The cost of living isn't magically cheaper for immigrants. Unemployment is a an all-time low and there are more vacancies than people looking for a job (!) so it's not like companies can afford to mistreat workers that way, or else they can just pack up and leave. And anyway, most immigrants end up doing jobs that most natives won't do- agricultural labour, cleaning, taking care of old people, etc. The actual effect of immigrants in the average wage (let alone that of a white-collar manual worker in the Rust Belt) is minimal, if it even exists. And if it does, it's smaller compared to the Republican Party's refusal to increase the minimum wage or to defend Obama's rule forcing companies to pay overtime to workers who made between $25k and $45k. It's just that immigrants are easier to scapegoat.
The problem being any large increase of the minimum wage will drive companies to either automate, or to change more jobs over to illegals, so that they do not have to pay more.
Also, immigrants pay a ton of net taxes as the companies withold payroll tax but they don't get any benefits in turn. So they are a money-making machine for the Government and anyone with a pension should be happy about it.
Not really, if we are to guess that there are 11 million illegals, the amount in taxes they pays is around, $11.64 billion according to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. However in health care alone, Illegals cost around 18.5 billion, as such you are already working with a deficit before even factoring in other things such as schooling.
Furthermore, the number of mexican immigrants apprehended in the border
has collapsed by over 90% since the 2000, from 1.6 million a year to 130k. Building a wall now is not going to do much.
Keyword is Mexican, the problem are people from Central and South America crossing Mexico now.
Which is why Mexico is cracking down on it's southern border.
...not to mention that, if Trump's idea of how the metal slabs will work is in scale
(notice the car), the separation between the slats is wide enough to allow for bags of drugs and/or thin people (say, children, starving people) to go through. Genius!
The metal slabs are a bad idea, its better to go with the rather unscaliable walls that were prototyped.
And finally, polls show that a majority of Americans don't want a wall. And that includes the last poll, the one held in November, which was won by democrats by 9 percentage points, or 10 million votes, accross enough states to equal over 300 electoral votes come 2020. So they have no reason whatsoever to fund the wall unless Trump stars giving democrats a laundry list of policy concessions.
That is meaningless, polls tend to not favor presidential pet projects especially when they are being debated. Look at George W Bush's privatization of Social Security in 2005, Obamacare in 2009, or Hillarycare in 1993 as examples of this.
Trev said:
This reply is hands-down the most absurd thing I've ever read. If we're still using this analogy to slavery, you basically just blamed the slaves for the abuse their masters dish upon them because they are slaves. I'm ending the conversation following this reply because it's pretty clear you lack empathy for a marginalized group of people.
Slaves did not have a choice to come here, illegals ( outside those kidnapped and sold into sex slavery ) have a choice when deciding to come here or not.
Yes, which is part of the problem lmfao. The opportunities in America far exceed anything in their countries, so of course they're going to seek opportunities for growth elsewhere. Many places are also irreparably damaged by extreme poverty, gang or terrorist violence, and government corruption, so much so that it's beyond anything their contributions to the society can fix.
That is rather ignorant of history, no matter how corrupt or terrorized a society is, it typically only takes one or two generations for it to right itself. This can be seen after the fall of the Soviet Union, or in places like South Korea with Chun Doo-hwan in the 80s. However no country can survive if it's youth continue to flee it.
If you're fine with them getting care, then you can't also say that we should deport them so they don't get care. Fact of the matter is, immigrants are here and they will receive healthcare because healthcare is a necessity for everyone. Deport all you want - all you're doing is putting injured/sick/vulnerable people at risk when they come here.
I am more than willing to make sure they are healthy, however once they are, then they should be deported, we cannot be the world's hospital.
And the people who are here "legally" or natural-born citizens that don't have insurance or drivers license? Do they have to get deported? You have to realize that this risk is literally everywhere. You're trying to fix a small part of a problem by ruining tons of lives. I guarantee you more natural-born citizens are driving without insurance or driver's licenses.
I have no problem putting the people who are here legally and drive with out insurance or a license in jail. Just because some people who are citizens do something dangerous and illegal, that does not mean I wish to have 11 million extra people who are not citizens stand around and do the same dangerous and illegal activity, that is absurd.
First of all, limits on asylum can't exist without defeating the purpose of asylum. Second of all, how is it giving everyone a fair chance if we set a limit and have to tell people, "You've been waiting for years and you application has been approved but we've already met our quota so psyduck off?" How does a limit help people who are fleeing violence and don't have time to wait if their application is rejected?
Again, you aren't listening to what I'm actually saying. Here's what I'm actually saying, not what you think I am:
- Immigrant applicants who aren't in danger or extreme poverty can't come in "illegally." They have to apply before they come to the country.
- Immigrants who are, can, but they need to apply for citizenship within the country while they are safe and building their life. If they don't, they will get deported.
And these policies extend to literally every immigrant from any country. So, yes, it's definitely more lax than what we current have, but it keeps at-risk immigrants from suffering or dying while they try to escape dangerous conditions/situations. I'm sure you'll disagree with it because you've demonstrated pretty well that you care more about enforcing completely changeable laws than you do about the safety of actual human beings and have zero intent on actually interpreting what I'm saying. Hence why I'm ending this conversation, since we'll be going in circles for ages and I don't have the time/energy to continue.
Lets game plan this idea out shall we?
Anyone across the world that claims they are in danger or need a job can come here with extreme poverty alone that accounts for 766 million people ( people making an average of $1.9 a day according to the World Bank ), add in danger, and we can round it up to say a billion? Lets say out of that billion, maybe 10 to 50 million apply to enter the US in the first year.
Can any country on this planet handle that kind of influx of people? The answer is no.
If your ideas were to come to pass we would see a migration crisis that would dwarf what happened in Germany, and Germany had to close its doors and stem the tide after only a year.
You would be importing millions of low wage, low skill people into America, who do not speak the language and cannot support themselves. They would be reliant on a social safety net not even close to handling such a massive influx of poor people. You would see massive camps spring up across the country, filled with crime, prostitution, and lawlessness, again as we saw in Germany.
Hospitals, police and social services, all of those would crumble under the weight of all of these economic migrants.
How do you think the populous would react? Realistically it would be rebellion and anarchy against the Government that let all of these people in. You would see groups like the KKK spring up to target the immigrants, you would see states break away to save themselves, and in the end what was the America would cease to exist. What would be left is at best a group of ethnocentric states that are constantly warring at each other and blaming each other for the downfall of America.
You don't like the wait period, saying it amounts to basically: "You've been waiting for years and you application has been approved but we've already met our quota so psyduck off?". However quota's are the only way any country can allow for a steady stream of immigration that does not overwhelm it's populous and services.
Take away the quotas and it's a recipe for destruction.
