Over 400 US Major Businesses Call for Immigration Reform

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by AzCatFan, Jul 31, 2013.

  1. Row6
    Offline

    Row6 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,997
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +26
    The senate bill is scored to increase federal revenue by about $150 billion over ten years while decreasing illegal immigration by about 1/3. Other than that, it's just a terrible idea because ........
  2. AzCatFan
    Offline

    AzCatFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    7,602
    Likes Received:
    205
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +627
    And under our current law of allowing 55,000 H2 unskilled workers in a year? Well if we magically waved a magic wand and deported all illegal immigrants back home, and then started to replace them with only legal H2's, even if only half the migrants were working, it would take just 100 years to replace them all! Of course, citizens would take some of the jobs, like they did in Alabama after they passed stricter immigration laws. But that only accounts for about 10% of the lost jobs.

    Those who don't believe we need the immigrant labor now have their head in the sand. Every state that tried to enact tougher immigration laws all had the same experience--labor shortages that negatively impacted the state's bottom line. And because of the wave of new state legislation a few years ago, the shortage has spread to other states. It's not at critical mass yet, but we don't have to let it get there. Pass immigration reform and let the supply for immigrant labor meet demand.
  3. vangator1
    Offline

    vangator1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    2,309
    Likes Received:
    76
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +163
    and you believe this because........

    Pumping 20 million criminals into our entitlement system is going to increase revenue by $150 billion. Wait a minute. I've got some ocean front property....
  4. AzCatFan
    Offline

    AzCatFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    7,602
    Likes Received:
    205
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +627
    First, it's not 20 million. Second, 2 million of the immigrants were kids when they committed the crime of crossing the border, and in order to before a citizen, they all will be high school grads and either college grads or military vets. And third, the overwhelming majority of the immigrants have committed just the one crime, and have lived and worked in the US, sometimes for years, without running afoul of the law since coming here.

    So yes, I believe allowing Dreamers and those who want to stay a chance to pay for their residency will raise revenue. It's not like we are opening the door to millions of convicted felons. These are mostly hard working people who, as the evidence shows, are doing jobs that would otherwise go unfilled.
  5. JerseyGator01
    Offline

    JerseyGator01 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    15,194
    Likes Received:
    139
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +628
    What evidence? Been to Jersey much. There are no unwanted jobs here. These arguments are so old.
  6. AzCatFan
    Offline

    AzCatFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    7,602
    Likes Received:
    205
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +627
    The country is bigger than abortion clinics in Jersey. Google immigration labor shortages and look for yourself. When I get a chance, I will post some links myself.
  7. Row6
    Offline

    Row6 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,997
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +26
    Obviously you prefer to pull it from your butt:

    "The CBO issued a new deficit score for the Senate-passed immigration bill that says the legislation will cut the deficit by $158 billion over the 2014-2023 period.
    But that is $39 billion less than the $197 billion in deficit reduction for the original bill reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The difference is due to amendments that beef up efforts to secure the border.

    The immigration reform bill passed the Senate on a 68 to 32 vote.

    The CBO estimated the increased border security spending would reduce the number of illegal immigrants in the U.S. by 800,000 more over 10 years than the original Gang of Eight bill, which was expected to lower illegal immigration by 1.6 million people.
    The changing estimates stem mostly from a $36 billion increase in direct spending under the amendment bill. Revenues would fall by $3.2 billion as taxes paid on behalf of illegal workers fall...."​


    http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-mon...igration-bill-worse-for-deficit#ixzz2alsHoyVj
  8. g8trjax
    Online

    g8trjax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2007
    Messages:
    3,121
    Likes Received:
    83
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +379
    CBO are now predicting how many illegal immigrants will enter the country?


    [​IMG]
  9. vangator1
    Offline

    vangator1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    2,309
    Likes Received:
    76
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +163
    You must be very naive. The govt will lie even if the truth sounds better.

