Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

Dude, it would be worse for them if they didn't have the below-minimum-wage jobs. They would have even less money if they worked back in Mexico. You can't paint this as a clearly my-side-is-moral-yours-is-unethical kind of thing.

A) cost of living in mexico is quite lower

the wages relative to the col could still be lower than in America

B) I don't see why poor of one country are a problem to another country

people were painting this as an clear-cut moral issue; it's not

Refugees? I'm fine with that. Economic migrants? Get a visa and play by the rule like everyone else.

we are trying to un-fuck-up the rules

right now the rules are shit

the moment you establish legality can be bent for special cases, a country comes apart (and you saw it quite clearly in this election cycle, so I don't know why there's more proof needed)

I would dispute that

this statement needs more proof that "bending legality" caused this election cycle

[Reelya]

#1 On one side the argument is "what's in the best economic interests of the people involved. how will enforcing or changing the rules affect real peoples' livelihoods"

#2 On the other hand we have "rules are important and there are forms and paperwork which are supposed to be filled out"

#2 is claiming "moral superiority".

[LoSboccacc]

#1 On one side the argument is "what's in the best economic interests of the people involved. how will enforcing or changing the rules affect real peoples' livelihoods"

#2 On the other hand we have "rules are important and there are forms and paperwork which are supposed to be filled out"

#2 is claiming "moral superiority".

As someone on the receiving end of immigrant discrimination, I know very well which side I'm in thank you.

Managing the immigrant flux *is* the best economic interest. But people involved needs not to apply to everyone evermore, or you get into the situation where immigrants are forever exploited, even the one coming legally, to the detriment of the people already residing which have ultimately to pay the burden. You can switch the issue around as much as you like, but welfare management, economic interests and people well being are all interrelated.

[Phmcw]

#1 On one side the argument is "what's in the best economic interests of the people involved. how will enforcing or changing the rules affect real peoples' livelihoods"

#2 On the other hand we have "rules are important and there are forms and paperwork which are supposed to be filled out"

#2 is claiming "moral superiority".

No, you're arguing for a neo-liberal system. You think that because they now get better wages in America, having illegal immigrant is the best thing to do.

I don't claim moral superiority actually, because I don't think we see the issue the same way, and we disagree on the result of my proposed plan.

In my views, the current system is making everyone poorer, and is going to destroy any attempt at social security. In yours the trade war my system would cause would destroy the world economy.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

#1 On one side the argument is "what's in the best economic interests of the people involved. how will enforcing or changing the rules affect real peoples' livelihoods"

#2 On the other hand we have "rules are important and there are forms and paperwork which are supposed to be filled out"

#2 is claiming "moral superiority".

As someone on the receiving end of immigrant discrimination, I know very well which side I'm in thank you.

Lol at "I'm an immigrant therefore I can't be wrong."

Managing the immigrant flux *is* the best economic interest. But people involved needs not to apply to everyone evermore, or you get into the situation where immigrants are forever exploited, even the one coming legally, to the detriment of the people already residing which have ultimately to pay the burden.

Again, the already-citizens are positively affected by immigration.

You can switch the issue around as much as you like, but welfare management, economic interests and people well being are all interrelated.

Yes, they are. Your point?

[LoSboccacc]

Again, the already-citizens are positively affected by immigration.

try with some facts next https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/110th-congress-2007-2008/reports/12-6-immigration.pdf

[Sheb]

That's the finance of local government. Also only regards illegal immigration. Papers on the effect on people's income tends to agree that immigrants raise income, although some papers finds that some categories of citizens are negatively affected even if the average goes up, while some finds that everyone benefits.

[Loud Whispers]

Talk about papers, post the papers
Makes everyone more knowledgeable and all

[LoSboccacc]

That's the finance of local government. Also only regards illegal immigration. Papers on the effect on people's income tends to agree that immigrants raise income, although some papers finds that some categories of citizens are negatively affected even if the average goes up, while some finds that everyone benefits.

of course the problems are illegals, legals both are subject to minimum wage so can't compete as effectively and pay the due taxes.

[Sheb]

Well, this here for exemple shows that an increase of immigration by 10% raise per capita income per 2,2% in aggregate. This paper looking at the Canadian case reach the conclusion that immigration raise GDP, GDP per capita and government budget balance.

Dustmann, looking at the UK found that an increase in immigration lead to an overall increase in income, but a lowering of income for the bottom quintile. Meanwhile other studies, like this one comparing US cities with various level of illegal immigrants showed no effect or a positive effect for even low-skilled workers.

One thing to note is that even if immigration do in fact decrease the income of some portion of the population, it should be possible to harness the surplus economic activity and redistribute it through taxation.

LoSboccac: Turning illegals into legals is as easy as amnisty though. :p

[Sergarr]

Okay so apparently it's normal in USA when mayors of multiple major cities openly declare that they know that they're breaking the federal policy of the country and that they don't care and will continue to break said federal policy.

Why are those people not arrested by the Feds, again?

[Frumple]

Too much trouble, mostly. Also yeah, that's pretty normal. Immigration, marijuana, guns, whatever social issue conservative politicians have shoved their head up their ass about this week, the list can get pretty lengthy.

[Sheb]

As far as I know, it's not really breaking federal law, it's just not cooperating with the federal immigration agencies. No law force local cops to do so.

[smjjames]

Okay so apparently it's normal in USA when mayors of multiple major cities openly declare that they know that they're breaking the federal policy of the country and that they don't care and will continue to break said federal policy.

Why are those people not arrested by the Feds, again?

Because sanctuary city. Seems to be an uniquely American thing, okay, there's three Canadian cities doing it too, so, not totally unique to America.

[TheBiggerFish]

As far as I know, it's not really breaking federal law, it's just not cooperating with the federal immigration agencies. No law force local cops to do so.

I think this is the case.