What would happen if 20 million illegals left the US? - Page 2

What would happen if 20 million illegals left the US?

This is a discussion on What would happen if 20 million illegals left the US? within the Off Topic & Humor Discussion forums, part of the The Back Porch category; What would happen if 20 million illegals left the US? There would be no "economy" as we think of it today. Plain and simple....

Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 96

Thread: What would happen if 20 million illegals left the US?

  1. #16
    Ex Member Array Ram Rod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fayetteville, AR
    Posts
    13,687
    What would happen if 20 million illegals left the US?
    There would be no "economy" as we think of it today. Plain and simple.


  2. #17
    Senior Member Array JohnK87's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Hastings, MN
    Posts
    600
    Couple it with a welfare cutoff and you have something.
    ‎An enemy of liberty is no friend of mine. I do not owe respect to anyone who would enslave me by government force, nor is it wise for such a person to expect it. -- Isaiah Amberay

  3. #18
    VIP Member Array SatCong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    3,045
    Quote Originally Posted by merischino View Post
    at the risk of being terminally unpopular, I would like to see the serious, big-picture, big-impact, actual business studies that address this issue. Not being funny, not doing the study with the purpose of either advocating or demonizing the idea of deportation. Just, plain, numbers, on what the real impact on legal US residents would be if all non-legal US residents were to return to their homelands.
    Take my chance, to see them leave my home that wasn't invited. To take their crime with them and their ideas of entitlements in the USA.It would be worth it.
    NRA PATRON LIFE
    BROWN WATER NAVY

  4. #19
    Senior Member Array 1911PKR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Kansas City, MO
    Posts
    607
    merischino,

    Move out of south Florida and take a trip to southern Arizona

    None of your arguments hold water when you consider the billions of tax payer dollars spent on health care, food stamps, jails and housings spent on these ILLEGALS every year. Not to mention the $$$ we spend on boarder patrol and the crime that comes with this mess. Minimum wage and jobs being exported don't hold a candle to those cost and their consequences.

    Lock the boarder via the military and ship the illegals home!!

  5. #20
    New Member Array Jeangordon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Spokane
    Posts
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by WhoWeBePart1 View Post
    But who would spend a month or two picking blueberries in Maine? Those that live in Maine don't want to do the back breaking work even though good money can be made in that short period of time. They would rather stay on unemployment and food stamps than earn an honest buck.
    I have to agree with this.... I wonder if California's agricultural business would lose billions with no one around to pick crops..

  6. #21
    Member Array jweiss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    St. Paul, Mn
    Posts
    60

    Angry

    Quote Originally Posted by Janq View Post
    BTW there was a movie made about such a hypothetical circumstance back in '04.

    A Day Without a Mexican
    A Day Without a Mexican (2004)
    YouTube - A Day Without a Mexican - Movie Trailer

    It was hilarious.

    - Janq
    Very funny movie cracked me up. On a serious note:Please go Home Illegals !!!!!!!!!! In my proffesion your dangerous and you take food off my table!
    "Just because your paranoid doesn't mean their not out to get you !!!" Henry Kissenger as a wise man said to me strive to own one of every type and caliber

  7. #22
    VIP Member
    Array atctimmy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Gastonville
    Posts
    6,756
    Quote Originally Posted by WhoWeBePart1 View Post
    But who would spend a month or two picking blueberries in Maine? Those that live in Maine don't want to do the back breaking work even though good money can be made in that short period of time. They would rather stay on unemployment and food stamps than earn an honest buck.
    The answer is we stop paying people to sit on their butts and they either work or starve. I like having temporary unemployment benefits but after 6 months I think you should have to find work. Welfare is OK for certain things too but our national problem is that we are not willing to let anyone starve. We have created a welfare society that thinks low paying jobs are beneath their dignity and until we stop paying them they will not work.
    I haven’t heard any of the journalists who volunteered to be waterboarded asking to have their fingernails wrenched out with pliers, or electrodes attached to their genitals.

  8. #23
    Distinguished Member Array 21bubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    ky.
    Posts
    1,890
    Quote Originally Posted by merischino View Post
    at the risk of being terminally unpopular, I would like to see the serious, big-picture, big-impact, actual business studies that address this issue. Not being funny, not doing the study with the purpose of either advocating or demonizing the idea of deportation. Just, plain, numbers, on what the real impact on legal US residents would be if all non-legal US residents were to return to their homelands.

