Can Immigration Solve our Economic Problems?

[npts2020]

I never said that immigration causes insurmountable problems. I don't oppose immigration, and I don't even oppose increasing it slightly, as deemed appropriate once all factors are analyzed.

 

What I don't do is advocate its unequivocal expansion for ideological reasons.

 

I don't see how one could either support or oppose immigration without some "ideology" being involved. How would it be done without consideration from some philosophical perspective?

[Pangloss]

We weren't discussing supporting or opposing immigration. We were discussing its effect on the economy. That was the stated purpose of this thread.

[Mr Skeptic]

One point and one question. Question first, what is the purpose of having limits on immigration to begin with when anyone who is not native American is an immigrant or directly related to one anyway? A point, nearly everyone who lives in America pays taxes even if the IRS cant keep track of them, eg. I defy you to buy a gallon of gasoline in the U.S. without paying any federal or state taxes on it.

 

I buy my gasoline at a nearby Indian reservation.

 

Do I get a cookie?

[npts2020]

We weren't discussing supporting or opposing immigration. We were discussing its effect on the economy. That was the stated purpose of this thread.

 

True but you wouldn't know it from most of the posts. I have seen a lot of discussion on this thread but very few opinions of the effects on the economy. BTW what effect did you say it would have, I musta missed it.

[Pangloss]

I said that the effect of immigration is to drive down labor wages for unskilled labor, and I questioned why this is desirable on the basis of economics. Your answer appears to be because it's morally correct to bring in more immigrants than we currently are, which doesn't answer the question and raises another one which we were not discussing.

 

It's fine with me if you want to broach the moral subject of immigration restrictions, just don't tell me this thread is an objective analysis of economic impact if it's really about bleeding-heart immigration policy. That's all I'm saying.

[npts2020]

I said that the effect of immigration is to drive down labor wages for unskilled labor, and I questioned why this is desirable on the basis of economics. Your answer appears to be because it's morally correct to bring in more immigrants than we currently are, which doesn't answer the question and raises another one which we were not discussing.

 

I apologize then, I had assumed for some reason you were talking about illegal immigration or open borders (but I still don't see your reasoning for it). Another thing I don't see, is where you get any "moral" component out of my statements. What I have said in other words is that bringing in more entreprenuerially and technically skilled immigrants would help boost the housing market and therefore the economy. Nobody on this thread has shown me one valid reason I am wrong in this thinking. Feel free to raise any question(s) you like.

 

It's fine with me if you want to broach the moral subject of immigration restrictions, just don't tell me this thread is an objective analysis of economic impact if it's really about bleeding-heart immigration policy. That's all I'm saying.

 

 

Possibly you get the notion of a moral component by my question of why we even have immigration restrictions, it was badly framed since I am well aware there will be control of some kind. What I should have asked is why any qualified applicant is ever turned down? BTW I personally try to avoid terms like left, right, liberal, conservative because they have so many different meanings to different people that they are fairly meaningless in the end.

[Pangloss]

Okay that's fine, but I think we've answered that question. It is reasonable for any nation to control its border and set limits on immigration in order to ensure that there is not a sudden and crushing impact on its economy, legal system, etc.

 

Which is why all developed nations do this, and in fact why all of them are more restrictive than ours.

[bombus]

to npts2020: I'm not necessarily talking about immigrants - I'm talking about low paid jobs, it's just that these are very often filled by immigrants because the 'locals' refuse to work for such low wages.

 

Why would you want to 'import' doctors, lawyers, skilled workers etc if you have a population of your own that could fill any vacancies. As a short term fix it may be desirable (we have a shortage of Dentists in the UK for example), but in the longer term a state should be training its own population if there is a shortage.

 

Also, if you a rich you can get into most developed countries just fine!

