Texas bans Sanctuary Cities

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Zontar:

undeadsuitor:
Zontar shouldn't have to worry about sanctuary cities in Canada

Our two largest cities have adopted that cancerous belief (despite the fact we're even more overwhelmingly "deport them on sight" then the US since not even white liberals oppose it) so with the combination of The Bastard removing the need for a travel visa from Mexico, and the fact that this year has seen a large upturn in illegal border crossings, the problem is spreading here because you people refuse to fix it.

America fixing its illegal immigration problem would go a long way to fixing our own.

dammit, you've caught on to us

our plan is to let so many mexicans in here that they just continue moving north and make it canadas problem

foiled again

Zontar:
I\m concerned about the fact that wages are depreciated, which does cost the government more then the cost of dealing with the problem since the lost tax revenue is pretty much assured to be higher then the cost of dealing with the problem.

No. It straight up doesn't.

For one, net migration is correlated with economic growth, so from a government standpoint migration actually increases tax revenue. We can argue that undocumented migrants are likely to be employed in informal economies which are less likely to be taxed, but even then they still have to spend money, which will be taxed at some point down the line. Furthermore, the same argument also applies to alleged wage depreciation, since informal economies have less contact with formal economies, migrants and citizens aren't generally competing for the same jobs anyway.

But let's put this in simple terms.

In Zontar world, jobs have to be made in the job factory using a finite ammount of raw materials (wages). Wages come from the wage mine, which can only extract a fixed ammount of wages every day, those wages are then shipped to the factory and turned into jobs. Since everyone needs a job, the factory has to produce enough jobs for everyone irrespective of the base supply of wages from the wage mine, so the more people there are the more the factory has to cut corners by using less wages in each job. Oh dear.

The logical solution to Zontar world is simple. Get rid of people, and then those who remain will have a better quality of life. Fewer people always means a better quality of life for the survivors, which is why every healthy economy strives for a shrinking population. In the Soviet Union under Stalin or Cambodia under Pol Pot, everyone lived lives of incredible luxury because the government had killed off millions of people which meant there were more wages to go around. Horray. Zontar world is awesome, huh? Everything is so simple.

The real world, however, is not Zontar world. In the real world, reductions in population do not lead to improvements in the quality of life for the survivors, in fact, reductions in population tend to be detrimental because they reduce demand for services, i.e. they reduce demand for other people's jobs. Lucy works in a convenience store. Every day she serves around a thousand customers. The money those customers spend in the store helps to pay for Lucy's wages. If the population goes down suddenly, Lucy's store may suddenly only serve 500 customers. Unless those customers also spend twice as much (due to the inevitable quality of life boost they will have experienced leaving them with more disposable income) the store is now making less money. Thus, although more people may have meant more people competing with Lucy for her job, it also means the job itself is worth more.

This assumes, of course, that the people coming into Lucy's store all have money to spend, which wouldn't be the case in Zontar world because the wages mine can only produce a fixed amount. This is why, in the real world, we must also look at the overall size of the economy. But of course, in the real world inward migration is heavily correlated with economic growth.

Zontar world is nonsense. It's based on a variation of the classic Schrodinger's immigrant trope, that immigrants are taking all the jobs and yet simultaneously contributing nothing to the economy. If immigrants are taking all the jobs, then they are also contributing to the economy and supporting other people's jobs. If immigrants are not contributing to the economy, then they are not competing for jobs.

Rising income inequality is a real thing, it's the product of concrete political trends mostly dating back to the 1980s and popularity of neoliberal economics. What's genuinely pathetic about the fantasy of Zontar world is that it is a myth perpetuated (quite deliberately) by those who are in fact pushing hardest for neoliberal policies, and the end result is you. The working class conservative who isn't even capable of recognizing that they've been fucked you over, who happily defends and idolizes the very people pushing to make your life worse. You have chosen to collaborate willingly in your own impoverishment so long as you can blame someone else. Well, what happens when there's noone left to blame? Do you think you'll be any richer then?

Zontar:
Given how they cost the government at all levels about 100 billion each year, and the fact that Trump's wall, which is estimated to be able to cut that by about 50-60% depending on the source, will cost at most 30 billion, solving the problem can be solved properly and at a lower cost then what's being spend now without the need to resort to effectively unlimited immigration, which is basically what is being advocated for in practice (if maybe not in spirit) by those who want them to be allowed to stay.

The American Action Forum (a centre right thinktank) actually tallied up the cost of deporting 11 million people and keeping them out. It comes to half a trillion dollars, not including 1.6 trillion dollars in lost GDP. A trillion, for the record, is a thousand billion.

Zontar:
Think about it, despite America's ludicrously high number of people it allows to immigrate to it each year, and with the standards set, the waiting list, if you aren't bumped by a labour shortage in your field or marriage, is 10 years. 10 years. A decade.

