Immigration is Destroying America.

[RKMBrown]

Because our "means" are vast and quite sufficient to accommodate a far larger population, there will certainly NOT be any deliberate reduction in LEGAL immigration. We are looking at staving off a population contraction in the mid to long term. There is no "population explosion" to worry about. Exactly the contrary is the challenge facing our nation in the not-so-distant future. Fortunately we have the room, the resources, and the strength of culture to manage these inevitable demographic changes if we acknowledge reality and plan prudently.

More specifically the number of working Americans has gone down significantly and this trend may continue as the baby boomers retire, this assuming they can retire.

 

[protectionist]

Make up your mind, the ends justify the means or not. Stealing my income, to train your friends is not justified. My government using my income to import foreign workers to put me out of work is also not justified. Using my income to put people on the dole is further not justified.

None of your libtard policies are justified. NONE OF THEM. You deny the means is justified by the ends, then you provide yet another example of where you feel the ends justify the means. Then you ask what constitutes... It does not matter if you talk nice about taking my income, it does not matter if the spending is good, it's still justifying theft.

I'll be very happy to address your Tax Payer Revolt angst, as soon as you extend to me the courtesy of answering my question, enlarged, above.

Under conditions in which you cannot fill a job with resources already on hand, do you choose to...

1. re-train an American to do that job

2. hire an immigrant who already has those skills, to do that job

Never mind the qualifiers and evasiveness and deflection, never mind all the happy horseshit about ends and means, or stealing tax dollars, or Libtards or welfare or yadda yadda yadda... just give a friggin' straight answer to the question, if you can, and if you dare.

I'm guessing that a fair number of our colleagues will also be interested to see how you answer.

Whose side are you on?

Choose.

I'll even lead-by-example and go first.

Me?

I choose the betterment of my own countrymen, every time.

I choose to re-train the American to do the job rather than bringing-in an immigrant.

You?

One of my best friends was a legal immigrant from England, a software engineer. He came here on a green card and became an American Citizen, then married an American, and had American children. Another of my best friends was a legal immigrant from the Dominican Republic, he's now an American Citizen with a home and a BMW. Yeah well you can't have everything. Most of my friends were born here in the USA. But I don't see a reason to besmirch newly arrived Americans.

I'd hire known quantities before hiring an illegal immigrant or an untrained American.

To your question:

"Under conditions in which you cannot fill a job with resources already on hand, do you choose to...
1. re-train an American to do that job
2. hire an immigrant who already has those skills, to do that job"

I'd hire the better worker. Training is almost always a minor issue. Interview the legal immigrant and the American that needs training, and hire the better candidate. IMO specific skills as check marks on an application are normally not necessary. Granted some skills take considerable time to learn, so it would depend on the missing skill and approximate time it would take for the person to learn said skill. If you are talking about illegal immigrants, obviously I would not be interested in hiring illegals to my employ. That said, if I need someone to do some stone work, I'm not gonna ask to see their proof of citizenship.

And that's why you should be prosecuted under IRCA. I'm not sure if not checking is equivalent to "knowingly hiring", but if it isn't, it certainly should be. And every TRAITOR to the USA who acts like you should be jailed and fined for it.

This skills talk is a bunch of crap. American companies pretend that they can't find Americans with good enough skills to do jobs, and therefore need foreigners. Hogwash! CIS proved that false 10 years ago. These companies just want to boost their profit by paying the low wages that foreigners are apt to accept. They also realize that this cheap labor is also easier to manipulate anf accept lousy working conditions.

And you say you >> "don't see a reason to besmirch newly arrived Americans."