    I can't think of one piece of legislation that the govt said would be good for us and reduce the deficit that has. This one's a no-brainer. Pump that many of the most dependent people in the country into our entitlement system and watch it implode (or explode).

    Just look at California. When you reward illegals with amnesty, you will get more illegals by the drove (with the govt's looking the other way of course).

    I would propose rounding up all illegals and deporting them to their country of origin. Fingerprint them before deportation. If they are caught back in this country, then we can round them up and get "free" agricultural labor when we throw them in quonset hut prisons. First offense 2 years. Second offense 10 years, Third offense 20 years. And so on.

    No need to profile. When an illegal comes in for service (school, medical, etc) check their ID. Make it a felony for a US citizen to aid an illegal. Pretty soon a bunch will be self-deporting. The rest will live like Anne Frank.

    And think of the jobs for the rounders.

    I should run for office on the "Round them up" platform. :)
  10. AzCatFan
    Offline

    AzCatFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    7,602
    Likes Received:
    205
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +627
    I'd love what the CBO would say about your plan, van. Remember, they aren't partisan, they are just number crunchers. So the first part of your plan would be spending hundreds of millions rounding up all illegals, detaining them, fingerprinting them, and deporting them. Not to mention, spending hundreds of millions beefing up border patrol. All the while, deporting millions of workers (and only replacing 10% of the jobs), will cost the economy billions in GDP. Not to mention, raise unemployment as there is a ripple effect of jobs lost (less crops to pick means less truckers needed to transport them, less people to stock them, etc...). And last but not least, there would be a rise in inflation, as there would be similar demand for things like foodstuffs, but significantly less supply.

    Let's recap the van plan: Increase spending by billions. Decrease GDP by billions. Increase unemployment significantly while increasing inflation. Wow, where do I sign up...NOT! If you really think this is the best plan, then maybe you really do think you have a bridge to sell...

    Now amnesty alone isn't a good plan. We tried that in 1986. And yes, the problem with simple amnesty is it doesn't account for more people coming in the future. But the G8 plan is different. It starts a 13-year clock for those already here, and would start a future 13-year clock for future entrants. Leave the country for a significant period of time, and the clock resets.

    And no, not all 11 million illegal immigrants will become citizens. In 1986, only 40% of eligible immigrants became citizens. And today, there are plenty of immigrants returning back to Mexico every day.

    The key to the G8 plan is enforcement. You may ask, why don't we enforce the laws today? And the answer is simple, the unintended consequences. You see, we tried enforcing laws with raids on farms before, and the results were we made things worse. In 1998, under Clinton, raids happened in Georgia on Vidalia onion farms. And the result? Read for yourself.

    The government stopped the raid and agreed, hand-shake only, with the farmers not to raid again if the farmers went about doing things legally the next year. Did that happen? Well, the government hasn't raided the onion farms again.

    The story doesn't end there. In 2006, under Bush, we stepped up border enforcement in California. The result? A lack of workers, especially in Lake County, CA, about 90 minutes North of San Francisco, which happened to have a bumper crop of pears. Unfortunately, again, things weren't so great.

    The more recent story is more of the same. With states passing immigration laws, the results have all been identical. Labor shortages (Jersey, here are your links) in places like Arizona, Georgia, Alabama, Oklahoma (story is about labor shortages in construction, no agriculture), and South Carolina. All states that passed immigration laws, and all facing immigration labor shortages! But it's spilled over to other states as well. Michigan, and Missouri and Kansas, which didn't pass legislation because they were worried about the labor shortages.

    The fact of the matter is, we have a need for immigration labor today. As the Ag Professor said in a previous link, the shortages haven't hit a critical mass yet, but it could certainly happen. Doing something like the "van plan" would get us to critical mass very quickly, and the results would be disastrous. Billions spent on enforcement, and billions in GDP rotting on the vine. We need reform. It should be obvious by now. And the other thing the Professor said? If we don't do reform now, the only other option is the status quo.
  11. T3goalie
    Offline

    T3goalie VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    2,752
    Likes Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +22
    Laws are antiquated and ineffective only because Government has systematically chosen not to enforce them... Its like saying your car does not work because you choose not to drive it and keep it locked in your garage.

