I don't understand how one can be pro living wage and pro widespread immigration.

[ALago1]

A living wage for all is my #1 issue.

However I'm having trouble reconciling being pro widespread immigration as a result.

The reality is that if one can't command a living wage from the labor market in today's world, the reason is that they are not particularly skilled and literally any human that is not severely developmentally disabled can perform the jobs that they are qualified for.

Case in point: The fast food workers demanding a raise. Literally anybody that isn't severely disabled can do that job.

The glut of supply of low skilled labor causes significant downward pressure in wages.

With this in mind, why would we think it's a good idea to import millions of new labor seekers who are (generally) on the same skill level as those already seeking the same scarce low skill jobs?

Seems we are sabotaging our own struggling citizens with the best intentions of immigration.

I would like to see politicians take an approach that focuses on caring for the citizens already here.

I think about my grandfather, who was a low skilled worker that worked in a beer bottling plant. He was able to support a wife and child with a low skill job.

That was possible because the demand for low skill labor was very high due to a smaller pool of labor competing for low skill jobs.

It's a very thorny issue and I fret that Trump is going to drive this home during the GE.

[G_j]

1. what is

"widespread immigration" ?

[ALago1]

3. More than one million people a year.

Which if the rate we're currently running.

And that's legal, not undocumented.

[nichomachus]

13. Actually, the flow has been reversed

There are more people leaving the country than coming in.

But thanks for broadcasting the right-wing position on this.

[ALago1]

16. Good, so you agree with my premise.

Less immigration is better for low skilled workers.

Your cited study is only of the past 5 years.

So if the trend goes back to what is was previously, you recommend reducing immigration?

[leveymg]

28. No. Only 10K employment-based immigrant visas are granted to "low skill" workers.

The issuance of employment-based visa allocations are capped at 140,000, overall, in three preference categories. The vast majority go to high-skilled immigrants with degrees and specialized skills, not burger flippers, as follows:

Employment-Based Permanent Residence Petitions

The Immigration and Nationality Act provides 140,000 employment-based immigrant visas yearly. These available visas are divided among five preference categories. Most employment-based permanent residence petitions require the submission of USCIS Form I-140. The following is a general introduction to the five preference categories.

The First Employment-based Preference for "priority workers&quot EB-1)

Priority Workers receive 28.6 percent of the annual worldwide limit (about 40,000 visas). All Priority Workers must be the beneficiaries of an approved Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Foreign Workers.

There are three sub-groups in this category:

EB-1(a): Persons of "extraordinary ability" in the sciences, arts, education, business, and athletics. To qualify as "extraordinary", applicants in this category must submit extensive documentation showing sustained national or international acclaim and recognition in their field of expertise. Such applicants do not have to have a specific job offer so long as they are entering the U.S. to continue work in the field for which they are recognized to have extraordinary ability. A labor certification is also not required. The applicant (alien) may petition on his or her own behalf.

EB-1(b): Outstanding Professors and Researchers. To qualify as an Outstanding professor/researcher, the applicant must have at least three years’ experience in teaching or research, and must be recognized internationally as outstanding in his/her field of endeavor. No labor certification is required for this classification, but the prospective employer (universities or private employers that have established research departments) must provide a job offer and serve as the petitioner in the I-140 petition.

EB-1(c): Certain executives and managers subject to an international transfer to the United States. The applicant must have been employed for at least one of the three preceding years by the overseas affiliate, parent, subsidiary, or branch of aU.S. employer. The applicant must be coming to work in a managerial or executive capacity. No labor certification is required for this classification, but the prospective employer must provide a job offer and serve as the petitioner in the I-140 petition.

For a detailed discussion about qualifying for permanent residence in the first employment-based preference, please see EB-1.

The Second Employment-Based preference (EB-2)

There are two subgroups within this category: Professionals holding an advanced degree (beyond a baccalaureate degree) or a baccalaureate degree and at least five years’ progressive experience in the profession; and Persons with exceptional ability in the arts, sciences, or business. Exceptional ability means having a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered within the field. This preference receives 28.6 percent of the yearly worldwide limit (about 40,000 annual visas, plus any unused Employment First Preference visas.) PERM Labor Certification and a job offer are required for this category unless the job offer is waived by the USCIS in the national interest, the job fits in a Schedule A designation, or the alien establishes that he/she qualifies for one of the deficient occupations in the Labor Market Information Pilot Program which will be discussed later in this article.

In case there is no exemption for the labor certification process, the U.S. employer must file a Form I-140 petition based on an approved labor certification on the alien's behalf. For details on the Labor Certification process, please see our discussion under Perm Labor Certification.

Regarding I-140 petitions with a request for a national interest waiver (NIW), the alien may file the petition along with evidence showing their immigration is in the national interest. The National Interest Waiver has become a very popular and important path for many aliens applying for employment-based immigrant visas in the second preference. Consult our experienced immigration attorneys on NIW issues.

The Third Employment-Based Preference (EB-3)

This category covers “Skilled Workers, Professionals Holding Baccalaureate Degrees and Other Workers.” The Third Preference Employment-Based category receives 28.6 percent of the yearly worldwide limit (about 40,000 annual visas), plus any unused Employment-Based First and Second Preference visas. Only 10,000 visas of the annual quota may be assigned to unskilled workers. All Third Preference applicants require an approved I-140 petition filed by the prospective employer. All such workers require labor certification. There are three subgroups within this category:

Skilled workers: persons capable of performing a job requiring at least two years' training or experience;

Professionals with a baccalaureate degree: members of a profession with at least a university bachelor's degree; and

Other workers: those persons capable of filling positions requiring less than two years' training or experience.

[ALago1]

30. Then why do 50% of immigrants end up on welfare?

http://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/usanow/video/2015/09/03/71614490/

[leveymg]

45. 50% seems too high. Anyway, "all immigrants" includes non-employment based categories

such as refugees and family-sponsored immigrants, diversity visa lottery winners, and children. While there are severe limits on public assistance available to adult family-based immigrants, they don't necessarily have higher education, professional skills and job offers, and many initially rely upon affidavits of support provided by relatives.

