BF2S Forums Illegal Immigration / Immigrants

PspRpg-7 wrote:

FriiginChomper wrote:

Donald Rumsfeld is giving the president his daily briefing. He concludes by saying, "Yesterday, 3 Brazilian soldiers were killed in an accident."

"OH DEAR GOD NO," Bush exclaims. "That's terrible!!"

His staff sits stunned at this display of emotion, nervously watching as the president sits, head in hands. Finally, the President, devastated, looks up and asks, "How many is a Brazillion??!"

ROFL, anyway I think that illegal immagrants are just that: Illegal. And should be considered as such. We had a discussion in class the other day about this, and one Mexican said (yes that's right, a mexican, they're from Mexico...) exclaimed "WHY DOES EVERYONE THINK IT'S JUST LATINOS" and I respond: "Because most illegal immagrants are Mexicans" And she says "That's racist!!" (Wtf?) me: "where're you from?" she: "Mexico" me: "there you have it".

KRU-FEOS wrote:

PspRpg-7 wrote:

FriiginChomper wrote:

Donald Rumsfeld is giving the president his daily briefing. He concludes by saying, "Yesterday, 3 Brazilian soldiers were killed in an accident."

"OH DEAR GOD NO," Bush exclaims. "That's terrible!!"

His staff sits stunned at this display of emotion, nervously watching as the president sits, head in hands. Finally, the President, devastated, looks up and asks, "How many is a Brazillion??!"

ROFL, anyway I think that illegal immagrants are just that: Illegal. And should be considered as such. We had a discussion in class the other day about this, and one Mexican said (yes that's right, a mexican, they're from Mexico...) exclaimed "WHY DOES EVERYONE THINK IT'S JUST LATINOS" and I respond: "Because most illegal immagrants are Mexicans" And she says "That's racist!!" (Wtf?) me: "where're you from?" she: "Mexico" me: "there you have it".

Yep...apparently it's racist to state a fact unless the fact backs up that the white male is evil.

Good on ya rpg...good on ya.

+1 from FEOS.

B.Schuss wrote:

Why do children of illegal immigrants that were born in the US automatically become US citizens ? That's nonsense. I know the law says if you are born in the US, you are a US citizen, but we should consider the times and the circumstances under which that law was created and modify it according to the circumstances today, don't you think ?

There are legal ways to become a US citizen. Why support those who can't be bothered to follow those ways ?
Follow the law, pay taxes or get the f*** out, I say.

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

B.Schuss, I agree with what you said, but some clarification on needing immigrants.

Yes, they do play a role in the economy, but only when they are legally on the payrolls of companies where proper taxes can be taken from their paychecks.  Also, because illegals work for so little money, and most of it under the table (no taxes taken from their checks), in addition to the tax paid services they use (food stamps, welfare, medical, WIC, etc.) they result in a net loss to the economy.

Lastly, you need to remember that many of the illegals coming here did not do so with their primary goals/desires being that of becoming a US citizen, it was out of need to find work they couldn't find in Mexico. IMO immigrants given US citizenship should want to be Americans, not given citizenship because they don't want to be deported while they work here.

Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2006-05-05 09:46:56)

whittsend wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

Yes, they do play a role in the economy, but only when they are legally on the payrolls of companies where proper taxes can be taken from their paychecks.  Also, because illegals work for so little money, and most of it under the table (no taxes taken from their checks), in addition to the tax paid services they use (food stamps, welfare, medical, WIC, etc.) they result in a net loss to the economy.

That is not entirely true.  By working for low wages, they reduce the costs of the goods and services.  This has a nationwide effect on the prices, specifically of produce, but in other areas as well.  Because the employer is paying someone a fraction of the wages an American would get, AND not paying bene's, AND not paying SS tax, AND not paying unemployment, etc. etc., you are able to buy the produce picked for MUCH less than you would have to otherwise.  The net effect is similar to when manufacturing jobs are sent overseas in an effort to reduce costs:  That is, the net effect is that the standard of living of the consumer is increased. 

Make no mistakes, I am not arguing that we should freely allow illegal immigrants into the country (nothing could be further from my opinion), but we have to recognize they they do have a positive effect on the economy.  Any solution should allow for a liberal guest worker program and, yes, we will have to expect to pay more for goods and services performed by formerly illegal workers when they get benefits, and their employers are required to pay for all the goodies that go along with paying above the table.  That is necessary to preserve the rule of law, but unfortunately it is going to result in a decline of the standard of living (though, not necessarily a sharp decline), as every industry which uses illegals will be more expensive.

