Illegal Immigration/Invasion

[BigBallinStalin]

Loot, the "threat to culture" argument cuts both ways:

1. 'The status quo is preferred, so opening labor markets to the world threatens the ideal culture' (threat = expected losses).
2. 'The status quo is not preferred, so not opening labor markets to the world threatens the ideal culture (threat = foregone expected gains).

You want culture to be one way, and others do not, but the "threat" argument isn't a good justification. Judging from your post, it's really about an argument on preferences, which usually aren't productive.

The problem is that the #1 stance denies people from determining their own culture (e.g. they're severely restricted from hiring foreigners, renting them rooms, etc.). The #2 doesn't dictate who you can interact with, but it can have side-effects (e.g. you'll be more likely to interact with foreigners outside of your personal property. You might, oh gosh, make friends with them and convert them to your own culture).

Sure, the 'common areas' will change and different goods and preferences will developed outside your private property, but... "deal with it" is generally my stance. People have dealt with this on their own--e.g. "Chinatowns" and what not. If you don't like Chinese culture, then you don't have to visit it. If you don't like Chinese people, then don't invite them to your Birthday BBQ.


How much of a percentage change in culture are you willing to accept--at some given price? If your real income could rise by 100%, but the current culture would change by 10%, then would you accept that deal?

[mrswdk]

I am against the rapid change of anyones culture

Why? Are you also against such changes if they are relatively 'organic' (e.g. the massive transformations that Chinese society has undergone in the last 30-40 years)?

On a side note, no culture develops in isolation and restricting immigration won't change that. Even if you close New Zealand's borders tomorrow, its culture and practices will continue to be influenced by the wider world.

[Metsfanmax]

Well, now thank you for exactly illustrating the kind of bigotry of which I referred. See, assuming that people who don't want freely open border are just plain and simply bigoted is wrong. I am not saying that all people who hold those views are correct, but I AM saying that you cannot simply say "oh.. they don't want so many immigrants, obviously the only reason is xenophobia". Its plain wrong and therefore won't yield a solution.

This whole post was completely irrelevant to the discussion. Yes, obviously there are people who don't want open borders and it is for other reasons than xenophobia. But you and BBS were talking about people who are racist/xenophobic, and you discussed that we should pay attention to reasons for why they are that way. It's fine if you want to talk about reasons why people don't want open borders in general, but don't call me a bigot just because you can't keep straight what it is that you said in your last post.

No, go back and reread. I am talking about people who are NOT inherently xenophobic or racist, but who do object to having freely open borders... and the fact that simply saying people who think having more Mexicans in a large part of our country than native-born citizens are just racist IS part of why there is still a problem.

Your argument is basically that we shouldn't just discard the views of everyone opposed to open borders, because some of them actually have good ideas and it isn't just about racism. Which is a banally true point. I think BBS is capable of understanding this. The point here is that it is the people who are racist that make it so much harder to integrate people into the same society, than the people who think it is just bad policy. If you are really not xenophobic, as you say, then you probably wouldn't hate the Mexicans down the street just because they don't speak the same language as you. Of course, if you do, then you may very well be unconsciously engaging in xenophobic thought, regardless of how much you think you're just acting out of rational concern. I mean, your central argument -- that we should be speaking English -- is supported by no apparent reason other than that's what you already speak. So one might ask why you're so insistent on forcing everyone else to integrate into what you want to do. Does your opinion on what language we should speak matter more than someone of Mexican descent?

Switzerland is a VERY small country, and nowhere near as diverse as you imply. Canada is closer, with French... and it is rife with issues. BUT.. my real point is that, regardless of how you sit on that particular issue, labeling me racist because I am no longer always in favor of Spanish bilingual education (as it is in CA.. Florida is a different story) is wrong... and, well, that accusation was made (though I cannot remember if you did it or someone else).

This whole discussion is toxic because of throwing around the word "racist." Can we agree that instead of labeling each other, to just talk about the policy in question and whether it ends up being effectively racist or not? I am less interested in whether you personally secretly harbor hate towards anyone who looks like someone of Spanish descent and more interested in whether the policy you advocate ends up being discriminatory or hurtful to such people.

[Lootifer]

Economically I agree BBS, but as you say I am concerned with preference. I really like what we have, and I am sure there's people in Kuwait and Texas that are similar.

And mrs did you not read my post? or trolling? not sure, but you know I said I am all for organic change in culture right? I may think enjoying a snag n beer is choice (ie fucking tops, sweet fucking as bro, [insert other kiwi cliche for good]) but if the rest of my culture think im a dickhead living in the past then so be it, time for me to move on (I, and BBS, will point out that any organic cultural change is typically for the better - being liberal scum n all).