We can argue about the right mix of employment-based and family-sponsored immigrants, but those who have education and skills are a net plus to the economy.

What's the source for your quoted percentage?

[ALago1]

70. Here is one article reviewing the study I reference

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/09/01/immigrant-welfare-use-report/71517072/

[Hortensis]

117. Half of all "immigrants" are NOT on welfare.

They're playing selective games with definitions and numbers.

For an overview of reality, on average, technically "immigrants" in general cost us A BIT more than they seem to contribute -- for the first few years. However, our economy would be in trouble without a very large portion of them - we literally cannot do without their contribution, so on balance we actually get a very large and important return for our investment.

For current details, like separating out foundation diggers who come up illegally to the same U.S. employer from Guatemala each year, from political refugees from Sudan, from biochemists from India, start researching and just skip over obviously misleading nonsense like this article.

[ALago1]

121. Please cite a source.

[Hortensis]

122. Alago, go google. There's a whole world of real information

just seconds away.

Select for results of studies and professional journals. Professionals can't lie like that to fellow professionals. It would ruin their reputations and they'd never be published again, likely end up losing their jobs eventually as well.

Stay away from pop articles and propaganda. Those are for the people who can be fooled most or all of the time.

[ALago1]

125. You've got nothing. Understood.

[Jitter65]

130. If you watched MSNBC on Wednesday when Cokie Roberts was on she gave a perfect example of

all immigrants NOT on welfare. At her high-end beauty salon the women receiving services were all foreign born, speaking several languages. All were talking about how scary Donald Trump was. These women were basically immigrants that you are referring to. The problem is when anyone says "immigrant" in this country people immediately think about Mexicans or other hispanics or blacks from anywhere in the world. I happen to live in an area that is running over with Russians and French and German people buying up all the property in the surrounding area and making plans and provisions for family members to get here. Three things about this: 1. Not all immigrants are low-wage brown or black people. 2. Not all immigrants are poor. 3. Many EU immigrants and Asian immigrants are here in illegal status because their Visas have lapsed. They didn't sneak into the country from south of the border.

[ALago1]

131. Given that the statistic is 50% are on welfare, that would certainly mean not all.

Doesn't invalidate my argument. 50% is a crazy large number.

[Lizzie Poppet]

18. Are you sure?

According to the World Bank, net US migration over the last four years is +5,007,887. Do you have more/better info?

[Bradical79]

23. I can't check right now, but I did read that somewhere too.

That there were more leaving than coming in. I'm curious about the source too, because I can't remember where I saw it

[thereismore]

2. Are you talking about legal immigration or illegal? nt

[ALago1]

4. Both, but let's talk legal since there are stats around that.

About 50% of the legal immigrants end up on welfare:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/09/01/immigrant-welfare-use-report/71517072/

So clearly 50% are not high skill workers or else they would be employed.

Which tells me that at least half of the new people that are immigrating are being added to the competitive pool of low skilled jobs.

[treestar]

50. I would not quite put it that way

from the link

About 51% of immigrant-led households receive at least one kind of welfare benefit, including Medicaid, food stamps, school lunches and housing assistance, compared to 30% for native-led households, according to the report from the Center for Immigration Studies, a group that advocates for lower levels of immigration.

that's not "on welfare" as people hear that, they think of someone not working. Trying to spread that impression is odd for a liberal.

[ALago1]

62. While it is true people who work can be on welfare

It is absolutely not true that any of the aforementioned benefits aren't welfare.

[treestar]

63. i think most people think of being "on welfare" as AFDC or its successor

they definitely think of people not working. At least middle class people do and so putting it like that enables right wingers.

[ALago1]

67. That's probably true

But for the sake of this conversation me saying immigrants tend to end up "on welfare" is to show that they end up needing help because they can't find adequate employment (because there aren't enough jobs matching their skill set).

[Jim Beard]

71. Its definitely not money goint to help pay for new healthcare programs

or institute new minimum wage programs. It just take money away from us.

[jwirr]

128. That is interesting. I worked in the welfare office part time

for many years. I do not remember on single case of an immigrant on welfare. I do remember one case that was an emergency. Our rules and regulations said we could not help them.

But our group of social workers were the real thing. We refused to ignore the problem and found ways to help them anyhow. They were passing through our area on their way to Canada. We helped them.

I also would like to point something out that has been true for a long time. Many undocumented workers help to harvest our crops for little pay. In recent years with the crackdown on this type of immigration we have actually had crops that had to spoil because no one was available to help. (I have worked the fields when I was younger and I can understand why.) If you think our food is high priced now just continue to stop these workers from coming.

[ALago1]

132. Given that they were passing through Canada, I'm guessing your in the north part of the country.

Which, if you think about it, it's perfectly logical that you wouldn't see many immigrants.

[jwirr]

133. You would be surprised. We see them all the time but not in

the welfare office. If you are illegal that is the last place you want to go to. Most offices would turn you in - we were required to do it and probably would have if they had not been passing through.

[hfojvt]

5. I agree

but I expect you to get nuked.

For some people, immigrants are just far more important than all the selfish racist xenophobes who are already here.

And of course, anybody who doesn't put immigrants ahead of themselves is just a selfish, racist xenophobe.

[840high]

102. Thank you.

[LittleBlue]

115. Eastern Europe has the right approach

There's so little of the pie to go around in places like Poland and Hungary that they have to protect the people at the bottom, or those people revolt. Sometimes with molotovs.

So immigration is very sensitive there. They know that low-skilled labor murders poor people. We just have relatively fewer here, and a system run by corporate cash, so we're free to screw them over without thinking twice.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

6. Automation is going to kill off those jobs before long anyway.

New people = new demand for products and services. Those immigrants are buying groceries, buying clothes, buying pretty much everything you and I do.

