Arizona passes nation's toughest immigration law (1 Viewer)

[Card Trader]

Yep, I see changes on the horizon

 

[timschochet]

Yep, I see changes on the horizon

There is certainly a populist outcry over this issue and always has been. And conservatives will gain votes over it in the coming election. In fact, they might even ride it to success in 2012, and it may very well be the death knell for Barack Obama.But over the next several years, it will actually be the death knell for the Republican party. The reason is very simple: the majority of Democrats who are anti-illegal will not vote Republican based on this one issue. But the majority of Latino voters will vote Democrat based on this one issue. And that means the Democrats are going to start winning election after election in the Southwest. And since the southwest is the largest growing part of the country, that means the Republicans are going to have a very difficult time getting presidents elected.

 

[Card Trader]

Yep, I see changes on the horizon

There is certainly a populist outcry over this issue and always has been. And conservatives will gain votes over it in the coming election. In fact, they might even ride it to success in 2012, and it may very well be the death knell for Barack Obama.But over the next several years, it will actually be the death knell for the Republican party. The reason is very simple: the majority of Democrats who are anti-illegal will not vote Republican based on this one issue. But the majority of Latino voters will vote Democrat based on this one issue. And that means the Democrats are going to start winning election after election in the Southwest. And since the southwest is the largest growing part of the country, that means the Republicans are going to have a very difficult time getting presidents elected.

Good enough for me.

 

[timschochet]

Michael Medved is one conservative who agrees with me on this issue. Here is a fact he just reported on his radio show: as illegal immigration continues to decrease in Arizona, unemployment actually increases. This doesn't surprise me, but it contradicts standard thinking on this issue. The truth is, the more illegals you have in your state, the richer your economy is. When illegals are forced out, your economy sags.

 

[bg0546]

Illegal Immigration Costs U.S. $113 Billion a Year, Study Finds

By Ed Barnes

The cost of harboring illegal immigrants in the United States is a staggering $113 billion a year -- an average of $1,117 for every “native-headed” household in America -- according to a study conducted by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).

The study, a copy of which was provided to FoxNews.com, “is the first and most detailed look at the costs of illegal immigration ever done,” says Bob Dane, director of communications at FAIR, a conservative organization that seeks to end almost all immigration to the U.S.

FAIR's opponents in the bitter immigration debate describe the organization as "extremist," though it is regularly called upon to testify before Congress.

Groups that support immigration reform immediately attacked FAIR's report and pointed out that it is the polar opposite of the Perryman Report, a 2008 study that found illegal immigration was actually a boon to the American economy. It estimated that illegal immigrants add $245 billion in Gross Domestic Product to the economy and account for 2.8 million jobs.

The FAIR report comes as President Obama moves immigration reform to the top of his agenda, and it is likely to be a rallying point for those who oppose the president. At a speech Thursday at American University in Washington, D.C., Obama argued that the entire immigration system is broken and needs sweeping reforms. Among the changes he said are needed is "a path for [farm] workers to earn legal status," which the president's critics called an opening for a new amnesty program.

FAIR's report argues that there are two choices in the immigration debate: “One choice is pursuing a strategy that discourages future illegal migration and increasingly diminishes the current illegal alien population through denial of job opportunities and deportations. The other choice,” it says, “would repeat the unfortunate decision made in 1986 to adopt an amnesty that invited continued illegal migration.”

The report states that an amnesty program wouldn’t appreciably increase tax revenue and would cost massive amounts in Social Security and public assistance expenses. An amnesty “would therefore be an accentuation of the already enormous fiscal burden,” the report concludes.

The single largest cost to the government of illegal immigration, according to the report, is an estimated $52 billion spent on schooling the children of illegals. “Nearly all those costs are absorbed by state and local governments,’ the report states.

Moreover, the study’s breakdown of costs on a state-by-state basis shows that in states with the largest number of illegals, the costs of illegal immigration are often greater than current, crippling budget deficits. In Texas, for example, the additional cost of immigration, $16.4 billion, is equal to the state’s current budget deficit; in California the additional cost of illegal immigration, $21.8 billion, is $8 billion more than the state’s current budget deficit of $13.8 billion; and in New York, the $6.8 billion deficit is roughly two-thirds the $9.5 billion yearly cost of its illegal population, according to Jack Martin, the researcher who completed the study.

“The most important finding of the study is the enormous cost to state and local governments due to lack of enforcement of our immigration laws,” Martin wrote.

The report found that the federal government paid $28.6 billion in illegal related costs, and state and local governments paid $84.2 billion on an estimated 13 million undocumented residents. In his speech, Obama estimated that there are 11 million.

But FAIR's critics said the report wrongly included American-born children of undocumented workers in its study.

“The single biggest 'expense' it attributes to unauthorized immigrants is the education of their children, yet most of these children are native-born, U.S. citizens who will grow up to be taxpaying adults," said Walter Ewing, a senior researcher at the American Immigration Council. "It is disingenuous to count the cost of investing in the education of these children, so that they will earn higher incomes and pay more in taxes when they are adults, as if it were nothing more than a cost incurred by their parents."

He added that “the report fails to account for the purchasing power of unauthorized consumers, which supports U.S. businesses and U.S. jobs” and that it “ignores the value added to the U.S. economy by unauthorized workers, particularly in the service sector.”

Martin said FAIR expected that criticism, but that because the children are a direct result of illegal immigration, their inclusion was both fair and reasonable.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/02/immig...s-costs-reform/

 

[videoguy505]

On the issue of illegal immigration, I strongly disagree with the majority of the public. I think that I am right and they are wrong. I certainly wish this was not so; I would be much happier if a majority agreed with me. Does this make me egotistical? That's for you to decide.

Can I get the short version of this?

Tim doesn't think the borders should be monitored. Just leave it wide open.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I'm not trying to figure out how the court system will tackle this, I just offered what appears to be the argument that the federal government will make.

No, you made a snarky comment implying that Congress was okay with the Executive branch's inaction with respect to immigration laws because Congress hadn't been holding hearings.

Without some kind of evidence of Congress acting as a body in some official fashion to assert that Congress is not okay with the Executive branch's actions or inactions, how does one conclude otherwise? Absent some evidence to the contrary, how are the actions of the executive branch distinguishable from the intent of Congress?I'm guessing your answer is parsing the language of the law. That doesn't seem to me to be the correct, or at least the complete test for this since we are not talking about law Congress enacted any time recently nor are we talking about recent administrative policy changes in the enforcement.

 

[timschochet]

Illegal Immigration Costs U.S. $113 Billion a Year, Study Finds

By Ed Barnes

The cost of harboring illegal immigrants in the United States is a staggering $113 billion a year -- an average of $1,117 for every “native-headed” household in America -- according to a study conducted by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).