I'm glad we both agree that's an insane waste of time and money.

evilthecat:
The real world, however, is not Zontar world. In the real world, reductions in population do not lead to improvements in the quality of life for the survivors...

Okay, so I know absolutely fuck all about economics and may be making a fool of myself here, but isn't the logic that population reduction can improve the standard of living because it shrinks the labour pool, making replacement workers harder to find and thus driving up wages?

I remember reading somewhere that after plagues hit Europe conditions for the working classes got better because of this. Landowners had to actually pay their peasants competitive rates because otherwise they'd just go farm for the guy on the next property over.

Granted, a lot has changed since the middle ages, so I don't know if that still applies. Like I said, not an economist.

Zhukov:
Okay, so I know absolutely fuck all about economics and may be making a fool of myself here, but isn't the logic that population reduction can improve the standard of living because it shrinks the labour pool, making replacement workers harder to find and thus driving up wages?

In the short term, yes maybe. I am no expert on this so I'll try to keep it simple, but it will still require some length for a thought experiment.

In the short term, if we imagine that 10 people in a factory suddenly has no one that can replace them, those 10 people will be able to cash in by demanding better wages (or working conditions or other benefits). In longer perspectives, those 10 people are now producing products that 100 people used to consume, but only 60 or 70 are consuming now. So unless all those 70 people now consume the product at the same rate as 100 people used to, there will eventually be a net shrinkage of consumption, which will lead to some of those 10 people losing their job. And so the cycle goes, until the economy stabilizes at a lower production/consumption level.

Zhukov:
I remember reading somewhere that after plagues hit Europe conditions for the working classes got better because of this. Landowners had to actually pay their peasants competitive rates because otherwise they'd just go farm for the guy on the next property over.

This is a famous American theory about how the renaissance started, but it is not exactly well received in all historical circles. It holds some merit, as the peasants in feudal societies did not own the land they worked and lived on, but rather worked it in exchange for protection from the local nobleman. If they could get better conditions somewhere else, they were free to move there and since there was always a set amount of land that needed working and the plague created a massive deficit in available peasants, this meant that those that remained could move around until they got favorable (as favorable as a medieval peasant could hope for anyway) terms. Coupled with the absolutely staggering amounts of dead and how entire families were wiped out, which meant that the survivors could consolidate the possessions of the deceased and receive a rather substantial improvement in material possessions. In terms of the European economy as a whole, the plagues of the 14th century were an unmitigated disaster as the economy shrunk massively. The surviving peasants could loot and bargain their way into relative wealth, but in absolute terms every country hit by the plague produced a lot less after its' passing.

Zhukov:
Okay, so I know absolutely fuck all about economics and may be making a fool of myself here, but isn't the logic that population reduction can improve the standard of living because it shrinks the labour pool, making replacement workers harder to find and thus driving up wages?

Again, wages mine..

Wages are not a Malthusian resource. There is not a limited supply of wages. Wages are themselves the product of demand from other sectors of the economy. If there are fewer laborers but also fewer people demanding laborers, then the position of labourers isn't going to improve.

Zhukov:
I remember reading somewhere that after plagues hit Europe conditions for the working classes got better because of this. Landowners had to actually pay their peasants competitive rates because otherwise they'd just go farm for the guy on the next property over.

It depends very much where you were.

In much of Western Europe, most peasants had previously been serfs, barely a step above slaves. Before the plague, most peasants didn't have the option of leaving because they would have been considered escaped serfs and punished very severely had they been caught. The plague lead to a breakdown (in parts of Western Europe) of the structure of social control which sustained serfdom. Society was so disorganized that it was no longer possible to meaningfully enforce that system. In Eastern Europe, however, where the population decline was less severe, the reverse was generally true. Landowners were desperate to hang on to their tenants, which lead to an intensification of serfdom and worsening conditions.

The medieval economy was also very different because, at its base, it was about Malthusian resources. Medieval peasants did not earn wages. Instead, they produced goods (usually agricultural goods) which they exchanged for what they needed. They also had to pay a tax of some of their goods to their lord for the privilege of working his land.

Since agricultural land was a fixed resource and the basis of the economy, it was possible for there to be more people than the available land could support (overpopulation). In this sense, the black death did alleviate pressures caused by overpopulation in Western Europe, but that's nothing to do with wages (which didn't exist) and instead is tied to the availability of arable land.