[Phatscotty]

Just one result of the dingbat policy, which is specifically to NOT protect our borders.

show

[mrswdk]

@Looters I just wondered how you felt about 'organic' changes when they occur quickly, seeing as you stated you were against rapid change.

You're fooling yourself if you think that New Zealand's culture can develop in complete isolation from the outside world, and I also don't understand why you'd want that when New Zealand's current culture (which you apparently like) is the result of many different cultures being mish-mashed together anyway.

[BigBallinStalin]

@Looters I just wondered how you felt about 'organic' changes when they occur quickly, seeing as you stated you were against rapid change.

You're fooling yourself if you think that New Zealand's culture can develop in complete isolation from the outside world, and I also don't understand why you'd want that when New Zealand's current culture (which you apparently like) is the result of many different cultures being mish-mashed together anyway.

Cuz status quo bias. He's fine with how it is--trade policies, history, and all. Any deviations from the status quo aren't cool.

[shickingbrits]

I think we need a "reset" on this.

Ok, you want a caste system.

The real point is that we HAVE caste system right now. We have a very divided society that is becoming more so, and this bit about illegal/legal immigration is only a very small part of that.

And, I think letting a mom stay here with her kids, though without all the privileges I or immigrants who go through certain yet to be defined hoops is far, FAR better than either locking mom up and deporting her away from her kids or, worse, sending the kids away from their parents.

I honestly don't care if the parents came here legally or not, I think kids belong with their parents (unless the parents have made other arrangements) unless the parents are abusive or such. Beyond that, I think putting too strong of an emphasis on how someone got across the border, when they are just wanting either safety or work or both, is just misplaced. The emphasis should be on what they do once they are here.

Yet, we cannot simply open our borders to every last person who wants to come, regardless of skills, means of support, etc. (skip the criminality bit as a given we want to avoid). Doing so destabilizes any country. Setting such strict quotas and limits that more people are now here illegally than here legally is also bad.

I also see the biggest part of this wave of now illegal immigrants as being driven by employers.. employers who do want lower wage workers and less complaining workers. In some cases, these employers have a legitimate case. In others, its more grey. At any rate, because the problem is employer-driven, I think that a solution has to target employers more than the immigrants themselves. The immigrants should be "targeted" only for true illegal activity... (that is, I am not into deporting an 18 year old for running a stop sign or speeding when he was 16).

In addition, I think while deporting criminals is OK generally, we do need to give considerations to whether the country of origin can handle the person, most particularly when they came here as young children. It may make folks "feel good" to simply deport criminals, but it may be more harmful to us in the long run... as this latest wave of children shows.

Very bureaucratic and does not address many of the problems facing western society at this time.

It restricts upward mobility. In Canada, we had many employers hiring Filipino workers. It's not that they weren't available workers to fill the jobs, it's that the employers were happier to pay less for the experience. I know two Filipinos working as line cooks. They get near minimum wage but both have more than 10 years experience apiece. They have saved the employers the need to pay the real price of that experience, put two locals out of work, added to the size of the government and its costs of operation while getting less out of them. The restaurants externalized the price of their operation and asked the nation to pick up the tab. But in picking it up, they've lost all the benefits derived from employing a local and incurred the costs of welfare. They've also increased the crime rate, not of the immigrants, but of the locals who can no longer find a reasonable paying job or a job at all.

[BigBallinStalin]

Wait, what's the externality from hiring a Filipino line cook? How are taxpayers paying his salary, or... ???


(If it's "job A was taken by person X; therefore, person Y definitely turned into a criminal," then you can also apply that reasoning to jobs given to a domestic citizen, which has caused another domestic citizen to not have a job and then become a criminal. May as well prohibit employment; or remove laws which increase unemployment--e.g. the minimum wage).

[shickingbrits]

Joe worked for Pubpleasure for 10 years. he started at $8 and now makes $16. Pubpleasures owner hire Jack from the Philippines for $11, (min wage increased to 10.50 during the ten years) and fires Joe. Joe was paying for daycare, transport, and occasionally buying goat cheese. Now he stays home watching his kids. Filipino takes his meals at work, boards near his job but his landlord doesn't declare the income and Jack sends most of his salary back to the Philippines.

The government collects less in tax, pays a new welfare check and Joe is buying less services from the community until he starts a grow room in his basement.

[BigBallinStalin]

If the Filipino's productivity (discounted marginal revenue product of labor) is equal to Joe's, then Pubpleasure has saved $5 per hour. If they want to maximize profits, they'll spend that additional stream of $5 per hour on something or someone else. You're omitting that $5 per hour stream from your analysis, so your conclusion won't follow (that the overall pie has shrunk).

