REGISTER | LOGIN
Weekdays noon - 3pm et / weekends 9am - noon et
Sirius | XM Satellite Radio
Call Andrew at 1-866-95-patriot
Book AndrewFree Trial

General » Why illegal immigrants are unfair competition to the American workers:

lili00
2 years, 9 months ago
My personal story: I have to fix my roof (there is a leak), I called two roofing companies. I got two quotes, one for $600 done by the owner of the company himself and the other for $300 but they are using Latinos that don't speak English (the guy who gave me the quote let me know that he has one guy that he pays a little bit more because he can translate to the others). I have been hearing "illegals do the jobs that American won't do". It's not that they won't do it, they can't compete. If they try to compete, they lose market because the illegals are cheaper!!!!!!
crossofcrimson
2 years, 9 months ago
So it's unfair when someone offers a service on the market for a lower price than someone else - or just when they do so and they're not here legally?
lili00
2 years, 9 months ago
It's unfair because when you hire illegals: 1) you don't pay all taxes that come with having legal employees. 2) you can pay them under the minimun wages prices SO yes it is UNFAIR to others who follow the LAW in this country!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
crossofcrimson
2 years, 9 months ago
So, more specifically, your issue is with the "unfairness" that surrounds employment "under the table" as a matter of principle then - illegal immigration itself then being secondary to that concern?
lili00
2 years, 9 months ago
Yes. 'Under the table' is my biggest issue. To fix the illegal immigration and "under the table jobs", I don't like the idea of a general amnesty because it will encourage others to come to the US and seek the same result, however I will be ok with a temporary work visa (for fields that need more workers) and can be renewed. Also, the path to citizenship should be only available to those who are in the US legally after a number of years. It's an insult to anyone who came here following the law to have people cutting the line in front of them or their family.
crossofcrimson
2 years, 9 months ago
Well, actually, general amnesty should lower the incentive for "illegals" to work under the table in the first place, if you think about it. That's what's somewhat ironic regarding people from the "big-government on immigration" crowd decrying the shady employment relations illegal workers have with their employers. It's not completely unlike the irony of "war on drugs" proponents lamenting the violent nature of the drug trade. It's almost as if people respond to institutional incentives...
lili00
2 years, 9 months ago
A general amnesty will have terrible effect. More people will come to the US expencting to receive a new amnesty later on. Also, the US should give visa only to those who have skilled needed in the American market. Contruction and farming fields should have easier and faster temporary working visa for their employees. In addition, if you are on a temporary working visa you should not be able to apply for food stamps, section8 , etc.
crossofcrimson
2 years, 9 months ago
"A general amnesty will have terrible effect." - But you previously said that your primary issue with the employment of illegal immigrants is that they're working under the table. As far as I know, it's their "illegal" status that pushes their employment under the table to begin with. It also, to the extent that they don't pay taxes on that labor, is the primary how and why the often-accused "free-riding" occurs. "More people will come to the US expencting to receive a new amnesty later on." - I'm not sure I follow; the principles we're discussing, more generally, apply to both current residents and future residents. My argument, as well as the argument, in principle, which you alluded to, do not seem dependent on the switching of this case. "Also, the US should give visa only to those who have skilled needed in the American market." - I would hope that anyone who considers themselves a "conservative" of almost any stripe would have a bit of skepticism if not disdain for the idea of a government bureaucracy telling people which labor/jobs are needed and which aren't. Isn't the open market capable of figuring out what is needed and what isn't? The principles of economics hold regardless of where you are born. "In addition, if you are on a temporary working visa you should not be able to apply for food stamps, section8 , etc." - I don't think those programs should exist at all, so I won't argue there. But, by the same token, then such people shouldn't be taxed for services which they are not eligible to receive either. Of course, even if you don't agree with the latter part, it would make more sense to repeal such benefits for migrant workers, in terms of both justice and compassion, than to severely constrict or bar essential freedoms of both migrants and American individuals who wish to conduct business with them.
nav68
2 years, 9 months ago
The argument about an amnesty creating more illegals is valid. The current mess is in large measure attributable to the last reform. It was supposed to clear the decks of current illegals by making it easier for them to remain here and become legal. Instead, more illegal immigration occurred. The idea is that once they're in, you can't get them out. Also, employers were sanctioned, supposedly, if they didn't ensure a worker's legal status. That pretty much ended random farm and ranch checks for INS. Worked out terribly. I don't think employers can even inquire about alienage now, or things seem to be moving in that direction. Further, there is a move on to allow students, who are violating the terms of their non-immigrant status by working without authorization, to allow them to stay here. The reason behind the law is that the students are here to study, not work at paying jobs, generally speaking. That way, they aren't taking a job that a citizen or legal resident could have.
