The poem on the Statue of Liberty should reflect on immigration policy as much as the Declaration of Independence should reflect on civil rights laws. Neither have legal standing but both are statements of principle. I just saw the exchange between Acosta and Miller and the parts I found particularly interesting was about Miller talking about how compassion to American workers and wanting to provide a living wage from an Administration that strongly opposes the policy of living wage. On this issue in general I've always found it notable that many of those who argue they are pro-business, for limited government, and for lifting up oneself are for a policy that is strongly opposed by most business groups, a massive government intrusion in the labor market for the sake of protecting a class that is complaining that they can't compete with foreign workers.
The question is where all the blue collar jobs went, and what can uneducated men, who once assumed they'd be the breadwinners, do besides drink and piss their lives away? They might not be able to read numbers in a research paper, but they can at the very least pull a lever for a blithering idiot in order to provoke a response.
First- dome, when you copy other people's writing word for word you really should give them credit with quotation marks and a link. Second- The United States is more than just "various regulations and statutory law". It is also a powerful set of common ideas and symbols. In this country it is relevant to reference these common ideas and symbols when discussing bedrock American issues like immigration. This doesn't mean everyone has to agree, but the idea that bringing them up doesn't "make sense" is ridiculous.
The blue collar jobs went many places such as overseas, extinct because of technological advances, etc. But they weren't taken away from low-skilled immigrants in a significant manner.
There are jobs like meat processing that was once a safer and reputable craft that turned into a high volume human work violations disaster with low-skilled immigrants. Offshoring definitely played a competing factor in lowering high wage blue collar demand, but the low-skilled supply allowed businesses to pivot towards those models.
Except that lowering the cost of labor, and it is questionable that low skilled foreign labor suppressed wages overall, benefits the economy by keeping inflation down while maintaining productivity. Keeping wages high without an increase in productivity will end up being a long term problem for the economy. I won't deny that low skilled and low cost foreign labor has had a negative effect on many blue collar workers that said I don't think artificially protecting those workers by shielding them from competition is a good thing. In the end those jobs will likely be lost due to automation.
Gimme a guy who will do whatever it takes to pursue the American Dream any day over an indolent inbred on welfare living in Western Kentucky who refuses to cross state lines (and voted for Trump on the false promise that der jerbs will go to him).
There's a quality aspect that's lost...though I blame us, as consumers, for choosing the cheaper option. The bolded part of your quote is interesting in that the corollary happened from 1973-2015 where "net productivity rose 73.4 percent, while the hourly pay of typical workers essentially stagnated—increasing only 11.1 percent over 42 years (after adjusting for inflation)." So the economy looks great right now (compared to other countries), but who really benefitted? Given the array of tricks the Fed has taken over the last 2 decades, I don't buy the inflation argument as much as I would've a decade ago. The last sentence in your reply sounds like a knee jerk response to unions, but my point was that with a higher supply of low wage workers (some of whom you could vastly underpay below the federal minimum wage), there was competitive pressure to use them as efficiently as possible. And I guess the automation caveat makes this all a moot point, but I originally replied to FB's study which washed away the original context of low skilled immigrants replacing higher paid workers through diminished roles. What's happening today is a totally different matter which the paper could claim triumph, but our circumstances are definitely shaped by immigration decades before.
My goodness... http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/ The link shows breakdown of demographics that rely on Welfare. Blind hatred is just bad for your health.
Dude are you 12? Miller looks like that kid Daddy brings to work one day and everybody can't stop talking about how much of a dick cheese he is. The guy is a joke, you're losing all credibility by jerking off to him lol. Just a bit of advice, if you want to support the message...definitely don't cite Miller. Especially when both sides of the aisle agree on that..
Anther false claim pointed out by the great liberal CATO Institute. It's not normal people. https://www.cato.org/blog/senators-...l-immigration-rates-claim-its-historical-norm Senators Tom Cotton (R-AK) and David Perdue (R-GA) are promoting their legislation titled “the RAISE Act” at the White House today. It would reduce immigration by 50 percent over 10 years by eliminating several categories of legal immigration. The legislation would reduce the per capita rate of immigration to the lowest amount since just after the Great Depression. Immigration would fall to a rate three times less than the historical average and 11 times less than the historical high. Yet the senators claim that the RAISE Act would “restor[e] legal immigration levels to their historical norms.” This statement is so misleading that it borders on outright deception. The “level” is just the absolute number of immigrants each year. But this treats the number of immigrants in 1900 the same as the number of immigrants in 2017, despite the fact that the U.S. population quadrupled during that time. You have to control for the size of the country. It’s like saying a million immigrants to China is the same as a million immigrants to Estonia—despite the fact that China is 1,000 times more populous.
Acosta is a preening, virtue-signaling jackass of the first order, and a prime example of why those briefings should not be televised ironclad law of supply and demand says that importing millions of unskilled workers negatively impacts the wages of the poorest Americans
Also for the roughly 10 million opioids, cocaine & meth addicts, they are virtually unemployable not because immigrants stole their jobs