The study, a copy of which was provided to FoxNews.com, “is the first and most detailed look at the costs of illegal immigration ever done,” says Bob Dane, director of communications at FAIR, a conservative organization that seeks to end almost all immigration to the U.S.

FAIR's opponents in the bitter immigration debate describe the organization as "extremist," though it is regularly called upon to testify before Congress.

Groups that support immigration reform immediately attacked FAIR's report and pointed out that it is the polar opposite of the Perryman Report, a 2008 study that found illegal immigration was actually a boon to the American economy. It estimated that illegal immigrants add $245 billion in Gross Domestic Product to the economy and account for 2.8 million jobs.

The FAIR report comes as President Obama moves immigration reform to the top of his agenda, and it is likely to be a rallying point for those who oppose the president. At a speech Thursday at American University in Washington, D.C., Obama argued that the entire immigration system is broken and needs sweeping reforms. Among the changes he said are needed is "a path for [farm] workers to earn legal status," which the president's critics called an opening for a new amnesty program.

FAIR's report argues that there are two choices in the immigration debate: “One choice is pursuing a strategy that discourages future illegal migration and increasingly diminishes the current illegal alien population through denial of job opportunities and deportations. The other choice,” it says, “would repeat the unfortunate decision made in 1986 to adopt an amnesty that invited continued illegal migration.”

The report states that an amnesty program wouldn’t appreciably increase tax revenue and would cost massive amounts in Social Security and public assistance expenses. An amnesty “would therefore be an accentuation of the already enormous fiscal burden,” the report concludes.

The single largest cost to the government of illegal immigration, according to the report, is an estimated $52 billion spent on schooling the children of illegals. “Nearly all those costs are absorbed by state and local governments,’ the report states.

Moreover, the study’s breakdown of costs on a state-by-state basis shows that in states with the largest number of illegals, the costs of illegal immigration are often greater than current, crippling budget deficits. In Texas, for example, the additional cost of immigration, $16.4 billion, is equal to the state’s current budget deficit; in California the additional cost of illegal immigration, $21.8 billion, is $8 billion more than the state’s current budget deficit of $13.8 billion; and in New York, the $6.8 billion deficit is roughly two-thirds the $9.5 billion yearly cost of its illegal population, according to Jack Martin, the researcher who completed the study.

“The most important finding of the study is the enormous cost to state and local governments due to lack of enforcement of our immigration laws,” Martin wrote.

The report found that the federal government paid $28.6 billion in illegal related costs, and state and local governments paid $84.2 billion on an estimated 13 million undocumented residents. In his speech, Obama estimated that there are 11 million.

But FAIR's critics said the report wrongly included American-born children of undocumented workers in its study.

“The single biggest 'expense' it attributes to unauthorized immigrants is the education of their children, yet most of these children are native-born, U.S. citizens who will grow up to be taxpaying adults," said Walter Ewing, a senior researcher at the American Immigration Council. "It is disingenuous to count the cost of investing in the education of these children, so that they will earn higher incomes and pay more in taxes when they are adults, as if it were nothing more than a cost incurred by their parents."

He added that “the report fails to account for the purchasing power of unauthorized consumers, which supports U.S. businesses and U.S. jobs” and that it “ignores the value added to the U.S. economy by unauthorized workers, particularly in the service sector.”

Martin said FAIR expected that criticism, but that because the children are a direct result of illegal immigration, their inclusion was both fair and reasonable.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/02/immig...s-costs-reform/

FAIR's studies never look at the benefits gained by the presence of these people, only the costs. The benefits to our economy far outweigh the costs, as every all-encompassing study has demonstrated.

 

[bg0546]

FAIR's studies never look at the benefits gained by the presence of these people, only the costs. The benefits to our economy far outweigh the costs, as every all-encompassing study has demonstrated.

BS. I asked you the other day, twice, to post a link to the supposed article where you seem to get all your information from. You ignored both requests. What a surprise. Now I'll ask you again to post a link to some of these "all-encompassing studies" you're alluding to. I'll bet you won't.

 

[Christo]

Michael Medved is one conservative who agrees with me on this issue. Here is a fact he just reported on his radio show: as illegal immigration continues to decrease in Arizona, unemployment actually increases. This doesn't surprise me, but it contradicts standard thinking on this issue. The truth is, the more illegals you have in your state, the richer your economy is. When illegals are forced out, your economy sags.

Who cares? I don't need to make an economic argument to justify my belief that illegals are here illegally and should be removed.

 

[timschochet]

FAIR's studies never look at the benefits gained by the presence of these people, only the costs. The benefits to our economy far outweigh the costs, as every all-encompassing study has demonstrated.

BS. I asked you the other day, twice, to post a link to the supposed article where you seem to get all your information from. You ignored both requests. What a surprise. Now I'll ask you again to post a link to some of these "all-encompassing studies" you're alluding to. I'll bet you won't.

I have posted studies here in the past on more than one occasion. When I have time I'll look them up again. I'm happy to do so.

 

[timschochet]

Michael Medved is one conservative who agrees with me on this issue. Here is a fact he just reported on his radio show: as illegal immigration continues to decrease in Arizona, unemployment actually increases. This doesn't surprise me, but it contradicts standard thinking on this issue. The truth is, the more illegals you have in your state, the richer your economy is. When illegals are forced out, your economy sags.

Who cares? I don't need to make an economic argument to justify my belief that illegals are here illegally and should be removed.

If the cost to remove them is greater than the gain, then yes you need to make that argument, at least that they should be removed. Otherwise, let's just agree that yes, they are here illegally and should be punished for it. So let them pay a fine, plead guilty to a misdemeanor, and then allow them to stay.

 

[bg0546]

FAIR's studies never look at the benefits gained by the presence of these people, only the costs. The benefits to our economy far outweigh the costs, as every all-encompassing study has demonstrated.

BS. I asked you the other day, twice, to post a link to the supposed article where you seem to get all your information from. You ignored both requests. What a surprise. Now I'll ask you again to post a link to some of these "all-encompassing studies" you're alluding to. I'll bet you won't.

I have posted studies here in the past on more than one occasion. When I have time I'll look them up again. I'm happy to do so.

Sure you will. How about the article I requested you post a link to twice in the other immigration thread? I mean, it was in a thread YOU started (surprising lol). One would think that if you're going to start a thread that you'd be responsive to requests for substantiation of assertions you make. Here's a link to the thread for your convenience:http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...0&start=100

 

[bg0546]

If the cost to remove them is greater than the gain, then yes you need to make that argument, at least that they should be removed. Otherwise, let's just agree that yes, they are here illegally and should be punished for it. So let them pay a fine, plead guilty to a misdemeanor, and then allow them to stay.

