Obama Immigration Speech

[rockhound]

SO PANCHO, OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT YOU GET TO USE SOME POOR ILLEGAL FOR CHEAP LABOR SO YOU GET TO TAKE HOME A FEW MORE BUCKS CAUSE YOU AREN'T PAYING FOR WORKMAN'S COMP OR UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE OR FEDERAL WITHHOLDING FOR HIM, WHICH COMBINED USED TO COST MY COMPANY (WHICH I BUSTED MY ASS TO OPERATE) MORE THAN 73 CENTS FOR EVERY DOLLAR I PAID MY EMPLOYEES.

WHAT EXACTLY IS THE BENEFIT TO HAVING 30 MILLION ILLEGAL ALIENS? THERE ARE NONE AND YOU KNOW IT.


I say sentry guns and US Marines could seal our southern border in a hurry.

[Pancho Villa]

SO PANCHO, OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT YOU GET TO USE SOME POOR ILLEGAL FOR CHEAP LABOR SO YOU GET TO TAKE HOME A FEW MORE BUCKS CAUSE YOU AREN'T PAYING FOR WORKMAN'S COMP OR UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE OR FEDERAL WITHHOLDING FOR HIM, WHICH COMBINED USED TO COST MY COMPANY (WHICH I BUSTED MY ASS TO OPERATE) MORE THAN 73 CENTS FOR EVERY DOLLAR I PAID MY EMPLOYEES.

WHAT EXACTLY IS THE BENEFIT TO HAVING 30 MILLION ILLEGAL ALIENS? THERE ARE NONE AND YOU KNOW IT.


I say sentry guns and US Marines could seal our southern border in a hurry.

higher economic growth - cheap labor spurs economic growth, as anyone with some basics in economics would be able to tell you.

Example: Employer A saves $5,000 a year due to cheap labor, that $5,000 is able to be reinvested into business growth. Multiply that by 10 laborers and you suddenly have the money to hire a higher-level manager, accountant, secretary, real estate agent, whatever. That makes your business more productive - when a businessman pays a guy $50,000, he expects that the guy will MAKE way more than $50,000 in profit for him, or contribute to additional profit. A secretary frees the boss up to fine tune the business; a manager increases worker efficiency; a specialist does his job better than it was being done before, saving money or bringing in more business. So that $50,000 saved doesn't just create a higher-skilled job; it ends up making the businessman more than $50,000 in additional profits.

The economic impact of cheap labor (which is what a lot of illegal immigrants are - about 50% for sure, the other 50% being a mix between higher-skilled labor and recently graduated students who have overstayed their visas, and lower-skilled labor that has overstayed their visas, with an emphasis on the higher-skilled labor) is well documented by any free-market economist - and its tremendous. Studies by anti-immigrant, environmentalist places like the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) ignore this impact on purpose, because their agenda is have a moratorium on immigration in America period, the agrument being that we are "using up our precious natural resources and ruining the environment."

You remember how the minimum wage stifles growth and raises unemployment? Republicans used to fight against minimum wage raises every time the dems tried to get them through.

ANY artificial floor on wages - such as artificially shrinking the labor market through draconian immigration laws - does that. There's a reason Arizona, a VERY business-friendly state, has been the hardest hit in the recession - their are driving away one of the crucial agents of economic growth, cheap labor, and a combination of a lot of jobs lost in higher-skilled jobs and unemployment insurance is keeping the wage floor artifically high, stifling the kind of labor market that would really help jumpstart the economy.

Contrast with some of the states least hard hit by the great recession - like Texas - where the business community is VERY vocal about the value of illegal immigrant labor. The recession has hit Texas least hard, and its consistently ranking as one of the best plaaces to do business, and its job market - including higher-skilled labor - is better than almost anywhere in the country.

The facts speak for themselves. You cannot hide from the laws of economics, and they state quite simply that lots of immigrant labor is a crucial component to fast economic recovery.

Also, capslock key, bro. You might want to try turning it off a little more.

It appears that Pancho's nuts have retreated back to their cave. Can I say that? To me at least, Rockhounds points are indisputable. But I still go back to my original point. It is all talk because there will be no action in this direction, since none of our fearless leaders have the balls to tackle the problem.

Or maybe I have a job, a wife and a kid on the way, and can't spend all day on co-ar15.com. Rockhound's points aren't indisputable, they are just the same old rhetoric that has 0 backing from real life.

But I'm sure it feels good to get angry.

I do think the system needs updating to make it easier for good HARDWORKING people to come here.

This is my main point. Its pretty easy to craft such a system and it will prevent the many real problems (property damage along the border and overloading courts with nonviolent illegals whose great big crime was picking fruiting) that the current system has, provide labor that will spur economic growth and not cost billions of dollars on a yearly basis to militarize the border, while freeing up resources to go after actual bad guys (drug dealers, terrorists and the like.)

