I have no problem with increasing the labor pool. What I have a huge problem with is increasing the labor pool with illegal immigrants. And it has nothing to do with their ethnicity or even the fact that they are illegal. It has everything to do with the hypocritical approach. I am very supportive of opening up visas and making it much simpler to bring in work and making it available to all of industry. I do not support abusing illegal immigration, and just the fact they are illegal, the workers have no rights. The reality is these workers were paid the true market value, which to be very clear is a livable wage, prices would go through the roof. Just because people think their piece of paper makes them high class does not make blue collar work subservient. We get it. Securing the border is not an important task, but getting cheap labor is. Also nobody cares about e-verify. Because when we cut to the chase, it all comes to cost increases which affects inflation. And you can bet your sweet ass politicians will happily suppress true inflation number during an election year. The fairness and respect to illegal workers is non existent (what are unions again?). Politicians do not give a **** about poor people.
Oh, I see. He is personally responsible for congressional immigration law that states the U.S. must process all asylum requests, however they arrive.
This is the irony of our current immigration system is that the more out of touch with reality the more it creates the incentives for black markets to move people. The result is we’re spending money and resources just keeping people who are here to work hard from coming in while increasing an unregulated black market to move people including those who would do us harm. If we greatly increase the legal options to come in then we reduce the impetus to use black Market to move people and in turn can focus better vet those coming in and focus more attention rooting out those who want to do us harm.
First off many even “illegals” working in construction are earning well above minimum wage. Leaving that aside “illegal” “legal” are regulatory definitions that can be changed. So many of those here illegally could be made legal and fully participate in the work force along with having legal protections. We could also do guest worker programs and others. Right now we our system though is out of touch with both the supply and demand for labor so it’s an artificial impediment to the free flow of labor. As noted in the my previous post it’s also means that’s there’s far more Impetus to use the black market for moving people which is also means it’s harder to track who comes here. It also means people who do get here are more likely to be exploited.
Have I ever said otherwise? I don't select their route. Nor does taking some particularly dangerous route address the point at all. They can stop along the way. That would reduce the danger. Stopping them from entering the US doesn't make the route more dangerous, in fact, allowing people to enter encourages more people to follow in their footsteps. Meanwhile, if they were stopped from entering the United States, then they would still be in Mexico. If Mexico were forced to absorb them all, they would have an incentive to stop them at the southern Mexican border and Guatemala or Belize would have to deal with them, and so on down through central America. Everyone between Venzuela and the United States is happy to send them through, some people collecting basically tolls from them along the way. No one is talking about legal immigrants, so they are irrelevant. Illegal immigrants sometimes work for a paycheck and pay payroll taxes, or sometimes get paid in cash and don't. They will never pay enough in sales tax to outweigh the benefits received (especially in California). Even the most Pollyanna estimates of net taxation of illegal immigrants don't pretend they are net taxpayers including state and local. Some percentage are fleeing violence or trafficking (most are migrating for economic reasons, that's why you see so many single male adults). Even those who are fleeing danger escape said danger once they leave their community. The local gang in Caracas isn't chasing someone to Panama, let alone all the way to the US/Mexico border. If we had no handouts, no minimum wage, and open borders, we would have a huge supply of low cost labor that didn't require illegal immigration, human trafficking, coyotes, cartels, etc.
You’ve made several posts claiming that the effectiveness of a wall shouldn’t change per unit of length. That ignores that per each unit of length increased of a wall it’s more likely to encounter different soil and other conditions and be more expensive to build as material and labor has to be transferred farther. In fact we’ve seen this already with existing border wall where parts of the border wall have collapsed due to changing soil conditions. Again a barrier is only as effective as its weakest segment. There is only one route from Venezuela because the Isthmus of Panama is very narrow so on land you have to pass through dangerous jungles and swamps. This is why there is no continuous road running north through the Americas. Also stopping on a trip isn’t always safe. Anyone who has done long distance hiking knows that just stopping isn’t always good because you can only carry so much water and food. Also there are hazards such as changing weather conditions. When you plan a hike you figure the time it will take to do it with what you need to carry. If you stop for too long and are significantly delayed usually causes problems. Including to even this report that is very negative towards illegal immigration acknowledges that illegal immigrants contribute $321 billion to GDP and pay $25.9 billion in taxes. https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/camarota-testimony.play While the document claims immigrants cost $42 billion in taxes. That is $16.1 billion net cost in taxes but doesn’t include the rest of the $321 billion immigrants have added to the economy. it ignores the multiplier effect of illegal Immigrant labor in things like construction where their labor helps to spur economic activity for many others. As noted before without the amount of labor, a lot of it illegal, our construction and ag sector likely collapses.
The border is secure based on US laws and resources. Now, if Congress doesn't think so and doesn't like it, and we know Congress doesn't, they can change the law and/or provide funding to the executive branch to handle migrant inflow. There is a bipartisan effort to do something like that, but the GOP House has said they won't consider it. In this age of just ignoring the USSC, perhaps another option is to ignore the law and the US courts, especially if the USSC rules that POTUS has total immunity to do as he pleases. Perhaps even just shooting the migrants as they cross over, considering they are an invasion force, as the right likes to put it.
Actually I claimed that a wall with equal security per unit length does not change effectiveness per unit length. That has nothing at all to do with the claim that a wall at point A does not prevent movement at point B. The soil conditions can affect the construction requirements to build a stable wall segment (I don't think you are suggesting it is impossible to build a stable wall segment at any point along the border). The costs can vary for any number of reasons. A mile of stable wall with X number of men defending it at Eagle Pass will be as effective as a mile of stable wall with X number of men defending it 10 miles to the East of Eagle Pass. There are infiinite routes from Venezuela to the United States (because you can infinitely subdivide length). You could go along the Pacific Coast or the Gulf coast or anywhere in between. The fact that you point out the size of the Isthmus of Panama proves my point. The most restrictive part of the journey happens at the very beginning. Once you reach central America, the land spreads out. Why are you comparing migration to hiking? I am not talking about stopping at some random log. Once you cross from Venezuela to Panama, you are in an entirely different country. Panama is a whole society with cities and jobs and people that speak the same language spoken in Venezuela. If you are fleeing the local gang in Caracas, you have already gone through Colombia (where there are also cities and people and jobs) and now are in Panama where you can claim asylum and live in the cities of Panama or Santiago or David or whatever. It has nothing to do with stopping on a hike in the weather, I am talking about permanent settlement. It doesn't include contributions to the economy but it also doesn't include negative effects other than taxation. It is a comparison of taxes in and taxes out. Taxes out are higher than taxes in. Who pays for the taxes out that are not covered by the taxes in? Me (and the rest of the net positive taxpayers). Being in California (where there are a lot of illegal immigrants, unlike say Nebraska) I pay a disproportionately higher amount. I 100% guarantee there will not be a total collapse of construction and agriculture without illegal immigration (because there are countries without significant illegal immigration that still have construction and agriculture).
Biden can respond by federalizing the Texas National Guard. Let wheels take it to the US Supreme Court... let them sort who the Constitution assigns responsibility for the borders.
Why is the federal government hell-bent on flooding the country with illegals? Do you actually think that will win them votes? "Hey, we actively want to make our borders less secure." Dafuq?
