US economy is too good

[shecky]

How else could this sentiment from Rich Lowry be justified?

The key is stepped-up interior enforcement to cut off the jobs magnet that draws so many illegals here.

Unemployment is so low, jobs are so plentiful, we have to destroy the job market to keep the illegals out. Because a fence won't work (though we should put one up anyway).

Cut off our nose to spite our face. That'll teach them Mexicans.

 

[Whoracle]

We don't need to get rid of the jobs, we just need to make it so the illegals can't get the jobs, or any free services.

 

[shecky]

We don't need to get rid of the jobs, we just need to make it so the illegals can't get the jobs, or any free services.

Why? Since when is government restriction of the market a good thing? Unemployment has been pretty low for quite a while. Illegal immigrants don't seem to harm the job market, and create markets themselves. The only reason to restrict this labor market is protectionism, basically welfare for American labor and higher labor costs through government intervention.

And if illegals pay into the system, as many do, why should they not get the benefits?

It seems the best solution would be not to restrict immigration, but rather, let it happen as free markets would determine.

 

[Whoracle]

I didn't say I advocated that, I just said that it would be a much solution than what this guy says. I think an even better solution is to make it easier for them to become legal so that they can really pay their fair share like the rest of us.

 

[AWPrime]

And if illegals pay into the system, as many do, why should they not get the benefits?

Why not become legal?

It seems the best solution would be not to restrict immigration, but rather, let it happen as free markets would determine.

A tragady of the commons in the making.

 

[stocks]

Fallacy of economism

Why? Since when is government restriction of the market a good thing?

It seems the best solution would be not to restrict immigration, but rather, let it happen as free markets would determine.

This is the fallacy of economism; the notion that the economy trumps all other considerations.

Illegals are unskilled workers. A large fraction of Americans are simply not intelligent enough to do other than unskilled work. The net result is to lower of wages of American unskilled labor and increase the wealth of skilled labor. The disparity today is already too high.

A country without borders is not a country. 10% or the population of
Mexico now lives in the USA. Normally you would have to conquer a country for this to happen. They are not assimilating because there are so many illegals that is easy to just remain a Mexican. Also, Mexico is right next store to us, unlike Europe which is an ocean away.

History shows that mult-cultural countries don't last. What do you think
will happen during the next big recession when millions of Americans lose
their jobs while millions of Mexicans still have jobs in the USA?
Not very pretty.

 

[Tony]

Why? Since when is government restriction of the market a good thing?

Since it gave us lunch breaks, bathroom breaks, 8 hour work days, weekends, maternity leave and many other things.

It seems the best solution would be not to restrict immigration, but rather, let it happen as free markets would determine.

That may be the "best" solution from the standpoint of free market dogma, but it's not the best solution from the standpoint of reality.

 

[Zep]

History shows that mult-cultural countries don't last.

Can I just say to that pronouncement, with all due respect, bollocks.

The USA is now, and has been for some very long time, a richly multicultural nation. As have been a number of other peaceful and successful nations in the world. And yet, according to you, "it won't last" as a result.

Hmmm...

It appears this inevitable breakdown due to multicultrualism is taking its time getting here, don't you think?

Perhaps the issue of illegal immigration is better viewed not in terms of perceived race but in terms of national identity and border issues.

 

[Tony]

Can I just say to that pronouncement, with all due respect, bollocks.

This might be a subject for another thread. But it depends on how he is using the term "multiculturalism". I've observed that people use it to refer to two different things. 1 is the multiculturalism of America, aka "the melting pot", where many cultures come together to eventually, after a few generations, create something new. The other is a situation where you have many different cultures living in the same society, but stay separate and retain their traditional cultural identity for generations. I can see the strength of the former and the recipe for disaster of the latter.

 

[Bjorn]

Why not become legal?

Because most of them can't, even if they wanted to.

No close relatives legally in the US? No employer willing to sponsor you for years?

No application form available, sorry.

 

[HeavyAaron]

Because most of them can't, even if they wanted to.

No close relatives legally in the US? No employer willing to sponsor you for years?