But machines don't buy anything, and I guarantee you that right now, people are working on robots to replace bartenders, waiters, cooks, and most other 'unskilled' jobs.

Universal Basic Income is going to be as necessary as Universal Healthcare.

[ALago1]

7. How are they are going to buy things if they don't have jobs?

Aside from 50% being on welfare and relying on the productivity of others?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/09/01/immigrant-welfare-use-report/71517072/

[Jim__]

8. Intelligent robots threaten millions of jobs

And it's not just fast food jobs.

From phys.org:

Advances in artificial intelligence will soon lead to robots that are capable of nearly everything humans do, threatening tens of millions of jobs in the coming 30 years, experts warned Saturday.

"We are approaching a time when machines will be able to outperform humans at almost any task," said Moshe Vardi, director of the Institute for Information Technology at Rice University in Texas.

"I believe that society needs to confront this question before it is upon us: If machines are capable of doing almost any work humans can do, what will humans do?" he asked at a panel discussion on artificial intelligence at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Vardi said there will always be some need for human work in the future, but robot replacements could drastically change the landscape, with no profession safe, and men and women equally affected.

more ...

[Yavin4]

20. There's a McDonald's in my neighborhood where you order and pay on large LED screens

and the workers just fulfill your orders. They're half way to automation

[mike_c]

9. I think you've made the best possible argument for a minimum living wage....

Market forces pit workers against one another and drive wages down, especially in low skilled occupations. The proper role of government is to supplant those market forces and create a floor beneath which no one's wages can be driven. As for the immigration issue, I really don't see much of a problem. If we eliminate the effect of market competition to drive wages down, everyone wins, regardless of how they entered the work force.

[leftstreet]

10. +1

[ALago1]

12. Since low skilled labor is available anywhere in the world...

...if the mandatory minimum wage is too expensive for them, why wouldn't businesses pack up and go to elsewhere?

Or, instead they can raise prices, which will necessitate a higher minimum wage, which will cause raised prices. Rinse and repeat.

Or, they can learn to do more with less, and make existing workers pick up more burden. They can refuse to expand and hire more.

There is no way to legislate the decision making of a private business. They will find a way to operationalize any government mandate.

Why not just stop importing more people who need scarce jobs?

[Act_of_Reparation]

11. I'm running to the hospital right now...

...because I'm pretty sure this post just gave me cancer.

I think about my grandfather, who was a low skilled worker that worked in a beer bottling plant. He was able to support a wife and child with a low skill job.

Right. Because back in your grampa's day, a guy could make a decent wage putting pieces of metal on pieces of glass because there were no immigrants. None. Zilch. Zero. Nada. Everything was gumdrops and rainbows and we all shot rainbows out our asses like fire hydrants on a New York summer's day.

Yup.

[Iggo]

14. .

[ALago1]

15. Welcome to Economics 101.

The issue is not immigration, it's LOW SKILLED LABOR.

It just happens that at least 50% of immigrants are low skilled.

When anybody can do a job, they are interchangeable so businesses have more power negotiating a wage.

Businesses had to pay more for labor because there were fewer workers to be had, giving workers negotiating power.

Less supply = greater price

Less labor = greater wage

If you'd like to learn more about Economics 101, let me know.

[Act_of_Reparation]

17. Yes, welcome to Econ 101

Where we learned BIGGER POPULATION = MORE DEMAND = MORE UNITS SOLD = MORE JOBS.

Seriously, what in crikey fuck are you going on about? "Low skilled labor"? Like all the Italians, Poles, and Scandinavians getting off the boat in your grampa's day were all fucking nuclear physicists or something. Give me a fucking break.

[ALago1]

19. And how are people going to buy things if they are all competing for scarce jobs?

By your logic, there should be no poverty because there are 8 billion people on the planet right now.

Why aren't these 8 billion people stimulating such demand? We should have wiped out poverty ages ago if all that's needed is a large population!

Someone call the Nobel committee, we've discovered an end to poverty!

[Yavin4]

21. The truth is, your granddaddy's job has been replaced by robots

The key to surviving is not to be unskilled. There are plenty of ways to gain valuable job skills without paying a fortune for them.

[ALago1]

22. I don't disagree in the slightest

My grandfather was a low skilled worker. He was also an immigrant.

Immigrants are overwhelmingly low skilled workers, just like he was.

However he was able to raise a family with only him working because the labor pool was small compared to available jobs.

If there were a lot more workers of his skill ability to compete with, wages would have been driven down substantially.

This is why a lot of blue collar workers are sympathetic to the reduced immigration argument.

[Yavin4]

24. The size of the labor pool is irrelevant. Everything is getting automated.

As I said earlier, the McDonald's in my neighborhood no longer has humans taking your order. You order on large screens.

[ALago1]

25. Thus a great reason for limiting immigration of low skilled labor.

[Person 2713]

35. Wait your grandfather WAS an immigrant AND a low skill worker BUT now 2016, YOU don't want

immigrants coming here who are low skilled workers . Trump much?

[ALago1]

37. I'm just pointing out the fact there were enough jobs to assimilate immigrants then compared to now.

This is the reality of the situation we face.

It's ironic, but it seems now that immigration hurts immigrants (and low skilled workers in general), because 50% end up on welfare:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/09/01/immigrant-welfare-use-report/71517072/

This wasn't the case with previous waves of immigration. They were able to make it because jobs were available and they didn't have to resort to welfare.

[whathehell]

58. Yes, and for most of our history

we had a quota system -- not on any particular group, but just immigrants generally.

Europe protects the jobs of its citizens. I don't know why we can't.