    For example, the 14 point checklist above assumes that deporting everyone will make every employer then automatically revert to employing legal US residents "at living wage" for the jobs freed by those deported. In reality, I think what would happen is those businesses built on a framework that relies on poorly paid, tax-free, un-insured labor forces would either a) immediately fold and close their doors or b) immediately jack up all their prices to adjust for the labor crisis and either survive or eventually fold based upon their success pursuing a Washington Lobby directed at changing labor laws in the US to enable them to pay less than "a living wage" to stay in business. The impact on legal US residents of all stripes would be quite large, and quite probably negative. Think: minimum wage starts taking a downturn and instead of being incremented up every once in a while to account for inflation, we instead have to increment down to account for deflation. Instead of getting a huge increase in wages paid to US residents where that money was being paid instead to illegal aliens, we might see a huge decrease in wages paid to all US residents, in all industries, all business sectors, all areas whether they were impacted in a meaningful way by the "illegal issue" prior to the deportation or not.

    Thinking about it from a purely business perspective, and in terms of a single industry: Restaurants would lose arguably 30-50% of their staffs in one go. If required by law to legally hire replacement staffs under terms already defined by US law which cover what a minimum wage is, how many
    hours constitutes a binding contract for that employer to provide health benefits, etc etc etc ad infinitum... my guess is, those restaurants previously willing/able to hire staffs illegally in an effort to make bottom line and/or some profit, won't be able to do so anymore. They close. Meaning, no, we didn't just gain 30-50% of "living wage" restaurant jobs back for legal residents. It means we just lost 50-70% of "living wage" restaurant jobs from previously employed legal residents. Previously employed, unskilled labor legal residents who can't fold themselves into a technology corridor type workforce just because they must. If they are to be employed, they must retrain. What would it cost taxpayers to retrain all those displaced restaurant workers?


    ok, so truth: maybe half their earnings are sent back to their homelands for families left behind. Corresponding truth: that means half stays. They go home, we lose all that multiplying economy effect. So, does every deportee equal: half their admittedly sub-par income (if they stay) or exactly none of their admittedly sub-par income (if they go). Seeing actual hard numbers that compares what they cost us in dollars to be here (as seen in the op) and what they actually bring us in dollars from being here (evaluated fairly, as only the part of that income which stays, not seen in the orig. post) would be interesting. Which half of their US income is more important to legal US residents: the half which doesn't currently multiply (the half sent home) or the half which does, currently, multiply?

    I am not advocating evaluating the worth of an illegal resident of the US in terms of actual dollars. I'm just saying, having done that it would be more persuasive an argument if the argument captured the entirety of the issue.

    I would be very interested to see the studies that would inevitably (in my ignorance I hope I am not being naive) have to cross the desks of the economists and regulators and politicians tasked with the job of deciding the issue/proposal) which would evaluate the real, immediate and long-term, impacts on the US economy if such a move were to be given legitimacy and be implemented. Wouldn't it just suck if then all the jobs that we managed to keep in the US when so many went to other countries, suddenly went to those other countries?
    While i believe you may make some valid points I'm afraid the sources for the studies would be tainted by the "pro's vs. the con's". Just like you can make statistics say what ever you want.

  9. #24
    Ex Member Array WhoWeBePart1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    762
    Quote Originally Posted by atctimmy View Post
    The answer is we stop paying people to sit on their butts and they either work or starve. I like having temporary unemployment benefits but after 6 months I think you should have to find work. Welfare is OK for certain things too but our national problem is that we are not willing to let anyone starve. We have created a welfare society that thinks low paying jobs are beneath their dignity and until we stop paying them they will not work.
    If you work hard you can make two hundred dollars a day raking blueberries. Some of them make even more than that. I've heard of workers making close to three hundred dollars a day.

    I would not call that a low paying wage but it is back breaking hard work that requires one to make the effort.

