Immigration costs American workers half trillion annually

[_canpakes]

.

We've already established that there are some jobs Americans simply won't do at the price employers prefer to pay.

Why would that surprise anyone given that most employers would rather pay folks less that what they are paying them now? Or that some employers would be happy to pay next to nothing if they could? Or, nothing at all (some apprenticeships)?

Can you imagine that there are folks who see absolutely no logic or sense in someone of your profession earning six figures?

Can you imagine how awesome the country and its economy would be if everyone earned only 20 - 50 percent of what they do now? Imagine how much disposable income would exist to spend on the services that you offer.

[_The CCC]

Actually slavery took money out of the economy.

So slavery took money out of the economy but cheap labor adds money to the economy. Sounds like some very interesting accounting.

I never said that cheap labor adds to the economy. The Walmart Model is a net economy looser too.

[_ajax18]

I never said that cheap labor adds to the economy. The Walmart Model is a net economy looser too.

So you disagree with fellow leftist Kevin Graham?

What you don't get is that the cheap later translates to more money in the economy, particularly for consumers. More money for ALL of us, including all those workers you think are being unfairly neglected.

[_EAllusion]

So Ajax explicitly denies that immigration is a net gain for economic production. Then, thinking he has a Brietbart article that can score a point against immigration, cites a researcher whose methodology argues for a net gain for the economy. What gives?

That immigration is a net gain for the economy is pretty much a rock solid view among economists who study the matter. That it hurts the poor and working class is an area of dispute with different methods yielding mixed results. The effect seems to be small either way. This researcher finds that low income owners in areas where there is heavy immigration are hurt by the influx of competition. In keeping with mainstream research, he finds the effect relatively small in comparison to total economic activity, but still quite notable. So Ajax cites him in his favor even though he must implicitly reject the methodology because it also concludes something he adamantly denies.

The problem here is that ajax simply hates immigrants and is willing to believe and cite anything that flatters this pre-existing prejudice. That's why he incoherently cites material that contradicts other claims he simultaneously makes. He reflexively believes whatever he thinks makes immigration, at least immigration of racial groups he is prejudiced towards, look bad and reflexively denies the reverse.

[_ajax18]

The problem here is that ajax simply hates immigrants and is willing to believe and cite anything that flatters this pre-existing prejudice.

While I do think illegal immigration is theft, I wouldn't say I hate immigrants. I do believe that as a sovereign nation we have the right to set a limit to the number of immigrants we can bring into the country.

If recognizing that given the amount of poverty, unemployment, and debt we face in this country that it's probably not in the best interest of native born citizens to bring in a tidal wave of impoverished immigrants is your idea of a pre-existing prejudice than so be it. I'd call it common sense.

In the words of Gadianton, "Open borders and socialism don't mix. It should be obvious."

There's all kinds of creative accounting practices that obfuscate and hide the truth. How else can you come up with numbers that say, "Importing poverty and increasing social welfare benefits have made the lives of middle class working Americans."

[_Kevin Graham]

I wouldn't say I hate immigrants

In other news, Grand Wizard of the KKK says:

"Don't call me racist, I don't hate blacks."

[_EAllusion]

There's all kinds of creative accounting practices that obfuscate and hide the truth. How else can you come up with numbers that say, "Importing poverty and increasing social welfare benefits have made the lives of middle class working Americans." I'd put it right up there with claims that giving 10% of your money to the Church leaves you with more money to live on.

Yeah, in this case you are citing one of those "creative accounting practices" in your favor. That's because you don't evaluate claims based on how reliable the researchers are, your own understanding of the methodology, or any heuristic beyond "Does it seem to disfavor immigration? If so, I agree with it."

The problem in this case is that it concludes one thing you refuse to believe while concluding something else you think helps your case. So you incoherently just claim to agree with only the part you like.

[_ajax18]

Do you think lawyers hate real estate agents because they contend that they are engaged in the unlicensed practice of law?

[_EAllusion]

Do you think lawyers hate real estate agents because they contend that they are engaged in the unlicensed practice of law?

This argument would make more sense if you didn't favor severe restrictions on immigration. You want to make virtually all immigration illegal, then claim you are just against illegal immigration. This would be a more honest argument if you didn't oppose immigration at every turn. You aren't just in favor of enforcement of the law - you want the law to be highly restrictive.

This is like wanting all felonies to be capital offenses, then went it is pointed out how draconian that is, claiming hey, you just want the law to be enforced.

You don't just oppose immigration either, but routinely make racist/xenophobic comments on the subject. You favor nearly any argument that serves that end.

[_ajax18]

You don't just oppose immigration either, but routinely make racist/xenophobic comments on the subject. You favor nearly any argument that serves that end.

This isn't about racism or hating immigrants. It's about protecting the American dream for native born citizens. We either have a country or we don't.