[Person 2713]

81. Now I am on a work break with a cardiologist from Turkey and an anesthesiologist from W. Africa

They mock this post which I am glad
they can take a joke when they see one.
Most Xenos are just that

[ALago1]

83. Yeah because the border is just being overrun with doctors and anesthesiologists.

I didn't know that 50% of doctors and anesthesiologists are on welfare.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/09/01/immigrant-welfare-use-report/71517072/

[olddots]

41. welcome to my ignore list 101

[ALago1]

42. I guess I touched a nerve?

[Jim Beard]

73. No one has mentioned that gian sucking sound

that Carrier Airconditioning made recently as it moved to Mexico. There are very few basic skill jobs in the US.

[whathehell]

56. Back in your grandpa's day there were these things called UNIONS and Tariffs

that protected American wages and American jobs.

My father did indeed support two children on one unionized, low skilled job. His children both got college degrees and one now serves as a Superior Court judge, so forget the snark and read 20th century history or talk to someone over 60 years old.

[Act_of_Reparation]

109. Yeah, wow. That's FASCINATING.

Could you point out precisely where I said people couldn't earn a living wage from a low-skilled manufacturing job? I'd be surprised if you could, seeing as I never said that. And it would be an odd thing to say, seeing as both my grandfathers made decent livings as low-skilled manufacturing workers.

The bone of contention here is not whether or not people can live off manufacturing jobs, but whether or not TEH IMMIGRANTS are responsible for killing American manufacturing, so forget the pompous finger wagging and try actually reading the fucking thread before hitting reply.

[whathehell]

118. Lol. Calm down, dear...what's "fascinating" is your inability to stay on point

You framed the poster's quote on a low-skilled worker's ability to support of a family of four as a point of ridicule, duh.

Learn to communicate.

[Act_of_Reparation]

119. Cool story, bro.

But again, I didn't do that thing you said I did. The point of ridicule wasn't the grandfather's job, but the implication that the grandfather was able to have all that stuff because there was no immigration. You know, the part of the OP's story that was ridiculous.

Incidentally, I have no trouble communicating with people who understand how antecedents work. I'm sorry you're having so much trouble with it... But I'm not.

[whathehell]

127. Um, no one said there was "no immigration"

What was said is that it was CONTROLLED.

Congratulations on those antecedents, bro.

Now all you have to do is READ.

[Recursion]

123. In grandpa's day, women and minorities were locked out of those jobs

Yeah, when you lock out two thirds of the population, the remaining third can command a pretty decent wage.

[randys1]

26. Immigrants fault, sigh

[ALago1]

31. Not an argument.

Not even an attempt to discuss the premises I put forth. Just emoting.

[guillaumeb]

27. Somewhat shaky logic here:

First, when you wrote:

The reality is that if one can't command a living wage from the labor market in today's world, the reason is that they are not particularly skilled and literally any human that is not severely developmentally disabled can perform the jobs that they are qualified for.
Case in point: The fast food workers demanding a raise. Literally anybody that isn't severely disabled can do that job.

you are making the case, without a shred of evidence, that low wage workers are unskilled and undeserving of a living wage. Apart from the terrible implication that you feel some workers do not deserve to live, what makes you think that all service workers have no skills?

Second, when you say:

The glut of supply of low skilled labor causes significant downward pressure in wages.

I would reverse this to say that, because the laws are so stacked against workers, employers are taking advantage of "right to work" areas to depress wages so as to increase their profits. You put the blame on workers, I put the blame on employers.

Third, your grandfather, and many other workers,

I

think about my grandfather, who was a low skilled worker that worked in a beer bottling plant. He was able to support a wife and child with a low skill job.

That was possible because the demand for low skill labor was very high due to a smaller pool of labor competing for low skill jobs.

was able to support a family because in the 1940s through the 1970s, levels of unionization were high. Workers were able to band together and demand a living wage.

The rich today enjoy wealth that was last seen prior to the Great Depression. Workers did not get less skilled, the rich got greedier.

[ALago1]

32. 1) By virtue of the fact that they want to run to government, they aren't skilled.

Otherwise, they'd be able to sell the value they have to an employer and be happy with it. Running to government is an implicit admission you can't compete.

2) You can blame the employers if you'd like, but not limiting immigration gives them more power everyday.

3) Same with unions. I have nothing against unionization, but if labor is so generalized and able to be performed by anyone, unions lose strength because anybody can perform unskilled labor. More labor gives business the ability to drive down wages because more will be willing to work without a union.

[guillaumeb]

34. Who has more power in the relationship, you or an employer?

I have no idea what you do, but my brother in law lost his job as a programmer when his company outsourced their IT to Pakistan. Is this the fault of my brother in law for not having a valued skill, or a legal system that allows this type of behavior in the name of free trade?

If you are dealing with any employer, the fact that you need a job puts you at a disadvantage.

Unionized plumbers, carpenters, mechanics, metal workers, etc, all have high level skills. But a right to work climate makes it easy for employers to destroy unions.

Again, I think you are confusing cause and effect.

[ALago1]

38. The power dynamic is always in flux over time.

What is in demand now may not always be. There also may be external factors that one can't foresee (like cheap labor overseas). Sorry to hear about your brother.

I'm surprised given your brothers loss of a job to a foreign person willing to do a job for less, that you're all for immigrants that have the ability to do the same if enough of them come over competing for the same jobs the domestic population does.

[guillaumeb]

39. Except for a short time from 1940-1980, the power dynamic

has been overwhelmingly in favor of the employer.

And many minimum wage workers have degrees. Trade deals like NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT, and soon possibly the TPP, are always designed to allow the 1% to take advantage of the bottom 99%. This is not something that just happens, it is designed that way.

Unions allow workers to compete on a more equal footing. That is why the GOP, and some Democrats, do not like unions.

As to my example, how can a programmer, or any worker in the US, compete with a worker making a fraction of the money in a foreign country? They cannot, hence the need for labor law, realistic labor protections, and tariffs to discourage this type of behavior.

[ALago1]

43. No disagreement on the trade deals here.

Here's the messed up thing that's gonna happen if Hillary is nominated.

Trump is going to pivot to the center and call for destroying these trade deals. He already is using this and it's resonating wherever he is pitching it.