  10. #25
    Moderator
    Array gasmitty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Gilbert, AZ
    Posts
    11,275
    Quote Originally Posted by merischino View Post
    at the risk of being terminally unpopular, I would like to see the serious, big-picture, big-impact, actual business studies that address this issue. Not being funny, not doing the study with the purpose of either advocating or demonizing the idea of deportation. Just, plain, numbers, on what the real impact on legal US residents would be if all non-legal US residents were to return to their homelands.

    For example, the 14 point checklist above assumes that deporting everyone will make every employer then automatically revert to employing legal US residents "at living wage" for the jobs freed by those deported. In reality, I think what would happen is those businesses built on a framework that relies on poorly paid, tax-free, un-insured labor forces would either a) immediately fold and close their doors or b) immediately jack up all their prices to adjust for the labor crisis and either survive or eventually fold based upon their success pursuing a Washington Lobby directed at changing labor laws in the US to enable them to pay less than "a living wage" to stay in business.
    Wrong. They would do with American workers what they do with illegal aliens, which is continue to pay cash wages. Out here in AZ I’ve seen it happen.

    The impact on legal US residents of all stripes would be quite large, and quite probably negative. Think: minimum wage starts taking a downturn and instead of being incremented up every once in a while to account for inflation, we instead have to increment down to account for deflation. Instead of getting a huge increase in wages paid to US residents where that money was being paid instead to illegal aliens, we might see a huge decrease in wages paid to all US residents, in all industries, all business sectors, all areas whether they were impacted in a meaningful way by the "illegal issue" prior to the deportation or not.
    Wrong again, because you are basing this effect on your speculative conclusion above. A significant part of the American economy has been “underground” for years, and it grows during unprosperous times.

    Thinking about it from a purely business perspective, and in terms of a single industry: Restaurants would lose arguably 30-50% of their staffs in one go.
    Utter nonsense for “restaurants.” Possibly true for fast food joints who typically have many part-time workers who are at minimum wage anyway, and who don’t collect any sort of benefits, but – not restaurants.

    If required by law to legally hire replacement staffs under terms already defined by US law which cover what a minimum wage is, how many
    hours constitutes a binding contract for that employer to provide health benefits, etc etc etc ad infinitum... my guess is, those restaurants previously willing/able to hire staffs illegally in an effort to make bottom line and/or some profit, won't be able to do so anymore. They close. Meaning, no, we didn't just gain 30-50% of "living wage" restaurant jobs back for legal residents. It means we just lost 50-70% of "living wage" restaurant jobs from previously employed legal residents. Previously employed, unskilled labor legal residents who can't fold themselves into a technology corridor type workforce just because they must. If they are to be employed, they must retrain. What would it cost taxpayers to retrain all those displaced restaurant workers?
    Again, gross speculation based on your erroneous initial assumption. Training? I don’t know a “restaurant” (in the classic sense) that requires highly skilled workers except for the kitchen and bar. Hamburger and pizza joints – training? Be serious.



    ok, so truth: maybe half their earnings are sent back to their homelands for families left behind. Corresponding truth: that means half stays. They go home, we lose all that multiplying economy effect. So, does every deportee equal: half their admittedly sub-par income (if they stay) or exactly none of their admittedly sub-par income (if they go). Seeing actual hard numbers that compares what they cost us in dollars to be here (as seen in the op) and what they actually bring us in dollars from being here (evaluated fairly, as only the part of that income which stays, not seen in the orig. post) would be interesting. Which half of their US income is more important to legal US residents: the half which doesn't currently multiply (the half sent home) or the half which does, currently, multiply?
    OK, so what costs are you leaving out? Maybe the income and Social Security taxes not being withheld? Maybe the cost of educating children who weren’t born here? Maybe the cost of welfare assistance and free medical care (at clinics and emergency rooms) for those bold enough to seek it? Maybe the cost of incarcerating those who pursue the drug or human smuggling trade?

    I am not advocating evaluating the worth of an illegal resident of the US in terms of actual dollars. I'm just saying, having done that it would be more persuasive an argument if the argument captured the entirety of the issue.

    I would be very interested to see the studies that would inevitably (in my ignorance I hope I am not being naive) have to cross the desks of the economists and regulators and politicians tasked with the job of deciding the issue/proposal) which would evaluate the real, immediate and long-term, impacts on the US economy if such a move were to be given legitimacy and be implemented. Wouldn't it just suck if then all the jobs that we managed to keep in the US when so many went to other countries, suddenly went to those other countries?