Also, the economic pie has expanded since trade is mutually beneficial. The Filipino and Pubpleasure are better off, so wealth has been created, and Joe will likely find a job where he gets paid for his actual productivity. Before, Joe was getting paid more than his productivity, so there was also waste occurring (the stream of $5 per hour could've been spent on more efficient uses). Before, the Philipino wasn't working and [insert your story about bad stuff].

And this happens all the time. If your story about Joe held true for most firings, then unemployment would have been increasing over the past 200 years, so today we should have unemployment levels of... 90%? But we don't because your story doesn't tend to hold.

If you wanted greater wealth in the city, then by implication, you'd support looser immigration restrictions, so that the Filipino's family can live together, and you'd oppose government policies on welfare.

If you think wealth is lost because the Philipino sends x-amount of his revenue abroad, then (1) realize that people within the city are better off with the equally productive worker who saved the city $5 per hour which would be spend on something productive. (2) In order to increase wealth within that city, does prohibiting gifts beyond the city limits make the city richer? (How does the city benefit from having poorer trading partners abroad? All else equal, are you more or less willing to work in a city which prohibits gift-sending? This policy would have a negative effect on job growth). (3) What percent is actually sent abroad? The guy still has to pay for housing, food, and utilities, and the taxes on those should be enough to cover basic city-provided goods.

[shickingbrits]

1. The pub's business is already saturated, the owner has more than enough to satisfy his expenses and the $5 dollars he gets he invests in swamp land in Florida. That is service has not improved, quality has not improved, the money was not recirculated domestically. "the city" got nothing but one more unemployed fellow.

2. Creating greater unemployment among the local population and having fewer tax revenue to support an increased welfare payments does not enrich the city. It's not a question of prohibiting gifts from leaving, its preventing unemployment from rising.

3. That the incentive for the Filipino to work here is to send the money there suggests that he is not spending nearly as much as Joe. I've taken Jack to money mart a couple of times and he sends around $700 to the Philippines monthly around %50 of his take home pay. He pays his landlord $350 per month which includes utilities and takes 90% of his meals at work.

An no Joe is still unemployed and if he would like to be employed, then he must accept the $11 that the Filipino is getting which means he couldn't afford daycare or would need the government to subsidize the expense. In general, he would be roughly as well off doing nothing as getting $11. Were the Filipino required to bring his family with him, he would lose his incentive to work here as the $700 a month would not cover the rent, utilities and food costs incurred by the rest of his family.

Jobs which can be exported have been exported, importing to cover the remaining jobs will not have a beneficial affect on society. Suggesting Joe can find another job refutes the stats on the job market.

[mrswdk]

@BBS sounds like something else to me. If loots just had status quo bias then he would say no one can try to change the current status quo, a stance which is more self-serving and easier to justify, but instead he says that immigrants should be excluded from exerting influence over mainstream culture while people originally from New Zealand should be allowed to do so (and can even command him to behave differently, according to him). I'd be interested to see how he justifies that two-tier system of his, and how he intends to stop New Zealand's culture from taking any international influence.

[BigBallinStalin]

1. The pub's business is already saturated, the owner has more than enough to satisfy his expenses and the $5 dollars he gets he invests in swamp land in Florida. That is service has not improved, quality has not improved, the money was not recirculated domestically. "the city" got nothing but one more unemployed fellow.

2. Creating greater unemployment among the local population and having fewer tax revenue to support an increased welfare payments does not enrich the city. It's not a question of prohibiting gifts from leaving, its preventing unemployment from rising.

3. That the incentive for the Filipino to work here is to send the money there suggests that he is not spending nearly as much as Joe. I've taken Jack to money mart a couple of times and he sends around $700 to the Philippines monthly around %50 of his take home pay. He pays his landlord $350 per month which includes utilities and takes 90% of his meals at work.

An no Joe is still unemployed and if he would like to be employed, then he must accept the $11 that the Filipino is getting which means he couldn't afford daycare or would need the government to subsidize the expense. In general, he would be roughly as well off doing nothing as getting $11. Were the Filipino required to bring his family with him, he would lose his incentive to work here as the $700 a month would not cover the rent, utilities and food costs incurred by the rest of his family.

Jobs which can be exported have been exported, importing to cover the remaining jobs will not have a beneficial affect on society. Suggesting Joe can find another job refutes the stats on the job market.

Now you're just narrowing your hypothetical conditions to fit your preconceived conclusion. If I whittle away enough at your posts, you'll (a) increasingly ignore more relevant points while (b) throw on more hypothetical conditions into your analysis. Good day.

