Illegal immigrant gets California law license

[Hencredible Casanova]

Virtually all economists agree that immigrants - illegal and legal - benefit the US economy, and raise the income of most Americans. Illegal immigrants are, in fact, a net gain on the nation's balance sheet, by most findings.

Virtually all economists had no problem with subprime lending and even went so far as to mock and dismiss those who saw a housing bubble.

You're going to need a better authority than economists if you're going to appeal to authority.

Apples and oranges. Illegal immigration has existed and been studied for much longer than the recent housing crisis.

Also, why has no one cited data when making claims about the economic and social impact of illegal immigrants? I'm just supposed to take your word?

Personally, I have zero problems with illegal immigrants. I rarely come across any in my day to day life. They aren't a factor at my job or in my community.

Immigration is a human issue, not a legal one. Every American was an immigrant somewhere down the line anyway. We are not in any position to deny others the same opportunity.

This is nothing new anyway. Nativist sentiment has always been an undercurrent of American politics, since the country's inception.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nativism_(politics)

 

[BootNootly]

Virtually all economists agree that immigrants - illegal and legal - benefit the US economy, and raise the income of most Americans. Illegal immigrants are, in fact, a net gain on the nation's balance sheet, by most findings.

Virtually all economists had no problem with subprime lending and even went so far as to mock and dismiss those who saw a housing bubble.

You're going to need a better authority than economists if you're going to appeal to authority.

When a couple has to overpay by $50 per square foot for a home in a "good" school district (i.e. away from cholos), genius economists cheer because it inflates the GDP, lol.

http://www.propertychelan.com/redfi...-square-foot-more-for-homes-near-top-schools/

For an average home, and factoring in higher property taxes because of the inflated value, the home in the "good" school district will cost the professional couple an extra $160,000 plus interest.

The average American kid costs $240K to raise, so basically professional couples are spending the equivalent of 2/3 of a kid (and therefore often choosing to have less kids) just to get a house in a district that hasn't been dragged down to mediocrity by cholos and diabetic slobs.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/cost-raising-kid-240-000-111007364.html

 

[Suits]

Virtually all economists agree that immigrants - illegal and legal - benefit the US economy, and raise the income of most Americans. Illegal immigrants are, in fact, a net gain on the nation's balance sheet, by most findings.

Virtually all economists had no problem with subprime lending and even went so far as to mock and dismiss those who saw a housing bubble.

You're going to need a better authority than economists if you're going to appeal to authority.

I think you may be confusing investors with economists. I'd be willing to wager that the 2008 crisis didn't take any actual economists by surprise. The stupidity that tipped of the tidal wave of economic recession has been well documented by economics as stupid behaviour for a long time now.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntam...-predicted-the-financial-crisis-theyre-lying/

 

[Luvianka]

My opinions about illegal immigration are conflicted. At the end of the day, the points that are most relevant to me are:

1. No government can just throw up its hands completely and tell the world, "come on in, everybody, it's open season." Some sort of control and regulation of the borders is the basic responsible of any nation. How strict or how lax that control is, is the big question. America has historically always had a very generous immigration policy when compared to other countries, but some features need to be modernized. No one should be able to become a citizen automatically, just by being born here.

2. Historically, wealth and luxury invite barbarian migration. The history of the world is the history of population movements. It's understandable and predictable that impoverished immigrants would want to be here. My own grandparents were some of these people. No country can have hermetically sealed borders.

Time is now. American economy can no longer stand for an open influx of inmigrants. In the meantime you have to deal with the problem of +30 million Mexicans living in the US. You can have them marginalized for a long period or integrate them to American society ASAP.

You bet any illegal inmigrant better like to be arrested by the Border Patrol than any Mexican Police officer. That's for sure.

 

[BootNootly]

Every American was an immigrant somewhere down the line anyway.

Heh. Our ancestors came here when America was a dangerous, faraway enigma. We can't compare what our ancestors did - sailing across the seas to build a land that was mostly undeveloped and wild, not even a country - and the current crop who waited until we got fat and rich to decide to come over, then immediately demanding affirmative action and scholarships for their spawn.