    Overall, you ignore the history of immigration trends in this country. Since before the Industrial Revolution and the Great Irish Famine we have been the target destination for emigres from many troubled nations over the world. They have come here and taken jobs at the low ends of the social and economic scales, but overall they have sought to immerse, assimilate and better themselves in the culture and climate of the New World and to seek citizenship when it was available. In the first two-thirds of the 20th century, American citizenship for immigrants was a privilige to be vigorously sought and earned, not an entitlement to be demanded.
    Bottom line is that while some segments of the American economy have grown to depend on the low wages paid to those here illegally, if they disappeared en masse over the next six months, American businesses would adapt, improvise, and overcome – we’ve done it before. It’s what we do.
    Smitty
    NRA Endowment Member
    NROI Chief Range Officer

  11. #26
    Member Array merischino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Southern Florida
    Posts
    301
    Quote Originally Posted by WhoWeBePart1 View Post
    But who would spend a month or two picking blueberries in Maine? Those that live in Maine don't want to do the back breaking work even though good money can be made in that short period of time. They would rather stay on unemployment and food stamps than earn an honest buck.
    Well, I happen to know of several people who both would, and have. One of which happened to be a very dignified, very upwardly mobile future (already accepted) Oxford University (yes, the one in England) student. Only exchange "grapes" for "blueberries" and you get the picture. Still more backbreaking than any other adjective kind of labor, and still very limited season.

    Not saying he makes a representative sample. But what I would say (and am saying) is that given the option of working backbreaking labor or starving, most choose: labor. Look at the history of the US in the dustbowl when roving migrant workers (legal US citizens) used to rove the countryside in hopes of being randomly chosen (packs of hundres) as one of the maybe 8 folk to work a single farm for a single shift... travelling many tens or hundreds of miles in between gigs. Granted, that wasn't just another century, it was nearly a century ago. But, when families are starving, they do whatever it takes to put food on the table. Our unemployment rate (calculated only with US legal residents, and which by definition does not include those folks who have been unemployed so long that they no longer qualify to even apply for unemployment benefits, whether they received them or not) is only getting worse. US residents in the Detroit area who have completely vacated their housing (purchased at home values exceeding one million) and whose abandoned homes are now up for sale in many cases for less than $50 k because almost no one would live there.... would have jumped at the chance to go do some backbreaking labor rather than have to leave their homes. I'd hazard a guess those whole towns that got forced out can't be described as having sat around on their asses getting fat off of unemployment and/or welfare. But I digress.

    Quote Originally Posted by gasmitty View Post
    Wrong. They would do with American workers what they do with illegal aliens, which is continue to pay cash wages. Out here in AZ I’ve seen it happen.

    So, you have issues with the illegality of foreign nationals being in our country against the law, but no problems whatsoever with employers in our country getting fat profits by circumventing the laws of the US so that they can pay workers "cash" aka "under the table" aka under the poverty line wages?

    What I was postulating in my post was that the issues are far deeper and far more impacting on American society than the issue of whether or not illegal aliens got here illegally or not. And that the original poster was quoting a lot of numbers and making some conclusions that were not logical (or possible) by looking only at the information s/he presented. My post was purely meant to invite further thought on the subject. I'm not trying to say that the issue of immigration in America should be ignored or the dollar values presented in that post are either insignificant or a misrepresentation of the facts. Just that if we are being serious about the issues, let's talk about all of them?

    Wrong again, because you are basing this effect on your speculative conclusion above. A significant part of the American economy has been “underground” for years, and it grows during unprosperous times.

    I don't recall making a conclusion. That said, among the options I listed, was the fact that the US legal residents who would fill the jobs vacated by the illegals would continue to be shortchanged, either by the elimination of those jobs or by the drastic repricing of basically everything in our economy, or by some other means. I didn't intend to either draw conclusions or to be exhaustive. Merely to point out (as you have, thank you) that the US workforce would be unlikely to get "living wage jobs" as the writer of the original article declared repeatedly, as a result of illegals vacating jobs which pay what you call "cash" wages.

    Utter nonsense for “restaurants.” Possibly true for fast food joints who typically have many part-time workers who are at minimum wage anyway, and who don’t collect any sort of benefits, but – not restaurants.