Hillary is on board with all of them and will have no defense.

It is going to be bizarro world where the GOP candidate is campaigning to get rid of anti-worker trade deals while the Democrat is trying to push them down our throats.

I hope people start realizing this. It's a major reason I started my OP.

[guillaumeb]

47. I like you concept. You really should post one about just this topic.

Yes, Trump is speaking to the bottom 99%, but he is also a person who opposes a minimum wage. H. Ross Perot made much the same anti-trade deal case when he ran for President.

But HRC has come out as now opposed to the TPP. The strength of Sanders appeal might force HRC into advocating for more progressive positions.

[DonCoquixote]

55. 1) By virtue of the fact that they want to run to government, they aren't skilled.

Gee, I sense a libertarian tone. Do you believe in this mythical free market where all someone has to do is "sell the value they have to an employer and be happy with it?" I could show you a room full of engineers who were already getting downsized well before India became Silicon Valley's answer to a slave labor pit. The market has no more respect for skilled labor than unskilled labor, as there are legions of experienced people who cannot get a job. Limiting Immigration will NOT give us any more power to deal with them, because you already have libertarian idiots like Paul Ryan arguing that employers should be paying Chinese wages anyway. The market, by it's design, ensures that no one except the very wealthy is ever in a position of security, and immigrant blame is the classic fake these wealthy use to keep people from seeing that fact.

As far as all these immigrants being a problem, the companies have found a way to deal with that; why import labor when you can just move jobs abroad? There, now the companies do not have to pay a living wage, even by Chinese standards, because the governments are willing to kowtow (pun intended) to wall street.

Stop blaming the immigrants, who eventually do bring in the skilled children and grandchildren (like yourself). Immigration si one thing America does well, and it will not stop soon. If anything, these immigrants, who have a very marketable skill (namely the ability to do a lot of jobs that many americans will not do, like picking fruit) will be the one force that keeps employers in check, because, they, unlike a lot of grandchildren of immigrants, have no illusions about a free market, or the fact that power needs to be put in check.

[ALago1]

60. If America does immigration well, why do 50% end up on welfare?

That may have been a true sentiment in the past, but no longer seems to be the case.

Regarding the engineers getting laid off, something tells me that they're able to land on their feet (perhaps after a short bout of unemployment assistance) and aren't the norm on our welfare rolls.

[DonCoquixote]

69. regarding the engineers

Take a visit to your local employment office. You will be cured of delusions cat-quick. For that matter, check DU itself, as there are many here that could tell the horror story of their lives better than I could.

The system is rigged, and racism is the curtain that hides the wizard.

[Jim Beard]

74. I am not opposed to Immigration but I am opposed to

MASSIVE immigration. Have you read what has happened to Sweden? They have been taking in immigrants on a big scale for several years. It has wrecked their public healthcare where they are now allowing private insurance to creep back in. Its a disaster.

Good Bye Sweden

[cascadiance]

29. We should be helping with legitimate immigration, and immigration for the right reasons...

... like the reasons of people wanting to become citizens here and part of the American dream.

Now we can't just have everyone come here and become citizens, so I think we do need to be somewhat selective.

But perhaps a better choice is to find out why so many want to move here to live. Could it be that they have it very bad in other parts of the world, that is pushing them to come here, where they otherwise might be happier being in the country they started in if they had decent conditions to live in there. Some spiritually want to be here, and those are the kinds of folk that should immigrate here.

But there are things that we can do as a country to stop our effect on the world that makes so many other places hell where people want to move here to avoid the messes they are in elsewhere.

1) get RID of farm subsidies we have going to companies like ADM, etc. that allows them to ship underpriced food exports to places like South America at American taxpayer expense, which puts many South American farmers out of business when they can't compete with those ARTIFICIAL prices. That has lead many of those farmers to either go to outsourcing company factories where they work for cheap and are facilitated by our crappy "free trade" agreements, or come up here as more undocumented workers since they can no longer make a living in their native country where often their family still lives and they'd like to be with them. If we have farm subsidies, they should be going to family farmers the way they originally were set up for, and not farming "companies" that don't need them.
2) get SERIOUS about climate change legislation, which screws up the climate and the way of life in many other countries that has them wanting to move away from where they are to places like here. If we can get serious efforts to fight climate change and keep most other places on this planet places people can still live decent lives, we can limit the amount of immigration that way.
3) get RID of "guest labor" programs like H-1B and H-2B that have basically put in place slave labor programs that only benefit the wealthy that use them to hire people with at the expense of American workers losing their jobs, and those in the program working like slaves.
4) throw out the existing trade agreements and start over negotiating them with government representatives, not the corporate representatives that have written legislation like the TPP to mostly just benefit themselves.


There are probably more things we can do constructively to tackle this problem, but the bottom line is that people should be able to live decent lives where they and their families have grown up, and not feel forced economically or through other crises to have to move to the U.S. If we can get to the point that most people can live decent lives where they live, then immigration will really about people that spiritually want to be Americans, and we won't get flooded with amounts of people that our economy can't deal with, and hopefully collectively at some point people can live more comfortably and intelligently too, so that we don't have as much problems with overpopulation that we have when those not educated and living in bad situations have many more babies than they should so that some can survive and help them live in old age, the way so many do now.

[ALago1]

33. I'm with you on 1, 3 and 4.

I don't see how climate changes has influenced immigration...yet.

[cascadiance]

36. Many have argued that the source of what lead to the Arab Spring was climate change...

... that affected food production there, that affected people's jobs, etc. that lead to the overthrow of governments that weren't doing enough about these problems. And of course one could argue that the larger effects of Arab Spring all over there, including places like Libya and Syria, have contributed to a lot of refugees coming here. Now, yes, a lot of that is political strife, etc. too, but arguably much of that political strife has been made worse by climate change.

Many island nations in the ocean are sinking, and many of those who live there HAVE to move someplace else and really have no choice to not do so. So yes, climate change is directly causing them to move other places.