No application form available, sorry.

The even briefer version:

You can't give us any reasons to let you cross the border? Okay.

Aaron

 

[Bjorn]

The even briefer version:

You can't give us any reasons to let you cross the border? Okay.

Some people (maybe not you) think that "I'm a hard-working, honest guy who's willing to take jobs that you really need someone to do" would be a good reason.

However, my comment was to those who say "Why don't they become legal?": They can't.

 

[Ziggurat]

History shows that mult-cultural countries don't last.

That's kind of vague, which is why people objected. But it is true that it's very hard to maintain national unity in a population that doesn't speak the same language - pretty much every country with linguistic divisions ends up with serious political divisions (and often separatist movements) along those linguistic divides. And national unity matters, even if people have their own "cultures". It's fine if new immigrants speak their native language at home. But when the children grow up not learning the language of their new country, they don't integrate. That doesn't happen when the numbers of immigrants is small relative to the total population, because if you don't integrate, you end up isolated and so almost no one does that. But it starts to happen, and is happening, when the numbers from one group become very large. There IS a limit to the rate at which we can absorb newcomers to the country without causing serious problems. Language really is the key: it's why immigrants from Nicaragua, for example, get lumped together with immigrants from Mexico, but Korean immigrants and Chinese immigrants don't.

 

[Elizabeth I]

That's kind of vague, which is why people objected. But it is true that it's very hard to maintain national unity in a population that doesn't speak the same language - pretty much every country with linguistic divisions ends up with serious political divisions (and often separatist movements) along those linguistic divides. Language really is the key: it's why immigrants from Nicaragua, for example, get lumped together with immigrants from Mexico, but Korean immigrants and Chinese immigrants don't.

Just a suggestion - how about if more Americans learn to speak another language than English? I believe Switzerland, with German, Italian and French, is doing quite nicely.

 

[Ziggurat]

Just a suggestion - how about if more Americans learn to speak another language than English?

If you're suggesting that we adopt some other non-English language as the common language, that's just silly. I suspect you're suggesting that all Americans pick up SOME second language, but that doesn't solve the problem of the population not all sharing a common language. And it is, quite frankly, not of much use. Most Americans don't learn a second language besides English because it is of little use to them. Multilingualism (on the individual level) is only common in places where it is very useful to a large number of individuals, because that's the only way it ever happens. Just saying that Americans should learn a second langauge is like saying Americans should learn to play the violin: sure, it would be nice, but it's not going to happen because there isn't an incentive.

I believe Switzerland, with German, Italian and French, is doing quite nicely.

Swiss society also has a history and structure that cannot simply be replicated here, or anywhere else for that matter, and be expected to work out the same. It's one of the few examples of a country that's pulled off multilingualism (as a country) successfully. It generally fails.

 

[shecky]

Why not become legal?

Good question. Ask your legislators.

A tragady of the commons in the making.

What exactly does this mean?

 

[Elizabeth I]

If you're suggesting that we adopt some other non-English language as the common language, that's just silly.

Of course I'm not suggesting that some other language other than English become the common idiom of the United States. Although I would like it if some who claim to be "native speakers" would learn to speak and write English correctly.

And I suggest that there BE some incentive to learn other languages. I do think that it's much easier to believe you are the be-all and end-all of creation if you make no effort to understand other cultures or other points of view.

 

[Ziggurat]

What exactly does this mean?

"tragedy of the commons" derives its name from a particular parable about the overuse of public grazing land in England, but refers to a general class of problems. Here's an overview:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

 

[Dave1001]

I understand fear of immigrants in general, but Mexicans?? Could you get a better immigrant population? As far as I can tell, the main change Mexican immigrants make to American culture is increasing the work ethic and stoicism. They're practically stepford immigrants.

 

[Ziggurat]

And I suggest that there BE some incentive to learn other languages.

In any practical sense, though, you're suggesting not just that there BE some incentive, but that someone CREATE some incentive. Bad idea, if you ask me. The only entity capable of doing so would be government, and the only methods available would require significant resources. I cannot imagine how it would not end up being largely a waste of those resources.