[luke warm]

what do you think of the bill making its way thru congress? what do you make of the fact that 80+% of americans want tougher standards?

finally, what's wrong with any / all of these?

1) english is the language of america, all governmental forms will be printed only in english
2) employees who knowingly hire illegal immigrants will be fined and / or imprisoned
3) only children born to u.s. citizens will obtain citizenship status
4) the laws under which americans live shall apply equally to citizens and non-citizens
5) citizenship is a requirement for property ownership
6) the term 'illegal alien' means, by definition, that someone is breaking the law and should be punished accordingly

[jtfanclub]

[quote name='luke warm' date='May 23 2007, 12:33 PM'] [/quote]
[quote]1) english is the language of america, all governmental forms will be printed only in english[/quote]

Simply wrong-headed. How can you expect somebody to obey the law when you don't provide them in a form they can understand?

[quote]2) employees who knowingly hire illegal immigrants will be fined and / or imprisoned]/quote]

Agreed.

[quote]3) only children born to u.s. citizens will obtain citizenship status[/quote]

We could just re-instute slavery. Probably be cheaper.

[quote]4) the laws under which americans live shall apply equally to citizens and non-citizens[/quote]

So much for #3.

[quote]5) citizenship is a requirement for property ownership[/quote]

The U.S. would go bankrupt overnight. Do you know how much of our property is owned by Japanese, Italians, and so forth?

[quote]6) the term 'illegal alien' means, by definition, that someone is breaking the law and should be punished accordingly[/quote]

Yeah! Let's make up a term, and then define it on the fly!

Most 'illegal aliens' came here legally. They were made 'illegal' when their papers expired, either due to beaurocratic red tape or other reasons. Maybe the forms they needed to fill out to renew were only in English.

I'm not the least bit worried about 'illegal aliens'. If we make it a felony to hire 10 or more of them, and start putting officers of companies who employ them in jail, they won't have jobs, and they'll go home.

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on May 23 2007, 08:33 PM, said:

finally, what's wrong with any / all of these?

1) english is the language of america, all governmental forms will be printed only in english
2) employees who knowingly hire illegal immigrants will be fined and / or imprisoned
3) only children born to u.s. citizens will obtain citizenship status
4) the laws under which americans live shall apply equally to citizens and non-citizens
5) citizenship is a requirement for property ownership
6) the term 'illegal alien' means, by definition, that someone is breaking the law and should be punished accordingly

I'm philosophically opposed to pandering to idiots... I don't think that we should be making significant chances to our legal system to cater to the latest incarnation of "Know Nothings" (I'm well aware that this is an example of self labeling)

The US has a real ugly history dating back to before the revolution...

We've seen the English bitching about the Germans
The Germans griping about the Irish
The Irish complaining about the Poles
The Poles complaining about the Italians
The Italians horrified about the Mexicans

Just about every was up in arms about the Jews and the Chinese. My grandparents were first generation immigrants. I was amazed at the sheer hypocrisy involved in their tirades about the Puerto Ricans...

In answer to your specific questions:

1. Governmental forms get printed in a wide variety of foreign languages because its more efficient to do so. The alternatives are much worse.

2. If people really want to crack down on labor mobility, fining / imprisoning employers is probably the best way to achieve this goal. However, I don't think that folks will like the impact on inflation

3. This requires amending the US Constitution

4. For the most part, this holds true. I'd love see specific exceptions that aren't related to treaty obligations (diplomatic, trade, etc)

5. I would think that this would run afoul of your avowed free market sensibilities. (I guess the hypocrisy isn't limited to dear old grandma...) Personally, I see nothing wrong with foreign investment in US capital and property markets. I was even in favor of the Dubai ports deal.

6. Just how many prisons do you want to build?

[mike777]

luke warm, on May 23 2007, 12:33 PM, said:

what do you think of the bill making its way thru congress? what do you make of the fact that 80+% of americans want tougher standards?

finally, what's wrong with any / all of these?