Arguably the rise of water in heavily populated areas in India, where their dams they've been building to deal with some of this won't keep up with the damage of the flooding in river basins, etc. to an enormous amount of people there. They will also need to move. India contributes to a lot of those people moving here of course.

And the bad effects on population migration caused by climate change are just starting now and will get a lot worse as the problem gets worse too.

[ALago1]

40. Interesting. Although not sure how many immigrants we've been having from the middle east recently.

[Yo_Mama]

44. Yes, this is a real issue and it is a type of class warfare.

I have a cousin who is a conservative who keeps saying that we need to drive wages down for the good of the country. Well, he's in government and I don't see him volunteering for a pay cut.

This was a Republican strategy in the beginning.

Worse, having a bunch of illegal workers versus legally able to fully compete creates terrible incentives.

Worse yet, having workers that aren't legally able to get insurance under ACA means that these workers are cheaper to hire.

It is a corporatist dream to have exploitable, vulnerable workers like this.

[Jim Beard]

75. Yes, that is why they want more migrants.

That will kill our workers wages.

[Yo_Mama]

120. They don't really want LEGAL migrants able to equally compete.

If you look at the H1B laws, which are flat-out shameful, those people are brought into the country and if they lose their job they have to leave very shortly. They're sort of like indentured servants.

I don't buy the "official" rhetoric on all this. I think our government has been partly taken over by companies.

I am basically for immigration, but I don't want people able to be here working in second-class statuses. It's bad for everyone.

I know a bunch of STEM grads (younger) who had to leave the country to find work, because the companies don't even hire American workers any more. This is all just bullshit.

[noamnety]

46. "A living wage for all is my #1 issue."

When you say "all" people, which ones are you excluding?

[ALago1]

48. People who are not Americans.

And I'm further asserting that importing more new Americans (immigrants) who need low skill type jobs hurts the previous immigrants who need the same thing.

The more we bring in the more jobs we need. It seems clear that we don't have enough jobs to assimilate everyone smoothly.

So wouldn't it make sense to slow down the rate of immigration to match rate of job growth to a degree?

Why not reduce immigration during recession and increase during expansion?

[noamnety]

49. And what do people deserve

if they weren't born in America?

[ALago1]

54. That's for them and the leaders of their country to decide.

We can't take care of everybody.

[noamnety]

57. I'm just trying to determine

Last edited Wed Feb 24, 2016, 10:11 PM - Edit history (1)

if you support a living wage because you view food and shelter as a basic human right, or as an American right.

[Travis_0004]

126. Its a right to all

But other countries have to figure it out for their citizens.

[Hoyt]

51. Probably because xenophobia and nationalism are disgusting.

We live in a big old world, not some South African apartheid compound.

Sounds like Trump might be your best candidate.

[ALago1]

65. Care to address the points I discussed in my OP or just shame and name call?

Is it not true that a greater supply of labor than demand depresses wages?

Is it not true that most immigrants need a low skill job to take care of themselves?

Is it not true that about 50% of immigrants end up needing welfare assistance?

Then why would we attempt to solve our scarce job and unemployment problem by importing more people to compete for said scarce jobs?

But no, you're right. I'm just a bigot and xenophobe.

[Kalidurga]

52. You are not making any sense

Either immigrants are coming here to take jobs according to you or they are coming to take welfare according to you. Pick a side and stick to it or prove it or something, instead of this incoherent mess.

[ALago1]

59. Why can't it both?

It's fully plausible that they come here with the intent on making their own way and bettering their lives, but once here find that jobs are not plentiful and find themselves struggling, thus resulting in needing welfare.

Is that really too hard to conceive?

[Kalidurga]

90. It can't be both because that is not how people behave.

At least not any of the several immigrants I know have behaved like that. I don't know any that ever got welfare. So, I guess you could say they are job takers, except they didn't get low level jobs like you are talking about. So, no I don't believe it's both. I believe the ones getting welfare are refugees from a crisis of some kind like the Somalians I know, but even the ones I know didn't end up on welfare because they already spoke English and had job skills. My SO never got on welfare either and never worked one of those jobs you are talking about. Neither did my daughter in-law. Nor did any of the recent immigrants in my family, though one of them came and all he could speak was German that was in the 1940s, he did day labor until he learned English.

[ALago1]

93. Anecdote is not the plural of data.

[Kalidurga]

96. Yeah but I live in a community of immigrants so there is that.

And your dog whistle is still set way too freaking high.

[840high]

105. Things have changed - look at Europe.

[840high]

104. Good point.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

53. OTOH, the miltary is jam packed with guys doing jobs that almost anybody can do.

When I was in, the starting pay was $79 a month. I don't know what it is now, but it's a helluva lot more than minimum wage.

Eliminate the military, and there would be enough money to pay everybody a decent wage including the immigrants.

[ALago1]

61. So that's gonna be our pitch in 2016?

"Let's eliminate the military!"

I'm sure that will go over well.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

64. I don't know about "our pitch". It's my pitch.

[840high]

106. That will never happen.

[Maedhros]

66. I think you're on the wrong web site. [n/t]

[ALago1]

68. I'd be more apt to believe you if you actually had an argument.

[Maedhros]

72. Not worth it. [n/t]

[Jim Beard]

80. Why do you think that?

Don't all Democrats support our social systems of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, WIC, CHIPS etc. ?

Do you not understand that more immigrants does not mean more jobs but does mean a large weight on our social programs.

BTW, Immigrants have seldom been really wanted in this country. Its all hype. In those times they were welcomed, it was because of OUR NEED, not for any other reason. This welcome all is bullshit. Never has been the fact.

Are you going to step up to pay my Medicare when it goes belly up.

You goddamn right I am thinking about myself.

[Maedhros]

86. Well, actually, given the state of today's Democratic Party, I shouldn't be surprised.

You folks seem to be pretty gung-ho for traditionally Republican concepts like elective war and immigrant bashing.

