328d
@wildgrass said"The US economy will grow an additional $7 trillion over the next decade as a surge in immigration creates a larger labor force and increases demand for goods and services, according to a new estimate from the Congressional Budget Office."
Good lord. It is NOT progressive to suggest we should let in all the immigrants that our capitalist system can support. Especially in cases of unauthorized crossings, the goal should be, and should always have been, to encourage entry through proper channels and with proper paperwork. Whatever marauder is arguing for appears to encourage the types of human trafficking acro ...[text shortened]... s for low-skill workers in America. Corporate america will suffer but wages will increase. Progress.
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-economy-prediction-immigration-population-growth-housing-market-gdp-cbo-2024-2
328d
@wildgrass saidDemocrats would be better served with campaigning on Biden's original proposal for increased funding for BP and ALJs to speed up the asylum process than conceding there is any "crisis" that requires reversal of long standing immigration policy.
The only important question left is whether Democrats have the political skills to make the argument. Republicans want the border broken, because they want a symbolic issue to run their campaigns on.
“I don’t know how you avoid the conclusion that [Republicans are] really not interested in solving the problem at the border. They’re interested in maintaining an electoral ...[text shortened]... en. Angus King (I-Maine). Yet, “it remains to be seen whether that can be communicated effectively.”
328d
@no1marauder saidIndeed, if the Trump Reich were to again rise to power and somehow succeed in its plans to effect mass deportations of immigrants from the US, the labor market would become so tight that employers might just have to pay that $50/hour minimum wage that right-wingers have been blowing their tops over in recent days. And that still wouldn't be enough to remedy the labor shortage, resulting in widespread economic chaos and a precipitous decline in productivity.
Your economic ignorance is noted.
Right now, the US has an undersupply of workers and almost full employment. More workers are needed and virtually every economic analysis of immigration under such conditions leads to the conclusion that it is economically beneficial. That you are relying on remarks made under far different conditions (i.e. recession years with high un ...[text shortened]... ed for 45 years while you are screeching right wing talking points lifted from Fox News and Newsmax.
327d
@no1marauder saidYou write this in response to my comment that letting in all immigrants that our capitalist system can support is not progressive?
"The US economy will grow an additional $7 trillion over the next decade as a surge in immigration creates a larger labor force and increases demand for goods and services, according to a new estimate from the Congressional Budget Office."
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-economy-prediction-immigration-population-growth-housing-market-gdp-cbo-2024-2
I guess we need to pause for a disclaimer on what you mean by progressive?
You're talking about maximizing growth of the US economy. Most immigrants (especially the undocumented) work in substandard living conditions for sometimes much less than minimum wages. Progressive?
@wildgrass saidActually they don't and you've presented nothing indicating they do.
You write this in response to my comment that letting in all immigrants that our capitalist system can support is not progressive?
I guess we need to pause for a disclaimer on what you mean by progressive?
You're talking about maximizing growth of the US economy. Most immigrants (especially the undocumented) work in substandard living conditions for sometimes much less than minimum wages. Progressive?
And for those who do, the solution is an easier path to legal status and eventual citizenship, not deportation.
326d
@no1marauder saidLetting in as many immigrants as the economy can support is progressive?
Actually they don't and you've presented nothing indicating they do.
And for those who do, the solution is an easier path to legal status and eventual citizenship, not deportation.
An easier path to legal status and citizenship was part of the bill that you oppose.
326d
@wildgrass saidI don't think you understand how an economy works.
Letting in as many immigrants as the economy can support is progressive?
An easier path to legal status and citizenship was part of the bill that you oppose.
People are the most important and valuable resource an economy has. This is especially true when the people being added are, on average, younger, more likely to be employed and to be innovators and entrepreneurs as study after study concludes immigrants to the US are.
And an economy isn't some static thing that can only "support" x number of people; it grows or contracts constantly based on a myriad of factors. Again virtually every economic analysis of immigration to the US now and in the near future concludes it will substantially benefit the economy as a whole.
No, the proposed bill had no easier path for undocumented workers to legal status not even for DACAs.
326d
@no1marauder saidI'm wondering why you keep avoiding the question. There are plenty of economic studies out there with models showing that excessive immigration is lucrative for the rich but depresses low skilled labor income of US citizens, which does not seem very progressive.
I don't think you understand how an economy works.
People are the most important and valuable resource an economy has. This is especially true when the people being added are, on average, younger, more likely to be employed and to be innovators and entrepreneurs as study after study concludes immigrants to the US are.
And an economy isn't some static thing that can ...[text shortened]... o, the proposed bill had no easier path for undocumented workers to legal status not even for DACAs.
Also, I am not arguing with you about the positive benefits of immigration to the economy.
The proposed bill will increase the documentation rate of immigrants. That's a good thing.