This is a spectacle for the masses, the easiest possible way to placate the angry nationalists while doing nothing to adress the root of the issue. For every illegal deported another comes in. It's easy to deport people, and ultimately it is a necessary response to illegal entry, however it in itself will solve nothing. Why? Because the businessmen who vote for pro-deportation politicians also employ illegals en masse to get cheap workers that they don't have to provide with health insurance and the like. To say that illegal immigrants "take" jobs is innacurate because they are being given them by business-owners who know full well that they are hiring illegal workers, and who do so not in spite of the illegality, but because of it. Illegal work is not taxable and undocumented workers have no rights to benefits. Mass deportations, shutting down sanctuaries, these actions are hollow spectacle for the angry crowds that distract from the real issue rather than fix it. Trump could be president for a century without this changing, why he built his towers with illegal work, he knows well what kinds of shady practices he and his colleagues are using and he is deliberately neglecting to adress them.

It's clear that there is a lot of dissonance here over the seriousness of illegal immigration. Zontar clearly sees it as a very serious crime. In contrast, I tend to think of it as equivalent of me letting my parking meter run out.

Nielas:
It's clear that there is a lot of dissonance here over the seriousness of illegal immigration. Zontar clearly sees it as a very serious crime. In contrast, I tend to think of it as equivalent of me letting my parking meter run out.

It doesn't seem to be all illegal immigrants that Zontar is worried about though. It's those brown ones from down south with a sprinkling of them Chinese/Asians in there.

Note: I'm not saying Zontar is a racist (full stop). The policy suggestions and arguments are ones you hear from xenophobic parties across the Western world though.

Avnger:

Nielas:
It's clear that there is a lot of dissonance here over the seriousness of illegal immigration. Zontar clearly sees it as a very serious crime. In contrast, I tend to think of it as equivalent of me letting my parking meter run out.

It doesn't seem to be all illegal immigrants that Zontar is worried about though. It's those brown ones from down south with a sprinkling of them Chinese/Asians in there.

Note: I'm not saying Zontar is a racist (full stop). The policy suggestions and arguments are ones you hear from xenophobic parties across the Western world though.

Well to be fair, ending all illegal immigration in the US and Canada would disproportional effect Latinos and Asians given how in the Us Latinos are by most estimates a majority of illegal immigrants, while the anti-Chinese sentiment, well that more stems from the fact we're in an active cold war with them and with how the economic front of that is going (such as Vancouver's housing bubble that'll shatter at least B.C.'s economy when it bursts, as well as Toronto's smaller but still significant one that'll harm the economic heartland, which I live in, are points of contention).

I have nothing against the Chinese as people (hell I prefer east asian women to white women), but their government and business class have committed actions and have interests that are against my own and those of my country.

evilthecat:
Snip

So mechanisation of the workforce isn't a thing? I'm sorry, but the idea that we need to import more labour to do more jobs to keep the economy going is ludicrous when one looks at how mechanisation and cyberisation is changing the workforce. In two decades the delivery and transportation industry (which is a major employer) will be lucky to have 5% of its current level of employment regardless of how the population changes. Even in a technologically stagnant economy you need to create about 2% more jobs each year just to replace the ones attritioned by efficiency being applied to the already existing system.

In the previous factory I worked in, they had the same number of people but only half the output 12 years ago. Employment has stagnated but productivity has doubled due to the fact that mechanisation has allowed for 1 hour of work to provide 100% more output. This is not an isolated thing, as I can see the factory I'm currently working in constantly change as internal expansion and development makes things more efficient as well.

There will be a point where making things more efficient won't help because everyone who wants a sausage will have one. At that point what is left but to make things efficient by removing labourers? What do they do then? Even in a stagnant population, they'll have trouble finding work. In one that's constantly growing but jobs aren't doing the same? We're going to have an unemployable underclass.

You have to think long term here. Not 1 or 2 or 5 years, you need to think 10, 20, 30 years. High immigration is a short term solution that will become a long term problem in itself.

My whole reading of this issue of sanctuary cities seems to boil down to one thing. The feds want the cites to enforce their immigration laws but refuse to help at all with the resources needed to house and feed the detainees while they slowly get off their asses to deport them. Cities are under more pressure than ever to provide public services at the very most basic levels and they have the priorities of their voters and more serious crimes to deal with ahead of being immigration controls unpaid thugs.

Illegal immigration is a major problem in the US. But it's a FEDERAL problem. If they want help in fixing it, they need to give something back in return. The cities are doing enough heavy lifting.

my whole problem with western politics in general lately but most especially US politics for at least the last 20 years is this focus on the soundbite. Make the right kind of noises that people will like, threaten and rattle your saber at a couple of "enemies" but offer no real solutions. This is why I hate populism. Police forces on the front lines have a pretty good ear to the ground on what the priorities for law enforcement in their communities are so why is some fuckwit from 1000s of KM away telling them that "no, it's those damn illegals, get them first and everything will fix itself" (talking Trump here, not anyone on this board). If the feds want the local police forces and courts to shift the focus away from what THEY think are of higher priority, then give them some fucking resources or do it the fuck themselves. Just blathering useless soundbites and whimpering threats on national TV will solve nothing.

jklinders:
my whole problem with western politics in general lately but most especially US politics for at least the last 20 years is this focus on the soundbite. Make the right kind of noises that people will like, threaten and rattle your saber at a couple of "enemies" but offer no real solutions. This is why I hate populism. Police forces on the front lines have a pretty good ear to the ground on what the priorities for law enforcement in their communities are so why is some fuckwit from 1000s of KM away telling them that "no, it's those damn illegals, get them first and everything will fix itself" (talking Trump here, not anyone on this board). If the feds want the local police forces and courts to shift the focus away from what THEY think are of higher priority, then give them some fucking resources or do it the fuck themselves. Just blathering useless soundbites and whimpering threats on national TV will solve nothing.