The only problem with this is that any analysis from you open borders people about the cost of removing them always works on the assumption that we're going to round them all up and deport them. Not to mention the FACT that even if it were proven to be cost effective you wouldn't care. So why bother?

 

[scoobygang]

Not a slam dunk for either side.

I'm a little surprised nobody has mentioned Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council or some of the similar line of cases more explicitly dealing with the foreign affairs power. I do think this is a tough case, and I think most of the articles I've seen posted have made some pretty bogus distinctions (such as the Congressional law/administration policy distinction when the enabling statute clearly gives the INS authority to enforce the immigration laws). I've seen a lot of cases talk about whether there is a direct conflict and almost none talk about field preemption.

 

[timschochet]

I have posted studies here in the past on more than one occasion. When I have time I'll look them up again. I'm happy to do so.

Here is a summary of a study by AmericanAffairs magazine from July 2009 on the economic benefits of illegal immigration:The economic benefits of illegal immigration are two-fold: taxes and spending.

Taxes

The Social Security Administration believes that about half of unauthorized immigrants pay Social Security Taxes. A 2005 New York Times piece reported that over 9 million W-2 wage forms with incorrect or false Social Security Numbers were turned into the government in 2002, a reasonable benchmark for the number of undocumented workers. These represented some $56 billion dollars in earnings, $6 billion in Social Security taxes and $1.5 billion for Medicare.

Naturally, the exact tax numbers for illegal immigrants are hard to establish, but at least it is clear they are paying into the system.

Consumption

Something else that many opponents of illegal immigration forget or choose to ignore is the consumer power of this group. UCLA's Raul Hinojosa is quoted in BusinessWeek estimating that "the total goods and services they consume ... plus all they produce for their employers, is close to about $800 billion."

Some argue that much of what illegal immigrants make doesn't benefit the U.S. economy because it is sent back to their families in Mexico and other countries in the form of remittances. Even considering the $42 billion that the World Bank says left the United States (in 2006) as remittances, that is only about 10% of illegal immigrants' wages, says Hinojosa. That leaves about $400-450 billion of that is consumptive capacity staying in the U.S.

Impact on Labor Force

Andrew Sum, an economist at Northeastern University in Boston, adds another dimension to this issue. Though he does acknowledge that the large supply of (illegal) immigrants in the U.S. has likely displaced low-skilled native workers, that the relative youth and higher birth rate of immigrants has been key to dynamism and growth in the labor force. "Without the immigrants," Sum told CNNMoney.com, "we would have a decline in labor force of 3 to 4 percent. We couldn't have grown nearly as much as we did in the '90s."

This idea is part of a broader demographic shift that is taking place in America. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Hispanics - by far the largest group of immigrants - will represent 45 percent of population growth between now and 2030 and 60% of growth from 2030 to 2050. Whites, in comparison, will contribute about 14% of overall population growth between now and 2030 and are slated to begin declining in absolute numbers after that

 

[bg0546]

I have posted studies here in the past on more than one occasion. When I have time I'll look them up again. I'm happy to do so.

Here is a summary of a study by AmericanAffairs magazine from July 2009 on the economic benefits of illegal immigration:The economic benefits of illegal immigration are two-fold: taxes and spending.

Taxes

The Social Security Administration believes that about half of unauthorized immigrants pay Social Security Taxes. A 2005 New York Times piece reported that over 9 million W-2 wage forms with incorrect or false Social Security Numbers were turned into the government in 2002, a reasonable benchmark for the number of undocumented workers. These represented some $56 billion dollars in earnings, $6 billion in Social Security taxes and $1.5 billion for Medicare.

Naturally, the exact tax numbers for illegal immigrants are hard to establish, but at least it is clear they are paying into the system.

Consumption

Something else that many opponents of illegal immigration forget or choose to ignore is the consumer power of this group. UCLA's Raul Hinojosa is quoted in BusinessWeek estimating that "the total goods and services they consume ... plus all they produce for their employers, is close to about $800 billion."

Some argue that much of what illegal immigrants make doesn't benefit the U.S. economy because it is sent back to their families in Mexico and other countries in the form of remittances. Even considering the $42 billion that the World Bank says left the United States (in 2006) as remittances, that is only about 10% of illegal immigrants' wages, says Hinojosa. That leaves about $400-450 billion of that is consumptive capacity staying in the U.S.

Impact on Labor Force

Andrew Sum, an economist at Northeastern University in Boston, adds another dimension to this issue. Though he does acknowledge that the large supply of (illegal) immigrants in the U.S. has likely displaced low-skilled native workers, that the relative youth and higher birth rate of immigrants has been key to dynamism and growth in the labor force. "Without the immigrants," Sum told CNNMoney.com, "we would have a decline in labor force of 3 to 4 percent. We couldn't have grown nearly as much as we did in the '90s."

This idea is part of a broader demographic shift that is taking place in America. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Hispanics - by far the largest group of immigrants - will represent 45 percent of population growth between now and 2030 and 60% of growth from 2030 to 2050. Whites, in comparison, will contribute about 14% of overall population growth between now and 2030 and are slated to begin declining in absolute numbers after that

1) Link?2) You blast FAIR for supposedly ignoring the benefits of illegal immigration, and your defense of such bashing is citing a study that ONLY looks at the benefits but not the costs?

Well, I guess that's what classifies as an "all-encompassing study" in your eyes.

Wow.

 

[PolishNorbi]

FAIR's studies never look at the benefits gained by the presence of these people, only the costs. The benefits to our economy far outweigh the costs, as every all-encompassing study has demonstrated.

BS. I asked you the other day, twice, to post a link to the supposed article where you seem to get all your information from. You ignored both requests. What a surprise. Now I'll ask you again to post a link to some of these "all-encompassing studies" you're alluding to. I'll bet you won't.

The quote that is provided says the Perryman Report 2008 talks about that matter.Here is a quick google-fu: http://www.americansforimmigrationreform.c...d_Workforce.pdf

 

[timschochet]

So let's take the most conservative numbers from the figures I've posted, and the most liberal numbers from FAIR: they're costing us 116 billion, but are paying roughly half that (at least) in taxes. And they are spending at least 400 billion in the United States. So that means, for a cost of 60 billion, America is 400 billion dollars richer...hmm. Seems like, at the very worst, a pretty good investment.

 

[timschochet]

FAIR's studies never look at the benefits gained by the presence of these people, only the costs. The benefits to our economy far outweigh the costs, as every all-encompassing study has demonstrated.

BS. I asked you the other day, twice, to post a link to the supposed article where you seem to get all your information from. You ignored both requests. What a surprise. Now I'll ask you again to post a link to some of these "all-encompassing studies" you're alluding to. I'll bet you won't.