In the meantime, though, I'm still having a hard time getting bad at the guy who crossed the border to work hard and stay quiet.

We also need to tighten up the entitlement programs and make it equally as hard to get a free check, food, housing, healthcare, childcare etc etc.

Those alone would save this country and I bet we could pay off our debt in 10 years.

Actually, no. If we cut social security, medicare, and medicaid entirely, AND cut military spending in half, we'd be on track to pay off the debt in about 20 years.

People who claim that the budget can be balanced and the debt paid off by getting rid of waste or tightening up the requirements to collect unemployment or food stamps or whatever, need to grab their brains and look at the actual numbers.

If you have children in the public schools systems, take this example as my wife does it every day, I subbed for her one day and got to take it in first hand: children of illegal immigrants (anchor babies). she has 2 in her class. both mostly speak spanish, read english at a 1st grade level while they are in 7th grade. she is FORCED BY LAW to read them any test they have to take. I gave a test and had to read it to them. She also has to read articles and other readings to them BY LAW. So your kids that are in her class (while your property taxes and levys are paying for the schools, materials, bussing, salaries, janitors etc etc) are getting that one on one time taken away from them thanks to illegals. Your kids are not getting the teaching they deserve and you are paying for because BY LAW teachers have to do this kind of absolute BULLSHIT.

I don't want to be paying for that. Or your kid's schooling - in english. This wouldn't be a problem if the government wasn't in the business of redistributing income and forcing me to pay for your (and Jose's) kids' education.

Again, these are problems inherent in the welfare state. I also don't want my kids taught most of the bullshit in public schools, in fact, I don't want ANY kid taught the bullshit they peddle in public schools - yet I am forced to fund it all. This isn't something that's a problem with illegals. Get rid of the illegals, and we're still forced to pay for kids to be brainwashed by PC, multiculturalist bullshit.

Fight the right fight.

Also:

fuck anyone who thinks they should be given ANYTHING I work for. I want to see armed patrols on the border shooting anyone illegal taking a step in this country. I don't give a shit what race color religion. They are breaking the law, they continue to break the law, they bring in drugs, disease, rape, pillage, murder, steal, and take advantage of our country and our citizens.

This is some crazy fantasy, but given your thoughts on the budget, I'm not surprised that your politics come from imagination land.

I am sure BHO is full of talk though, his speech was good, and he really gets on my nerves, but I think he all talk.

I'm not holding my breath.

So you employ illegals and are an Obama voter. Interesting.

You are what is wrong with this country.

So its your position that McCain wouldn't have also pushed coverage for preexisting conditions (which he has supported,) tons of foreign aid (which he has supported,) more bailouts (which he has supported,) and basically everything that's made BHO's presidency a massive failure, except he'll be shouting "free markets! liberty!" the whole time?

That was my judgment of the scene at the time. If you disagree, that's fine, but don't go pretending I'm some Obama lover.

Let me be clear: I'm not okay with illegals coming here and sucking up welfare, but there has been none - zero - credible studies that show that this is going on at a significant rate. And it would be easy as pie to let in all the cheap (and skilled) labor that wants in with safeguards against just that. It would also make border enforcement against the real bad guys that people are legitimately afraid of - murderers, terrorists, drug dealers, whatever - a lot easier. But the GOP isn't serious about that, because its a nice issue to fire up the base.

The Dems aren't either, by the way. But that doesn't make the GOP's position on this permissible.

[rockhound]

Illegal Aliens Cost Texas Taxpayers $4.7 Billion a Year

By Digger / April 10, 2005 02:23 AM
A new report is out that shows the costs imposed on Texas taxpayers by illegal aliens. The report was released by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). The current estimates show there are 1.5 million illegal aliens in Texas. The costs when broken down comes to a total of $725 a year per taxpaying household to cover the costs of education, health care and incarceration of illegal aliens throughout the state.

The more than $4.7 billion in costs incurred by Texas taxpayers annually result from outlays in the following areas: Education. Based on estimates of the illegal immigrant population in Texas and documented costs of K-12 schooling, Texans spend more than $4 billion annually on education for illegal immigrant children and for their U.S.-born siblings. About 11.9 percent of the K-12 public school students in Texas are children of illegal aliens.
Health Care. Taxpayer-funded medical outlays for health care provided to the state’s illegal alien population amount to about $520 million a year.
Incarceration. The uncompensated cost of incarcerating illegal aliens in Texas’s state and county prisons amounts to about $150 million a year (not including local jail detention costs or related law enforcement and judicial expenditures or the monetary costs of the crimes that led to their incarceration).
The fiscal costs of illegal immigration do not end with these three major cost areas. The total costs of illegal immigration to the state’s taxpayers would be considerably higher if other cost areas such as special English instruction, welfare programs used by the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens, or welfare benefits for American workers displaced by illegal alien workers were also calculated.







fine no caps, i have many articles about Texas and their economy. none of which even hint at their success having anything to do with iilegal aliens being great for their prosperity.


you are high.........




their economy is doing a little better than some or most state because their economy outstrips that of most countries. Texas would be the 64th largest economy in the world were it not for the fact that it is part of the US. they have a good part of the fortune 500 companies calling texas home.


they are doing better because they had farther to fall and have more resources for high paying jobs.


to think that illegals are the reason for their prosperity is moronic.