Eh, sometimes you need someone to tell the local police to change their priorities. In this case, this is not the case.

I might wonder if the distant government doesn't want local police to actually shift resources away from solving problems, because then those problems will get worse, and instead want sound and fury signifying nothing. However, I believe that the massive budget increase for nebulous counter terrorism stuff meant the FBI had to cut funding for dealing with really real crimes.

Thaluikhain:

jklinders:
my whole problem with western politics in general lately but most especially US politics for at least the last 20 years is this focus on the soundbite. Make the right kind of noises that people will like, threaten and rattle your saber at a couple of "enemies" but offer no real solutions. This is why I hate populism. Police forces on the front lines have a pretty good ear to the ground on what the priorities for law enforcement in their communities are so why is some fuckwit from 1000s of KM away telling them that "no, it's those damn illegals, get them first and everything will fix itself" (talking Trump here, not anyone on this board). If the feds want the local police forces and courts to shift the focus away from what THEY think are of higher priority, then give them some fucking resources or do it the fuck themselves. Just blathering useless soundbites and whimpering threats on national TV will solve nothing.

Eh, sometimes you need someone to tell the local police to change their priorities. In this case, this is not the case.

I might wonder if the distant government doesn't want local police to actually shift resources away from solving problems, because then those problems will get worse, and instead want sound and fury signifying nothing. However, I believe that the massive budget increase for nebulous counter terrorism stuff meant the FBI had to cut funding for dealing with really real crimes.

Of course some broad direction is a good thing for local authorities to have. I clearly misspoke. But that's not what this is, this is a knife to the throat. This is either "do this thing that will reduce your resources to priorities that is more important to your people or lose those resources." I'm not a fan of that kind of neck breathing.

As for the rest. Seems reasonable. I have not done any of the reading needed to track that, but that would be a great thing for the media to focus on rather than the latest low hanging tweet from our favorite alien symbiant wearing (seriously, that hair looks like an alien parasite at times) president.

Zontar:
So mechanisation of the workforce isn't a thing?

It is, it's just been going on for hundreds of years and during all that time the basic economic reality has not changed. Fewer people does not yield a better quality of life for the rest. Automation does not change this.

Automation has not resulted in mass unemployment and a terrible degradation of quality of life, instead it has created an immense service industry in which most people, both native born and immigrant, now work towards sustaining the uniquely high quality of life of others. Most immigrants will not be working in sausage factories. They will, like most people generally, be working in service industries.

Again, the important thing is not to arbitrarily reduce the number of people present in society (which ultimately reduces the number of people wanting sausages anyway) but to ensure that the rewards of automation are shared equitably through robust taxation, strong investment in public services, infrastructural development and subsidization of key industries so that everyone can enjoy a decent quality of life, so that unemployment is not terrifying, so that retraining or personal development is encouraged and so that future generations can get the education they need to succeed in a technical and predominantly service-based economy.

The people, politicians, journalists and economists, who look at the above and cry about how it's dirty socialism and the solution is just to get rid of more people.. do you think that, when the market ultimately sees no more need of industrial workers, will treat you any better than any other "surplus" person? Do you think they possess a genuine concern for your interests, or do you think that maybe.. maybe.. they just don't like the idea of paying higher taxes.

Zontar:

Meiam:

Zhukov:
cause illegal immigrant have the exact same level of criminality than normal population

I'm sorry, but even if we ignore the inherent criminality of illegal presence in the country and the fraud that goes along with that, that still isn't true.

As far as the new law, it'll probably be contested soon enough and will have to go in front of the supreme court at some point, see you next time.

I doubt that the Supreme Court would be insane enough to declare a law upholding existing laws and punishing illegal activity will somehow be unconstitutional.

Though then again with the outcome of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, anything's possible even if it's insane.[quote] Interestingly enough, it's seems like the order specifically target city that call themselves sanctuary city... meaning they could just change the name of program and be totally okay.

That's a pretty bad thing, having cities be allowed to continue to violate state and federal law at tax payers expense due to a loophole is something one would hope wouldn't be an issue.

Wait, tax payer expense? Are they stealing tax money or something? How? I mean, it's not good they are breaking the law. But how does that cost tax money in places were no resources are spend in going after them?