The quote that is provided says the Perryman Report 2008 talks about that matter.Here is a quick google-fu: http://www.americansforimmigrationreform.c...d_Workforce.pdf

Thank you for linking this. I've seen it before. From the report:For the US as a whole, the immediate negative effect of

eliminating the undocumented workforce would include an

estimated

o $1.757 trillion in annual lost spending,

o $651.511 billion in annual lost output, and

o 8.1 million lost jobs.

 

[PolishNorbi]

So let's take the most conservative numbers from the figures I've posted, and the most liberal numbers from FAIR: they're costing us 116 billion, but are paying roughly half that (at least) in taxes. And they are spending at least 400 billion in the United States. So that means, for a cost of 60 billion, America is 400 billion dollars richer...hmm. Seems like, at the very worst, a pretty good investment.

More importantly, they help keep prices of products low for everyone.

 

[bg0546]

So let's take the most conservative numbers from the figures I've posted, and the most liberal numbers from FAIR: they're costing us 116 billion, but are paying roughly half that (at least) in taxes. And they are spending at least 400 billion in the United States. So that means, for a cost of 60 billion, America is 400 billion dollars richer...hmm. Seems like, at the very worst, a pretty good investment.

More importantly, they help keep prices of products low for everyone.

This is a load of bull. Good talking point though.

 

[bg0546]

FAIR's studies never look at the benefits gained by the presence of these people, only the costs. The benefits to our economy far outweigh the costs, as every all-encompassing study has demonstrated.

BS. I asked you the other day, twice, to post a link to the supposed article where you seem to get all your information from. You ignored both requests. What a surprise. Now I'll ask you again to post a link to some of these "all-encompassing studies" you're alluding to. I'll bet you won't.

The quote that is provided says the Perryman Report 2008 talks about that matter.Here is a quick google-fu: http://www.americansforimmigrationreform.c...d_Workforce.pdf

That's not the article link I request, nor is it an "all encompassing study."

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Illegal Immigration Costs U.S. $113 Billion a Year, Study Finds

By Ed Barnes

The cost of harboring illegal immigrants in the United States is a staggering $113 billion a year -- an average of $1,117 for every “native-headed” household in America -- according to a study conducted by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/02/immig...s-costs-reform/

This is the study where education costs for children of "illegals" represent about $52 billion - correct? Children that include many, if not are predominately American citizens? Don't you see a fatal flaw in this study right off the bat?ETA: And after reading through dozens of these studies I come to the opinion that the calculated cost-benefits are negligible either way. I'm sure there are some local blips where a community benefits or pays a higher costs (Arizona is probably not one of these), but on the whole illegal immigrants simply provide employers a labor force that is mobile enough to be available when and where it is needed.

 

[PolishNorbi]

So let's take the most conservative numbers from the figures I've posted, and the most liberal numbers from FAIR: they're costing us 116 billion, but are paying roughly half that (at least) in taxes. And they are spending at least 400 billion in the United States. So that means, for a cost of 60 billion, America is 400 billion dollars richer...hmm. Seems like, at the very worst, a pretty good investment.

More importantly, they help keep prices of products low for everyone.

This is a load of bull. Good talking point though.

Really?Explain to me why a company would hire a "illegal" working on legal papers, or no papers, if they could get legal labor at the same price? They can't. Whatever the business pays in increase you will pay. For example, landscaper charges you $50/mo to come out and maintain your property. If they now have to pay $10/hr for labor vs. $6/hr, and your property takes 4 hrs a month to maintain, you think that company is going to eat the $16 increase? Hell no they won't. And don't say "well I don't use illegals on any of my work" because probably one of the pieces of food you consumed today had something to do with an illegal.Edit -- Spelling.

 

[bg0546]

So let's take the most conservative numbers from the figures I've posted, and the most liberal numbers from FAIR: they're costing us 116 billion, but are paying roughly half that (at least) in taxes. And they are spending at least 400 billion in the United States. So that means, for a cost of 60 billion, America is 400 billion dollars richer...hmm. Seems like, at the very worst, a pretty good investment.

More importantly, they help keep prices of products low for everyone.

This is a load of bull. Good talking point though.

Really?Explain to me why a company would hire a "illegal" working on legal papers, or no papers, if they could get legal labor at the same price? They can't. Whatever the business pays in increase you will pay. For example, landscaper charges you $50/mo to come out and maintain your property. If they now have to pay $10/hr for labor vs. $6/hr, and your property takes 4 hrs a month to maintain, you think that company is going to eat the $16 increase? Hell no they won't. And don't say "well I don't use illegals on any of my work" because probably one of the pieces of food you consumed today had something to do with an illegal.Edit -- Spelling.

Again, good talking point. A study came out about 2 years ago that showed that if we didn't have illegals the average family would pay $5/YEAR more for their groceries. So, while the costs might go up it would be insignificant. The use of illegals just allows those companies using them to pad their profits. Oh, and of course, if you're in favor of paying illegals less than minimum wage what you're really saying is you believe in human exploitation. You probably believe in slavery as well.

 

[Soonerman]

Yep, I see changes on the horizon

There is certainly a populist outcry over this issue and always has been. And conservatives will gain votes over it in the coming election. In fact, they might even ride it to success in 2012, and it may very well be the death knell for Barack Obama.But over the next several years, it will actually be the death knell for the Republican party. The reason is very simple: the majority of Democrats who are anti-illegal will not vote Republican based on this one issue. But the majority of Latino voters will vote Democrat based on this one issue. And that means the Democrats are going to start winning election after election in the Southwest. And since the southwest is the largest growing part of the country, that means the Republicans are going to have a very difficult time getting presidents elected.

It will also be the death knell for any kind of limited government whatsoever. Libertarians who support open borders need to think a moment about how all those illegals and their descendants are going to vote. It certainly won't be for candidates favring economic freedom.

 

[Adebisi]

...if you're in favor of paying illegals less than minimum wage what you're really saying is you believe in human exploitation.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

...if you're in favor of paying illegals less than minimum wage what you're really saying is you believe in human exploitation.

What does that make those in favor of abolishing the minimum wage?

 

[bg0546]

...if you're in favor of paying illegals less than minimum wage what you're really saying is you believe in human exploitation.

What does that make those in favor of abolishing the minimum wage?

Law abiding citizens?

 

[Adebisi]

...if you're in favor of paying illegals less than minimum wage what you're really saying is you believe in human exploitation.

What does that make those in favor of abolishing the minimum wage?

Landscaping company owners.

 

[Christo]

Michael Medved is one conservative who agrees with me on this issue. Here is a fact he just reported on his radio show: as illegal immigration continues to decrease in Arizona, unemployment actually increases. This doesn't surprise me, but it contradicts standard thinking on this issue. The truth is, the more illegals you have in your state, the richer your economy is. When illegals are forced out, your economy sags.