    So, my sister who works in a super high class multi-hundred-dollar per meal restaurant (hardly fast. definitely food. reportedly in many journals, art) in NYC alongside 99% foreign folk, almost all here illegally, all earning sub-market "cash" wages on a tiered system that is essentially more a tiered prejudice system, with the "Mexicans" earning the least, always being hidden in the back unseen by customers, and doing the most backbreaking and thankless jobs of the bunch, with Haitians a bit higher, Asians and Europeans topping the list and playing the customer service/face-time roles, and legal US residents of any color being management.... doesn't figure in your view of the world? This example from my actual life is hardly an unusual one in big cities the country over. The "microcosm" of NYC maybe makes it kinda hard to ignore if you have ever befriended anyone in NYC who came from out of town or out of country, legally or not. But it rang true when I lived in Texas. And Washington State. and New Jersey (not many Haitians there). and here in Florida. A family member who is a chef and has been a chef in Florida for decades, has the exact same experience in all of the many (long story) restaurants he has worked in down here. Here, the Haitians are at the bottom of the list doing the thankless jobs in the kitchen, and the "Mexicans" (usually from many different countries and just falling under that label because of their Hispanic descent... my sister calls them "Amigos" so as not to be insulting/to acknowledge their multicultural heritage) generally speaking take the day labor that involves a guy in a truck coming round to pick up however many of the pack fit into his truck. Or they pick ripe fruit from trees in the neighborhoods that overhang the fences, and sell that fruit on roadsides out of the backs of their cars. Or they work janitorial jobs. Or... whatever. None of their jobs are particularly appealing to the average US citizen who has grown up with US societal mores and class structures.

    Having worked a time for the Goodwill stores in south Florida, I have had plenty of opportunity interacting in a purely professional (but real people, everyday, face-time kind of way) with many many families of "amigos" who are only too thankful to pay their few, hard-earned (illegal) dollars towards purchasing that broken (only a "little") toy you (the American public) thought in your generosity to donate to Goodwill. Sometimes the stuff there is actually very good quality. Of course, then it gets priced out of their purchasing power and it brings the moneyed golfers and high society crowd scrounging around the store looking for that Coach bag that they can get for a mere $150.00 - what a steal! Or using the charity as the primary source for populating their very for-profit antique and knicknack store. It's good business sense, but in the everyday reality of a charity store where a family can't buy a much needed donated crib for their young family's impending arrival because it's priced for the antique dealer customers... it was a little too stark, cold of a reality for my blood. Walkers, canes, shoes too pricey, even. In a nutshell, these folk make so little from their labor that they can't afford to shop at rock-bottom wallmart prices, but then the stuff they need gets priced out of their ballpark if it isn't dingy and broken enough to priced within their range. They basically don't have healthcare unless they have a drastic life-threatening accident or illness. They likely got here by means we would not want to ever have to live through, and they are only too happy to find a pair of worn second-hand jeans in a thrift store that basically costs more than their wage for the entire day, and they hope they can find something nice for their wife or kids with any remainder, roughly $5, after buying their necessary work wardrobe with the non-food portion of their paycheck.

    I don't think, having lived among illegals my entire life, in whatever city I lived in, that these people consider themselves "entitled", or that they are "demanding" in the way that you use these words. Their presence here is definitely problematic for us as a nation. These problems, I agree, need to be addressed.

    The problem of entitlement appears to my eyes to be an almost entirely American attitudinal problem, and not one I can see in real life (as opposed to sound bytes) as being one attributable to non-criminal illegals.

    The point I'm trying to make is, who is it you hate? the illegals, because they are illegal? Or the displaced worker Americans, who are hard on their luck and troubled and willing to take the jobs the illegals vacate? the employers, who made the illegal situation possible by employing the illegals against the law the of the land? the government, for recognizing the humanity of ... all humans, and attempting to address a situation of hunger in America? Because it sounds to me remarkably like, you (people like the person writing the original article) just like to hate whoever you can politically correctly hate.