1) english is the language of america, all governmental forms will be printed only in english
2) employees who knowingly hire illegal immigrants will be fined and / or imprisoned
3) only children born to u.s. citizens will obtain citizenship status
4) the laws under which americans live shall apply equally to citizens and non-citizens
5) citizenship is a requirement for property ownership
6) the term 'illegal alien' means, by definition, that someone is breaking the law and should be punished accordingly

I understand the bill is over 1000 pages. I doubt anyone or almost anyone has read the whole thing. I doubt those voting on it have read it. I doubt anyone understands the entire bill let alone has read it.

Point 3) Hate it with a passion. Yes someone can roll down a hill have a baby in the USA and roll back to Canada. The baby is and should be an American. I hate what other countries do.
4) The rich and the beautiful live by other rules, why not? They should have some advantages.
5) Hate it! Disaster for the economy.

[hrothgar]

Personally, I get very amused watching folks down South get so upset about free trade / labor issues...

Between 100 - 150 years ago, the manufacturing center of the US was concentrated here in New England. I live very close to a lot of old mill buildings that used to churn out shoes, textiles, watches, you name it. Over time, those factories and those jobs headed South. It turns out that folks in States like Georgia were willing to work for a pittance. It made good economic sense for employers to relocate their factories and take advantage of low labor costs. Folks here in New England found ways to adapt... Sadly, the South is now finding that trying to maintain a competitive advantage based on low cost labor has some big problems. They're ALWAYS someone willing to work for less.

Illegal immigration is a massive bait and switch. Its yet another distraction to avoid talking about real issues like investing in the education system and income distribution...

[mike777]

Some good news on the income distribution front.

Congressional Budget Office, May 2007 report says the poorest 20% of Americans have gotten less poor. They had the highest increase in earnings, 78% after inflation, from 1991-2005. The poorest increased their earnings growth much more than the richest 20%

Low wage households with children had incomes after inflation that were more than one third higher in 2005 than in 1991.

Female-headed poor households incomes doubled.
The median family with children saw an 18% rise in earnings.

Yes the poor have not disappeared in America but some progress is being made.

[hrothgar]

mike777, on May 23 2007, 10:34 PM, said:

Some good news on the income distribution front.

Congressional Budget Office, May 2007 report says the poorest 20% of Americans have gotten less poor. They had the highest increase in earnings, 78% after inflation, from 1991-2005. The poorest increased their earnings growth much more than the richest 20%

Low wage households with children had incomes after inflation that were more than one third higher in 2005 than in 1991.

Female-headed poor households incomes doubled.
The median family with children saw an 18% rise in earnings.

Yes the poor have not disappeared in America but some progress is being made.

You might want to consider looking at some of the critiques of the WSJ editorials before mindlessly parroting them... Check out the following:

Quote

Judd Gregg (R-NH) requested that the Congressional Budget Office prepare a study measuring how low-income households with children have fared from 1991 to 2005. CBO dutifully complied, and found that low-income households with children have seen their income rise 35% over this period. The result is trumpeted in a lead editorial in today's Wall Street Journal. The poor get richer! shouts the Journal. There are the predictable sneers at John Edwards for his insistent belief that there are poor people in the United States, and demands that the "class envy lobby" accept "this dose of economic reality."

But wait. Why fifteen years? Well, it is a nice, round number. But fifteen years (from the last year where data) is available is 1991. That was a recession year, when incomes for this group collapsed. So the CBO study that Gregg demanded measures the change from a recession year to a boom year. Incomes for the poor -- or anybody -- always rise over the course of a business cycle. The measurement Gregg demanded is simply useless.

If you look closely at the study, you find that all the low-income growth occurred in the 1990s -- more than all, in fact. It peaked in 2000, and has fallen since. One table in the study shows that low-income households with children had their income drop more than 10% from 2000 to 2005. You could take that point and argue that the Bush administration has made the poor poorer. That wouldn't be a fair argument-- Bush didn't cause the 2001 recession -- but it would be much fairer than the point Gregg and the Journal are making.

The interesting question is whether, by the time the current business cycle hits its peak, incomes for people at the bottom will recover to where they were at the peak of the last business cycle. As of 2005 they still haven't caught up.