Who cares? I don't need to make an economic argument to justify my belief that illegals are here illegally and should be removed.

If the cost to remove them is greater than the gain, then yes you need to make that argument, at least that they should be removed.

No, I don't.

Otherwise, let's just agree that yes, they are here illegally and should be punished for it. So let them pay a fine, plead guilty to a misdemeanor, and then allow them to stay.

 

[Statorama]

Yep, I see changes on the horizon

There is certainly a populist outcry over this issue and always has been. And conservatives will gain votes over it in the coming election. In fact, they might even ride it to success in 2012, and it may very well be the death knell for Barack Obama.But over the next several years, it will actually be the death knell for the Republican party. The reason is very simple: the majority of Democrats who are anti-illegal will not vote Republican based on this one issue. But the majority of Latino voters will vote Democrat based on this one issue. And that means the Democrats are going to start winning election after election in the Southwest. And since the southwest is the largest growing part of the country, that means the Republicans are going to have a very difficult time getting presidents elected.

I always thought educated voters would make an educated decision, but Obama put a kink in that hose. Is Obama the anomoly? He was obviously the least qualified person to be President in the history of the office, yet he got elected anyway. People get hooped up into hysteria and sometimes make foolish decisions.Republicans just need to keep educating the voting public and stick to what they say once they get in power. The public as a whole believe in the capitalistic free market approach, with lower taxes and a pro-growth environment. They believe in a government that regulates where necessary but otherwise stays out of the publics way and that handouts are for people that need them, not just people that expect them. Those are some of the bedrocks of the Republican party. If they stick to their word this time around, the public will respond accordingly.

 

[PolishNorbi]

So let's take the most conservative numbers from the figures I've posted, and the most liberal numbers from FAIR: they're costing us 116 billion, but are paying roughly half that (at least) in taxes. And they are spending at least 400 billion in the United States. So that means, for a cost of 60 billion, America is 400 billion dollars richer...hmm. Seems like, at the very worst, a pretty good investment.

More importantly, they help keep prices of products low for everyone.

This is a load of bull. Good talking point though.

Really?Explain to me why a company would hire a "illegal" working on legal papers, or no papers, if they could get legal labor at the same price? They can't. Whatever the business pays in increase you will pay. For example, landscaper charges you $50/mo to come out and maintain your property. If they now have to pay $10/hr for labor vs. $6/hr, and your property takes 4 hrs a month to maintain, you think that company is going to eat the $16 increase? Hell no they won't. And don't say "well I don't use illegals on any of my work" because probably one of the pieces of food you consumed today had something to do with an illegal.Edit -- Spelling.

Again, good talking point. A study came out about 2 years ago that showed that if we didn't have illegals the average family would pay $5/YEAR more for their groceries. So, while the costs might go up it would be insignificant. The use of illegals just allows those companies using them to pad their profits. Oh, and of course, if you're in favor of paying illegals less than minimum wage what you're really saying is you believe in human exploitation. You probably believe in slavery as well.

Mininum wage is for citizens of the US. If I can hire a worker for $5/hr and he is #### grin happy about it because it is the equivalent of him making $10/hr in his own country, then why wouldn't I?Can you link to that study, I would love to read it.In the current times, companies don't pad their profits, they are skimming every penny to get by. My company went from 25% profit down to 9%, and that includes BEGGING our vendors to reduce their prices.

 

[bg0546]

Mininum wage is for citizens of the US. If I can hire a worker for $5/hr and he is #### grin happy about it because it is the equivalent of him making $10/hr in his own country, then why wouldn't I?

So you're ok with taking advantage of people as long as they're from another country? Nice.

Can you link to that study, I would love to read it.

I posted it when it came out.

 

[PolishNorbi]

Mininum wage is for citizens of the US. If I can hire a worker for $5/hr and he is #### grin happy about it because it is the equivalent of him making $10/hr in his own country, then why wouldn't I?

So you're ok with taking advantage of people as long as they're from another country? Nice.

Can you link to that study, I would love to read it.

I posted it when it came out.

Its not taking advantage of anyone. For example, you can have a great programmer who has lack of experience. They may be worth $50k, but if a company offers $40k and that person takes it, is that company taking advantage of them? No, both parties agreed to it.Ill try to find that study cause I would be curious to read it. Simple math of $5 of $5,000 on groceries spent a year means only the increases only effects .1% of the product. Seems a bit low.

 

[timschochet]

From the Los Angeles Times:

Arizona's law giving local police immigration enforcement powers is likely to be struck down, most legal experts predict, now that the Obama administration has gone to court asserting that it conflicts with federal law.

They cite the longstanding principle that the federal government has exclusive control over immigration and that "no state can add or take away" from the policy set in Washington.

However, they caution that one large uncertainty is that the current Supreme Court has not ruled directly on such a state-federal clash over immigration.

Traditionally, the federal government's view carries extra weight in disputes over immigration.

"It's one thing for MALDEF [Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund] or the ACLU to say this [Arizona law] interferes with federal policy. It is quite a different thing when the federal government goes to court and says it," said Jack Chin, a University of Arizona law professor. "The clear rule has been that states do not have the power to regulate immigration."

Arizona's leaders have said their law does not conflict with federal immigration policy. However, the Justice Department argued that the state exceeded its authority by making it a state crime for an illegal immigrant to apply for a job or to be caught without immigration papers. Such "unlawful presence" is a civil violation, not a federal crime, and thus the state cannot make this immigration violation into a crime, the department contended.

The administration also asserted that the federal policy is to target "dangerous aliens" such as violent criminals, fugitives and gang members, rather than to arrest and deport the millions of illegal immigrants living in this country.

"There is a tension between the federal policy and the state of Arizona," said Washington lawyer Paul Virtue, former general counsel for the Immigration and Naturalization Service, an agency that no longer exists. "The state is setting different priorities and different penalties."

The Constitution authorizes Congress to set a "uniform rule of naturalization" and says the laws of the United States are the "supreme law of the land." The Justice Department cites this basic provision in arguing why the Arizona law should be declared "invalid, null and void."

In one famous case, the Supreme Court in 1941 threw out a Pennsylvania law that required immigrants to carry an "alien identification card." The justices ruled that the state had no such authority.

In recent years, some states and cities have sought to enforce restrictions on illegal immigrants on the basis that the federal government had failed to enforce the existing laws.

Most of those efforts have run aground, however. A federal judge in Los Angeles blocked California's Proposition 187 from taking effect in 1994 on the grounds that it regulated immigration. The state dropped its appeal before the case was decided by an appellate court. Three years ago, a federal judge blocked Hazleton, Pa., from prohibiting illegal immigrants from renting housing.

