by Democrats, except in the case of Fox News, which is owned by open-borders big business plutocrats. It took a candidate like Trump to get the ball rolling because he is not beholden to special interests. Unfortunately, Trump isn't all that great and explaining his ideas. Maybe he is just the first step - the guy who moves the Overton Window far enough so that a better, more articulate candidate can make the argument. I wish Pat Buchanan was 20 years younger.

[TGW]

You are making my point! The reason wages are so low for those non-technical jobs is BECAUSE THERE IS A HIGH SUPPLY OF LABORERS THANKS TO IMMIGRATION!

Fine Nate--so stop immigration, eliminate the low wage immigrant worker from the workplace, and give those same jobs to Americans for 2-3x the salary. And then guess what happens...those huge corporations who sponsored these immigrants--your Doles, Del Monte's, restaurants, hotels, janitorial staffing companies--are all going to cry foul because they now have to pay American workers more money, which leads to less available jobs. And don't act like this isn't the truth.

Either way you slice it, if you limit immigration, the groups that benefit from it (mostly large corporations) are going to cry foul. And you know damn well the Republicans aren't going to pass anything that hurts large corporations.

And at the same time the Ds are going to protect the Entitlements - and there you have it...

Both sides are going to protect THEIR OWN entitlements.