CaitSeith:
Wait, tax payer expense? Are they stealing tax money or something? How? I mean, it's not good they are breaking the law. But how does that cost tax money in places were no resources are spend in going after them?

A lot of illegal immigrants actually pay tax for Social Security benefits that they can't legally receive.

evilthecat:

The people, politicians, journalists and economists, who look at the above and cry about how it's dirty socialism and the solution is just to get rid of more people.. do you think that, when the market ultimately sees no more need of industrial workers, will treat you any better than any other "surplus" person? Do you think they possess a genuine concern for your interests, or do you think that maybe.. maybe.. they just don't like the idea of paying higher taxes.

You know what the funny thing is? It doesn't matter HOW they treat me, because regardless of anything that happens the end result will be that there will be an unemployable population, and unless we can manage to continue the economy breakthroughs that have been slowing down over the past 30 years (the tech revolution didn't create nearly as many jobs as one would have thought given historic trends) the only difference not taking in massive amounts of labourers from other nations will have is what the size of that unemployable population is.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather it be as small as possible so that said population can be as small of a drain as possible since being a net drain is bad for the economy. And it's not like raising taxes will just solve things, not when half the business we have up here are here because our tax rate is lower then that of the US (that's one thing Republicans have objectively right that the Democrats can't twist as being wrong, and I'm actually happy you guys aren't fixing that problem since it's why megacorporations like Burger King are now Canadian).

Again this whole issue is on what scale people think of. You're thinking about 1-5 years from now. I'm thinking about 20-50 years from now, where entire sectors of the economy will in that short time go through what agriculture did over the course of 300 years (80% of the workforce to 2%), and while I do suspect something will fill part of that void, given the sheer speed at which it'll happen I doubt it will be more then a dent in it.

CaitSeith:

Wait, tax payer expense? Are they stealing tax money or something? How? I mean, it's not good they are breaking the law. But how does that cost tax money in places were no resources are spend in going after them?

First and foremost is policing since, even ignoring the actual act of catching, detaining and deporting them, illegal immigrants commit crime at a higher rate then the general public (though due to the fact legal immigrants do so at a lower rate many people pretend otherwise), meaning more money needs to be used on that front.

Then there's the fact that many cities and even some states (California comes to mind) do offer state resources to illegals, something they're not even legally permitted to do, though given hos Sancuary Cities even exist that isn't exactly something they care about. And that's before we get to fraudsters who use identity theft to get things while pretending to be someone else, which is one of the most common crimes amongst illegals.

All in all it's estimated that at all levels of government illegal immigrants cost the US government about 100 billion each year, or about 7,100 dollars per illegal (far less then what pretty much all of the minority who put money into the system actually put in).

So basically state government is overriding individual districts' means to assert various powers traditionally at their disposal, disconnecting more people from various means of direct action lobbying?

Glad to see nothing was learnt from North Carolina basically trampling on Charlotte's council. How well did that work out again? Oh, that's right ... the governor was voted out of power.

Zontar:
You know what the funny thing is? It doesn't matter HOW they treat me, because regardless of anything that happens the end result will be that there will be an unemployable population, and unless we can manage to continue the economy breakthroughs that have been slowing down over the past 30 years (the tech revolution didn't create nearly as many jobs as one would have thought given historic trends) the only difference not taking in massive amounts of labourers from other nations will have is what the size of that unemployable population is.

Define "unemployable population".

There will always be long-term unemployed. There will be people with serious mental health problems, or physical disabilities, or addiction problems, or a lack of formal education or who have simply fallen through the cracks somehow. There will always be old people who wish to retire and spend the remainder of their lives enjoying themselves. There will always be people who are so rich they don't need to work. All in all, there will always be people, for whatever reason, don't work. There always were.

In a society where a handful of people can produce enough sausages for everyone, where the top 1% of households earn more than 5 times as much as the average household, there is no reason why an "unemployable" person cannot live a comfortable and happy life. No reason whatsoever beyond political will.

Zontar:
I don't know about you, but I'd rather it be as small as possible so that said population can be as small of a drain as possible since being a net drain is bad for the economy.

Why?

Your whole argument here is that automation has made it possible to achieve the same levels of productivity with fewer workers. Thus, the people who are displaced by automation are no more of a "drain" on the economy than the people who worked before them.

Let's say Dave the sausage artisan could craft a hundred sausages a day in his workshop using simple tools.

His descendant, Jake, works in a sausage factory. He supervises a machine which produces ten thousand sausages a day.

Since Dave and Jake have the same level of basic needs, Dave is a massive drain on the economy. Dave could work himself into an early grave crafting his sausages, and he would still effectively be worth only 1/100th of a Jake.