    Its all about the $$ and it will be the least educated and the lower income class who gets hammered by these choices.
  12. AzCatFan
    Offline

    AzCatFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    7,602
    Likes Received:
    205
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +627
    Wrong. The laws are antiquated and ineffective as proven by the instances that when enforced, the unintended consequences showed everyone involved that the cure was far worse than the disease. Look at the links for the Vidalia onion case in 1998, and the Lake County, CA case in 2006.

    The government keeps the car in the garage locked because every time they take it out, it sputters, stalls, and causes a calamitous accident of epic proportions! That's why the car needs serious tinkering before it is road worthy again.
  13. vangator1
    Offline

    vangator1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    2,309
    Likes Received:
    76
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +163
    Az, let's see where your holes are.

    First, it assumes that without illegals, our crops won't be picked. Isn't that what the already existing worker visas are for? Because we have looked the other way on illegals, I'm sure a lot of illegals are picking our crops. So your answer is amnesty instead of enforcing work visas.

    Second, true, it will cost money to process the deportations, but if it's illegal for US citizen's to employ illegals, many will go away (hopefully most). Those that stay will be rounded up when they try to get any services. After all, that is what we are trying to reduce. We don't want people here ILLEGALLY to scoop up our tax dollars. If they want to live in an attic with a US citizen facing jail time for helping them, for for it. Those overstaying visas (I've heard as high as 40%), should be easy to deport if they don't deport themselves. This would (or should free up jobs they are stealing).

    Granted gang members and criminals will be harder to get rid of, but over time they would be culled if the EXISTING laws are enforced.

    As for the CBO, I think they may lie less than the govt at large, but they are still govt and still lie. These people can be bought off as easily as anyone else in the govt.

    Actually the growers could not find enough pickers to work for slave wages. I used to pick grapes and cherries every year in Western New York when I was a kid. I did it because I could make money. If they wanted me to do it for free or just a few pennies, I wouldn't. Would that drive up costs? Probably so, but doesn't decreased yield from rotting crops also drive up costs? That would be something the CBO should score.

    This opens a related can of worms in that the poor find it easier to sit on their fat mooching a$$e$ collecting welfare than actually earning it. That's called liberalism and that's another can of worms.
  14. AzCatFan
    Offline

    AzCatFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    7,602
    Likes Received:
    205
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +627
    Current work visa levels are nowhere near what is needed. 55,000 H2A (unskilled) workers a year isn't enough. It isn't close to enough. We have millions of undocumented workers here now. Do the math. Deport all 11 million and begin to replace them at only 55,000/year, that's a ton of labor lost. At minimum, we need to change the laws to increase the number of work visas allowed.

    Straight amnesty isn't the answer. We tried and failed. But it's silly to think the answer is deport millions, only to turn around and import millions. It would cost millions in terms of deportation, but also in production, as companies in need of immigration labor would lose said labor for a period of time, and then have to re-train new labor. There has to be a better answer.

    And that answer is allow those already here a way to stay here permanently if they want. Truth is, many won't stay, and that's ok. But someone working their butt off for 13+ years should be allowed to stay. Will it cost us something? Sure, but we also gain from their labor. And perhaps there will be those who as soon as they turn citizens, sit on their butt and collect unemployment, but that's not the general immigrant story in this country.

    The myth here is immigrants are stealing jobs. I'm sure there are a few anecdotes where an immigrant does take a job, but as a whole, immigrants don't take jobs away from citizens. One thing we will be able to do under the new G8 law is more enforcement. Again, we don't enforce laws now because the effects are enormously bad for the economy. But if we gave employees a way to legally get the labor they need, I'm all for busting down doors and fining those not in compliance.