Bullshit! Yes you do. YOU KNOW very well what the reasons are. And HERE they all are >>

Harms of Immigration

1. Americans lose jobs. (especially Whites due to affirmative action).

2. Wage reduction.

3. Tax $ lost (due to off books work + lower wages paid).

4. Remittance $$$ lost. ($170 Billion year).

5. Tax $$ lost to immigrants on welfare.

6. Increased crime.

7. Increased traffic congestion.

8. Increased pollution.

9. Overcrowding in hospital ERs.

10. Overcrowding in recreational facilities.

11. Overcrowding in government offices.

12. Overcrowding in schools.

13. Decrease in funds available for entitlements.

14. Cultural erosion.

15. Overuse of scarce resources (oil, gasoline, fresh water, jobs, electricity, food, etc)

16. Introduction of foreign diseases.

 

[protectionist]

I am all for LEGAL Immigration, illegal immigration I oppose profusely.

WHY ? When LEGAL immigration is 90% (if not 100%) as harmful to Americans, as illegal immigration is.

 

[protectionist]

Never mind.

I re-read what you said, and you were right - that is not what you said.

In truth, you evaded serving-up a direct answer, by discounting the value of 'training' in the scenario being discussed.

Pity.

I gave you credit for more balls than that.

You need to be more specific in your question, if you want a more specific answer. The question could be read in a number of different ways.

When you say immigrant do you mean American who immigrated and became an American, political refuge who was gifted citizenship, foreigner here on a student visa looking for part time work over the summer, someone with a foreign accent looking for a small contract job like building your backyard deck, American with non-white skin color, H1B visa worker from India, Chinese citizen temporarily here on work or student visa, or someone you know to be an illegal Mexican immigrant? Which one?

What's the matter ? You don't understand the English language ? An IMMIGRANT is someone who comes here (to the USA) from another country. Got it now ?

Pheeeeeww!! (high-pitched whistle)

 

[protectionist]

I am all for LEGAL Immigration, illegal immigration I oppose profusely.

I also oppose illegal immigration, and oppose hiring illegals. I'd like to see the folks that do it fined to the point where it no longer makes sense to hire illegals.

That said, even the illegals need work. It's a lot harder to turn away a man with a family who is looking to do hard work for a fair wage when he's looking you in the face than it is to say so in an internet forum.

It's different here in TX, it's really hard to tell the difference between legal work crews and illegal work crews. On the crews that have some illegals there's usually a mix that also include texicans, the work is hard and the pay is good. Americans wanting hard work for a good wage do exist but there seems to be a natural tendency for the crews to be one or the other. For example, in construction the Americans tend to the carpentry, electrical work, concrete, and plumbing,.. the crews of texican origin tend to be roofers, stone masons, sheet rock, painters, etc.

I say texican to describe folks who seem to be mexican but might be Americans, how do you know? The ones that seem to be mexican typically don't speak english at all, and don't seem to want to engage in conversation, they sort of smile or shift around if you glance their way No offense but you can sort of guess they might be fresh from the border. That said we do have legal immigration "fresh from the border" so who knows?

If you don't know, don't hire.

And NO, you DON'T oppose illegal immigration, and you DON'T oppose hiring illegals.

In a previous post you just said >> "I'm not gonna ask to see their proof of citizenship."

 

[protectionist]

Because our "means" are vast and quite sufficient to accommodate a far larger population, there will certainly NOT be any deliberate reduction in LEGAL immigration. We are looking at staving off a population contraction in the mid to long term. There is no "population explosion" to worry about. Exactly the contrary is the challenge facing our nation in the not-so-distant future. Fortunately we have the room, the resources, and the strength of culture to manage these inevitable demographic changes if we acknowledge reality and plan prudently.

CROSS POSTING. This a repeat of Post # 914. Maybe you you think the RULES of this forum are meant to be ignored (because that's what you've been doing to them). Maybe you think they don't apply to you.

EARTH TO UNAWARE : The rules weren't written for nothing. They apply to YOU as well as everyone else. You need to delete Post # 941, and also Post # 905.

 

[Unkotare]

Because our "means" are vast and quite sufficient to accommodate a far larger population, there will certainly NOT be any deliberate reduction in LEGAL immigration. We are looking at staving off a population contraction in the mid to long term. There is no "population explosion" to worry about. Exactly the contrary is the challenge facing our nation in the not-so-distant future. Fortunately we have the room, the resources, and the strength of culture to manage these inevitable demographic changes if we acknowledge reality and plan prudently.