--Jonathan Chait

[mike777]

Is Chait saying the poor are worse off since 1991 or what?
Is he saying that incomes after inflation are worse, there have been no gains for the poor?

If there have been gains or improvements for the poor, I wish he could make it more explicit what the gains or improvements have been.

[hrothgar]

mike777, on May 23 2007, 10:50 PM, said:

Is Chait saying the poor are worse off since 1991 or what?
Is he saying that incomes after inflation are worse, there have been no gain for the poor?

If there have been gains or improvements for the poor, I wish he could make it more explicit what the gains or improvements have been.

As I read things, Chait is making the following claims:

1. The report the Judd Gregg requested from the CBO perform is badly flawed. The report is engineered to deliberately compare the bottom point of one business cycle with what a peak. You can't make these types of comparisons and expect to be taken seriously. (It should be noted that the CBO is chartered with responding to Congressional Requests for information. Their quite good at data analysis, but if you deliberately ask stupid questions... Garbage In Garbage Out)

As an example, a couple years back, I some modeling work where I attempted to estimate BBO's growth rate over time. Fred and Uday were nice enough to send me an enormous data dump contain the number of people logged at 10 second intervals over the course of a couple years. The very first thing that I did was to smooth out the data set. It was very clear that the day of the week had a very significant impact on the number of people who connected. (Lots of people log in on the weekend. There are also trends based on the time of day in different time Zones). As such, I used few very simple tricks to smooth out the data set. For example, I implemented a seven day moving average to eliminate issues related to the day of the week. If I hadn't done this, I wouldn't be able to reach an accurate conclusion.

2. There was significant growth in the income of low income wage earners between 1991 and 2000. As noted earlier, 1991 was a low point for the economy as a whole. 2000 was a high point in the bubble. Its not at all surprising that this lead to an increase in wages. Since 2000, there has been a significant decrease in inflation adjusted wages.

[mike777]

If Chait is arguing that a growing economy is better off for the poor who is he arguing against? If he claims the poor are better off at the peak of an economic cycle than that the bottom who is he arguing against.

Of course CBO studies may have a political agenda behind them, why state the obvious. The CBO is an arm of Congress not the unbaised and unmanipulated research arm he seems to think it should be.

Of course the economic time period is biased or has statisical flaws in it. All economic time periods will. Again why state the obvious?

Of course gains go up and down over this period, they are not a straight line, again why state the obvious.

With all that said I think most of the CBO reports have real value in them, including this one.


As for the bottom line, it seems that incomes for the poor are indeed rising faster than inflation again, today due to tighten labor markets and the growing expansion.
I do not have any CBO sources for this however.

[Al_U_Card]

History tells a story every time. Societies that isolate and insulate themselves only succeed in hastening the inbreeding that leads to weakness and collapse. They get more and more paranoid and inflict insanities on their own peoples, starting with the most visible or desirable minorities and ending with internecine warfare of the worst kind. This leaves them open to invasion and all manner of barbarism.

Melting pots are good when the additions are incorporated and help to create change by the infusion of new ideas and new energies. People don't learn because fear is easier to engender than understanding. Our animal nature lurks close to the surface and need only be given the opportunity to run amok.

Welcoming those poor and huddled masses creates proud and constructive citizens if they are given the opportunity to be more than just slaves......your own history is a shining example of this yet the climate and culture of fear that has been and continues to be adopted by your current regime will only lead to ruin.

It's not too late to turf out the Neocons with their ideology of power and control, for the heritage of your forefathers, opportunity and freedom.

[mike777]

"It's not too late to turf out the Neocons and their ideology of power and control for the heritage of your forefathers, opportunity and freedom. "

Darn you Neocons Darn you. Can we just round them up and deport them to Canada?

Mrs. Clinton looks like an 80% shoo in at this point. Maybe she can bring in her own 'whatevercons' and we can hope they will do better.

As for rounding up the immigrants and their children, lets start with those Native Americans who came down from Canada and send them back.