    But allowing for supply of labor to meet demand is the key. If we don't change our current immigration laws first, and just enforce today, the effects will be the same as experienced before. 1998 Vidalia, 2006 Lake County, CA, and 2011-12 Arizona, Georgia, Alabama, S. Carolina, Oklahoma, and elsewhere. All of which experienced serious labor shortages that had significant negative economic effects.

    Not a lot of undocumented gang members and criminals. Sure, they are out there, but they represent a small minority. Why? Because if they are caught, they face jail time here, and then deportation. Or worse, deportation and jail time in their home country. For the majority that risk their lives to cross the desert to come into the US., the last thing they want to do is get caught and risk being sent home. So they keep a low profile, and in general, do not commit crimes. And for those that do commit crimes, I'm all for punishing them and then sending them back home.

    The CBO is as effective as the numbers they are given. If you think it's simply GIGO, I can't change your mind.


    Again, the experience of places that tried enforcement show a different story. They tried everything to get replacement workers, including even shipping in parolees and criminals on work release. Nothing worked. You can argue we need to overhaul our welfare process, but realistically, what's the chance of that passing with the current administration? And how long would it take to implement? What happens in the meantime? And to this effect, what happens in better economic times when unemployment is down and the poor can find better jobs than traditional immigrant work?

    Our immigration laws need a serious overhaul, not only for today, but the future. We have been using immigrant labor for generations, and it's highly unlikely our citizens are going to sign up to become migrant day laborers any time soon. But there is a willing and able supply of laborers already here, and more willing to come and replace those returning home. And either we change the laws to legally allow supply to meet demand, or we do nothing, and keep the status quo, and hope supply meets demand.
  15. T3goalie
    Offline

    T3goalie VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    2,752
    Likes Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +22
    Wrong. The Government created the problem by non enforcement and letting the problem balloon to the point of dependency. The calamity was created by non enforcement. You are talking about the pain that was be created by their mal and non feasance. I understand the concept of withdrawals. That is what you are talking about. All they are trying to do now is clean up, sanitize and paint over their mess. Painting over rooten wood does not cure the rot.
  16. AzCatFan
    Offline

    AzCatFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    7,602
    Likes Received:
    205
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +627
    Know your history before making a claim that the government created the problem by non-enforcement. Pre-WWII, no real border enforcement. 1942 - 1964, we imported millions of braceros legally from Mexico. Between 1965 and the late 1970's, again, there was little enforcement, and the unofficial border policy was allow workers in without much hassle. This lead to the rise in Cesar Chavez, an American-born Hispanic, who was worried that the new immigrants would replace citizen Hispanics in the fields.

    Chavez was right to worry, and his work, along with the efforts of many African American civil rights champions, conditions in the field improved for all. But along the way, the children of braceros and other immigrants decided not to follow their parents into the field. It's to the point that today, Hispanics are going to college at a slightly higher level than "whites."

    [​IMG]

    The 1980's was the start of our major problems. Why? It wasn't the Mexican workers, but drug cartels that was the major problem. Cartels were armed, dangerous, and pushing drugs. This lead to a huge increase in Border Patrol, especially in the urban crossing areas like Tijuana/San Diego, Nogales/Nogales, and Ciudad Juarez/El Paso. With huge numbers of BP Agents now at the border, the question was what were we going to do feed the demand of immigrant workers? The answer, the 1986 Reagan "amnesty" law.

    But the law had major problems. The biggest one was not addressing any future needs. Not to mention, no amnesty for immigrants here less than 5 years, and no way of really tracking how long an immigrant was here. Regardless, while the amnesty portion of the bill actually worked as planned (again, see Hispanic college entrance numbers), the bill failed to address the problem of future demand.