 

[scorpion]

Frankly, I don't a fuck what economists have to say about immigration. That's like asking your doctor for advice on game. Immigration is primarily a political and national sovereignty issue, not an economic one. The country does not exist in order to serve the needs of the economy. That's completely backwards thinking that is unfortunately all too common in our money-crazed society. The reality is that the economy exists to serve the needs of the country and its citizens.

Even if importing millions of low-skilled illegal immigrants did help the economy (an extremely dubious proposition, especially over the long-term), there would still be no political justification for doing so without the consent of the American people. If millions of foreign people can just walk into your country and start living and working, then you don't have a country anymore. You don't have a meaningful separation between citizen and non-citizen. The social fabric starts to decay. The entire country changes very quickly.

Here's a hypothetical: imagine if China wanted to fuck with Japan, and started providing transport for thousands of African refugees across the ocean and was somehow able to keep landing them on the shores of Japan. Would Japan have an obligation to accept these illegal African immigrants? Would the Japanese be compelled to at the very least allow them to stay and work illegally in the country? Would they have an obligation to allow the illegal African immigrants access to their healthcare and social services? Would they have an obligation to allow the illegal African immigrants to slowly displace existing Japanese citizens?

Obviously this scenario is exaggerated, but it demonstrates the absurdity of allowing unchecked illegal immigration into a sovereign country. Of course the Japanese would not owe any obligations to the Africans, besides perhaps graciously paying for their boat ride back home. The idea that an existing country has an obligation to forfeit its sovereignty to illegal immigrants is simply an insane notion.

A country, properly understood, is not just a piece of land with lines drawn around it on a map. It is comprised of a unique people, a culture, a language, a history. That is directly poisoned by allowing a massive influx of illegal immigrants. And let's be honest, this is a race issue. This sort of thing is only encouraged in majority white countries in North America and Europe. Only white countries are expected to open their doors to all comers and displace their own people for the sake of immigrants. Europe is even worse off than the U.S. in this regard, and has been absolutely flooded with Muslim immigrants over the past two decades. Look at this video:



Is that what England is supposed to look like? Was England historically populated by hordes of brown people? Why is it acceptable for these hordes of Muslims to displace the traditional English people in their own homeland? This is nothing less than an invasion. It is a slow motion genocide of the native population. Advocating for massive immigration into a given country is essentially advocating for that country to cease to exist in its current state. This is simply an immoral and indefensible position. A country and its people have a right to maintain their existence. To deny them this right is to declare war on them. If you do this, eventually you can expect them to wise up and defend themselves.

 

[MikeCF]

Also, why has no one cited data when making claims about the economic and social impact of illegal immigrants? I'm just supposed to take your word?

The studies have been done. I don't link to them because it won't change your mind. Your political views are very conventional/PC.

Here's one of many, though:

http://cis.org/High-Cost-of-Cheap-Labor

Economists have done a poor job predicting/getting most anything right.

I don't value the consensus of economists.

Anyhow, you don't need to be an economist to see what has happened to California.

Previously livable neighborhoods and entire cities have gone to shit thanks to the influx of unskilled labor.

 

[MikeCF]

Economists elevate GPD above all else.

But GDP can increase in a situation where 1% to the population gets 99% of the gains.

GDP isn't everything. Having livable, clean cities relatively free of crime account for something.

Having an educated populace accounts for something.

But economists (who have Aspergers and don't understand the human condition) only value GDP.

 

[Screwston]

Every American was an immigrant somewhere down the line anyway.

Heh. Our ancestors came here when America was a dangerous, faraway enigma. We can't compare what our ancestors did - sailing across the seas to build a land that was mostly undeveloped and wild, not even a country - and the current crop who waited until we got fat and rich to decide to come over, then immediately demanding affirmative action and scholarships for their spawn.

:jordan:

 

[Suits]

opcorn3:

 

[Menace]

Ironically (or not), illegal immigrants have increasingly (or totally) taken over the jobs previously done by poorer African Americans, who obviously have a strong legitimate stake in this country.