Some legal experts think the Supreme Court may be ready to reconsider the issue.

"This is an unsettled area of constitutional jurisprudence. The last major pronouncement on the question was against a completely different landscape," said Temple University law professor Peter Spiro. The justices "may be willing to cut [states] some slack in the face of Washington's now persistent failure to deal with immigration reform."

On June 28, the high court announced it will hear a separate Arizona immigration case in the fall. The Arizona Legislature voted to take away the business licenses of employers who continue to knowingly hire illegal workers. To the surprise of many, a federal district court judge and the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that law, citing a provision in the 1996 law passed by Congress.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce appealed and won the backing of the Obama administration. The court then voted to hear the case.

The current court also may view more favorably the Arizona law giving police more arrest authority.

"It wouldn't surprise me that five members of the court would think that the mere enforcement of immigration law does not change immigration law," said John Eastman, dean of the Chapman University School of Law.

Arizona's lawyers say their law, due to take effect July 29, would not conflict with federal law because it authorizes police during a lawful stop to question a person when there is a "reasonable suspicion" he or she is here illegally.

If a judge blocks the measure from taking effect, the state can immediately appeal to the 9th Circuit Court. The state may also seek a quick appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court if that fails.

 

[timschochet]

The L.A. Times article is one of several. I am pretty confident at this point that the judge in question will block the law, and that the 9th Circuit will agree. It will then go to the Supreme Court. Will they uphold the law? Hopefully not, but we'll see.

 

[bg0546]

Mininum wage is for citizens of the US. If I can hire a worker for $5/hr and he is #### grin happy about it because it is the equivalent of him making $10/hr in his own country, then why wouldn't I?

So you're ok with taking advantage of people as long as they're from another country? Nice.

Can you link to that study, I would love to read it.

I posted it when it came out.

Its not taking advantage of anyone. For example, you can have a great programmer who has lack of experience. They may be worth $50k, but if a company offers $40k and that person takes it, is that company taking advantage of them? No, both parties agreed to it.Ill try to find that study cause I would be curious to read it. Simple math of $5 of $5,000 on groceries spent a year means only the increases only effects .1% of the product. Seems a bit low.

We have a legally mandated minimum wage. Paying below it is not only taking advantage of someone it's ILLEGAL. The fact that even at those depressed wage levels an illegal may make more than he could in Mexico doesn't change those facts. Hey, justify your willingness to exploit the poor all you want. If that's what it takes to get you through the day.

 

[Arch Stanton]

So it's pretty safe to say based on the DOJ's challenge to the AZ law, that they couldn't actually find any problems with it? I mean, if the law was as racist as they all claimed it was, couldn't they have worked that angle if it were true?

I don't see this at all. From what I understand, the Department of Justice HAS to challenge the law based on the Supremacy clause, because immigration is a federal, not a state issue. Despite Christo's assertion to the contrary, the question of whether or not an individual state has the right to pass laws which specifically re-interpret federal laws is an open one, and needs to be resolved in court. That is the argument being made. Any federal administration, be it Republican or Democrat, would challenge this law.

It just seems like they're proving Arizona's point. The state of AZ needed to create this law to do the job the Feds refuse to do and now the DOJ confirmed this.

Well again I disagree with you. There was no need for AZ to create this law. There is no problem in AZ that demands such a draconian law.

This is just wrong. There are, by estimates I've read, approximately half a million illegals in Arizona. According to federal law, it is the federal government's responsibility to ensure that doesn't happen. You can say it's not a big problem, or there are bigger priorities, or that it shouldn't be a law in the first place. However, all of that only sugar coats the fact that the law says that there shouldn't be half a million illegals in Arizona and that it's the federal government's responsibility to fix it.

Why isn't Arizona posting it's own troops at the border then, to stem the flood of drug bearing immigrants who murder border ranchers? What good is carding and deporting some dude at Home Depot in Phoenix going to do to stop the influx?

 

[Arch Stanton]

Mininum wage is for citizens of the US. If I can hire a worker for $5/hr and he is #### grin happy about it because it is the equivalent of him making $10/hr in his own country, then why wouldn't I?

So you're ok with taking advantage of people as long as they're from another country? Nice.

Can you link to that study, I would love to read it.

I posted it when it came out.

Its not taking advantage of anyone. For example, you can have a great programmer who has lack of experience. They may be worth $50k, but if a company offers $40k and that person takes it, is that company taking advantage of them? No, both parties agreed to it.Ill try to find that study cause I would be curious to read it. Simple math of $5 of $5,000 on groceries spent a year means only the increases only effects .1% of the product. Seems a bit low.

Yes, you are, and more than just the illegal you hire. Just because you serve a hungry man a #### sandwich doesn't mean you aren't taking advantage of them. People like you that will hire someone at such a rate are creating the demand which lures people across the border and you're supporting the system of non-taxpayers receiving tax funded benefits.

 

[timschochet]

We have a legally mandated minimum wage. Paying below it is not only taking advantage of someone it's ILLEGAL. The fact that even at those depressed wage levels an illegal may make more than he could in Mexico doesn't change those facts. Hey, justify your willingness to exploit the poor all you want. If that's what it takes to get you through the day.

There is a reason why every prominent economist who is not a socialist is opposed to a minimum wage. Attempting to fix wages is a form of taxation. Like all other attempts to fix prices, it doesn't work, because the cost of living simply adjusts itself to the prices you set. If you raised the minimum wage to $50 an hour, that would not earn anyone more money, because very quickly the costs of goods would go up just as quickly.All minimum wage does is create a vacuum, a black market, and into this market illegal immigrants jump. You are correct there is certainly some exploitation, but exploitation doesn't dominate the marketplace; otherwise the illegals would not be here in such numbers. They're here because the income they receive here is an improvement on their economic conditions where they come from. As they gain more spending power, their conditions will continue to improve, and both they and we will become wealthier and prosper as a result. That is, if you just leave them alone and allow capitalism, free trade, and free labor to work without your proposed interference.

 

[bg0546]

We have a legally mandated minimum wage. Paying below it is not only taking advantage of someone it's ILLEGAL. The fact that even at those depressed wage levels an illegal may make more than he could in Mexico doesn't change those facts. Hey, justify your willingness to exploit the poor all you want. If that's what it takes to get you through the day.

There is a reason why every prominent economist who is not a socialist is opposed to a minimum wage. Attempting to fix wages is a form of taxation. Like all other attempts to fix prices, it doesn't work, because the cost of living simply adjusts itself to the prices you set. If you raised the minimum wage to $50 an hour, that would not earn anyone more money, because very quickly the costs of goods would go up just as quickly.All minimum wage does is create a vacuum, a black market, and into this market illegal immigrants jump. You are correct there is certainly some exploitation, but exploitation doesn't dominate the marketplace; otherwise the illegals would not be here in such numbers. They're here because the income they receive here is an improvement on their economic conditions where they come from. As they gain more spending power, their conditions will continue to improve, and both they and we will become wealthier and prosper as a result. That is, if you just leave them alone and allow capitalism, free trade, and free labor to work without your proposed interference.