1. Illegal immigration and the cost to Texas
   
   The Texas Hospital Association has estimated the annual cost of uncompensated care to illegal immigrants at nearly $400 million a year. ...

Texas taxpayers spent at least $250 million last year in state prison and health care costs for illegal immigrants




here's a nice comforting story

"In Los Angeles, unionized black janitors had been earning $12 an hour, with benefits. But with the advent of subcontractors who compose roaming crews of Mexican and El Salvadoran laborers, the pay dropped to the minimum wage of $3.35 per hour. Within two years, the unionized crews had all been displaced by the foreign ones, and without any other skills, most of the native workforce did not find new work."

the illegals do provide a cheap source of labor other than that they are a drain



it doesn't matter how many articles you pull showing the devastating effect
they have on our society and our economy as long their are scum bag employers willing to take advantage of some poor mexican who will work without workman's comp or health care or unemployment benefits then we are screwed.

but for the hell of it here is one more.

According to a new report, Illegal Immigration costs U.S. Taxpayers a whopping $113 Billion annually and the government is arguing over where to cut the budget? Seems to me that arresting the flow and expense of illegal immigration would be a great place to start. Then again we would all hear how unfair that would be from the likes of the Mexican Government to those liberals in this country that cannot comprehend that no matter what illegals may bring economically it will never offset the overwhelming costs associated with turning a blind eye to real and meaningful immigration reform.



Read more: http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/chic...#ixzz1M5I3iUys

i am done here

[ChunkyMonkey]

Pancho,

The argument that low wages (strictly for the illegals in this context) is beneficial to businesses is extremely flawed. Although I understand that one who is dodging paying employment and social security tax would 'benefit' from this.

"Fair wages" in competitive market is healthy - not low wages. You seem to categorize illegal workers as cheap sweatshop labor. I can understand how one would want immigration reform to share the American dream, but you are clearly taking advantage of the illegals hardship.

To say that one can save tons of money by hiring illegals with low wages so he can compete and undercut his competitors and keep more profit is worse than being a child prostitute pimp imho.

What you have admittedly doing is not only illegal but such a disgrace. So much so that you would never admitted what who you are and what your business is openly in this forum. I move the mods to ban Pancho!

[Pancho Villa]

Pancho,

The argument that low wages (strictly for the illegals in this context) is beneficial to businesses is extremely flawed. Although I understand that one who is dodging paying employment and social security tax would 'benefit' from this.

"Fair wages" in competitive market is healthy - not low wages. You seem to categorize illegal workers as cheap sweatshop labor. I can understand how one would want immigration reform to share the American dream, but you are clearly taking advantage of the illegals hardship.

To say that one can save tons of money by hiring illegals with low wages so he can compete and undercut his competitors and keep more profit is worse than being a child prostitute pimp imho.

What you have admittedly doing is not only illegal but such a disgrace. So much so that you would never admitted what who you are and what your business is openly in this forum. I move the mods to ban Pancho!

Context; When I hired day laborers in Dallas, I am sure I also hired some illegals among them. I'm not currently employing anyone here in Colorado. I never checked immigration status on any employee because it wasn't the law in Texas at the time (and it was day labor, anyway.)

It would be nice if people actually remember what I said instead of going off the deep end, but hey, what can I expect?

Anyway - if you disagree with basic economics, you disagree with basic economics. You'll ruin the economy - but I'm sure you'll feel very righteous doing it. Have fun with that.

[ChunkyMonkey]

Context; When I hired day laborers in Dallas, I am sure I also hired some illegals among them. I'm not currently employing anyone here in Colorado. I never checked immigration status on any employee because it wasn't the law in Texas at the time (and it was day labor, anyway.)

It would be nice if people actually remember what I said instead of going off the deep end, but hey, what can I expect?

Anyway - if you disagree with basic economics, you disagree with basic economics. You'll ruin the economy - but I'm sure you'll feel very righteous doing it. Have fun with that.

It's clear to me that you are not arguing on 'open borders' for illegal rights at all. You are taking advantages of the illegals for the low wages for your own version of 'economic growth.' Backtrack all you want, they are all here for everyone to read. Sick!