More specifically the number of working Americans has gone down significantly and this trend may continue as the baby boomers retire, this assuming they can retire.

And demographic trends point to a rapidly growing segment of retired Americans who are living longer and longer supported by fewer and fewer young, working Americans. The fastest growing segment of the population is the oldest, and the fastest shrinking is the youngest. It doesn't take a math wizard to see where this leads.

 

[Unkotare]

Because our "means" are vast and quite sufficient to accommodate a far larger population, there will certainly NOT be any deliberate reduction in LEGAL immigration. We are looking at staving off a population contraction in the mid to long term. There is no "population explosion" to worry about. Exactly the contrary is the challenge facing our nation in the not-so-distant future. Fortunately we have the room, the resources, and the strength of culture to manage these inevitable demographic changes if we acknowledge reality and plan prudently.

More specifically the number of working Americans has gone down significantly and this trend may continue as the baby boomers retire, this assuming they can retire.

Stopping illegal immigration while making it more timely and efficient for LEGAL immigrants to come here would have a two-fold benefit regarding this situation. It is a testament to our greatness as a nation that so many are so eager to come here to study, work, live, love, and jump on in to the ol' melting pot.

 

[Unkotare]

Because our "means" are vast and quite sufficient to accommodate a far larger population, there will certainly NOT be any deliberate reduction in LEGAL immigration. We are looking at staving off a population contraction in the mid to long term. There is no "population explosion" to worry about. Exactly the contrary is the challenge facing our nation in the not-so-distant future. Fortunately we have the room, the resources, and the strength of culture to manage these inevitable demographic changes if we acknowledge reality and plan prudently.

More specifically the number of working Americans has gone down significantly and this trend may continue as the baby boomers retire, this assuming they can retire.

That last part of your post is important. Sooner or later we will have to put off the retirement age, perhaps significantly. This is especially so if people keep living longer and remaining healthy further into old age (which, of course, one hopes they do!).

 

[protectionist]

Because our "means" are vast and quite sufficient to accommodate a far larger population, there will certainly NOT be any deliberate reduction in LEGAL immigration. We are looking at staving off a population contraction in the mid to long term. There is no "population explosion" to worry about. Exactly the contrary is the challenge facing our nation in the not-so-distant future. Fortunately we have the room, the resources, and the strength of culture to manage these inevitable demographic changes if we acknowledge reality and plan prudently.

More specifically the number of working Americans has gone down significantly and this trend may continue as the baby boomers retire, this assuming they can retire.

And demographic trends point to a rapidly growing segment of retired Americans who are living longer and longer supported by fewer and fewer young, working Americans. The fastest growing segment of the population is the oldest, and the fastest shrinking is the youngest. It doesn't take a math wizard to see where this leads.

It doesn't look like you have got it in focus about "where this leads". Just to put you in better focus, your argument is based on hype, rather than reality.

A realistic assessment of this "immigrants are needed" idea appears in a report of the Social Security Advisory Board, following a September 7, 2005 meeting with noted demographers, economists and immigration experts, to examine the long-range impact of immigration on the Social Security system. The experts at the end of the day’s hearings summarized their position as strongly urging that the Advisory Board not look to immigration as a means for strengthening the system in the long run.

As a result of that expert testimony, the Advisory Board wrote, “While recognizing the importance of immigration to our future patterns of economic and population growth, the Social Security Advisory Board does not view immigration as a panacea or free lunch for saving Social Security.”

While increased immigration might help the Social Security Trust Fund in the short-run, the reason it is no solution in the long run is the following:

1. Immigrant workers age too. They then become eligible for benefits. More foreign workers result in increased future payouts. This helps only as long as larger numbers of immigrants are being brought in than are retiring. Soon, that won't be the case, and just the opposite will be.