Edited October 16, 2008 by bombus

[jackson33]

When GWB, basically proposed another amnesty bill, allowing a process for illegals in this country to become legal, I have felt there was an alternative reason, other than 'only reasonable solution'. First I felt 'taking the issue' off the table for the future election. When McCain endorsed the idea, I felt sure this was possible.

 

A month ago, Paulson in trying to convince Congress for emergency funding or 'bailout', he admitted to working with his Russian and other equals in their governments on a pending financial problem, for over a year.

 

Victoria Taft, writing an article linking illegals and the meltdown quoted US Department of Housing "some 5 MILLION fraudulent home mortgages are held by illegal aliens".

 

If there are/were 5M such loans made and using a very modest average of 150k per you come up with a very interesting figure...750 Billion, 50 billion over the original requested cost.

 

If the Immigration Reform Act had gone through and if, certainly a logical conclusion, most of those people would have done everything possible to maintain those homes, become legal and continue to have made payments, pay those local taxes and become part of the communities. California today is begging for 12 Billion from Uncle Sam, where 12-13% of all notes in Southern California Inland Empire are now in default.

 

 

Pangloss; One misconception has been the strain on area economies where social services (medical/welfare/schools/etc) are stress by the influx of people. Where a great deal does happen along truly border towns, where these facilities are stress by legal visitors, further inland most participated in the general economy. Then in urban areas, as LA, where all lower income folks head in hard times, the problems that had been continued with relatively minor increases. In higher income areas, as Las Vegas and parts of Florida, where illegals have high numbers, the problems are less evident...

[Pangloss]

Victoria Taft' date=' writing an article linking illegals and the meltdown quoted US Department of Housing "some 5 MILLION fraudulent home mortgages are held by illegal aliens".

 

If there are/were 5M such loans made and using a very modest average of 150k per you come up with a very interesting figure...750 Billion, 50 billion over the original requested cost.

If the Immigration Reform Act had gone through and if, certainly a logical conclusion, most of those people would have done everything possible to maintain those homes, become legal and continue to have made payments, pay those local taxes and become part of the communities. California today is begging for 12 Billion from Uncle Sam, where 12-13% of all notes in Southern California Inland Empire are now in default.[/quote']

 

Whew, a lot of assumptions in that, mainly:

- That they were fraudulent because they were illegal

- That they didn't do everything possible to maintain their homes

 

Do you have a link to the Taft article? I'm curious whether she made those same assumptions.

 

Pangloss; One misconception has been the strain on area economies where social services (medical/welfare/schools/etc) are stress by the influx of people. Where a great deal does happen along truly border towns, where these facilities are stress by legal visitors, further inland most participated in the general economy. Then in urban areas, as LA, where all lower income folks head in hard times, the problems that had been continued with relatively minor increases. In higher income areas, as Las Vegas and parts of Florida, where illegals have high numbers, the problems are less evident...

 

Prove it.

[jackson33]

Pangloss; Sorry for delay in response, either this site offline for awhile or my software deleted the site...

 

Google *Victoria Taft 5 Million Mortgages*, is the 4th item. Since banks were not permitted to link SS Numbers to mortgage applications, I don't think the word 'fraudulent' is applicable, but is her word. She is strongly opposed to Illegals, in the first place....

 

You do understand, my opinions cannot be proved and if I could prove them, some rather major names would be headed for prison. I laid out my assumptions and that 750 Billion figure fits the scenario.

 

Yes I believe if the Bush 'Immigration Reform Act' had been adopted, there would have been little to no 'financial crisis' or substantially limited. Thats opinion...where no politician could confirm if they wanted to.

[Pangloss]

The 4th item I get when I google that is a blog item about the Oregon Senate race. Google's funny that way, it shifts and changes frequently. I think I found it, though:

 

http://www.victoriataft.com/2008/10/mortgage-crisis-and-illegal-aliens.html

 

She doesn't make the assumption that they didn't do everything they could to pay those mortgages back, and that seems like a big stretch to me, but you're certainly entitled to your opinion. It doesn't make sense to me because it's not as if we throw people debter's prison anymore. Why would an illegal alien have to flee the country?