I'll just put you on ignore.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

76. i dont understand how empathy has borders. if i care about whether an average american can eat

why shouldn't i care if an average mexican can eat.

[ALago1]

78. Because feeding a non American can only be done through American worker resources

What you're essentially saying is that it's America's responsibility to ask it's working population to sacrifice to take care of the rest of the world.

Remember, 50% of immigrants end up on welfare and need the productive resources of the native population to get by.

Are we really going to pitch to working Americans that they should be expected to work for less take home pay so that we can take in more immigrants?

Why does no other country do anything like this? Europe? No. Australia? No. Japan? No.

They know the dangers of pathological empathy.

New Slogan for 2016?

"America: Don't worry, we'll take care of everybody and it will all work out just fine!"

[840high]

107. Yes. Our children, vets, elderly go homeless

and hungry.

[giftedgirl77]

77. I'm good with immigration.

The more the merrier.

[ALago1]

79. You're ok with inevitably supporting 50% of immigrants with your tax dollars?

Are you ok making that pitch to the electorate in 2016?

Because the working class (which historically been pro Democrat) is overwhelmingly not ok with that. They want jobs.

[giftedgirl77]

82. Well considering you can't be talking about illegal immigrants

bc they can't qualify for assistance since they are here legally sure why not? I think all immigrants should have refugee status like Cuba. If you get here you can stay.

[ALago1]

84. So basically,

We're advertising to the world: "Hey World! If you can make it to our shores we'll hook you up with all the benefits you need to survive!"

Kind of a perverse incentive isn't it?

And what happens if eventually there isn't enough productivity and tax revenue for everyone that wants to take advantage of these benefits.

Goodbye society.

[giftedgirl77]

88. They should have the same rights as everyone else that has managed to get here.

I'm second generation on both sides of my family & we didn't get here in the traditional sense. If ppl are willing to risk life & limb to get here obviously life wherever they're coming from isn't sustainable.

[ALago1]

91. So we he to force our citizens to take care of the rest of the world?

What if people don't want to do that and prefer taking care of Americans?

[giftedgirl77]

95. You act like ppl are just going to jump on welfare.

Immigrants tend to be a lot harder workers than Americans. The chances that they are actually working or doing something else productive. Let's not pretend that our welfare system is something ppl are clamoring for.

[ALago1]

97. The majority of them do

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/09/01/immigrant-welfare-use-report/71517072/

[DonCoquixote]

100. ah propgating racist lies

and omitting the fact that whatever food you eat, or the office you enjoy, was the product very likely of some not on welfare immigrant. You have a Hillary sign, you do not do her service, especially as whatever I can say about Hillary, she knows she will need the Latina vote. Welcome to ignore.

I sincerely hope you do not become another one of the people I see who go to the employment office after finding out that yes, they too are disposable, a wall street loyal dog that gets drowned in the river with the kittens.

[Jim Beard]

108. As a former Democratic Party Chairman and watching voter

behavior, Latinos do not blanket support Democrats. Unlike the blacks that stick together, the Latinos are strictly out for themselves plus, they DON'T vote. I don't have a link because I have lived it and it is really disgusting.

[mac56]

111. "The blacks"?

Really?

[DonCoquixote]

116. latinos

First of all,define that term I am puerto Rican, we are known to be democrats, so much so that Marco Rubio complained about us. Cubans can sometimes tend GOP, though that has changed a lot. Our vote helped turn Florida into a BLUE state.

[treestar]

101. It's not a big expenditure

what about the 30% of citizens? That's a lot more people.

[jeff47]

85. Immigrants need to buy stuff too.

More people in the country means more people buying happy meals, to stick with your example. That means you need more workers to produce happy meals.

[ALago1]

87. How are they going to buy stuff without jobs and if 50% are on welfare?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/09/01/immigrant-welfare-use-report/71517072/

Furthermore, if increased population solves economic woes via demand, why don't we just import all of the world's poor so they can buy stuff in our magical economy where all that is needed is a large population of unskilled workers?

Sounds legit.

[jeff47]

89. If they don't have jobs, then what's the point of your OP?

If they don't have jobs, they aren't taking jobs away from the good, hardworking Real Americans™ that you are so worried about.

Furthermore, if increased population solves economic woes via demand, why don't we just import all of the world's poor so they can buy stuff in our magical economy

You mean exactly like we did in your great grandfather's day?

That big green statue talking about "give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free" isn't just a tourist trap.

[ALago1]

92. Because they end up on welfare and that means someone else is paying their way.

Is that fair?

[jeff47]

94. You should probably bother to find out the requirements for TANF before spouting things like that.

https://aspe.hhs.gov/basic-report/overview-immigrants-eligibility-snap-tanf-medicaid-and-chip

You can't get "welfare" right off the boat, as you imply.

[ALago1]

98. If you have a kid you get it no problem

Furthermore states have a lot of control over their criteria.

[Jim Beard]

110. That statue means nothing.

The immigrant Chinese were used to build the railroads and when finished, they were sent back.


Check all these out.....List of Ethnic Riots

Nativist Period 1700s–1860

1824: Providence, Rhode Island Hard Scrabble Riots
1829: Cincinnati riots of 1829 Rioting against African Americans results in over a thousand leaving for Canada.
1829: Charlestown Anti-Catholic Riots
1831: Providence, Rhode Island
1834: Massachusetts Convent Burning
1834: Philadelphia pro-slavery riots[12]
1834: New York City pro-slavery riots
1835: Boston pro-slavery riots
1835: Five Points Riot
1835: Washington, D.C.[13][14]
1836: Cincinnati riots of 1836 - Several anti-abolitionist riots
1841: Cincinnati, Ohio White Irish-descendant and Irish immigrant dock workers rioted against Black dock workers. When the Black dock workers banded together to defend their community from the approaching Whites, the White rioters retreated and then commandeered a 6-pound cannon and shot it through the streets of Cincinnati.
1844: Philadelphia Nativist Riots (May 6–8, July 5–8)
1851: Hoboken Anti-German Riot
1855: Louisville Anti-German Riots