[Pancho Villa]

It's clear to me that you are not arguing on 'open borders' for illegal rights at all. You are taking advantages of the illegals for the low wages for your own version of 'economic growth.' Backtrack all you want, they are all here for everyone to read. Sick!

Hey, I get it. You're a socialist. You want a "fair wage" (which means whatever wage makes you feel good.) You want the govt to step in and make sure the stupid peons out there are taken care of by big brother.

I deal with adults, not kids. And I have enough respect for human beings that I don't think they need to be protected from me offering them a job by the govt.

But there will always be guys who think some people deserve a free ride. You're one of them.

The job of a business is to make money and work within a given ruleset. You did that in Dallas, that's why you may have hired illegals. I have a better understanding of this now than before when I read that post you made many moons ago.

While I may wish business was more diligent in checking the status of folks, if the ruleset doesn't include a check than I cannot very well expect a business to conduct that check voluntarily.

It is unfortunate that business needs the government to tell them to check the status of folks but that is the environment we live in now.

Its unfortunate that some people feel the need to tell me who I can and cannot hire, based on where their momma plopped them out. Its especially sad that these same people complain about the govt telling them what to do.

I know a lot of people want the government to step in and protect them from competition, but the true story is that you won't be.

[roberth]

Context; When I hired day laborers in Dallas, I am sure I also hired some illegals among them. I'm not currently employing anyone here in Colorado. I never checked immigration status on any employee because it wasn't the law in Texas at the time (and it was day labor, anyway.)

It would be nice if people actually remember what I said instead of going off the deep end, but hey, what can I expect?

Anyway - if you disagree with basic economics, you disagree with basic economics. You'll ruin the economy - but I'm sure you'll feel very righteous doing it. Have fun with that.

The job of a business is to make money and work within a given ruleset. You did that in Dallas, that's why you may have hired illegals. I have a better understanding of this now than before when I read that post you made many moons ago.

While I may wish business was more diligent in checking the status of folks, if the ruleset doesn't include a check than I cannot very well expect a business to conduct that check voluntarily.

It is unfortunate that business needs the government to tell them to check the status of folks but that is the environment we live in now.

[Pancho Villa]

FAIR was started by John Tanton, the same guy who started the Center for Immigration Studies.

Tanton is a radical environmentalist, who was on the board for the Sierra Club pushing population control, is a believer in the "population bomb" bullshit.

He got into immigration control for that reason, and that viewpoint colors the organization to this day.

He also has some ties to white supremacists, as he's the publisher of a journal called "The Social Contract," which pushes the usual great stuff about how black people really are genetically dumber, that US culture is "anglo-european" (wtf?) and that the only way to keep the US great is to keep it "anglo-european" (ie white.)

Excuse me if I take his numbers with something more than a grain of salt. I'm sure if environmentalists will make shit up or slant the data to show a "global warming crisis," they will do the same for an "illegal immigration crisis."

Notice how FAIR/CIS never goes into studiesabout what taxes (sales, property and income) that illegals pay, nor the economic impact of the cheaper labor? Theres a reason for tha. Here's some actual economists and not a bunch of environmentalists WHACKOS talking about immigration:

http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/...migration.html
http://select.nytimes.com/preview/20...014296476.html
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freee...01/immigration

Contrast that with free-market economists - who overwhelmingly favor immigration and will tell you all day the ways in which they are a great benefit.

You can find economists who don't want more immigration (ie amnesty and to open the immigration system up to let the cheap labor in.) But then you're listening to statist economists like Paul Krugman, and others who have laughably wrong premises when it comes to economics.

So I guess if you thought the bailouts and economic stimulus made great economic sense, you would also hate illegal immigrants. But hey, if you're that dumb, I got nothing for you.

[rockhound]

[quote=Pancho Villa;353126]FAIR was started by John Tanton, the same guy who started the Center for Immigration Studies.

Tanton is a radical environmentalist, who was on the board for the Sierra Club pushing population control, is a believer in the "population bomb" bullshit.

He got into immigration control for that reason, and that viewpoint colors the organization to this day.


Notice how FAIR/CIS never goes into studiesabout what taxes (sales, property and income) that illegals pay, nor the economic impact of the cheaper labor? Theres a reason for tha. Here's some actual economists and not a bunch of environmentalists WHACKOS talking about immigration:

http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/...migration.html
http://select.nytimes.com/preview/20...014296476.html
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freee...01/immigration

Contrast that with free-market economists - who overwhelmingly favor immigration and will tell you all day the ways in which they are a great benefit.


so instead of refuting the fact in the article you just call the study racist,

whatever, i have lived it, i have competed with companies that hire illegals and i know the impact they have,



just for the fact that you are pulling the race card, which this has nothing to do with, here is the report from 2007 from the congressional budget office. concerning the costs of illegal immigration especially as it relates to the individual states

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/87xx/doc8...mmigration.pdf

or are they being racist also??????