Don't even get me started on those darn Irish and all their little brats

[hrothgar]

mike777, on May 23 2007, 11:28 PM, said:

If Chait is arguing that a growing economy is better off for the poor who is he arguing against? If he claims the poor are better off at the peak of an economic cycle than that the bottom who is he arguing against.

...

Of course the economic time period is biased or has statisical flaws in it. All economic time periods will. Again why state the obvious?

Of course gains go up and down over this period, they are not a straight line, again why state the obvious.

With all that said I think most of the CBO reports have real value in them, including this one.


As for the bottom line, it seems that incomes for the poor are indeed rising faster than inflation again, today due to tighten labor markets and the growing expansion.
I do not have any CBO sources for this however.

The point (and it should be obvious) is that it is possible to design economic studies that compensate for business cycles. People do it all the time...

It is highly inappropriate for a new organization to use flawed studies to try to score cheap political points. One would hope that a news service would attempt to provide useful information rather than promoting an ideology. Then again, we are talking about the Wall Street Journal editorial page here...

Might be appropriate to post the following video (A classic from the Simpsons)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DMziefCrdc...related&search=

[luke warm]

1) english is the language of america, all governmental forms will be printed only in english
[quote]Simply wrong-headed.  How can you expect somebody to obey the law when you don't provide them in a form they can understand?[/quote]

• as opposed to being able to read a form and then obeying the law?

[quote]1.  Governmental forms get printed in a wide variety of foreign languages because its more efficient to do so.  The alternatives are much worse.[/quote]

• what are the alternatives?

2) employees who knowingly hire illegal immigrants will be fined and / or imprisoned
[quote]Agreed.[/quote]
[quote]2.  If people really want to crack down on labor mobility, fining / imprisoning employers is probably the best way to achieve this goal.  However, I don't think that folks will like the impact on inflation[/quote]

• richard, do you (at least partly) agree that one reason for the ongoing debate is big business' reluctance to pay a living wage? if so, how do you (as a self-proclaimed liberal) feel about that?

3) only children born to u.s. citizens will obtain citizenship status
[quote]We could just re-instute slavery.  Probably be cheaper.[/quote]

• some of us see business' backing of illegal immigration as itself a newer, more modern, form of slavery... i'd almost be willing to bet that even richard lends some credence to that view

[quote]3.  This requires amending the US Constitution[/quote]

• well if you mean to use the 14th ammendment, it needs to be used fully... by that i simply mean that the 14th says that all people, citizens or non-, are treated equally under the law.. presently, in many cases, that isn't true... i don't know what happens in your part of the country, but in the south illegal immigrants are often let go when they break, for example, traffic laws...

4) the laws under which americans live shall apply equally to citizens and non-citizens
[quote]So much for #3.[/quote]
[quote]4.  For the most part, this holds true.  I'd love see specific exceptions that aren't related to treaty obligations (diplomatic, trade, etc)[/quote]

outside of the fact that the very term 'illegal immigrant' is itself an admission of guilt, here are a few more:



• The Bush administration insisted on a little-noticed change in the bipartisan Senate immigration bill that would enable 12 million undocumented residents to avoid paying back taxes or associated fines to the Internal Revenue Service, officials said
  
  if i have to pay fines or back taxes, and if bush and congress want to exempt illegals, are we being treated the same?
  
  
  
• Waiting to be signed is a Bush bill called a totalization agreement with Mexico that authorizes U.S. Social Security payments to be paid to all Mexicans, legal or illegal, who work here. All will be covered by affirmative action and it allows millions of illegal aliens to work only 18 months in the U.S. to qualify for full benefits while Americans have to work 10 years to qualify. And if this agreement is ever terminated, benefits can’t be stopped even if acquired by false or altered documents.

american citizens can have benefits stopped, and can expect prosecution for fraud, if we obtain benefits falsely... i could post hundreds of such examples

5) citizenship is a requirement for property ownership
[quote]The U.S. would go bankrupt overnight.  Do you know how much of our property is owned by Japanese, Italians, and so forth?[/quote]

• do other countries have similar laws regarding foreign ownership? does mexico?