Civil War Period 1861–1865

1863: New York City Draft Riot
1863: Detroit Race Riot

Reconstruction Period: 1865–1877

1866: New Orleans Riot
1866: Memphis, Tennessee
1868: Pulaski Riot
1868: Opelousas, Louisiana
1868: Camilla, Georgia
1870: Eutaw, Alabama
1870: Laurens, South Carolina
1870: New York City Orange Riot
1871: Second New York City Orange Riot
1871: Los Angeles Anti-Chinese Riot
1871: Meridian, Mississippi
1891: New Orleans Anti-Italian Riot
1873: Colfax massacre
1874: Vicksburg, Mississippi
1874: New Orleans, Louisiana {Liberty place riot see[15]}
1874: Coushatta, Louisiana
1875: Yazoo City, Mississippi
1875: Clinton, Mississippi
1876: Hamburg Massacre
1876: Ellenton, South Carolina

Jim Crow Period: 1878–1914

1885: Anti-Chinese riot in Rock Springs, Wyoming Territory
1886: Seattle riot of 1886[16]
1898: Wilmington Insurrection of 1898[17]
1898: Lake City, South Carolina
1898: Greenwood County, South Carolina
1900: Robert Charles Riots
1900: New York City
1906: Atlanta Race Riot[18]
1906: Brownsville, Texas
1907: Onancock, Virginia
1907: Pacific Coast Race Riots of 1907
1908: Springfield Race Riot of 1908[19]
1909: Omaha, Nebraska anti-Greek riot
1910: Nationwide riots following the heavyweight championship fight between Jack Johnson and Jim Jeffries in Reno, Nevada on July 4

War and inter-war period: 1914–1945

1917: East St. Louis Riot[20]
1917: Chester, Pennsylvania
1917: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
1917: Houston Riot
Red Summer of 1919
*1919: Washington, D.C.
*1919: Chicago Race Riot of 1919[21]
*1919: Omaha Race Riot of 1919
*1919: Charleston, South Carolina
*1919: Longview, Texas
*1919: Knoxville Riot of 1919
*1919: Elaine Race Riot
1920: Ocoee Massacre
1921: Tulsa race riot (Tulsa, Oklahoma)[22]
1923: Rosewood massacre (Rosewood, Florida)[23]
1927: Yakima Valley Anti-Filipino Riot[24]
1928: Wenatchee Valley Anti-Filipino Riot[24]
1929: Exeter Anti-Filipino Riot[25]
1930: Watsonville Anti-Filipino Riots, which inspired race riots in San Francisco, Salinas and San Jose and attacks elsewhere.[25]
1935: Harlem Riot of 1935
1943: Detroit Race Riot[26]
1943: Beaumont Race Riot of 1943
1943: Harlem Riot of 1943
1943: Zoot Suit Riots

Postwar era: 1946–1954

1946: Columbia, Tennessee Riot
1949: Peekskill Riots
1951: Cicero Race Riot in Illinois

[Adrahil]

99. That data shows that the issues is more complicated...

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/jobs/posts/2013/08/02-immigration-wages-greenstone-looney

This analysis shows a small net positive to wages overall, though it does poorly affect those with less than a high school education. Solution: graduate freakin' high school.

[Mendocino]

103. Why is it some,

make it so easy to exercise our options?

[MADem]

112. We all come from immigrant stock, save the few of us who are native peoples. nt

[Kalidurga]

113. Some of us are both

[MADem]

114. Yes, but that "immigrant" piece still means you wouldn't exist were it not for

some poor schmuck looking for a better opportunity.

I don't understand immigrant hatred. People aren't coming here to get over, they see this country as a land of opportunity. They actually LOVE us for our freedoms, to put George Bush's assertion on its head.

There are always a few in every crowd who don't get the spirit (the Tsarnaev crew in Cambridge, e.g.) but they just give the good people a bad name.

[pampango]

124. US population growth has not varied much since 1900.

1910-1920: 15%
1920-1930: 16%
1930-1940: 7% (Great Depression)
1940-1950: 14%
1950-1960: 19% (Baby Boom)
1960-1970: 13%
1970-1980: 11%
1980-1990: 10%
1990-2000: 13%
2000-2010: 10%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_the_United_States#Historical_population

The increase in population - whether from native births or immigration - does not seem to be directly related to wage levels. Every person represents an increase in the supply of labor but also an increase in the demand for what labor produces. 100 years ago we had a much smaller supply of labor but the middle class was not stronger because the demand for what labor produced was also much smaller.

[metalbot]

129. Just so we're clear

The dominant form of legal immigration to the US is family based immigration. There is no limit on visas for immediate family members (spouse, minor child). There is a limit of 480,000 family based visas for non-immediate family (brothers, sisters, parents, adult children). The entire allotment of visas is issued every year, because there is a huge backlog (which varies by country). If you are a Filipino who has married an American woman and come to the US, current wait times are 22 years from the time that you get citizenship until you can sponsor a family member to join you in the US. Work skills are irrelevant to this type of visa.

We allocate less than 5% of that number of people for low-skilled visas, and cap H1B's (which aren't even immigrant visas) at 65,000.

If you are suggesting that we "need to do something" about low-skilled workers entering the country, the only place where you can make a meaningful cut is to slow down the rate for people to legally bring family into the country. If you're going to slow that down, you might as well cancel it, and tell people "sorry, your family will never be able to come here", because making the waits longer will by definition bring in lower skilled and older immigrants.

Or are you really just talking about illegal immigration, something that we actively try to deter (though not with sufficient vigor at the employer level)?

When people on this board talk about support for illegal immigration, it isn't that we're encouraging a bunch of people to come here, but that the correct approach is probably not to throw millions of people on buses and forcibly throw them over a border.