    The 90's and much of the 2000's saw not much but lip service paid to the problem. Why? Because the economy was humming along, and while there was a rise in the number of BP agents, there was no shortage of immigrants getting in to do the needed work. The unofficial policy was catch and release those attempting to come in, but once here, only do a few raids. Why? Well, because of those pesky unintended consequences that doing a raid could completely crush an industry or product such as Vidalia onions.

    Flash forward to around 2010 and with the economy in the tank, many immigrants returned home. The biggest years of emigration back home? 2006 and 2007, with 2008 and 2009 numbers still historically quite high. Again, that's because immigration is an economic issue, and when the economy is in the tank, we don't need as many workers.

    2010 also saw the rise in state sponsored laws, as with the bad economy, maybe people needed a scapegoat? And illegal immigrants are always an easy target. Three states passed major initiatives, Arizona, Georgia, and Alabama, with two other passing less stringent laws, South Carolina and Oklahoma. And the results? All the same. Labor shortages in areas where immigrants historically do the work. In fact, the anti-immigrant hysteria was big enough that the US nationwide has an immigrant labor shortage problem.

    To say the problem is the government simply not enforcing the laws completes ignores the history and facts of the problem. We have been importing immigrant labor now for nearly 70 years. That's quite the "addiction." And the withdrawal pains are so severe--loss of millions of immigrant jobs, loss of millions of subsequent other jobs, loss of GDP, increase in spending in billions, and significant inflation--that those pains need to be avoided. Now, if our own citizenry were gobbling up the jobs vacated by immigrants left and right, I'd say ship the immigrants back home. But that's not happening anywhere. Nor is there a quick, simple, and easy way to make it happen.

    Take the Lake County, CA pears as an example, and a single parent in the Bay Area. Do you think the parent is going to commute 90 minutes both ways, to work 12+ hours in the fields for minimum wage during the picking period? And then what? Will she follow the workers to the next harvest that may be even farther from the city? No. The fact are, we have been importing immigrant workers to do these jobs for 3 1/2 generations. 70 years!

    Again, we have only two, logical choices. Reform our immigration laws. Doesn't have be the G8 bill, but something to better allow supply to meet demand. Or accept the status quo and hope supply can meet demand. The consequences of all other choices are so severe, that no politician is willing to even suggest them today. They have all seen the results at the state level.
  17. vangator1
    Offline

    vangator1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    2,309
    Likes Received:
    76
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +163
    That's quite a well-thought out response!

    I see a major problem is that with the new immigration laws will come amnesty for those here. Those new citizens will not want to do the traditional work that illegal immigrants traditionally do. That will require a whole new crop of illegals to to that work. After a few generations, they too will be granted amnesty.

    This is in the name of cheaper produce. I think we will get a new immigration bill and I doubt it will solve any problems. We will see in the years ahead.
  18. bludigal
    Offline

    bludigal New Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Messages:
    4,973
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +2
    Would they be ok if the reform was to treat illegals like spies and kill them dead? I mean there are all kinds of ways to have immigration reform???
  19. vangator1
    Offline

    vangator1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    2,309
    Likes Received:
    76
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +163
    is there another way? can you kill someone undead?
  20. AzCatFan
    Offline

    AzCatFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    7,602
    Likes Received:
    205
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +627
    The immigration tap has been on for a long time. Many come, do the work, and go home. Many come, do the work, and then stay. I fail to see what the problem is as long as the work gets done. Those that return home, great. Those that put in years of hard labor and stay? These are the kind of potential citizens we want to welcome into the country.

    The problem is our current laws are woefully outdated. And our past attempts to change the law has had fatal flaws. What we need is a system that allows the workers in legally. And then, after a set time, be put on a path to citizenship if they so want, and/or return home. The G8 law does exactly that.

    Does that mean the immigration tap will be on ad infinitum? Probably not, as things change globally, such as increased mechanization. But we need the labor today, we'll need it tomorrow, and we need it in any short-term future scenario. Long term, we can turn the tap off if and when it makes sense. But that's not today.

Share This Page