If you have been told you live in a society which is too poor to allow you to live in basic dignity then you've been played, son. You live in the richest society in human history. You live in a society where a guy who can kick a leather ball earns ten times more money each year than you will ever touch in your lifetime, where governments spend close-to-trillions rewarding the fiscal irresponsibility of financial services executives with seven figure salaries, and you're worried about people costing 125 dollars a month to feed..

Also, need I point out the irony of being worried about more robust tax policy creating a less favorable business environment while simultaneously supporting Brexit. If your whole argument is that everyone is going to be unemployed anyway, then what exactly are your low taxes doing for you. There are plenty of reasons why businesses choose to do business in certain countries and regions, taxation is one of those, and not even a particularly important one compared to others (like access to markets, which.. you know.. Brexit).

renegade7:

Worgen:

Can anyone else explain this considering that zontar is anything but an unbiased source.

A sanctuary city is a city that does not deport illegal immigrants unless there's a criminal record significant enough to warrant investing the time, energy, and money to go through the process of deportation.

See, deportation isn't just a matter of loading people onto a bus and dropping them off on the other side of the border. It's an entire legal process that has to go through a court and result in a judge deciding that deportation is warranted. And because judges are empowered to use discretion in their rulings (which is of course the point, they judge whether and to what extent the law may have been broken and what the appropriate remedy is), they are allowed to decide that deportation may not be warranted.

The same is true of law enforcement departments and even individual police officers. Police departments have finite resources and manpower and they have to decide how to best allocate those resources with the ultimate goal of protecting the community. Therefore they are allowed to decide that deporting Mexicans for utterly trivial violations isn't worth the time, the energy, or the potential harm to the community compared to the other things that police in a major city have to deal with.

So with that in mind, I find that there is an interesting dissonance in Zontar's position here. Zontar, how do you feel about the federal government penalizing colleges and universities for failing to comply with Title IX and affirmative action programs? After all, those are the law too.

On top of this, there's a very real concern that when undocumented immigrants know the local cops are coming after them for immigration stuff, they're much less likely to report violent crime or cooperate with LE in investigations, which in turn makes the community less safe.

Jux:
On top of this, there's a very real concern that when undocumented immigrants know the local cops are coming after them for immigration stuff, they're much less likely to report violent crime or cooperate with LE in investigations, which in turn makes the community less safe.

Getting a bit off-topic, but yeah, the police needs to work with, rather than against the community, otherwise it doesn't work. If illegal immigrants, legal immigrants, LGBT, racial minorities, sex workers etc don't trust the police, all sorts of problem eventuate. And not just for those groups, if that wasn't enough cause.

Zontar:

evilthecat:

The people, politicians, journalists and economists, who look at the above and cry about how it's dirty socialism and the solution is just to get rid of more people.. do you think that, when the market ultimately sees no more need of industrial workers, will treat you any better than any other "surplus" person? Do you think they possess a genuine concern for your interests, or do you think that maybe.. maybe.. they just don't like the idea of paying higher taxes.

You know what the funny thing is? It doesn't matter HOW they treat me, because regardless of anything that happens the end result will be that there will be an unemployable population, and unless we can manage to continue the economy breakthroughs that have been slowing down over the past 30 years (the tech revolution didn't create nearly as many jobs as one would have thought given historic trends) the only difference not taking in massive amounts of labourers from other nations will have is what the size of that unemployable population is.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather it be as small as possible so that said population can be as small of a drain as possible since being a net drain is bad for the economy. And it's not like raising taxes will just solve things, not when half the business we have up here are here because our tax rate is lower then that of the US (that's one thing Republicans have objectively right that the Democrats can't twist as being wrong, and I'm actually happy you guys aren't fixing that problem since it's why megacorporations like Burger King are now Canadian).

Again this whole issue is on what scale people think of. You're thinking about 1-5 years from now. I'm thinking about 20-50 years from now, where entire sectors of the economy will in that short time go through what agriculture did over the course of 300 years (80% of the workforce to 2%), and while I do suspect something will fill part of that void, given the sheer speed at which it'll happen I doubt it will be more then a dent in it.

CaitSeith:

Wait, tax payer expense? Are they stealing tax money or something? How? I mean, it's not good they are breaking the law. But how does that cost tax money in places were no resources are spend in going after them?

First and foremost is policing since, even ignoring the actual act of catching, detaining and deporting them, illegal immigrants commit crime at a higher rate then the general public (though due to the fact legal immigrants do so at a lower rate many people pretend otherwise), meaning more money needs to be used on that front.

Then there's the fact that many cities and even some states (California comes to mind) do offer state resources to illegals, something they're not even legally permitted to do, though given hos Sancuary Cities even exist that isn't exactly something they care about. And that's before we get to fraudsters who use identity theft to get things while pretending to be someone else, which is one of the most common crimes amongst illegals.