nav68
2 years, 9 months ago
PS - a large number of illegals in this country aren't border jumpers, but people who were admitted legally under non-immigrant status. They then overstayed their visa dates and/or otherwise violated their status, making them illegal aliens.
crossofcrimson
2 years, 9 months ago
"The argument about an amnesty creating more illegals is valid. The current mess is in large measure attributable to the last reform." - I'd like to hear the deductive explanation/argument for this. My argument is that complete amnesty, IE: the withdrawal of immigration restrictions, would sheath the incentive for employment "under the table" - which was the chief problem he raised with illegal immigrants. My argument is not that partial amnesty will solve this problem - or that it will lower or raise the amount of legal immigrants here. In either case, if you'd like to argue about that point (which I'm not currently debating), feel free to offer the causal explanation for it. Otherwise that point is going to devolve quickly into something akin to protectionists decrying real free-trade proponents for NAFTA. Whatever NAFTA ultimately was, it was half-hearted at best; and certainly not what true free-markers propose. "The idea is that once they're in, you can't get them out." - Which, if you simply provide amnesty, will not engender the "under the table" issue that was his primary concern. That's why I asked what his primary issue was before I offered a solution. " Worked out terribly." - Again, you're addressing supposed solutions which I didn't offer or endorse (NAFTA: Free-Market). "That way, they aren't taking a job that a citizen or legal resident could have." - Well, no offense, but those jobs don't belong to you....they don't belong to you any more than Floridian employment opportunity belongs to Floridians. I always hope that conservatives will sound less liberal in that department but, as some of the posts on this forum illustrate, it's really a crap-shoot at this point.
lili00
2 years, 9 months ago
Reagan granted amnesty to approximately 3 million illegal immigrants who entered the United States prior to January 1, 1982, and had lived in the country continuously. Now, we have between 11.2 million illegal immigrants in the United States. SO YES, amnesty creates more illegals. THAT'S A FACT LOOK AT THE NUMBERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
lili00
2 years, 9 months ago
NUMBERS speak for themselves. NO POLITICAL SPIN HERE!!!
crossofcrimson
2 years, 9 months ago
"Reagan granted amnesty to approximately 3 million illegal immigrants who entered the United States prior to January 1, 1982, and had lived in the country continuously. Now, we have between 11.2 million illegal immigrants in the United States. SO YES, amnesty creates more illegals." - I'm sure you're aware of the difference between correlation and causation, no? If not, it's a good idea to divest in that direction before you take strong stances on the causal relationship between two (at least partially) independent variables. But, for the sake of argument, let's go ahead and take your assumption for granted - that %100 of the reported "illegal" population rise over that period can be completely attributed to partial amnesty and no other factors (institutional or otherwise); it's still merely an argument surrounding partial amnesty...not absolute amnesty as per my proposal. Once again - the difference between open trade across borders and NAFTA is considerable in both measure and consequence. It's an important point. But, even with addressing this argument, it has nothing to do with the original contention we discussed - which, as per your response, is the "unfair" "under the table" way in which such "illegals" are employed. I pointed out the fact that it is institutional immigration restrictions which push such interactions under the table - and therefore that general amnesty would dissolve that currently disproportionate incentive. Arguing that my proposal would cause more "illegal immigration" is nonsensical. And not just just because you've failed the flesh out the deductive theoretical framework that would provide for such a causal relationship (which is my contention above), but also because you couldn't have increased illegal immigration under absolute amnesty (dropping immigration restrictions)...by definition. "NUMBERS speak for themselves. NO POLITICAL SPIN HERE!!!" - Anyone who's taken even the most introductory statistics course knows how very easily simple "statistics" can be used to shoe-horn some pretty incredible incredible premises into any debate - political or otherwise. What largely separates statistical analysis in the natural sciences from its use in the social sciences is the access, determination, and control of variables. I can assure you that I could spin out some quite devastating statistics in support of and in critique of almost any consequentialist political argument.
lili00
2 years, 9 months ago
Then, you are going to tell me that good and evil don't exist. That numbers are just a symbol to transform reality. That having sex with children is ok as long as you produce movies in Hollywood. Your answer has a big paragraph of nothing. However, Obama and Democrats can use the numbers and statistics to impose HEALTH care control on us or justify redistribution of wealth!!! OH yes, here are the evil 3% of rich who don't pay their fair share to the poor!! There we have CAUSATION. The evil bastard rich who are hoarding their money.
