Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Piffer Thread on Political Rantings and Ravings -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MulhollandDrive who wrote (12100)	1/14/2004 4:25:39 AM
From: X Y Zebra	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14610

it's a bit unclear to me, but according to this study, i believe it's per mexican immigrant, so i'm assuming that includes both legal and illegal.. I agree in that it is not clear... However, it seems that they are talking about "those who pay taxes", in which case it would refer to the legal portion only. (since the illegals do not pay taxes). I also think that this organization is somehow biased to simply look at the negative side of immigration. Let's look at their words: First the article, in particular the paragraph that addresses the "cost": Because of their much lower education levels, Mexican immigrants earn significantly less than natives on average. This results in lower average tax payments and heavier use of means-tested programs. Based on estimates developed by the National Academy of Sciences for immigrants by age and education at arrival, the lifetime fiscal impact (taxes paid minus services used) for the average adult Mexican immigrant is a negative $55,200. I doubt that he can "asses" that those who are using the services are strictly the legal workers. He can only measure the taxes paid by those who are legal, however... is he excluding the services used by those who DO NOT pay taxes? How can he make the difference? Is there a defined methodology for this study? In addition... the problem with "statistics" is that you can make them work for you if you arrange the argument to your convenience. I could make the argument thus: The cost being $55,000 in the red is caused by the fact that of the total people using the services NOT ALL are tax-payers (which seems the more possible argument of the two...) Therefore, I can argue that it is urgent that we register and allow a temporary work visa as a way to get them registered AND pay taxes, (and FICA and some form of health insurance, or whatever goes to pay for the services they use). This will reduce the negative $55,000 than it currently shows, as more revenue will be added. Another unknown is... If they are now registered... how many more will go to use the system since the fear of being caught has been removed. ? OOOPSSSSS! I do not know.... I also checked their.... and other interesting Data.... Data Sources: <>The data for this report come primarily from the March 2000 Current Population Survey (CPS) collected by the Census Bureau.3 The March CPS includes an extra-large sample of Hispanics and is considered the best source of information on persons born outside of the United States — referred to as foreign-born by the Census Bureau, though for the purposes of this report, foreign-born and immigrant are used synonymously.4 Because all children born in the United States to immigrants (including illegal aliens) are by definition natives, the nation’s immigrant population can only grow through the arrival of new immigrants. The issuance of permanent residency visas, temporary long-term visas, and the settlement of illegal aliens greatly exceeds deaths and return-migration. For this reason, the nation’s Mexican immigrant population continues to grow rapidly. In the March 2000 CPS, 850,000 Mexican immigrants indicated that they had entered the country in 1998, 1999, or the first three months of 2000. This means that almost 400,000 legal and illegal Mexican immigrants now arrive in the United States each year. cis.org Geographic distribution: cis.org Labor market characteristics of Mexican Immigrants: cis.org Impact on wages: cis.org However.... checking the home page... as I said, it raises some doubts as to the objectivity of the studies... because it is concentrating on the negative side of things.... cis.org In one of the links above, it shows that.... This reduction in wages for the unskilled has likely reduced prices for consumers by only an estimated .08 to .2 percent in the 1990s. The impact is so small because unskilled labor accounts for only a tiny fraction of total economic output. This I KNOW for a fact that it is.... baloney... because there are instances in which you can reduce by at least 20% (if not more)... the hiring of legal immigrants... and even more if they are not the legal ones... so I have no idea what data this study used.... how about denying citizenship for those born in this country who's parent are illegal? Well... you can give it a try... but remember... there are wackos out there that are attempting to give "rights" to an unborn fetus... I bet you 10 to 1 that one of them legal sharks will have you declared "unconstitutional" of such law... under the argument that... 1. the child is not to be blamed for the parents misdeeds. 2. the child therefore, has no nationality... so is he a citizen of the world ? -lol 3. fill in the blank_________________________. I know it would not fly. it is a huge incentive for the pregnant mexican to cross the border, give birth and thus having a born an "american citizen" gain entre for the entire family. i just doubt such a change could happen in today's political climate. Precisely... More to the point to take a practical and pro-active measure, rather than wait for the problem to hit you in the head... as it has been the case so far... in essence, both governments have ignored the problem and the US has insisted that the problem belongs to Mexico... while I do not entirely disagree... the reality is... they are in US soil, therefore it IS (and It has always been) a US problem... the government(s) simply chose to ignore it thinking it would "go away" So what now?? my concern is the wide disparity of the wage is so great that instead of bringing the imported labor up to our level, the influx will reduce real wages for the semi-skilled and unskilled workforce......and the skilled knowledge workers are not immune to downward wage pressures as their jobs are exported either. at what point does this contraction in real earning power become a drag on our economy? In fairness, I cannot put an argument in front of that. The problem is... they are N/A Because, once again... they are here already... those considerations should have been address 30 or 40 years ago. It would have been a lot easier to deal with... Just think of Yasser Arafat... some idiot way back when had the brilliant idea and said... if we take Mr. Arafat and give him "diplomatic" status (how pathetic that a mere criminal was the best the Palestinians had to offer eh ?) We can then "negotiate” with a diplomat.... NOT a terrorist... Brilliant... Brilliant... Oh really? Look where terrorism is now.... Whereas had they given him the Israeli terrorist treatment... Arafat and a million of his cronies would be dust a long time ago... Same thing here... it is now too late to take the needed measures of 40 years ago. i'm trying to think creatively about this, and admit i'm stumped by it. I know. So am I. it seems that globalization of the labor pool brings a supply regime and with that comes deflationary pressure. Yes... precisely and therefore... the "low interest rates for a considerable time in the future” phrase, follows. Which you go back and then repeat: are we willing to sacrifice a generation of american workforce to foreign workers will to work for a fraction of our wages....even on a guest worker program, are these workers going to be able to command higher wages that will eventually drive demand? right now i just don't see the scenario where that happens, Well.... I am not the one to answer that... However... think of this: This nation sacrificed a great portion of its population in WW II, Korea, and Vietnam (I mean actually killed) in the pursuit of 1) Hitler, the liberation of Europe, and freedom from the Japanese tyrants. 2) The Chinese Communists 3) The Chinese Communists... cal it Communism at large... And I won't even bring uncle Fidel, as luckily fir us all, the crisis was averted.... So... we are in a competition (I refuse to call it war) for economic survival... and when it comes to the terrorist acts... the government is willing to play this tear-jerker music and scenes... to make people feel "patriotic" I ask then... is it patriotic to call for an end of irrational jury awards... (liability arising from medical or otherwise reasons)... how about medical insurance premiums... How about irrational bureaucratic processes... These are economic costs as valid as the impact of the immigration population... Are we willing to do what it takes...? I cannot answer those questions; each individual needs to make up his/her mind... Good luck....

To: MulhollandDrive who wrote (12100)	1/16/2004 4:05:54 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Respond to of 14610

how about denying citizenship for those born in this country who's parent are illegal? Thank you for saying that! I've been thinking it quite a while, but hesitated because I get quite enough flack for what I DO say. :-) at what point does this contraction in real earning power become a drag on our economy? Would it ever? If higher priced products are an advantage, why is everyone so worried about China and India? Wuldn't it force down prices and make everything more affordable for everyone? And increase US exports, increasing demand for US products and forcing wages up somewhat?