All in all it's estimated that at all levels of government illegal immigrants cost the US government about 100 billion each year, or about 7,100 dollars per illegal (far less then what pretty much all of the minority who put money into the system actually put in).

And do you have the estimation of how much the rest of the population cost to the government? Legal immigrants and citizens not only have crime rates, but they are also entitled to many more benefits from the government than illegals ever get (and those cost money too).

evilthecat:

Your whole argument here is that automation has made it possible to achieve the same levels of productivity with fewer workers. Thus, the people who are displaced by automation are no more of a "drain" on the economy than the people who worked before them.

Except for the massively important fact that automation, if it say puts 90% out of work in an industry, such as transportation, then you need to create that many jobs in other industries that can easily have people of said skill set move to if you don't want to make a large unemployed group. Which, given how all low or unskilled jobs are current the most at threat (but far from the only ones) then that realistically isn't going to happen since most of the work they could so is likely to already be gone.

Also, need I point out the irony of being worried about more robust tax policy creating a less favorable business environment while simultaneously supporting Brexit. If your whole argument is that everyone is going to be unemployed anyway, then what exactly are your low taxes doing for you. There are plenty of reasons why businesses choose to do business in certain countries and regions, taxation is one of those, and not even a particularly important one compared to others (like access to markets, which.. you know.. Brexit).

The recent moving of large American megacorporations to Toronto due purely to lower tax rates seems to either mean your reasoning is flawed or European corporations don't operate under the same "make money" line of thinking we do on this side of the pond.

I also don't see what a "robust tax policy" even means in this context. Doesn't really have an obvious one given what's being talked about and a good half of the ones I can think of don't make much sense and the other don't really work for what you're saying, so I can't figure it out.

CaitSeith:
And do you have the estimation of how much the rest of the population cost to the government? Legal immigrants and citizens not only have crime rates, but they are also entitled to many more benefits from the government than illegals ever get (and those cost money too).

And they also actually pay into the system, what's your point? (before anyone brings up the small minority of illegals who do pay into the system: they pay enough to actually make up for what they as an individual cost the system, something almost no illegal anywhere can claim).

Zontar:

CaitSeith:
And do you have the estimation of how much the rest of the population cost to the government? Legal immigrants and citizens not only have crime rates, but they are also entitled to many more benefits from the government than illegals ever get (and those cost money too).

And they also actually pay into the system, what's your point? (before anyone brings up the small minority of illegals who do pay into the system: they pay enough to actually make up for what they as an individual cost the system, something almost no illegal anywhere can claim).

In which basis do you assume they are the minority, and not the majority?

CaitSeith:

Zontar:

CaitSeith:
And do you have the estimation of how much the rest of the population cost to the government? Legal immigrants and citizens not only have crime rates, but they are also entitled to many more benefits from the government than illegals ever get (and those cost money too).

And they also actually pay into the system, what's your point? (before anyone brings up the small minority of illegals who do pay into the system: they pay enough to actually make up for what they as an individual cost the system, something almost no illegal anywhere can claim).

In which basis do you assume they are the minority, and not the majority?

The fact that it would be advertised to all hell that they where if it was the case by those advocating for them on the left. Hell even if it wasn't the case it would still occur, as we see with the fact many pretend that illegal immigrants commit crime at a lower rate then natives due to the fact that legal immigrants do so.

Zontar:

CaitSeith:

Zontar:

And they also actually pay into the system, what's your point? (before anyone brings up the small minority of illegals who do pay into the system: they pay enough to actually make up for what they as an individual cost the system, something almost no illegal anywhere can claim).

In which basis do you assume they are the minority, and not the majority?

The fact that it would be advertised to all hell that they where if it was the case by those advocating for them on the left. Hell even if it wasn't the case it would still occur, as we see with the fact many pretend that illegal immigrants commit crime at a lower rate then natives due to the fact that legal immigrants do so.

Pretty sure he was looking for solid proof, not an assumption. A study would be nice.

erttheking:

Zontar:

CaitSeith:
In which basis do you assume they are the minority, and not the majority?

The fact that it would be advertised to all hell that they where if it was the case by those advocating for them on the left. Hell even if it wasn't the case it would still occur, as we see with the fact many pretend that illegal immigrants commit crime at a lower rate then natives due to the fact that legal immigrants do so.

Pretty sure he was looking for solid proof, not an assumption. A study would be nice.

And given the subject matter, the lack of evidence does point towards it being the case given groups would be claiming it even if it wasn't true.

Zontar:

erttheking:

Zontar:

The fact that it would be advertised to all hell that they where if it was the case by those advocating for them on the left. Hell even if it wasn't the case it would still occur, as we see with the fact many pretend that illegal immigrants commit crime at a lower rate then natives due to the fact that legal immigrants do so.

Pretty sure he was looking for solid proof, not an assumption. A study would be nice.