2. A majority of immigrant workers take low-wage jobs. Because the Social Security System is redistributive, it pays out more to low-wage workers compared to their contributions, than it does for high-wage workers. That means that the more low-wage immigrants who are admitted to work in our country and become eligible for future payments, the greater the burden will be on the future workers to support those retirees.

As George H. Bush would say >> BAD! BAD!

 

[RKMBrown]

More specifically the number of working Americans has gone down significantly and this trend may continue as the baby boomers retire, this assuming they can retire.

And demographic trends point to a rapidly growing segment of retired Americans who are living longer and longer supported by fewer and fewer young, working Americans. The fastest growing segment of the population is the oldest, and the fastest shrinking is the youngest. It doesn't take a math wizard to see where this leads.

It doesn't look like you have got it in focus about "where this leads". Just to put you in better focus, your argument is based on hype, rather than reality.

A realistic assessment of this "immigrants are needed" idea appears in a report of the Social Security Advisory Board, following a September 7, 2005 meeting with noted demographers, economists and immigration experts, to examine the long-range impact of immigration on the Social Security system. The experts at the end of the day’s hearings summarized their position as strongly urging that the Advisory Board not look to immigration as a means for strengthening the system in the long run.

As a result of that expert testimony, the Advisory Board wrote, “While recognizing the importance of immigration to our future patterns of economic and population growth, the Social Security Advisory Board does not view immigration as a panacea or free lunch for saving Social Security.”

While increased immigration might help the Social Security Trust Fund in the short-run, the reason it is no solution in the long run is the following:

1. Immigrant workers age too. They then become eligible for benefits. More foreign workers result in increased future payouts. This helps only as long as larger numbers of immigrants are being brought in than are retiring. Soon, that won't be the case, and just the opposite will be.

2. A majority of immigrant workers take low-wage jobs. Because the Social Security System is redistributive, it pays out more to low-wage workers compared to their contributions, than it does for high-wage workers. That means that the more low-wage immigrants who are admitted to work in our country and become eligible for future payments, the greater the burden will be on the future workers to support those retirees.

As George H. Bush would say >> BAD! BAD!

I'm gonna guess you are the product of inbreeding.

 

[protectionist]

And demographic trends point to a rapidly growing segment of retired Americans who are living longer and longer supported by fewer and fewer young, working Americans. The fastest growing segment of the population is the oldest, and the fastest shrinking is the youngest. It doesn't take a math wizard to see where this leads.

It doesn't look like you have got it in focus about "where this leads". Just to put you in better focus, your argument is based on hype, rather than reality.

A realistic assessment of this "immigrants are needed" idea appears in a report of the Social Security Advisory Board, following a September 7, 2005 meeting with noted demographers, economists and immigration experts, to examine the long-range impact of immigration on the Social Security system. The experts at the end of the day’s hearings summarized their position as strongly urging that the Advisory Board not look to immigration as a means for strengthening the system in the long run.

As a result of that expert testimony, the Advisory Board wrote, “While recognizing the importance of immigration to our future patterns of economic and population growth, the Social Security Advisory Board does not view immigration as a panacea or free lunch for saving Social Security.”

While increased immigration might help the Social Security Trust Fund in the short-run, the reason it is no solution in the long run is the following:

1. Immigrant workers age too. They then become eligible for benefits. More foreign workers result in increased future payouts. This helps only as long as larger numbers of immigrants are being brought in than are retiring. Soon, that won't be the case, and just the opposite will be.

2. A majority of immigrant workers take low-wage jobs. Because the Social Security System is redistributive, it pays out more to low-wage workers compared to their contributions, than it does for high-wage workers. That means that the more low-wage immigrants who are admitted to work in our country and become eligible for future payments, the greater the burden will be on the future workers to support those retirees.

As George H. Bush would say >> BAD! BAD!

I'm gonna guess you are the product of inbreeding.

I'm gonna guess your whole life is just one big GUESS.

