http://www.analysisonline.org/site/...issue_id=1&news_id=140001400&sec_id=140002434 Discusses pros and cons on our economy.
I think there is a strong possibility that the world could be swamped by climate refugees in the common sense of the term. However, the United States would be relatively unaffected because we do not share a border with these countries like Bangladesh that would be completely swamped if the water level rose a couple of feet. If you look at the recent case of Haiti which is much closer, but still separate, we did not suddenly find ourselves awash with refugees even though we have the TPS Program. To call climate refugees, refugees is not accurate in the legal sense. International law and U.S. law defines a refugee as one who is currently outside of their country of nationality and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. Because climate refugees are not a protected group, we wouldn't just find ourselves having to admit them if they started showing up at our borders.
Refer back to the David Card articles I posted. There are realms of empirical data that refute your ad hoc assertions. http://www.epi.org/publication/bp255/ Methodological advancements confirm modest gains for native workers By Heidi Shierholz | February 4, 2010
As someone who used to do immigration law about 20 years ago I find the comments of Koji and False interesting. It is also good to get some input from folks who work generally in the field of human services. So many of the conservative and libertarians posters especially all seem to be in finance, computers or engineering etc where they work with numbers or things which leads to a different perspective.
An article in 1989 on Miami's Cuban immigrants? Jesus, you have to do better than that. This, I haven't seen, I'll get back to you.
I think the best way to cut down unauthorized immigration from Mexico and other countries in Latin America is for the US to actually try to assist those countries develop,so their folks are not driven by poverty to immigrate. Instead we basically do stupid things like support their dictators and elite who suppress unions. We waste their and our money by selling them unneeded armaments and other wasteful projects. Just recently the Obama administration tacitly supported a coup in Honduras because the demoratically elected conservative president turned out not to be so conservative and was backing reforms that would lead to a greater distribution of wealth to the poor.
...that's from the first line. The second Card paper is from 2005, not that well-documented natural experiments on the same variables as we have today have expiry dates on them.
So you only read the 1st line? That's what I thought. So you had old data or not that well documented data and you call my assertion adhoc?
We already do that. If you can prove you can maintain a good job(doctor, engineering, ect..), then immigrating to the US is not as difficult. If all you can get is a job cleaning, flipping burgers or working at a grocery store, it ain't happening as easy...its actually very difficult. As much as both sides want to make assumptions, the government do not want a bunch of leeches living off the government tit. The issue of illegal immigration is all about one thing; Pandering to the voters. Ask anyone who has immigrated to the country legally from the east and they will overwhelming be against any form of amnesty. I really don't have a problem with anyone who is willing to work although I do support E-verify. The reality is illegals provide cheap labor and fill jobs that 95% of americans do not want. I do have a problem giving illegals any form of government benefits, whether it be medical or educational.
As a conservative... It is too easy to get in the country illegally and too hard to get here legally. E-Verify only verifies that an employee has papers that say he's legal. Becoming a citizen of the US should be a shorter, but probably a more intense process.
I think the idea that we can shut our borders and ship out all of the people here illegally is completely unrealistic. People have moved back and forth across our borders, particularly our Southern border, ever since this country was founded and generally it hasn't been a problem. My own view is that we should dramatically open up our borders and have a guest worker program so our laws are more in line with reality. I think in the long run this will actually improve our safety as more people will come through legal means that we can track rather than through underground means.
If you open the border, what do you do if 100 millions Chinese fly to Mexico and then cross over into the US?
...yes, because "old data" which doesn't even make any sense in this context trumps no data. Anyways, I pointed out the first line because it's clear you hadn't even read that, but if you want the rest, simply cut out so you can parse through them at your own time and pace... Hmm.
I entered the thread hoping to see some comical responses by esteban and bigtex but I am a sad panda.
Anyone can throw out that one line. The rest of the article does not support that and if you had even attempted to read what you quoted, you would have known that.