crossofcrimson
2 years, 9 months ago
"Then, you are going to tell me that good and evil don't exist." - Nothing I've said even hinted at this. "That numbers are just a symbol to transform reality." - Numbers are a conceptual device we use as an orderly descriptor...they don't and can't transform reality in and of themselves. And this, like the previous comment, has nothing to do with anything I've said. "That having sex with children is ok as long as you produce movies in Hollywood." - Once again, nothing I've said intimates this. " Your answer has a big paragraph of nothing." - Actually, it was fairly concise - I made precise points and didn't deliberate much (plus, part of it was simply quotes from you that I was addressing). "However, Obama and Democrats can use the numbers and statistics to impose HEALTH care control on us or justify redistribution of wealth" - And precisely where do you get the idea that I think this is OK? "OH yes, here are the evil 3% of rich who don't pay their fair share to the poor!!" - Again, something else I didn't confer. "There we have CAUSATION. The evil bastard rich who are hoarding their money." - Hey, look; even more things that have nothing to do with anything I've stated. Wonderful. Could you, in your next response, give me at least one contention that isn't a non-sequitur? If you have a problem with a specific point I made, then actually contest the point in question - it's a lot more constructive then simply setting up (albeit very weak) strawmen. Maybe understanding that not everyone who disagrees with you is a liberal Obama supporter would probably be a good start.
nav68
2 years, 9 months ago
Real simple, Cross. The last reform/amnesty progran was going to curtail illegal immigration. It didn't. Illegal immigration has grown. So has the false documents business. All those who received amnesty no longer had to hide - or get wages under the table. Great. So millions more came here illegally looking for the same deal. The bending of rules and regulations that allow them to stay, although they're illegal. Then, another amnesty and they're now legal and above the table. And the next wave hits. The so-called reform has invited more illegals, it hasn't deterred them. The proof is in what we face now. The idea of a complete amnesty never deals realistically with the message it sends. Come here any way you can, stick around long enough to await the next amnesty (or court ordered delay of deportation hearings, which has amounted to an amnesty) and you're in.
crossofcrimson
2 years, 9 months ago
"So millions more came here illegally looking for the same deal." - Although that certainly doesn't show a necessary and causal relationship, I thank you for at least throwing a plausible argument on the table. But again, and to the point of the second portion of my last response, my argument had nothing to do with partial amnesty programs - which is why I made the important analogy to the difference between free trade across borders and NAFTA. You can't get more "illegals" here with my proposal, again, by definition. So, while I think it would be interesting to examine the factors that may or may have not lead to increased level of "illegals" here, including supposed "amnesty" programs, it doesn't affect my particular argument much. "The so-called reform has invited more illegals, it hasn't deterred them." It seems to me, as per the original principle of the problem pointed out earlier, that a proposed solution in determent isn't necessary (or arguably even workable...let alone moral). If your goal is to stop them from working under the table, then take away their incentive to do so - their questionable legal status. I suppose my larger point is this - immigration hawks throw out all kinds of reasons why immigration should be restricted or curtailed...consumption of public services perhaps...or in this particular case unfair employment advantages gained from working under the table. But it seems like, if these were the immigration hawks' real concerns, there are much simpler and less morally questionable solutions to the problems. If you have a problem with immigrants receiving public services, then make them legal and have them contribute fully. Still not happy? Then make them legal, have them contribute fully, AND still bar them from receiving such services. Either of these solutions would be incredibly more indicative of true justice and liberty more generally. Instead they support more draconian regulation to which they would not have even more comparatively guilty Americans subjected to (guilty of leeching from the system, so to speak). If your problem is the shady employment that results from their illegal status, then simply remove the status. Not happy still? How about removing their illegal status AND having them contribute proportionately more in taxes than other Americans - you could even use those taxes to to subsidize American workers who feel jilted. I don't particularly like that idea, but, again, it's far more indicative of justice and liberty than what is too often proposed. Like much of what has sprung from the drug war, some of the worst outcomes revolving around these problems comes not primarily from what may be initially questionable behavior, but from the lackluster solutions that big-government liberals and big-government conservatives have been all too happy to carry out. And every time a big government solution fails and creates unintended consequences (like any great government bailout does), there are always voices in the crowd who cry that we simply aren't doing enough. THAT...is becoming the largest problem. And maybe if the average voter spent a little more time reading Bastiat and a little less time parroting TV and radio punditry on issues like immigration we'd be able to come up with some simple solutions that actually respect the rights of the individuals involved. And on immigration in particular, when I hear conservatives clamor for their parental overlords in government to save them from people who want to move to this country, I have to wonder if their real issue is with the problems they bring up (as they are often thoroughly addresses with apparently "unacceptable" solutions) or if it says something else about the conservative mindset altogether. As a former conservative reviewing these arguments with fresh eyes, I can safely lean in the direction of the latter.
lili00
2 years, 9 months ago
I know why illegals are coming. It's because Taco Bell has burritos and chalupas for $1!!!!!
crossofcrimson
2 years, 9 months ago
Hey, if you tell me where I can get chalupas in the Midwest for $1, I'll immigrate.

Post a Reply

Please login to post a reply.