Interesting though, the stuff you come up with, when you're completely dumbfounded, and unable to generate a substantial response.

 

[RKMBrown]

It doesn't look like you have got it in focus about "where this leads". Just to put you in better focus, your argument is based on hype, rather than reality.

A realistic assessment of this "immigrants are needed" idea appears in a report of the Social Security Advisory Board, following a September 7, 2005 meeting with noted demographers, economists and immigration experts, to examine the long-range impact of immigration on the Social Security system. The experts at the end of the day’s hearings summarized their position as strongly urging that the Advisory Board not look to immigration as a means for strengthening the system in the long run.

As a result of that expert testimony, the Advisory Board wrote, “While recognizing the importance of immigration to our future patterns of economic and population growth, the Social Security Advisory Board does not view immigration as a panacea or free lunch for saving Social Security.”

While increased immigration might help the Social Security Trust Fund in the short-run, the reason it is no solution in the long run is the following:

1. Immigrant workers age too. They then become eligible for benefits. More foreign workers result in increased future payouts. This helps only as long as larger numbers of immigrants are being brought in than are retiring. Soon, that won't be the case, and just the opposite will be.

2. A majority of immigrant workers take low-wage jobs. Because the Social Security System is redistributive, it pays out more to low-wage workers compared to their contributions, than it does for high-wage workers. That means that the more low-wage immigrants who are admitted to work in our country and become eligible for future payments, the greater the burden will be on the future workers to support those retirees.

As George H. Bush would say >> BAD! BAD!

I'm gonna guess you are the product of inbreeding.

I'm gonna guess your whole life is just one big GUESS.

Interesting though, the stuff you come up with, when you're completely dumbfounded, and unable to generate a substantial response.

What do you think is wrong with inbreeding? Maybe you could provide us with a list of 15 major problems caused by inbreeding.

 

[Unkotare]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/02/opinion/02wed3.html?_r=0

 

[Unkotare]

Illinois Business Law Journal | Likely Effects of US immigration Reform on the National Deficit and Social Security System

 

[Unkotare]

How Immigration Can Save Your Retirement & The Perverse Tax System

 

[protectionist]

I'm gonna guess you are the product of inbreeding.

I'm gonna guess your whole life is just one big GUESS.

Interesting though, the stuff you come up with, when you're completely dumbfounded, and unable to generate a substantial response.

What do you think is wrong with inbreeding? Maybe you could provide us with a list of 15 major problems caused by inbreeding.

Maybe you could stop TROLLING, and avoid being reported to the moderators.

Oh moderators!! Sic'm.

 

[protectionist]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/02/opinion/02wed3.html?_r=0

To avoid getting sick, I won't read too far into this NY Times folly, so I'll just comment on the first 3 boneheaded things they say.

1. Immigrants are not "more workers" They REPLACE Americans who sit unemployed because of them.

2. NO, immigration is NOT good for the financial health of Social Security. It does NOT mean more tax revenue. It means LESS tax revenue, because the immigrants are cheap labor who earn less money that the Americans they replace, and thus pay LESS tax $$ than those Americans would have paid. This explains # 3 on the Harms of Immigration list.

3. Illegal aliens won't bolster Social Security for reasons I just noted + what I posted in Post # 950.

4. What a laugh to see some Times reporter call illegal aliens "undocumented workers" Well, some of them don't work, but sit back and collect welfare, via the anchor baby racket. As for documents, they have plenty of them. All false.
To call an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is about the equivalent of calling a bank robber an "informal withdrawl agent".

5. Like I said, they collect lots of benefits. A lifetime of them.

I can't read any further into this drivel. It' s disgusting.

 

[Unkotare]

 

[Unkotare]

Immigrants have enriched American culture and enhanced our influence in the world | Cato Institute


Immigrants Are Makers, Not Takers | Center for American Progress


Immigration and its contribution to our economic strength - Society and Culture - AEI


The Many Contributions of Immigrants to the American Economy