Princess_Tina posted:J-Rod posted:Tina said...What difference would it make if it created a lot of "McJobs" with very low wages and few or no benefits? At least in Western Europe they have universal health coverage, people don't have to worry about not being able to afford medical treatment. McJobs? Due to the fact that wages haven't gone down compared to inflation until very recently I can't see where most new jobs are "low paying." See, while inflation tends to fluctuate, the rate of increase in wages is more consistant. So the numbers need to be examined from a long term point of view. "Snapshots" are very misleading. But understand that Socialistic healthcare is not a bonus to a person who can't get a job. You can look at any Ghetto in America and see what too much government interferance gets you. That was a rhetorical question. I have no idea about the actual kind of jobs you say have been created, because you didn't cite your source, or give any additional details. I also would like to know what specific figures you know of showing that wages haven't gone down compared to inflation.
J-Rod posted:Tina said...What difference would it make if it created a lot of "McJobs" with very low wages and few or no benefits? At least in Western Europe they have universal health coverage, people don't have to worry about not being able to afford medical treatment. McJobs? Due to the fact that wages haven't gone down compared to inflation until very recently I can't see where most new jobs are "low paying." See, while inflation tends to fluctuate, the rate of increase in wages is more consistant. So the numbers need to be examined from a long term point of view. "Snapshots" are very misleading. But understand that Socialistic healthcare is not a bonus to a person who can't get a job. You can look at any Ghetto in America and see what too much government interferance gets you.
Kimball_Kinnison posted: All of your solutions seem to focus on what everyone else can do for Mexico. More foreign investment. The US needs to reform its immigration.
Kimball_Kinnison posted: It's not the rest of the world's job to fix Mexico's problems.
Kimball_Kinnison posted:It's Mexico's job to convince others to invest there.
Kimball_Kinnison posted: It's Mexico's job to solve their internal problems.
Kimball_Kinnison posted:Until Mexico starts to change its behavior, what does it benefit anyone else to do anything for Mexico?
Kimball_Kinnison posted:What is to stop Mexico from continuing to encourage illegal immigration while simultaneously reaping the benefits of your proposed foreign investment and immigration reform? Kimball Kinnison
Lowbacca_1977 posted:Whats comprehensive supposed to mean?
Lowbacca_1977 posted: I'd much rather just enforce the laws, let Mexico deal with its own problems, and undercut the drug runners with American-grown products. May take care of some of the rampant corruption Mexico has if we did that one, as well.
chibiangi posted:It isn't the United States responsibility to feed and clothe Mexico or Mexicans.
chibiangi posted:If we enforce our current immigration laws, we would significantly reduce the number of people illegally crossing. This is evidenced in the number of people moving out of states where strict employer sanctions and other laws have been put into effect (see Arizona.) Likewise, whenever there is talks of amnesty, the number of illegal crossings increases.
J-Rod posted:Princess_Tina posted:J-Rod posted:Tina said...What difference would it make if it created a lot of "McJobs" with very low wages and few or no benefits? At least in Western Europe they have universal health coverage, people don't have to worry about not being able to afford medical treatment. McJobs? Due to the fact that wages haven't gone down compared to inflation until very recently I can't see where most new jobs are "low paying." See, while inflation tends to fluctuate, the rate of increase in wages is more consistant. So the numbers need to be examined from a long term point of view. "Snapshots" are very misleading. But understand that Socialistic healthcare is not a bonus to a person who can't get a job. You can look at any Ghetto in America and see what too much government interferance gets you. That was a rhetorical question. I have no idea about the actual kind of jobs you say have been created, because you didn't cite your source, or give any additional details. I also would like to know what specific figures you know of showing that wages haven't gone down compared to inflation. Well, you didn't cite any sources either. So I didn't think it was important to you. Wages Infltaion Now you will see that when you compare the two links that inflation has not kept up with wages.
Kimball_Kinnison posted:Why should the US give concessions to Mexico, when the other option is to simply convince illegals to leave by cracking down on the illegals in the US?
Kimball_Kinnison posted:You keep suggesting basically that the US do all of the work in this.
Kimball_Kinnison posted:Similarly, the solution to illegal immigration isn't to give concessions to Mexico. It's to create disincentives for people to illegally immigrate. Make it more costly to them to come to the US illegally than it is for them to stay in their country. Giving concessions won't do anything unless you know that they will actually spur changes in Mexico's behavior, and the actions you've proposed don't give any incentive to Mexico the change its behavior. Kimball Kinnison
Princess_Tina posted:What specific actions have I proposed that won't give Mexico any incentive to "change its behavior"?
Kimball_Kinnison posted:Princess_Tina posted:What specific actions have I proposed that won't give Mexico any incentive to "change its behavior"? The comprehensive reform itself gives no incentives to Mexico to change its behaviors.
Kimball_Kinnison posted: Right now, Mexico is raking in billions of dollars a year from illegal immigration. How will comprehensive reform remove that rather large incentive?Kimball Kinnison
Kimball_Kinnison posted:If you want to give Mexico an incentive, you have to cut off the billions of dollars of influx from the illegal immigrants. Once you do that, you make any further reforms contingent upon Mexico's fulfilling its obligations under international law.