[BigBallinStalin]

@BBS sounds like something else to me. If loots just had status quo bias then he would say no one can try to change the current status quo, a stance which is more self-serving and easier to justify, but instead he says that immigrants should be excluded from exerting influence over mainstream culture while people originally from New Zealand should be allowed to do so (and can even command him to behave differently, according to him). I'd be interested to see how he justifies that two-tier system of his, and how he intends to stop New Zealand's culture from taking any international influence.

Interesting. I'm not sure though. Maybe he'd reject internal change too. Or maybe he likes the current degree of cultural change from foreign trade in goods (not labor) and from internal trade (the status quo).

[shickingbrits]

Mining company C approaches Canadian Gov H. H decides the best use of his countries resources and the impacts of the extraction on the environment. Mining company C promises x amount of jobs, y amount of profits and z amount of impact. H says sure, mine it all the way to China. C, ; that's the plan.

C brings in equipment, and places job ads. Minimum wage deducting camp fees of $30 per day. Must be able to handle prolonged isolation. Not one reply. C, . Hey H, we need to import workers, see we have all this expensive equipment you paid for and no one to run it. Literal zero responses from the local market. OK, but you have to pay them according to applicable law.

C gets workers from China, deducts their camp fees and those Chinese miners might as well be at a Chinese mine. H racks up those employment numbers. Gets a bit of tax revenue and this:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c ... -1.2728591

An exert:
"The breach of the tailings pond dam at the copper and gold mine near Likely, B.C., released 10 billion litres of water and 4.5 million cubic metres of metals-laden fine sand, contaminating several lakes, creeks and rivers in the Cariboo region of central B.C. on Monday."

It passes all the costs to the taxpayer. It was a terrible deal. We get none of the employment promised, no repayment cost and often pay for their equipment. So H says go home.

Setting up a structure for mass import of labour is recreating slavery. The Philippines, Belize, Nigeria and others become breeder nations, human resources take their cut from somewhere in the world and their new owner can cut their visa at any time. I don't suspect they will encourage a form of adopting the new country as a home. There will be no road to citizenship or sponsoring family. There will be corresponding wage guidelines and it will displace a lot of employment. Property ownership will be further consolidated and a new wide class of non-worker will come to be. What will government do with the non-worker? What effect will it have on the business?

Obama will use the crisis to implement his solution. A solution that would have had a very different debate without the current situation. A solution that could only have to come to pass because of the crisis.

[shickingbrits]

The Pub is owned by a doctor, it's the most popular one in town. Those are facts not narrowing a hypothetical view. He owns property in Florida. And I have driven one of the Filipino guys to money mart. They both board at a friend of mines. If you don't like reality, because it interferes with your hypothesis, that's up to you. Cling.

[BigBallinStalin]

The Pub is owned by a doctor, it's the most popular one in town. Those are facts not narrowing a hypothetical view. He owns property in Florida. And I have driven one of the Filipino guys to money mart. They both board at a friend of mines. If you don't like reality, because it interferes with your hypothesis, that's up to you. Cling.

In other words, you use an anomaly and only personal observation--tempered with no scientific nor especially economic analysis--in order to reaffirm your prior beliefs about economic issues and trends. When presented with contrary information and questions, you largely ignore them and repeat that you are correct.




This isn't religion. This is econ. Grow up.

[shickingbrits]

An anomaly? Or narrowing hypothetical conditions or reaffirming prior beliefs.

My town has 4 pubs. All are owned by doctors. Many well to do people, including my parents, go to Florida each winter and the better off ones own property there. The incentives of the Filipinos are pretty set as well. Not too much of an anomaly.

I spoke with the agent who arranged their jobs. He's imported 600 in the last few years. I live in a rural community. My town has fewer than 600 employed residents. The nearby commercial area has Filipinos at Tim Hortons, Subway, pubs, the hospital. Not much of an anomaly.

Perhaps if you could look past your economic theory you would find a wonderful place called the real world. Here, 600 jobs can make or break a community. As such, Harper had to address the issue and promised to make some changes. I don't really expect anything from these changes, he has too many economists on staff to do anything productive.

[Phatscotty]

At least Shicking is bringing up real world examples.

It's one thing to recite theory, it's another to work and live the reality, see how things actually work, watch how it happens.

It happened to me, once I got my current job/entered the real world in 2003, it totally opened my eyes, and I realized just how ignorant my thoughts were (hey, I was 21 and in college ) concerning illegal immigration. But the ignorance did not only cut one way, being that I came to understand clearly the situations of the people and have sympathy for many who come here illegally, but I also came to understand more clearly that in many aspects the reality was much worse than I heard or imagined.

