It isn't like the Senators' staffers aren't working this weekend to parse through the bill and tell their Senator what it says.
But the legailization process we're talking about (amnesty for illegals) would take many years as well. They would then be going through the naturalization process, so it makes sense to think they would then act like other naturalized citizens, who do not just send all their money home or try to get their families here. Why? It happens even with legal immigrants. This is from Canada, but you have similar things in the US: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/comm...y-are-driving-taxis-in-canada/article4106352/ Inventively titled Who Drives a Taxi in Canada, the study of 50,000 cab drivers concluded that half are immigrants. Two hundred are doctors or have PhDs, compared with just 55 of their Canadian-born counterparts. Twenty per cent have undergraduate university degrees or master’s, compared with 4 per cent of Canadian-born drivers. One of every three taxi drivers is born in India or Pakistan. They may be well qualified to navigate chaotic traffic, understand the mechanics of a meter and deal with unruly customers. But only 6 per cent of immigrant drivers listed as their field of study “personal, protective and transportation services.” Most had backgrounds in business, engineering and architecture and are clearly underemployed. ...
It may technically be a new bill, but it's not like they rewrote the whole thing. If you read the first one, you'd know the vast majority of what's in this one. Pretty basic computer software will tell you all the changes if you really want to know. But my guess is that most of these people never had any intention to read ANY part of the bill, regardless of when it was made available. Those that are actually interested have staffers that specialize in doing just that and have followed the bill since day 1. It's really not.
It's not the same thing. Someone who has attained a Visa, has followed the rules, and done what was necessary isn't the same as someone who snuck in and through their sheer force of numbers and lobbying ability is forcing a naturalization process because they've been so successful in making a mockery of the immigration process. They're basically saying, screw your rules, we're going to do what we want and get what we want anyway because there are so many of us. Acquiescing to that is a horrible precedent to set and really it's something we already did once in the 1980's and now we have 5 times as many people trying to duplicate the same scenario under Reagan. I think India in particular is vastly different in terms of how they value education and so I don't think that kind of percentage would apply to Mexico or Central/South America even a little bit. I've never seen an Indian day laborer or carpenter or fast food worker or anything of the sort. I imagine there's certainly a transition period for anyone that moves to a new country so it wouldn't surprise me if some highly skilled people were underemployed for a while but I just don't think, particularly with people that come here illegally, that underemployment is a significant issue. I'd be curious how long those people remain as cabbies and also curious if choosing underemployment in a new country is a result of fleeing some kind of persecution, political or religious in their home countries. I'd also venture to say that of all the H1B Visas that are given out, Indians get more than anyone else. I've seen Indians brought in or Japanese or even Russians sometimes, I've never seen a latin American brought in on an H1B Visa. I'd be curious to see any numbers on that but I can't find any demographics.
What? You say that as though it was a walk in the park. It isn't. People die trying to make that journey. Sheer force of numbers? It isn't like thousands of people get together at one time to cross the border like they are storming the Bastille. It is usually small groups paying coyotes everything they have to get them here and they are exploited by that coyote every step of the way. They aren't making a mockery of the immigration process, because the process itself is a mockery. I would support a fenced border if, and only if, we had solid background checks in an expedient manner and a liberal entrance policy if you pass the background check.
I think you mistook my comment of through sheer force of numbers. I don't really care to have a more liberal policy in immigration. People should really be chosen to come here based on what they can contribute, not based on hey I'm just across the border.
1. Most economic research indicates that in OECD countries (the US being one of them) immigration in aggregate has either a net positive effect or no effect on public finances (i.e. they are not a "drain on resources"). 2. Roughly half of illegal immigrants come into the country on legal visas and simply overstay. Thus, the focus on "border hopping" in this thread is somewhat misguided. 3. In comparison to most developed countries, the US has a very liberal immigration regime based more on family reunification as opposed to economic contribution. Most economists will tell you that the fewer immigration restrictions the better.
The problem is that this country was founded on immigration. Bring me your cold, your tired, your huddled masses shouldn't be just an anachronism. These are uniquely American ideals. I am not so quick to turn my back on what made this country such a unique experiment.
"Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame, With conquering limbs astride from land to land; Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name, Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame. "Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
Does your economic aggregate know what illegal immigrants do for overcrowding at schools and hospitals at areas near the border? Ur may not be an issue in Maine or North Dakota but it sure is in Texas and that's a good reason why your aggregate isn't as meaningful as you believe. Trading cheap housing labor for quality education is an effect that isn't seen immediately. So only 5 million illegal immigrants are border hopping? That's great. Economists interested in cheap labor and how that benefits business? I'm not so interested in the continued race to the bottom brought on by free trade and no borders.
I have no problem with immigration but I don't think you can run a country with slogans. Having an illegal immigration free for all isn't an American ideal.