Kimball_Kinnison posted:You don't start by loosening immigration restrictions (which is what "comprehensive" reform would do). You start by removing the incentives and then you can look at easing immigration policies. Kimball Kinnison
Princess_Tina posted:Kimball_Kinnison posted:If you want to give Mexico an incentive, you have to cut off the billions of dollars of influx from the illegal immigrants. Once you do that, you make any further reforms contingent upon Mexico's fulfilling its obligations under international law. Well, first of all, it is at best doubtful that any action by the U.S. at this point will completely eliminate remittances. Secondly, even if it could be done, it doesn't mean the Mexican government will do anything differently. They'd already be looking at much greater internal discontent. But that's only assuming that remittances could simply be "cut off" automatically, completely overnight, which is slightly unlikely.
Kimball_Kinnison posted: Right now, Mexico is raking in billions of dollars a year from illegal immigration. How will comprehensive reform remove that rather large incentive? Kimball Kinnison
Kimball_Kinnison posted: Cutting off the remittances doesn't require that to stop all of them. What it means is that you start trying to reduce the flow of money from illegals here back to Mexico. You do this in a variety of ways, including cracking down on illegals who are here, taking steps to discourage more illegals from coming, and attacking the financial transfers themselves.
Kimball_Kinnison posted:As you reduce the amount of remittances, it will increase the pressure on Mexico to actually live up to their obligations. If further reforms are tied to that, it provides leverage to induce them to do what they should be doing already.
Kimball_Kinnison posted:You see, that is a direct, concrete example of how you induce Mexico to live up to its obligations. You simply keep saying "comprehensive reform", and then don't actually say what that means. What sort of comprehensive reform would actually get Mexico to do what it's already supposed to be doing? Give specifics for what you think would work. Don't give any of this "whatever thy pass will be fine" crap that you've given before. If you think that "comprehensive reform" would encourage Mexico to fulfill their preexisting obligations, then you obviously have some idea of what it would take. Kimball Kinnison
chibiangi posted: It won't. It will further the incentive to immigrate illegally because they know eventually they will get amnesty on top of the billions of dollars spent by the states on services to illegal aliens and their children.
Princess_Tina posted:It is not a concrete example of anything, it is wishful thinking at best. If you actually think something like that would work, well, then let's wait and see, but don't hold your breath.
Kimball_Kinnison posted:If anything is wishful thinking in this thread, it's your constant harping on "comprehensive reform" solving everything.
Kimball_Kinnison posted: The problem won't be solved until Mexico actually steps up and fulfills its obligations under international law, and prevents its citizens from illegally crossing into neighboring countries.
Kimball_Kinnison posted: Everything you've advocated would only give Mexico the idea that they can have their cake and eat it too. Increase the amount of legal immigration allowed and you will simply increase the flow of people, both legal and illegal. (Unless, of course, you simply remove all limits, making everyone legal, but that is utterly impracticable.)
Kimball_Kinnison posted:One of the major goals of illegal immigrants is to remit money to their family back in Mexico. If you restrict or remove that ability, manhy of them will decide that coming to the US illegally is not worth it.
Kimball_Kinnison posted:And yes, it might hurt the lower classes in Mexico the most, but that's not our problem. By that same logic, the US should just allow anyone from any second or third world country to come here to send money back home, because otherwise we'd just be hurting the lower classes in those countries, too.
Kimball_Kinnison posted:Those people have no right to be here. Period. I agree that immigration policies should be relaxed, but that cannot be done until after to remove the incentives for people to illegally immigrate. No "comprehensive reform" can be effective until after the incentives are dealt with. Otherwise, you simply increase the total flow of people, further straining the US's resources. Kimball Kinnison
Princess_Tina posted:Who has advocated to "increase the amount of legal immigration allowed"? I certainly haven't. I think there should be enough flexibility to any future immigration reform so that the U.S. can deal with labor shortages through guest worker programs, but only when it's in the interest of America. We would be the ones to benefit from such guest worker program, because it would give us other options when there are labor shortages in certain fields that can't be filled any other way. And I think the levels of legal immigration should eventually be adjusted (increased or decreased) depending on the needs of the U.S., first and foremost.
Princess_Tina posted:It's certainly possible to drive a lot of the people who are already here further underground, but I don't think the U.S. can really do very much to restrict remittances. When there's a will, there's a way. So it's very unlikely we'll see this happening. If there's fewer people coming in right now, it may have to do with the sluggish economy, so we have to wait and see how the situation changes when the U.S. economy improves.
Princess_Tina posted:Wrong. Anything that could cause great unrest and instability right across from our southern border would ultimately become another problem facing the U.S. globally, if it ever came to that. Widespread violence in Mexico would also make it easier for drug traffickers, and potentially even terrorists, to undermine Mexican institutions and operate with even more impunity than under present circumstances. It is the interest of the U.S. to have stability in Mexico. Having said that, I still firmly believe that immigration reform should be carried out with the interests of the U.S. in mind, and not the interests of other countries.
Princess_Tina posted:Immigration policies should be realistic and should take into account demographic trends in the U.S. This doesn't mean the U.S. should adopt immigration policies that will hurt it in the long run, just the opposite.