I have not made an argument for or against a minimum wage. The bottom line is that we have one. If you want to get rid of it get rid of it. Your problem, baby Timothy, is that you make up your own rules as you go along. Some of us live in the real world and in that world you have to work within the constraints society decides on or change them. As long as we have a minimum wage paying below it is exploitation and ILLEGAL. You constantly suggest that it's ok to break laws you don't agree with. Do you find it acceptable if I murder someone simply because I don't agree with the law against it?

 

[RCon]

Well again I disagree with you. There was no need for AZ to create this law. There is no problem in AZ that demands such a draconian law.

This is just wrong. There are, by estimates I've read, approximately half a million illegals in Arizona. According to federal law, it is the federal government's responsibility to ensure that doesn't happen. You can say it's not a big problem, or there are bigger priorities, or that it shouldn't be a law in the first place. However, all of that only sugar coats the fact that the law says that there shouldn't be half a million illegals in Arizona and that it's the federal government's responsibility to fix it.

Why isn't Arizona posting it's own troops at the border then, to stem the flood of drug bearing immigrants who murder border ranchers? What good is carding and deporting some dude at Home Depot in Phoenix going to do to stop the influx?

Your answer doesn't really have anything to do with what I posted. Whether or not Arizona (or anyone else) does any specific thing to address a problem, doesn't speak to whether a problem exists.Upon re-reading timschochet's prior post in this chain, however, I notice that I misinterpreted what he wrote anyway. I read it as him saying "there is no problem", rather than "any problem that exists is not so great as to...". There is a problem, and that isn't debatable. The extent of the problem, and whether Arizona's new law is justified or does anything to fix the problem can be debated.

 

[timschochet]

We have a legally mandated minimum wage. Paying below it is not only taking advantage of someone it's ILLEGAL. The fact that even at those depressed wage levels an illegal may make more than he could in Mexico doesn't change those facts. Hey, justify your willingness to exploit the poor all you want. If that's what it takes to get you through the day.

There is a reason why every prominent economist who is not a socialist is opposed to a minimum wage. Attempting to fix wages is a form of taxation. Like all other attempts to fix prices, it doesn't work, because the cost of living simply adjusts itself to the prices you set. If you raised the minimum wage to $50 an hour, that would not earn anyone more money, because very quickly the costs of goods would go up just as quickly.All minimum wage does is create a vacuum, a black market, and into this market illegal immigrants jump. You are correct there is certainly some exploitation, but exploitation doesn't dominate the marketplace; otherwise the illegals would not be here in such numbers. They're here because the income they receive here is an improvement on their economic conditions where they come from. As they gain more spending power, their conditions will continue to improve, and both they and we will become wealthier and prosper as a result. That is, if you just leave them alone and allow capitalism, free trade, and free labor to work without your proposed interference.

I have not made an argument for or against a minimum wage. The bottom line is that we have one. If you want to get rid of it get rid of it. Your problem, baby Timothy, is that you make up your own rules as you go along. Some of us live in the real world and in that world you have to work within the constraints society decides on or change them. As long as we have a minimum wage paying below it is exploitation and ILLEGAL. You constantly suggest that it's ok to break laws you don't agree with. Do you find it acceptable if I murder someone simply because I don't agree with the law against it?

I am trying to accept reality. The illegals are here. They're here because they fill a void. You and I may disagree about whether or not it's a good thing that they're here (and I suspect we do) but that doesn't change the fact that they're here. The question is what to do about them. The most important question is not what crime they committed, but what is in the best interests of the United States, of you and me as citizens. If I believed it was in our best interests to deport the illegals, I would be in favor of that. I owe them nothing; they broke the law coming here and they are criminals by any definition.However, it is my firm belief that it is in our best interest, yours and mine, to give these people a path to citizenship and not to harass them. I think you and me will benefit from this. That's all I care about.

 

[timschochet]

[upon re-reading timschochet's prior post in this chain, however, I notice that I misinterpreted what he wrote anyway. I read it as him saying "there is no problem", rather than "any problem that exists is not so great as to...". There is a problem, and that isn't debatable. The extent of the problem, and whether Arizona's new law is justified or does anything to fix the problem can be debated.

This is correct. Of course there is a problem with illegal immigrants. I happen to believe the benefits outweigh the problem. Therefore, IMO, there is no need for this law.

 

[bg0546]

I am trying to accept reality. The illegals are here. They're here because they fill a void. You and I may disagree about whether or not it's a good thing that they're here (and I suspect we do) but that doesn't change the fact that they're here. The question is what to do about them. The most important question is not what crime they committed, but what is in the best interests of the United States, of you and me as citizens. If I believed it was in our best interests to deport the illegals, I would be in favor of that. I owe them nothing; they broke the law coming here and they are criminals by any definition.However, it is my firm belief that it is in our best interest, yours and mine, to give these people a path to citizenship and not to harass them. I think you and me will benefit from this. That's all I care about.

Do you really believe illegals care about being citizens? Seriously, come on. But I am opposed to that because granting amnesty just encourages more to come across the border. As far as filling a void goes, you don't know that. We haven't had a period without them since "operation *******". But I'm not opposed to them if we need them. So, let's get rid of what we can of the ones here and if at that point we need a guest worker program we can talk about it. But this notion of enforcement and give them amnesty is a bunch of bull. We'll end up doing the same thing we did in 1986 - give them amnesty, encouraging another larger wave of illegal immigration, and do nothing about the problem. Sorry, I can't get behind that.

