Arnold Shuns Mexico

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Master Zen


Do you realize it has been economically proven for quite some time now that illegal immigration in the US provides a net gain to the country as a whole??? Seriously, its just laughable that at this point in time people continue to bring up the economic execuse for immigration because it's utterly ignortant.

You can state the cultural reasons on why immigration on this scale is undesirable (I sure as hell would not want a million chinese, for example, coming into Mexico each year) and I wouldn't disagree with them unless you're willing to come off as a blatant racist, but the economic reasons? Gimme a break. Old news. Even one of the most vocal (and smart) anti-immigrationists, Samuel Huntington, refrains from using the economic excuse since it's plain to anyone who is actually well informed on the issue to know that it's just plain wrong.

But well, it's quite obvious you just hate immigrants, whatever the reason that might be.

I'm an immigrant to the USA myself, so I would have to hate myself if I hated immigrants.

You say you wouldn't want a million Chinese coming into Mexico each year, but if Americans don't want a million Mexicans each year they are "racist". I don't think you can get much more of a blatant double standard than that.

As for the so-called economic benefits, you should look into the facts more deeply before arrogantly berating others for being ignorant. Here, educate yourself a little:

http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscal.pdf

[Az]

I think Cali pwns j00, Master Zen. ( even though Cali is a racist, but that's for another thread )

[Caligastia]

I'd prefer if you didn't call me a racist - it's such a hateful word, and I don't hate anyone.

[Az]

Ok, fair enough

Cali doesn't hate anyone. He does, however, fall under the dictionary description of "racist". But he's not a Nazi or white supremacist, or something.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Caligastia


I'm an immigrant to the USA myself, so I would have to hate myself if I hated immigrants.

So is Arnie and look at him... guess it means you ARE a racist

You say you wouldn't want a million Chinese coming into Mexico each year, but if Americans don't want a million Mexicans each year they are "racist". I don't think you can get much more of a blatant double standard than that.

No, I made a clear distinction about being opposition because of cultural reasons than out of racist ones. In this regards, I actually agree 100% with Samuel Huntington who is rightly concerned that people of different ethnicity, different language, different customs and different values is growing at an alarming rate and who have a tendency of not assimilating like other immigrants have in the past, rather creating homogeneous communities where their culture is pretty much left intact. Moreso he is right that the US is a country founded on basically european protestant values despite the willingness to let people of other nationalities to thrive. Most countries, including my own, are founded on a particular set of principles and I would not like to see them eroded just for the sake of improving the lot of other people. Which is why I would not like to see my country swamped by chinese, americans, europeans, or africans unless they were assimilated into the population. Huntington's argument therefore isn't against immigration per se, but rather at this particular kind of immigration which threatens to estabilsh itself as a breed apart.

As for the so-called economic benefits, you should look into the facts more deeply before arrogantly berating others for being ignorant. Here, educate yourself a little:

http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscal.pdf

You really made me laugh quoting above all, the CIS, a KNOWN anti-immigration organization which acts as a so-called 'think tank'. You might as well quote the Center for Creationist Studies to give proof against evolution. A more biased source you couldn't have found even if you tried.

Therefore, being an economist I find it my duty to illuminate your ignorant little mind towards the economic consequences of migration. The source is the National Bureau of Economic Research, one of the most respected collections of economic papers in the world. I suggest you read some of these papers or just run a search for "immigration" as you'll find a plethora of true academic studies, not the biased racist crap that you just posted.