[quote]5.  I would think that this would run afoul of your avowed free market sensibilities.  (I guess the hypocrisy isn't limited to dear old grandma...) Personally, I see nothing wrong with foreign investment in US capital and property markets.  I was even in favor of the Dubai ports deal.[/quote]

• if you mean NAFTA, i'm not sure that law is in agreement with my "avowed" free market principles

6) the term 'illegal alien' means, by definition, that someone is breaking the law and should be punished accordingly
[quote]Yeah!  Let's make up a term, and then define it on the fly![/quote]

• what term am i making up? what exactly do you mean?

[quote]6.  Just how many prisons do you want to build?[/quote]

• that can come later... do you agree that 'illegal alien' means a person who is breaking the law?

[BebopKid]

I am not going to comment on the Bill going through Congress, just these questions.

luke warm, on May 23 2007, 12:33 PM, said:

what do you think of the bill making its way thru congress? what do you make of the fact that 80+% of americans want tougher standards?

finally, what's wrong with any / all of these?

1) english is the language of america, all governmental forms will be printed only in english

With the large number of immigrants from Mexico, Central and South America in my area, I have changed my mind and believe Spanish is important. I'm planning on learning it so I won't be a hinderance to coomunication.

luke warm, on May 23 2007, 12:33 PM, said:

2) employees who knowingly hire illegal immigrants will be fined and / or imprisoned

Yes. Yes. Yes. If there is a law, it should be obeyed, or have consequences.

luke warm, on May 23 2007, 12:33 PM, said:

3) only children born to u.s. citizens will obtain citizenship status

This would nullify every American Citizen. The first U.S. citizens born in this country, were not born to U.S citizens.

luke warm, on May 23 2007, 12:33 PM, said:

4) the laws under which americans live shall apply equally to citizens and non-citizens

Yes. Yes. Yes. If there is a law, it should be obeyed, or have consequences.

luke warm, on May 23 2007, 12:33 PM, said:

5) citizenship is a requirement for property ownership

No. No. No. I am allowed to own a Chalet in France. (Not that I could ever afford a shack in France) Foreign companies own property in other companies.

Money is the requirement for property ownership.

luke warm, on May 23 2007, 12:33 PM, said:

6) the term 'illegal alien' means, by definition, that someone is breaking the law and should be punished accordingly

Is that going to fix the problem? I don't think so. You need a solution that will work. Before doing or thinking about doing anything to illegal immigrants, take control of the border first. Then decide whether to grant amnesty. (A topic which I'm not touching)

[jtfanclub]

1) english is the language of america, all governmental forms will be printed only in english

Quote

Simply wrong-headed.  How can you expect somebody to obey the law when you don't provide them in a form they can understand?

• as opposed to being able to read a form and then obeying the law?

Um, yeah. Lots of people here legally who can't read English.

3) only children born to u.s. citizens will obtain citizenship status

Quote

We could just re-instute slavery.  Probably be cheaper.

• some of us see business' backing of illegal immigration as itself a newer, more modern, form of slavery... i'd almost be willing to bet that even richard lends some credence to that view

The natural-born clause is what prevents it from becoming true slavery. Even through 'illegal aliens' can be treated as slaves, their children have to be treated as citizens.

6) the term 'illegal alien' means, by definition, that someone is breaking the law and should be punished accordingly

Quote

Yeah!  Let's make up a term, and then define it on the fly!

• what term am i making up? what exactly do you mean?

Quote

6.  Just how many prisons do you want to build?

• that can come later... do you agree that 'illegal alien' means a person who is breaking the law?

Illegal Alien is a made-up phrase people use to denigrate others. Calling somebody an 'illegal alien', and then saying 'since I call them an illegal alien, doesn't that mean they're illegal' is self-referencing stupidity.

If I call you a lawbreaker, does that mean you are breaking the law?

Again, a vast majority of 'illegal aliens' came here LEGALLY. Their status has expired, for any number of reasons. They did not become 'illegal aliens' simply because you decided to call them such.

