@wildgrass saidGood plan; unemploy 8 million people and allow in 8 million others from abroad to seamlessly take their place.
These workers should be replaced by documented employees. Naturalizing the illegal population is an insult to those who chose legal routes of entry.
Could you give a ballpark estimate of how many decades this would take and how many trillions of GDP would be lost during this process?
1 edit
@no1marauder saidProbably 2 decades. The cost would be way way less than we currently spend on border enforcement.
Good plan; unemploy 8 million people and allow in 8 million others from abroad to seamlessly take their place.
Could you give a ballpark estimate of how many decades this would take and how many trillions of GDP would be lost during this process?
Right now immigrants are faced with two options, wait in line for over a year and pay tens of thousands in fees, or try to cross illegally. This is a bad deal for everyone involved.
The clear message, if you cross illegally then employment and benefits and asylum claims will be much more difficult, needs to be sent. Less chaos at the border, a more robust system for legal entry, and the wall would not be needed.
@wildgrass saidYou must be joking. The total annual cost of every agency involved in border security is about $20 billion. https://howmuch.net/articles/the-cost-of-border-security-and-immigration-enforcement-in-the-us
Probably 2 decades. The cost would be way way less than we currently spend on border enforcement.
Right now immigrants are faced with two options, wait in line for over a year and pay tens of thousands in fees, or try to cross illegally. This is a bad deal for everyone involved.
The clear message, if you cross illegally then employment and benefits and asylum claims w ...[text shortened]... t. Less chaos at the border, a more robust system for legal entry, and the wall would not be needed.
Presumably, you'd still have to some level of spending on border security even with your "reforms" but I'll be generous and say you can cut it in half with your plan. So a savings of $10 billion a year.
Doing some back of the envelope calculations, 8 million workers is equivalent to 5% of the US work force. Assuming they contribute at an average rate to GDP as other workers and rounding off US GDP to $20 trillion, that's an economic benefit of $1 trillion a year. And that's simply in direct contributions, never mind the dire effects sudden elimination of those jobs would have on related economic activity.
Even assuming that some could be replaced in the short term (with all the disruptions even that would entail), the economic costs would be staggering. And for what? To make you feel better that these workers aren't getting away with something?
That's not worth a certain recession and probable depression.
@no1marauder saidLOL it's not for my benefit. It's needed to fix the immigration system.
You must be joking. The total annual cost of every agency involved in border security is about $20 billion. https://howmuch.net/articles/the-cost-of-border-security-and-immigration-enforcement-in-the-us
Presumably, you'd still have to some level of spending on border security even with your "reforms" but I'll be generous and say you can cut it in half with your plan. S ...[text shortened]... ren't getting away with something?
That's not worth a certain recession and probable depression.
The reason why farmers want to keep their workers illegal is so they can paid substandard wages.
1 edit
@wildgrass saidIt's a "fix" that cuts off all our noses to spite our faces.
LOL it's not for my benefit. It's needed to fix the immigration system.
The reason why farmers want to keep their workers illegal is so they can paid substandard wages.
So make the workers legal. They represent a substantial portion of workers in many fields not just agriculture. https://www.americanprogress.org/press/release-millions-undocumented-immigrants-essential-americas-recovery-new-report-shows/
1 edit
@no1marauder saidI pick on agriculture because of the staggeringly high ratio of illegal workers and the fact that most of their employers are ardent conservatives.
It's a "fix" that cuts off all our noses to spite our faces.
So make the workers legal. They represent a substantial portion of workers in many fields not just agriculture. https://www.americanprogress.org/press/release-millions-undocumented-immigrants-essential-americas-recovery-new-report-shows/
Your option is another one for sure. I'd favor it over the current 'do nothing' policy. But the psychology of it all.
Have you ever been standing in line for a long time to do something, and then you see someone cutting the line? Man I just want to punch those people. You can justify it with economic numbers, but naturalizing those who immigrate by breaking the law is not great. You are rewarding criminal behavior.