Here are some you might want to start with:

Where Do U.S. Immigrants Come From, and Why?

http://www.nber.org/papers/w8998

The Effect of Immigration on Native Self-Employment

http://www.nber.org/papers/w7561

Historical Perspectives on the Economic Consequences of Immigration into the United States

http://www.nber.org/papers/h0106

Immigration and the Quality of Jobs

http://www.nber.org/papers/w6195

The Economic Benefits from Immigration

http://www.nber.org/papers/w4955

and finally, this is probably THE one you should read as it addresses the issue of fiscal burden, I shall even quote the abstract

n recent years, the renewed strength of immigration to the United States has sparked a debate about the economic effects of immigration. A central issue in this debate has been the fiscal impact of immigrants. Most research in this area has adopted a static, cross-section approach in assessing the net impact of immigrants on the economy's fiscal position. However, a dynamic approach is important because of the age dependency of many government tax and expenditure programs, and necessary to take the descendents of immigrants into account. This paper reconsiders the fiscal impact of immigrants over time, using the technique of generational accounting. We may summarize our results with three findings: 1. Because new immigrants represent a larger fraction of future generations than of present ones, shifting the burden onto future generations also shifts it, relatively, onto new immigrants. Thus, if the entire fiscal imbalance currently estimated for the United States is placed on future generations, then the presence of new immigrants reduces the burden borne by natives. 2. When a policy of fiscal responsibility' is followed, whether there is a fiscal gain from immigration depends on the extent to which government purchases rise with the immigrant population. 3. The impact of immigration on fiscal balance is extremely small relative to the size of the overall imbalance itself. Thus, immigration should be viewed neither as a major source of the existing imbalance, nor as a potential solution to it.

Generational Accounting and Immigration in the United States

http://www.nber.org/papers/w7041

[Az]

No, I made a clear distinction about being opposition because of cultural reasons than out of racist ones. In this regards, I actually agree 100% with Samuel Huntington who is rightly concerned that people of different ethnicity, different language, different customs and different values is growing at an alarming rate and who have a tendency of not assimilating like other immigrants have in the past, rather creating homogeneous communities where their culture is pretty much left intact. Moreso he is right that the US is a country founded on basically european protestant values despite the willingness to let people of other nationalities to thrive. Most countries, including my own, are founded on a particular set of principles and I would not like to see them eroded just for the sake of improving the lot of other people. Which is why I would not like to see my country swamped by chinese, americans, europeans, or africans unless they were assimilated into the population. Huntington's argument therefore isn't against immigration per se, but rather at this particular kind of immigration which threatens to estabilsh itself as a breed apart.

I don't think that we have any quarrel or argument at all, in this case. same goes with Cali.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Master Zen
No, I made a clear distinction about being opposition because of cultural reasons than out of racist ones. In this regards, I actually agree 100% with Samuel Huntington who is rightly concerned that people of different ethnicity, different language, different customs and different values is growing at an alarming rate and who have a tendency of not assimilating like other immigrants have in the past, rather creating homogeneous communities where their culture is pretty much left intact. Moreso he is right that the US is a country founded on basically european protestant values despite the willingness to let people of other nationalities to thrive. Most countries, including my own, are founded on a particular set of principles and I would not like to see them eroded just for the sake of improving the lot of other people. Which is why I would not like to see my country swamped by chinese, americans, europeans, or africans unless they were assimilated into the population. Huntington's argument therefore isn't against immigration per se, but rather at this particular kind of immigration which threatens to estabilsh itself as a breed apart.

Fair enough. We agree on that point.

You really made me laugh quoting above all, the CIS, a KNOWN anti-immigration organization which acts as a so-called 'think tank'. You might as well quote the Center for Creationist Studies to give proof against evolution. A more biased source you couldn't have found even if you tried.

Hyperventilation is not rebuttal. Show me where CIS went wrong in their study.

Therefore, being an economist I find it my duty to illuminate your ignorant little mind towards the economic consequences of migration. The source is the National Bureau of Economic Research, one of the most respected collections of economic papers in the world. I suggest you read some of these papers or just run a search for "immigration" as you'll find a plethora of true academic studies, not the biased racist crap that you just posted.