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

But you are only looking at one side of the picture.  You aren't looking at the fact that some companies lay off their legal workers to hire illegals in order to compete.  So what if we pay lower prices for a few veggies, overall the net effect of illegal immigration is a NET LOSS to the US economy, so the fact of the matter is they are not making things better just because one particular item heavily worked by illegal immigrants is cheaper.

theconservativevoice wrote:

They are working at wages below the legal minimum. Were illegal immigrants to disappear tomorrow, prices in all of the above industries would rise, some businesses would shut down and other businesses would move abroad. On the other hand, the Center for Immigration Studies has shown that illegal immigrant households create a federal net fiscal deficit of $2,700 per household, since they generate little tax revenue but take advantage of basic government services. Granting amnesty would hike that deficit to $7,700 per household. The question for Americans is whether they are willing to pay more at the supermarket or see their favorite restaurant shut down in order to prevent illegal immigration.

Last edited by whittsend (2006-05-05 10:35:20)

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

No, it doesn't raise the standard of living because it allows businesses to be lazy, and rather than modernize, they simply exploit cheap labor.  And I don't know where you learned economics, but their federal deficit impact does play a role in the economy.

No one said that there wouldn't be some economic impact if we cracked down hard on illegals, but ultimately the impact of not doing anything is likely to be far worse.

Last edited by whittsend (2006-05-05 11:47:45)

whittsend wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

No, it doesn't raise the standard of living because it allows businesses to be lazy, and rather than modernize, they simply exploit cheap labor.  And I don't know where you learned economics, but their federal deficit impact does play a role in the economy.

No one said that there wouldn't be some economic impact if we cracked down hard on illegals, but ultimately the impact of not doing anything is likely to be far worse.

Your standard of living is based on the number of goods and services you can afford.  The more you can afford, the higher your standard of living.

The amount of money paid to illegal immigrants is a fraction of every other cost involved in the chain of the goods and services they decline.  If you supplant them with legal workers the cost of all those goods and services AT LEAST doubles.  Think about that:  Like your own quote says, the cost of your diet will skyrocket, and the cost of restaurants will skyrocket, the cost of any industry which employes illegals to clean up the puke in the bathroom will skyrocket, the cost of any industry which employes illegals in any way will increase dramatically.  This will have a HUGE affect on the economy, it will ripple across many industries and your standard of living WILL decrease.

This is a FACT.  If you don't see it, you need to sharpen your own economic understanding.  You can ignore it, but it is beyond doubt.

The only negative impact of illegals is that they use services they don't pay for...but as I said, so do many legal workers.  I think we would be better off eliminating the servieces.

whittsend wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

whittsend wrote:

The only negative impact of illegals is that they use services they don't pay for...but as I said, so do many legal workers.  I think we would be better off eliminating the servieces.

You would like to eliminate social services in general?

Yes.  People are complaining their taxes are going to services for people who are not paying for them...this is true, but it isn't just illegals who are doing this.  Social services are based on the concept of wealth redistribution.  I do not favor this idea.  It is not a tenable position to say that the welfare state would work perfectly except for these damned illegals who come in and mooch off it.  The welfare state exists to be mooched off; those who do so legally simply manage to throw a few pennies at that system to defray the costs, while illegals throw none.  Either way, those who are not using the system are the ones who are paying for it.

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

Your view of the economic impact is to narrow.  Like I said in the other thread, what illegals do to the economy is very much what Wal-Mart does to an economy, and often that impact is not positive.

No, my view is quite broad.  I'm looking at the economic big picture, you are looking at narrow and specifice pieces of the puzzle.  As I said before, I do not support illegal immigration, but I'm wise enough to understand that the impact of eliminating it entirely will be huge, and it will be largely negative.  You, on the other hand, choose to ignore it because it puts a negative spin on your viewpoint.  Sorry, but the world isn't black and white.  This is not a win-win issue for anyone, and eliminating illegal workers will have significant consequences, some of which YOU WILL feel.

By the way, that study is clearly an anti-Wal-Mart piece, and shows nothing.  Use of the words 'may', 'would' and 'possible' are telling.  In any case, you are comparing apples and oranges, as the impact of illegals is pervasive and national, and the impact of the Wal-Marts described is specific and local.