@no1marauder saidMake them legal what? Citizens? Why? That’s what WE are. You could create a new category of people….ATW..Approved To Work. Why should I have to eat their being equal to me? They are not. Marx is in your pores.
It's a "fix" that cuts off all our noses to spite our faces.
So make the workers legal. They represent a substantial portion of workers in many fields not just agriculture. https://www.americanprogress.org/press/release-millions-undocumented-immigrants-essential-americas-recovery-new-report-shows/
The governor of Massachusetts just said that “we should consider having additional families being a ‘part of our families’ by housing them.”Look it up. Do you not find that ludicrous, that persons of different cultures, with unknown backgrounds’ are being asked to be housed in that third bedroom at the end of the hall? And to poke around inside your kitchen with their lifestyles? Do you think the governor is going to do that? Would marauder do that?
There is something wrong with you feller. Why don’t you just give it all away. I think if you pushed all of this, that you would not give your stuff away. That will be for the little people, that is the little people who live under socialism, to whom you would dictate.
@AverageJoe1
Ha ha ha ha, this governor, who represents your philosophy, your party your liberalism, has not pointed out that it is nearly impossible to get rid of someone that is in your house, be a tenant or a squatter. Could you please get your lawyer to look at that and comment back to us if it is a good idea that we bring in a family into our homes with a possibility we may have to evict them for peeing on the floor. Thank you.
@averagejoe1 saidDid Marx write this:
Make them legal what? Citizens? Why? That’s what WE are. You could create a new category of people….ATW..Approved To Work. Why should I have to eat their being equal to me? They are not. Marx is in your pores.
The governor of Massachusetts just said that “we should consider having additional families being a ‘part of our families’ by housing them.”Look it up. Do you ...[text shortened]... or the little people, that is the little people who live under socialism, to whom you would dictate.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal....."
No, you're just an ignorant bigot; you're not superior to anyone.
3 edits
@no1marauder saidContrare’, sir. If I have a large house, and several of my friends and relatives are in various rooms in the house, all invitees, and someone else comes into my home, whom I do not know, I am quite sure that I am superior in every way to that person regarding the concept of the presence in that home. I just hate that liberals just do not get anything. Makes it different to have normal conversations from the beginning point of a level playing field. You have nothing, so much so that you have to resort to silliness. And refer to Marx for some inane reason, since you know that you are wrong.
Did Marx write this:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal....."
No, you're just an ignorant bigot; you're not superior to anyone.
2 edits
Yes, if you and I are in the same delivery room, being born, we were ‘created’ in every sense, the definition of equal out of the womb of the mother. You seem to be saying that everyone is equal all the time. What an idiot.
The declaration that you refer to by our founding fathers, uses the phrase ‘created’ equal, they do not say ‘are’ equal.
And you fillers wonder why I often say I win all of my debates. I have definitely won this one.
@averagejoe1 saidOnly the most raving of idiots ever thinks they "win" a debate on an internet chat site.
Yes, if you and I are in the same delivery room, being born, we were ‘created’ in every sense, the definition of equal out of the womb of the mother. You seem to be saying that everyone is equal all the time. What an idiot.
The declaration that you refer to by our founding fathers, uses the phrase ‘created’ equal, they do not say ‘are’ equal.
And you fillers wonder why I often say I win all of my debates. I have definitely won this one.
@averagejoe1 saidYou don't own this country, so your comparison in nonsensical.
Contrare’, sir. If I have a large house, and several of my friends and relatives are in various rooms in the house, all invitees, and someone else comes into my home, whom I do not know, I am quite sure that I am superior in every way to that person regarding the concept of the presence in that home. I just hate that liberals just do not get anything. Makes it different ...[text shortened]... to resort to silliness. And refer to Marx for some inane reason, since you know that you are wrong.
You were the one who referred to Marx, you pitiful moron.
Since this country was formed, every wave of immigrants from the Irish to the Italians to the Chinese and so on has had to face the same type of bigoted arguments. But the country wound up better off because they made it here. Many of us are descended from such immigrants.
So fearful, little men like AJ aren't doing anything that bigots haven't done for centuries. We'd do well to ignore them yet again.