 

[timschochet]

Do you really believe illegals care about being citizens? Seriously, come on. But I am opposed to that because granting amnesty just encourages more to come across the border. As far as filling a void goes, you don't know that. We haven't had a period without them since "operation *******". But I'm not opposed to them if we need them. So, let's get rid of what we can of the ones here and if at that point we need a guest worker program we can talk about it. But this notion of enforcement and give them amnesty is a bunch of bull. We'll end up doing the same thing we did in 1986 - give them amnesty, encouraging another larger wave of illegal immigration, and do nothing about the problem. Sorry, I can't get behind that.

bg0546, first of all let me say that I genuinally believe that you and Rich Conway and most of the others who disagree with me about this issue in this forum are honest and heartfelt and that you, like me, want what's best for America. I don't think, based on anything you've written, that you are racist or anti-Latino or anything like that. I feel compelled to write this because, unfortunately, so many people on my "side" of this issue throw these words around loosely, and its really unfortunate.Now to answer your question: I do believe that most illegals do care about being citizens. And to back it up, I will add this: if we give them a chance at citizenship and they refuse it, then I have no problem deporting them. If they don't want us, I don't want them. But again, I don't think this applies to most of them. I happen to agree with your assertion that giving these people a path to citizenship, or amnesty, or whatever you want to call it, will encourage more of them to come across the border. Since this is what I want, since I regard it as a positive for our country, obviously I have no problem with it. But I'm not going to pretend to you, like so many Democrats are, that doing this will "solve" the immigration issue- it won't. They are lying to you, and I won't do that. Here's the deal: our economy is ever increasing, and the Mexican economy remains stagnated due to corruption. So long as these two factors are in place, there will always be illegal immigration. The reason you don't see illegal immigration from Canada on a large scale is because most Canadians are content with their own standard of living- its that simple. If you really want to eliminate illegal immigration, then you need to encourage Mexico to become a truly free economy, in which lower class and lower middle class have the opportunity to advance. I honestly don't know if this is possible. Lastly, there are two reasons I am not in favor of any kind of guest-worker program: first, because government organized labor is inefficent. The influx of illegal immigration is actually representative of the best kind of capitalism, because the workers go to where they are needed. Second, because history has shown that "guest-labor" doesn't work- they never return. Take a look at the Chinese and Japanese guest labor in Hawaii and California at the start of the last century. It only creates greater tension. It is far better simply to acknowledge that these people are here to stay.

 

[PolishNorbi]

Mininum wage is for citizens of the US. If I can hire a worker for $5/hr and he is #### grin happy about it because it is the equivalent of him making $10/hr in his own country, then why wouldn't I?

So you're ok with taking advantage of people as long as they're from another country? Nice.

Can you link to that study, I would love to read it.

I posted it when it came out.

Its not taking advantage of anyone. For example, you can have a great programmer who has lack of experience. They may be worth $50k, but if a company offers $40k and that person takes it, is that company taking advantage of them? No, both parties agreed to it.Ill try to find that study cause I would be curious to read it. Simple math of $5 of $5,000 on groceries spent a year means only the increases only effects .1% of the product. Seems a bit low.

Yes, you are, and more than just the illegal you hire. Just because you serve a hungry man a #### sandwich doesn't mean you aren't taking advantage of them. People like you that will hire someone at such a rate are creating the demand which lures people across the border and you're supporting the system of non-taxpayers receiving tax funded benefits.

Wow that hilarious on several levels.First of all you are assuming that I hire people, second of all you are assuming that if I hire people I would hire illegals.If people are taking advantage of those people so bad, than why are they flocking over here to get screwed over? I'm sure your not rushing somewhere were you are going to be screwed over. Those people DO NOT HAVE TO ACCEPT THAT PAY, IT IS THEIR CHOICE. It's not like slavery, were if they don't accept it they will be killed or beaten severely. If I give a hungry man a sandwich of ####, and he eats it I didn't take advtange of him. I may have been making a mockery of him, but I didn't take advantage of him.Finally, do you realize alot of these illegals pay taxes on legal people's paper out of fear they don't get caught?Why would any business owner pay more for labor if they can get it cheaper? Now, if I said "You better take $5/hr or I will report you to ICE" then yes, I will agree that is exploiting someone, but as long as BOTH PARTIES FIND IT FAIR then it is never taking advantage of someone.

 

[Arch Stanton]

I posted it when it came out.Its not taking advantage of anyone. For example, you can have a great programmer who has lack of experience. They may be worth $50k, but if a company offers $40k and that person takes it, is that company taking advantage of them? No, both parties agreed to it.Ill try to find that study cause I would be curious to read it. Simple math of $5 of $5,000 on groceries spent a year means only the increases only effects .1% of the product. Seems a bit low.

Yes, you are, and more than just the illegal you hire. Just because you serve a hungry man a #### sandwich doesn't mean you aren't taking advantage of them. People like you that will hire someone at such a rate are creating the demand which lures people across the border and you're supporting the system of non-taxpayers receiving tax funded benefits.

Wow that hilarious on several levels.First of all you are assuming that I hire people, second of all you are assuming that if I hire people I would hire illegals.If people are taking advantage of those people so bad, than why are they flocking over here to get screwed over? I'm sure your not rushing somewhere were you are going to be screwed over. Those people DO NOT HAVE TO ACCEPT THAT PAY, IT IS THEIR CHOICE. It's not like slavery, were if they don't accept it they will be killed or beaten severely. If I give a hungry man a sandwich of ####, and he eats it I didn't take advtange of him. I may have been making a mockery of him, but I didn't take advantage of him.Finally, do you realize alot of these illegals pay taxes on legal people's paper out of fear they don't get caught?Why would any business owner pay more for labor if they can get it cheaper? Now, if I said "You better take $5/hr or I will report you to ICE" then yes, I will agree that is exploiting someone, but as long as BOTH PARTIES FIND IT FAIR then it is never taking advantage of someone.

First and second, for some reason I read it as your example being you hiring because of this

Mininum wage is for citizens of the US. If I can hire a worker for $5/hr and he is #### grin happy about it because it is the equivalent of him making $10/hr in his own country, then why wouldn't I?

, sorry about that. However, that and your second paragraph pretty much sums up that you are still exactly the kind of person that I thought you were, whether in thought or deed. If the jobs and pay that the illegals are getting are so fair then why aren't the American unemployed flocking to them? Because they're not fair. You say some of them pay taxes so that they don't get caught? Well why do you think they accept terrible pay? Because they don't want to get caught! Who are they going to complain to, ICE? People that hire illegals are going to pay as little as possible for labor, as you pointed out (btw, the reason they shouldn't get labor as cheap as possible is because it's ILLEGAL to do so, which you don't seem to care about) so if they refuse $5 an hour, someone else will take the job. Agreeing to do the job doesn't = agreeing that it's fair. These people know that whoever hires them has them by the balls and they have no recourse either here or where they came from. Not sure if you realized this, but a #### job here that pays #### is still better than what they had back home, but that doesn't make it fair. That's why they're here, because some lawbreaking exploiters know they can hire the cheapest possible labor and that there is little to no recourse for their employees and little fear that they will be busted for hiring illegals because it's the illegals that are demonized. Please note, I am not mitigating the illegal status of the illegals, however they are here for basic subsistence while employers are motivated to break laws for profits and provide the demand for the workers in the first place. Your own post provides the reasons for why your own arguments are false. Until businesses that hire illegals are curtailed, there is a market for cheap labor. Doing the job is not a tacit acceptance of a fair deal, it's the knowledge that they have no other choice.