And given the subject matter, the lack of evidence does point towards it being the case given groups would be claiming it even if it wasn't true.

Yeah...no. You're making a claim. Burden of proof is on you. If you want to claim something like that, kindly have something to back it up and not just baseless speculation. You can't just say "no one is saying anything, therefore I'm right." Can I say that they are paying into the system if my cunt of a president hasn't said anything about them not paying in?

Zontar:

erttheking:

Zontar:

The fact that it would be advertised to all hell that they where if it was the case by those advocating for them on the left. Hell even if it wasn't the case it would still occur, as we see with the fact many pretend that illegal immigrants commit crime at a lower rate then natives due to the fact that legal immigrants do so.

Pretty sure he was looking for solid proof, not an assumption. A study would be nice.

And given the subject matter, the lack of evidence does point towards it being the case given groups would be claiming it even if it wasn't true.

Lack of evidence is not evidence

Zontar:
And given the subject matter, the lack of evidence does point towards it being the case given groups would be claiming it even if it wasn't true.

So, whether or not it was true, people would claim it was true, so since people aren't claiming it is true, it's not?

Zontar:

erttheking:

Zontar:

The fact that it would be advertised to all hell that they where if it was the case by those advocating for them on the left. Hell even if it wasn't the case it would still occur, as we see with the fact many pretend that illegal immigrants commit crime at a lower rate then natives due to the fact that legal immigrants do so.

Pretty sure he was looking for solid proof, not an assumption. A study would be nice.

And given the subject matter, the lack of evidence does point towards it being the case given groups would be claiming it even if it wasn't true.

...that kind of sounds like a no-win scenario when it comes to convincing you, though, doesn't it? Feel like in two parallel universes, this discussion is going down as follows;

'No Claims They're The Majority Exist'- "See, if they were, there'd be assertions to this!"
'Buncha Claims They're The Majority Exist' - "No, see, they'd be claiming this even if it wasn't true, it means nothing!"

Trying to draw a conclusion based on a lack of opposing 'advertising' is a bit selective. There probably are studies and analyses out there that can prove one of your sides correct, but basing this on the exchange of left-vs-right rhetoric is some pretty thin ice to stand on. Especially because, as you've yourself hinted in your last post, not all of the rhetoric that gets exchanged ends up being accurate or honest anyway.

Thaluikhain:

So, whether or not it was true, people would claim it was true, so since people aren't claiming it is true, it's not?

No, what I'm saying is that it's so detached from reality that people aren't even trying to get away with claiming it because it's too unbelievable. The crime rate lie is an example of this: it's a lie, it doesn't hold up to basic scrutiny, but because of how easy it is to perpetuate the lie it's spread anyway. Saying that most illegal immigrants pay into the system (even if it isn't by enough to brake even even on most individual cases) is too unbelievable because it would then beg too many logical questions, such as how that can be happening if the government is trying to find and deport these people.

SeventhSigil:
There probably are studies and analyses out there that can prove one of your sides correct, but basing this on the exchange of left-vs-right rhetoric is some pretty thin ice to stand on. Especially because, as you've yourself hinted in your last post, not all of the rhetoric that gets exchanged ends up being accurate or honest anyway.

To be fair, solid numbers are hard to twist, so if someone did have them it wouldn't be too hard to spread around. The problem is that if it does exist it's likely behind a paywall, and it could be a situation like the infamous cultural diversity study where those involved don't want to publish the results for political reasons (it would be the social sciences this is studied in after all, and outside of Economics that's about 40:1 in terms of left-leaning vs right-leaning, and ideological group-think is a known problem in the field).

Zontar:
All in all it's estimated that at all levels of government illegal immigrants cost the US government about 100 billion each year, or about 7,100 dollars per illegal (far less then what pretty much all of the minority who put money into the system actually put in).

Citation needed, buddy.

bastardofmelbourne:

Zontar:
All in all it's estimated that at all levels of government illegal immigrants cost the US government about 100 billion each year, or about 7,100 dollars per illegal (far less then what pretty much all of the minority who put money into the system actually put in).

Citation needed, buddy.

I have something here. But it does not say what Zontar would like it to. The upshot is, that Trump repeats a claim made by an anti immigrant group that is uncorroborated due to the lack of real conclusive data on the subject. This is reasonable seeing as illegal immigrants are trying to stay under the radar. 113 billion is the high estimate. other conservative sources say around 83 billion. Opposing groups say it is far less but no one actually KNOWS shit.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/sep/01/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-illegal-immigration-costs-113-bi/

If undocumented immigrants are only costing us roughly 7k per person per year, that's pretty cheap. We spend like, quadruple that per person incarcerated.

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/03/26/chapter-2-industries-of-unauthorized-immigrant-workers/

Also wondering what peoples solution is to keep certain industries from collapsing when all of these people are removed.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here