Here are some you might want to start with:

Where Do U.S. Immigrants Come From, and Why?

http://www.nber.org/papers/w8998

The Effect of Immigration on Native Self-Employment

http://www.nber.org/papers/w7561

Historical Perspectives on the Economic Consequences of Immigration into the United States

http://www.nber.org/papers/h0106

Immigration and the Quality of Jobs

http://www.nber.org/papers/w6195

The Economic Benefits from Immigration

http://www.nber.org/papers/w4955

and finally, this is probably THE one you should read as it addresses the issue of fiscal burden, I shall even quote the abstract



Generational Accounting and Immigration in the United States
http://www.nber.org/papers/w7041

You really need to learn some emotional maturity. Belittling others is a rather childish tactic. You come across as a very pompous person. It's rather amusing to watch you puff yourself up with pride. Oh, and sorry to burst your bubble, but none of those links are relevant to the discussion of ILLEGAL immigration.

Take a few breaths and use some common sense. Illegal immigrants are using services they haven't paid for by defrauding the system, establishing gangs, running drugs, and their rock-bottom wages (a significant amount of which is sent back to Mexico) mostly enrich a few wealthy companies. Where is the benefit to the average American? Sorry, but slightly lower prices for a few goods and services just doesn't make up for hospital closures, crime, and the environmental pollution of the southwestern border areas.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Az


Ok, fair enough

Cali doesn't hate anyone. He does, however, fall under the dictionary description of "racist". But he's not a Nazi or white supremacist, or something.

I probably do fit the dictionary definition of "racist", but nobody ever uses the word strictly in that context any more. They always use it to describe someone who is "evil" or "hateful". The word has lost its meaning through over-use and misuse.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Dissident
It appears Arnold is backtracking. I now have even less respect for him. He's acting like a democrat now.

There's lots of leetle brown peeple who are legal and can vote. Not to mention lots of business types who not only depend on illegals (ag and textiles, among others), yuppies who like the undocumented maid and nanny option to hold down the labor costs for domestic peasantry services, but then all those close to the border businesses who get billions in commerce from legal, temporary border crossers who shop up here.

So ahnold's flapping mouth collided with California political reality.

[Dinner]

MtG SIGHTING!

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Oerdin
MtG SIGHTING!

Yeah, 'poly isn't blocked by the corporate proxy here, and I can even slack off a bit on occasion.

Are you back here, or still exiled in ****holia?

[Dis]

He's still in ****holia. Most people call it California though.

JK San Diego is the one bright spot of southern California.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


There's lots of leetle brown peeple who are legal and can vote. Not to mention lots of business types who not only depend on illegals (ag and textiles, among others), yuppies who like the undocumented maid and nanny option to hold down the labor costs for domestic peasantry services, but then all those close to the border businesses who get billions in commerce from legal, temporary border crossers who shop up here.

So ahnold's flapping mouth collided with California political reality.

Heh, well I don't think he ever meant literally CLOSING the border.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Master Zen

I think it's you who didn't quite get what he said.

Zen, We've had numerous immigration debates here at poly and my position is pretty well known but since you don't seem to know it I will explain it. The current system of lawlessness in the immigration sector is very bad for the US, its bad for illegal aliens, and its bad for Mexico. Currently illegal aliens break American laws in coming here then they break more laws when with illegally work here. The companies which hire them (often at below minimium wage) often abuse illegal workers because they can and because illegal aliens won't fle legal cases because then they'll get deported by authorities.

I firmly believe that having our borders open to be crossed by anyone and/or having drugs and god knows what else travel across our borders is a huge national security threat which no sain country should allow. We do create more jobs then we have workers for and companies do want additional workers in order to keep wages low so we should continue to allow immigraints to come into the country. Should we let everyone in who wants to come? No, we should keep out people with past criminal histories, we should give preference to people who have skills needed by the American economy, and since there are more people who want into the country then we can absorb at one time we should give preference to those who are best educated.

For unskilled labor such as farm work a strong guest worker program should be created which allows people to earn money but requires them to either apply for full legal status or return home after a certain amount of time. Anyone who breaks American immigration laws or who commits criminal acts should perminently be disallowed for entry into the US. Period.

There are enough honest and hard working people who want to come to America where we don't need criminal law breakers.

[pchang]

Those NBER links do not support your position. They do not cover the cases under discussion here and the last one even refutes your claims.