Uh...there are a myriad of studies conducted at almost every imaginable level and location and they almost always end with the conclusion that immigration has a net positive effect. I don't really care what you're interested in; I put more stock in the opinion of people who do hard research. No one's saying no borders is ideal, they're saying few immigration restrictions; those are two very different things. The reason you think free trade is a race to the bottom is because America has insulated itself from global competition for so long through subsidies, tariffs, and foreign intervention that when the rest of the world caught up, we're finding it difficult to compete.
Actually yes. A quick search of "economic benefits of immigrants sending money home" came up with this as the first result. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/u...r-to-send-money-home.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 [rquoter]The benefits are far-reaching, development experts say, providing a powerful means to chip away at poverty in other countries and expanding the hard-won earnings of immigrants in the United States. ... The total remittance transfers sent across the globe from the United States in recent years are almost $50 billion annually, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, or roughly the equivalent of the government’s foreign aid budget. (Estimates by the World Bank suggest that the figure is significantly higher, close to $100 billion per year, according to Dilip Ratha, an economist who leads the World Bank’s remittances program.) “Remittances may well be the best single way to foment development,” said Nancy Birdsall, the president of the Center for Global Development, a nonprofit research group in Washington. “It turns out that even a modest reduction in the cost of making remittance transfers adds up to a substantial amount compared to official aid.” [/rquoter] Also http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/03/the_economic_ef.html [rquoter]To be showered with money seems like a happy arrangement for the receiving country. Yet in the 1980s remittances acquired a reputation among social scientists as “easy money” that, like an oil windfall, can rot out an economy. Case studies have found that recipients invest little of the money in farm equipment or business start-ups, preferring instead to go on shopping sprees. People grow dependent on the MoneyGram in the mail, and all that cash sloshing around pushes up inflation. Those not so lucky to have relatives abroad fall behind, worsening social inequality, and exporters’ costs rise, making it harder for them to compete in global markets. In the 1990s, though, Durand and others argued that case studies do not track the full effect of remittances as they ripple through an economy. Even if families do not invest the money, the businesses they buy from do, so remittances can jump-start growth. In one widely cited model, $1 of remittances boosts GDP by $3. The infusion of money makes a real difference in places where entrepreneurs have no other access to capital. Compared with alternatives to catalyze economic development, such as government programs or foreign aid and investment, remittances are more accurately targeted to families’ needs and more likely to reach the poor. [/rquoter] Anyone who understands the benefits of microloans understands how small amounts of money can make a big difference in the lives of those in the Thirdworld. As both articles note though remittances aren't a panacea but they do provide a fair amount of capital to places that otherwise might not have it.
To follow up on this post. While you can cherry pick out local costs from immigrants to assess their overall impact you have to look at the net whole. For example if I looked at social service and infrastructure costs in Willistown, North Dakota the last two years I could say that the oil boom there is a huge drag on the muncipality while ignoring how explosively they have grown.
We're not talking about immigration, were talking about illegal immigration. If you don't care what I'm interested in then you're exhibiting serious passive aggressive behavior by responding to my posts. Your competition comment is nonsense. Why have any interest in competing with countries with no environmental standards, workspace standards, labor laws, and such? That's not competition. The world has caught up because corporations aren't interested in anything but profit and once free trade was sold as one panacea to growth they neglected to advise what that meant for the middle lass in America.
That's fine. I'm not really interested in supporting the world financially through fraud and undocumented workers having free reign in this country. Certainly immigrants can follow the law and still support their families. So when does the cumulative effect of supporting the world with 50 billion dollars finally make a difference? Five years? Ten years? How long do we need to look the other way on illegal immigration to suit your view that we need to allow this to support poverty in other countries?
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>"Only 119 pages"? Each tab shows an amended page of the Gang of Eight bill. (Some pages have multiple changes.) <a href="http://t.co/xZfJTYQqco" title="http://twitter.com/BudgetGOP/status/349311066242703360/photo/1">pic.twitter.com/xZfJTYQqco</a></p>— Senate Budget GOP (@BudgetGOP) <a href="https://twitter.com/BudgetGOP/status/349311066242703360" data-datetime="2013-06-24T23:40:23+00:00">June 24, 2013</a></blockquote> <script src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/SQ3QQV0BYsI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
That is difficult given that the immigration laws are fairly arbitrary and not really that much tied to economic realities. Anyway though I am glad you have stated you really aren't interested in helping the people. The worst argument I hear in these debates is that by shutting down borders we actually are helping people in places like Mexico and Guatemala. If you read the articles it says that it has been making a difference and also has been helping the US also directly. Mexico is our third largest trade partner and if you look at the graph trade with Mexico has increased. Given that many remittances are sent to Mexico it is very likely that part of the increased trade with Mexico is due to US remittances helping to sustain the Mexican economy.