 

[MikeCF]

I think you may be confusing investors with economists. I'd be willing to wager that the 2008 crisis didn't take any actual economists by surprise. The stupidity that tipped of the tidal wave of economic recession has been well documented by economics as stupid behaviour for a long time now.

How much do you want to wager?

I am serious.

I can provide amble quotes showing that economists were shilling for the bubble economy.

Let me know what your terms are for the wager.

 

[The Lizard of Oz]

scorpion, there is a very big difference between the Muslim influx into Europe and hispanic immigration into the US. And yes, the identity of the immigrants matters.

The Muslims flooding Europe are in many ways a hostile population with no desire to assimilate and they are coming to societies that aren't built for assimilation. It's a recipe for disaster and the disaster is happening.

The hispanic immigration into the US is totally different. It has both upsides and downsides but it's nowhere near as toxic for the American society and may well be a net positive. It's bringing in a hard working group of people who are happy to assimilate and become Americans into a society that assimilates immigrants better and more thoroughly than any other. So there is really no comparison.

 

[numanist]

I've always hated the stupid meme, "illegal immigrants are doing the jobs Americans don't want to do." For one, if we didn't have all these leftist social programs, Americans would be more than willing to perform the same jobs that illegals do.

Another one I hate is, "if we deport all the illegals, American businesses will suffer immensely and there will be less jobs all around." Actually, Alabama instituted a law in 2011 that drove out most of the illegal aliens, and it really had no adverse economic effect - it just meant that businesses had to pay American workers fairer wages.

In the long-run, the only people benefiting from illegal aliens is the Democrat party and big business. Democrats benefit from illegal immigration because they see them as a potential voting bloc, and big business loves them because they drive down wages and increase consumerism. Republicans really aren't that much better; they are willing to bend over backwards to appeal to their big business sponsors.

In fact, Chris Christie just signed into law the dream act, and it looks like Republican house speaker, John Boner is poised to grant amnesty to millions of illegals - at the expense of ordinary Americans who have to pay for illegal immigrants food stamps and healthcare.

 

[Hencredible Casanova]

Every American was an immigrant somewhere down the line anyway.

Heh. Our ancestors came here when America was a dangerous, faraway enigma. We can't compare what our ancestors did - sailing across the seas to build a land that was mostly undeveloped and wild, not even a country - and the current crop who waited until we got fat and rich to decide to come over, then immediately demanding affirmative action and scholarships for their spawn.

Over half of all European immigrants that came to America during the 17th and 18th centuries arrived as indentured servants. These were pretty much rejects in their home countries and were seeking economic freedom. Peak immigration from Europe actually occurred during the early 20th Century once America had already began industrializing in earnest, so those Europeans who came knew there was money at stake.

Personally, I have no problem with Mexican immigrants in the US. First of all, those Southwestern states and California used to belong to Mexico, which lost two-thirds of its territory during the Mexican-American War. This was a war that was inspired by a racist, imperialist ideology adopted by the US government known as "Manifest Destiny." They wanted territory from "sea to shining sea" no matter who lived there or who that land belonged to. Go to those western states and tell me how many places you find that have Spanish names (cities, towns, parks, mountains, lakes, rivers, buildings, schools, etc). Numerous places.

Folks from countries whose lands were taken choosing to then go to those former lands to make a better life for themselves makes more sense to me than Europeans getting on boats from thousands of miles away because they couldn't hack it where they came from. It's true, most of the Europeans who came to the US were of little to no means. They weren't making moves in Europe. And when they came they dealt with serious discrimination. Germans, Irish, Italians, Jews, look it up. Not much different than what you're hearing today about latinos.

 

[numanist]

If illegal immigration really is net-positive for the U.S., why does California have the highest levels of debt and unemployment in the U.S.? After all, California is chock full of illegal aliens.

 

[j r]

My opinions about illegal immigration are conflicted. At the end of the day, the points that are most relevant to me are:

1. No government can just throw up its hands completely and tell the world, "come on in, everybody, it's open season." Some sort of control and regulation of the borders is the basic responsible of any nation. How strict or how lax that control is, is the big question. America has historically always had a very generous immigration policy when compared to other countries, but some features need to be modernized. No one should be able to become a citizen automatically, just by being born here.