[BigBallinStalin]

At least Shicking is bringing up real world examples.

It's one thing to recite theory, it's another to work and live the reality, see how things actually work, watch how it happens.

It happened to me, once I got my current job/entered the real world in 2003, it totally opened my eyes, and I realized just how ignorant my thoughts were (hey, I was 21 and in college ) concerning illegal immigration. But the ignorance did not only cut one way, being that I came to understand clearly the situations of the people and have sympathy for many who come here illegally, but I also came to understand more clearly that in many aspects the reality was much worse than I heard or imagined.
]

SB doesn't understand the difference between trends and anomalies, nor does he understand the purpose of theory and the role of empirical work. He thinks that one particular case with all sorts of particular circumstances (which he can simply invent--intentionally or unconsciously) is a great way to form one's opinion on national policy for immigration.

That's equivalent to thinking: the Earth is flat because everywhere I look it's flat. This is my real world example, so it must be true!


It's called the "fallacy of composition." To avoid it, use logic and science properly. To keep confirming erroneous beliefs, then don't. The scope of y'all's ignorance is largely* determined by y'all's willingness to think critically.

*"largely" because some people can't help it if they're really stupid.

[nietzsche]

I like to disagree with BBS. But lately I've been agreeing with him everywhere.

But it's not difficult to agree this time.

I hear a pre-concieved idea from shickingbrits colored with a story to which we are required to be empathic. When business have more profits they invest and spend. Even money in the bank allows for better credits for other entrepreneurs.

If, in the other hand, a society is full of Joes that are happy with the wages and decide they don't want to improve because it's enough to go home and watch football, then such society will face problems trying to stay competitive in respect to other societies.

[shickingbrits]

Just a story that the Prime Minister made a recent reform on.

BBS, you don't understand anything so far as I've noticed. You mainly spout economic doctrine of the sort that was spouted by those who created the current economy of the US. Why would I listen to any of your nonsense when I can go to just about any fast food joint and get served by a Filipino?

[Phatscotty]

At least Shicking is bringing up real world examples.

It's one thing to recite theory, it's another to work and live the reality, see how things actually work, watch how it happens.

It happened to me, once I got my current job/entered the real world in 2003, it totally opened my eyes, and I realized just how ignorant my thoughts were (hey, I was 21 and in college ) concerning illegal immigration. But the ignorance did not only cut one way, being that I came to understand clearly the situations of the people and have sympathy for many who come here illegally, but I also came to understand more clearly that in many aspects the reality was much worse than I heard or imagined.
]

SB doesn't understand the difference between trends and anomalies, nor does he understand the purpose of theory and the role of empirical work. He thinks that one particular case with all sorts of particular circumstances (which he can simply invent--intentionally or unconsciously) is a great way to form one's opinion on national policy for immigration.

That's equivalent to thinking: the Earth is flat because everywhere I look it's flat. This is my real world example, so it must be true!


It's called the "fallacy of composition." To avoid it, use logic and science properly. To keep confirming erroneous beliefs, then don't. The scope of y'all's ignorance is largely* determined by y'all's willingness to think critically.

*"largely" because some people can't help it if they're really stupid.

Those are good points in general, and I won't speak for Bricks, but as for me, I am not saying that the things I see and what I know to be true is the way everything else is, not even close. I'm simply saying what I see and what I know are true things and cannot be denied. That is not to say what I see wand what I know is the overall picture of everything everywhere related. So, not sure how that pertains to SB, but it does not pertain to me. My previous post, the one with the sign warning Americans not to go into that part of American territory because there is no law and order to protect/rescue/defend/enforce....I typed 'just one results of.....' The whole welfare and handout and exploitation and overall fleecing of the American taxpayer is likewise just another reality. I am not saying that is true of every single illegal immigrant, but my opposition IS pretending like the reality does not exist. I say that it does. And about similar realities concerning wages, culture, land-entitlement, economy, fairness, respect for law and order, heritage, assimilation, drug/human smuggling....They are all turning into a large pile of evidence to the contrary, a pile that rarely is addressed and primarily shrugged off. I'm not saying you don't have a point BBS, it's probably just that we place different things at different levels on our own priorities and what we think is more important.

Overall, what the hell do you and I disagree on concerning immigration policy anyways? What do you disagree with me about?? Don't take this time to exaggerate a bunch of BS claims about 'me denying a foreigner their God given right to American wages' or 'you don't have a heart' because I'm not gonna type a paragraph setting it straight and therefore taking the discussion further off the point de-jour. Maybe try to respond with less about me, and more about what you think and feel. Speak about the issue if you would.