[mike777]

"Is that going to fix the problem?"

I am not exactly sure what the problem or problems are that we are trying to fix?
I have no doubt there are problems, but which problem is this bill solving and how will we know if the problem is solved? In another words what benchmark or measurement are we using for success here?

As for slavery, I thought I saw somewhere that the total number of enslaved people worldwide is greater today, much greater, than the total number of slaves shipped out of Africa from 1600's to 1865. No I do not have a citation and cannot vouch for this note. Interesting if true.

[Gerben42]

Quote

) english is the language of america, all governmental forms will be printed only in english
2) employees who knowingly hire illegal immigrants will be fined and / or imprisoned
3) only children born to u.s. citizens will obtain citizenship status
4) the laws under which americans live shall apply equally to citizens and non-citizens
5) citizenship is a requirement for property ownership
6) the term 'illegal alien' means, by definition, that someone is breaking the law and should be punished accordingly

To #1: It is okay to push people to learn English, which they should. (If you come to a country, learn the language!). But until they have had the chance to do so it is good to offer them Spanish or other forms.

To #2: That isn't a law yet? But you gotta enforce it too.

To #3: This will cause some kids to have no nationality at all. Bad idea.

To #4: A good idea. Start with Guantanamo please.

To #5: I hope they mean something else because this is not doable. Not every non-citizen is in the US illegally.

To #6: Enforcing it is the problem I guess. If you are in a country illegally I think you should do some work for free to pay for your train ticket back and then be forced to use said train ticket, UNLESS you are a refugee with good reasons to not be sent back.

Quote

Again, a vast majority of 'illegal aliens' came here LEGALLY. Their status has expired, for any number of reasons. They did not become 'illegal aliens' simply because you decided to call them such.

So if their status is expired, are they allowed to stay or not? If yes, they are not in the US illegally, if no, then they are and should be sent back.

[hrothgar]

From my perspective, this is an horrendously complex topic because it touches on some many different issues. Here's a few quick observations:

Different societies have very different notions about what constitutes a “living wage”. The major of the Mexican laborers who live and work here in the US live under conditions that almost any American would consider unacceptable. I know a fair number of illegals who work in food service in the greater Boston area. Most of them live the equivalent of dormitories. 8-12 people will share a two bed room apartment. Most of them are working 2-3 low wage jobs. They save every penny they make. Their long term goal is to take their earning back to Mexico and buy themselves a house, put their kids through college, take care of their parents, what have you. The reason that the Mexican are willing and able to do this is that the cost of living down South is a fraction of what it costs up here in Boston. Those same wages wouldn't go nearly as far if they were planing on retiring here in the US. Long term, I don't see any solution to this problem so long as massive price and wage gaps exist between between Mexico / Central America and the US. The good news is that price and wages gaps are (slowly) going to close. Mexico is getting wealthier. The population is getting better educated. Mexican laborers are helping to drive down prices here in the US. However, its going to take a long time for things to converge towards a new equilibrium. From my perspective, I think that the best policy that the US could adopt would be to practice a reverse form of illegal immigration. We should start busing out retirees down South into nice big retirement communities. A steady injection of gringo savings will help speed up the process.

As for the US... In all honesty, I don't see the attractive of fighting over minimum wage jobs. Anyone who wants long term economic security for themselves and their family needs to be looking at getting a real education. Unfortunately, this is really expensive and will (often) require investing significant amounts of resources. From a societal perspective, I think that we'd all be much better off if we focused on having fewer children but invested a lot more money in the ones that we have.

[Gerben42]

In fact in Europe there are some problems too but I have no idea how this compares to the American problems. But first you need to identify what the problem is.

My previous post is very black-white on 1 side, now here's the other.
These people are doing jobs that the American citizens are probably not willing to do for these wages & conditions. Without them many items would be much more expensive. So in a way you depend on these people.

In addition, it is impossible to enforce these laws. You cannot possibly find all of them and even if you could, you cannot send them all back, and what about those who were born here? Who is going to take care of them?