2. Historically, wealth and luxury invite barbarian migration. The history of the world is the history of population movements. It's understandable and predictable that impoverished immigrants would want to be here. My own grandparents were some of these people. No country can have hermetically sealed borders.

Time is now. American economy can no longer stand for an open influx of inmigrants.

Why not? A country has a right to maintain borders and to establish criteria and procedures for immigration, but there's no sound economic argument against continued immigration. All the arguments against immigration that I see are either based on a faulty understanding of economics or are just plain nativist arguments.

At the heart of the matter what I think it comes down to is that there are two main points of view concerning the nature of America and the role of immigration. Some people believe that America is a nation not defined by ethnic identity, but by belief in the ideals of democracy and that the country ought to be open to anyone who is willing to come here, obey the laws and work hard. And some people believe that America is a white Christian nation that will tolerate a small minority of non-whites and non-Christians, but if too many of them are allowed in it will change some essential character of what makes this America.

I am squarely in the first camp. And I note that people have been making the nativist argument against immigration as long as there has been an America and yet this country has always been able to accommodate and benefit from each wave of immigration. Here's Benjamin Franklin complaining about how all the swarthy German immigrants would ruin America way back in the 18th century.

Those who come hither are generally of the most ignorant Stupid Sort of their own Nation…and as few of the English understand the German Language, and so cannot address them either from the Press or Pulpit, ’tis almost impossible to remove any prejudices they once entertain…Not being used to Liberty, they know not how to make a modest use of it… Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a Colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them, and will never adopt our Language or Customs, any more than they can acquire our Complexion.

Sound familiar?

 

[scorpion]

scorpion, there is a very big difference between the Muslim influx into Europe and hispanic immigration into the US. And yes, the identity of the immigrants matters.

The Muslims flooding Europe are in many ways a hostile population with no desire to assimilate and they are coming to societies that aren't built for assimilation. It's a recipe for disaster and the disaster is happening.

The hispanic immigration into the US is totally different. It has both upsides and downsides but it's nowhere near as toxic for the American society and may well be a net positive. It's bringing in a hard working group of people who are happy to assimilate and become Americans into a society that assimilates immigrants better and more thoroughly than any other. So there is really no comparison.

I take it you've never been to Southern California, New Mexico, Arizona, Texas or South Florida. There are huge pockets of Mexican/hispanic immigrants in these places with no desire to assimilate. That's the thing about immigration - the more immigrants you have, the less they are forced to assimilate. If you have one immigrant into a population of 100, yeah, he's going to assimilate. But if you throw ten or twenty immigrants into 100, you're going to have two distinct cultures emerge. The more immigrants you allow in, the less likely they are to assimilate, simply because they don't have to: they're already surrounded by their old culture, just in a new land.

 

[numanist]

For all the people calling Arizona's illegal immigration laws "racist", you really must familiarize yourself with Mexico's own illegal immigration laws.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...illegals-laws-tougher-than-arizonas/?page=all

Mexican President Felipe Calderon denounced as “racial discrimination” an Arizona law giving state and local police the authority to arrest suspected illegal immigrants and vowed to use all means at his disposal to defend Mexican nationals against a law he called a “violation of human rights.”

But the legislation, signed April 23 by Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, is similar to Reglamento de la Ley General de Poblacion — the General Law on Population enacted in Mexico in April 2000, which mandates that federal, local and municipal police cooperate with federal immigration authorities in that country in the arrests of illegal immigrants.

Under the Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony, punishable by up to two years in prison. Immigrants who are deported and attempt to re-enter can be imprisoned for 10 years. Visa violators can be sentenced to six-year terms. Mexicans who help illegal immigrants are considered criminals.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...als-laws-tougher-than-arizonas/#ixzz2pIpnLJmV
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

 

[...]

I know illegal immigration can make a country go to the crapper.....

...just look what those germans/irish did to america when they arrived 2-3 generations ago and where they are now.