 

Yes I believe if the Bush 'Immigration Reform Act' had been adopted, there would have been little to no 'financial crisis' or substantially limited. Thats opinion...where no politician could confirm if they wanted to.

 

Then you're retracting your statement that it was a "misconception" on my part. Got it, thanks.

[npts2020]

Okay that's fine, but I think we've answered that question. It is reasonable for any nation to control its border and set limits on immigration in order to ensure that there is not a sudden and crushing impact on its economy, legal system, etc.

 

Which is why all developed nations do this, and in fact why all of them are more restrictive than ours.

 

 

On what do you base this statement? I have had several emigre friends tell me that it would have been easier to go almost anywhere else.

 

to npts2020: I'm not necessarily talking about immigrants - I'm talking about low paid jobs, it's just that these are very often filled by immigrants because the 'locals' refuse to work for such low wages.

 

Why would you want to 'import' doctors, lawyers, skilled workers etc if you have a population of your own that could fill any vacancies. As a short term fix it may be desirable (we have a shortage of Dentists in the UK for example), but in the longer term a state should be training its own population if there is a shortage.

 

Also, if you a rich you can get into most developed countries just fine!

 

 

Using homegrown talent is a good idea if you can wait long enough to do that and there is no substantial difference between homegrown and foriegn expertise. Would the Manhattan Project have succeeded in anywhere near the time it did if there were no foriegn scientists involved? IMO we are about to face similar challenges with the upgrading of our infrastructures, tackling global warming, etc. As society becomes ever more technical, are we likewise producing significantly more engineers and scientists?

[Pangloss]

Which is why all developed nations do this, and in fact why all of them are more restrictive than ours.

On what do you base this statement? I have had several emigre friends tell me that it would have been easier to go almost anywhere else.

 

I was basing it on the previously established fact that we allow more immigrants each year than any other country. I suppose it could be argued that more people try/want/attempt to come here, but that in part is based on a perception of whether or not they will be able to get in.

 

So I think it's a reasonable conclusion -- much more reasonable than, say, the opinions of a few people who thought it might have been easier to go elsewhere (but in fact came here, thus obviously limiting their direct experience with other systems).

[npts2020]

One would expect a nation of immigrants to allow more immigrants than any other and on a sheer numbers scale is probably true. However, would we expect a country like Andorra to allow as many immigrants as America? If you measure as a percentage of population or available land you are wrong as I have already mentioned several countries where rates as percentage of population is higher. Anecdotal evidence is not proof but I have personally dealt with U.S. INS on behalf of others and have never seen anything to contradict what I have been told by my friends. In your opinion what is a good rate for immigration and what should one have to do to qualify?

[Pangloss]

As a percentage of available land?! Immigrants aren't interested in 40 acres and a mule -- they settle cities same as everyone else. Those who do go to rural areas go there for agricultural job opportunities, not to settle unused land.

 

You're not wrong to suggest a higher immigration level -- that's your opinion and I respect it. I don't even disagree with the statement that we should allow a higher number through each year, or that the process should be easier to some degree (I don't know enough about the subject to agree or disagree, but I'm willing to consider it).

 

What I don't see is any evidence that what you admit to being an ideological demand for an open border would produce a positive impact on the economy.

[npts2020]

Pangloss: And you have not seen me comment about the effects of an open border, which is quite different from allowing any qualified applicant to gain citizenship. The problem comes when you don't inquire any further what "qualified applicant" means and assume it means anyone who applies. The current definitions used by DHS, are what I am talking about unless stated otherwise. I am probably a little slower than some but I still don't see where this sort of immigration has been discussed in most of the posts (not just yours) so far.

[Pangloss]

Sure, like I said you're welcome to discuss that. Please start a separate thread on it. I think it could be interesting to explore what constitutes valid qualifications for citizenship.