@wildgrass saidThis is a waste of time; you continue to show stubborn, economic ignorance that AJ would be proud of.
I'm wondering why you keep avoiding the question. There are plenty of economic studies out there with models showing that excessive immigration is lucrative for the rich but depresses low skilled labor income of US citizens, which does not seem very progressive.
Also, I am not arguing with you about the positive benefits of immigration to the economy.
The proposed bill will increase the documentation rate of immigrants. That's a good thing.
Show me ANY economic analysis that says that conditions NOW and in the foreseeable future in the United States would be adversely affected by immigration in the range of 1 to 1.5% of the total population per year.
I'll wait.
The proposed bill will discourage immigration. That's a bad thing for a nation with an aging population, near full employment and a worker shortage.
326d
@no1marauder saidNow I see why you don't want to answer the question.
This is a waste of time; you continue to show stubborn, economic ignorance that AJ would be proud of.
Show me ANY economic analysis that says that conditions NOW and in the foreseeable future in the United States would be adversely affected by immigration in the range of 1 to 1.5% of the total population per year.
I'll wait.
The proposed bill will discourage imm ...[text shortened]... hat's a bad thing for a nation with an aging population, near full employment and a worker shortage.
I'm right. It's not progressive.
@wildgrass saidThanks for the Average Joe imitation.
Now I see why you don't want to answer the question.
I'm right. It's not progressive.
A question based on a faulty, rather stupid premise i.e. that immigrants will be "supported" by the economy rather than being an important and valuable part of it cannot be answered in a truthful manner.
326d
@wildgrass saidNumerous progressives like AOC, Ilhan Omar, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Nanette Barragán, (the chairwoman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus), Senator Alex Padilla of California (one of three Mexican-American Senators) and others opposed the bill. https://www.newsweek.com/full-list-democrats-who-voted-against-border-deal-1867958
Now I see why you don't want to answer the question.
I'm right. It's not progressive.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/aoc-says-bipartisan-immigration-bill-would-contribute-to-worsening-border-crisis/ar-BB1hPzEh
Why you think you are more of a "progressive" than them is hard to fathom.
326d
@no1marauder saidAgain. Not my question.
Numerous progressives like AOC, Ilhan Omar, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Nanette Barragán, (the chairwoman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus), Senator Alex Padilla of California (one of three Mexican-American Senators) and others opposed the bill. https://www.newsweek.com/full-list-democrats-who-voted-against-border-deal-1867958
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/ ...[text shortened]... der-crisis/ar-BB1hPzEh
Why you think you are more of a "progressive" than them is hard to fathom.
325d
Bernie Sanders is definitely a progressive. He votes against all immigration bills that don't offer worker protections for low wage labor.
“If poverty is increasing and if wages are going down, I don’t know why we need millions of people to be coming into this country as guest workers who will work for lower wages than American workers and drive waged down even lower than they are now,” - Bernie Sanders
Other progressives have made similar arguments. Unemployment is extremely low, but workforce participation is only 62%. If you run the numbers of the past decades, the majority of job gains and growth have come from immigrants at the expense of college dropouts.
It is fine for little Joey from a wealthy family. Instead of painting houses this summer, he'll do an unpaid internship at dad's law firm. But the high school dropout is competing with very motivated immigrants who will work for whatever.
Study after study bears out the fact that immigration depresses wages and limits opportunities for Americans. Facebook settled a recent lawsuit with the Justice Department over its use of H-1B workers. Mark Zuckerberg’s company will pay a $4.75 million fine and up to $9.5 million to affected American workers as part of the settlement, in which it acknowledged preferring H-1B guest workers over Americans. Of course, this should come as no surprise. Zuckerberg founded FWD.us, one of the largest open-borders lobbying groups in the country with an operating budget of tens of millions of dollars. The use of foreign workers by giant tech companies is by design, not by accident.
Bernie understands this and doesn't like it.
https://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/579742-bernie-sanders-friends-big-techs-efforts-to-import-cheaper-foreign-labor/
325d
2 edits
@wildgrass saidOMG, you're using arguments from FAIR? " The Southern Poverty Law Center classifies FAIR as a hate group with ties to white supremacist groups."
Bernie Sanders is definitely a progressive. He votes against all immigration bills that don't offer worker protections for low wage labor.
“If poverty is increasing and if wages are going down, I don’t know why we need millions of people to be coming into this country as guest workers who will work for lower wages than American workers and drive waged down even lower tha ...[text shortened]... opinion/immigration/579742-bernie-sanders-friends-big-techs-efforts-to-import-cheaper-foreign-labor/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation_for_American_Immigration_Reform
The FAIR article says this: " Economics and the labor impact of immigrants did not change since 2007."
Of course it has, as already explained to you.