    It seems that our nation's history is too promptly forgotten. The Great Depression -- actual decades where the majority of the nation went without work through no fault of their own for periods regrettably logarithmically longer than 6 months. Stock Market crash, anyone? Take a scenic drive through South Florida today, and you won't see (unless that's all you are looking at, of course) only a treed paradise populated with pretty faces and jetskis and golf. You'll also see a real estate market populated with more than 1/3rd of the existing housing not only up for sale, but on the market for in excess of 6 months, unsold. Not all of those will prominently display "bank owned" on the sign, but most will. And those "foreclosure" or "short sale" or "Your tax dollars at work" signs don't only populate the modest properties. They are right up there with the more "dignified" Sotheby's signs for the extremely wealthy high priced waterway or beach-side properties. South Florida isn't, right now, a place where a legal US resident is particularly insulated from the stark cold realities of long-lasting unemployment, homelessness, and hunger. We just don't read about that in the news because that would be admitting we have a problem.

    Again, gross speculation based on your erroneous initial assumption. Training? I don’t know a “restaurant” (in the classic sense) that requires highly skilled workers except for the kitchen and bar. Hamburger and pizza joints – training? Be serious.

    What erroneous initial assumption? I never said a restaurant requires highly skilled workers. If it did, those folks displaced when/if the restaurant goes out of business would hardly need retraining. What I said was, the probability is that those restaurants who lose significant percentages of their staffs due to the proposed deportation would have to replace those staffs from somewhere. Then I offered a few possible scenarios. One of which was that those restaurants would go out of business. If they went out of business (again, never an assumption or a conclusion. just a possibility), those restaurant workers who were always legal US residents would have to look to other restaurants for work, and there being fewer restaurants, more unemployed, the situation would be such that in order to "get work" folks who were unskilled (being restaurant workers) might find themselves in a situation where to become employed they might need to get trained in a skill, making them employable in a different career.

    OK, so what costs are you leaving out? Maybe the income and Social Security taxes not being withheld? Maybe the cost of educating children who weren’t born here? Maybe the cost of welfare assistance and free medical care (at clinics and emergency rooms) for those bold enough to seek it? Maybe the cost of incarcerating those who pursue the drug or human smuggling trade?

    I wasn't trying to write an exhaustive list of costs. I kinda felt the original post did that. S/he came up with 14 that s/he felt had enough merit to be included in his/her post. I wasn't in the business of coming up with costs. I was in the business of suggesting alternative, un-accounted for impacts on the legal US resident populace as a result of a mass deportation, not accounted for in the original post. I guess I'll leave the job of coming up with exhaustive lists of costs and negative impacts upon the US populace as a result of the presence of 20 million illegals up to you?

    Overall, you ignore the history of immigration trends in this country. Since before the Industrial Revolution and the Great Irish Famine we have been the target destination for emigres from many troubled nations over the world. They have come here and taken jobs at the low ends of the social and economic scales, but overall they have sought to immerse, assimilate and better themselves in the culture and climate of the New World and to seek citizenship when it was available. In the first two-thirds of the 20th century, American citizenship for immigrants was a privilige to be vigorously sought and earned, not an entitlement to be demanded.
    Bottom line is that while some segments of the American economy have grown to depend on the low wages paid to those here illegally, if they disappeared en masse over the next six months, American businesses would adapt, improvise, and overcome – we’ve done it before. It’s what we do.
    I also wasn't writing a history of immigration in America. Guess I'll leave that up to you.

    I will, however, agree with you wholeheartedly that that American spirit is to adapt, improvise, and overcome. That's our heritage. That's our history. That's our strength. Still, I wouldn't want to put hundreds of thousands or millions or even a single legal US resident to work, willingly, at wages which we as a society have deemed inhumane. The economy would need to be looked at in its entirety and not only based on those points which support a particular argument, before I'd want to create a nation of American serfs. We have been willing, as a society, to live with a nation of "not-American" serfs... for far too long. But, do we really, as a nation, need to agree on serfdom as a necessary evil?

    That question is at the heart of my posting. I would argue that we do not have to adapt, improvise, and overcome (aka assimilate) "serfdom" in our vision of the ideal America (defined as: an America without immigrants) To me, the issue is not entirely unlike the question of slavery -- only here the definition of "sub-human" is not so much actual skin color as geographic place of birth. At the pre-deportation camera click moment. Post-deportation camera click, "sub-human" would be defined as anyone not so fortunate as to have good, living-wage work, a home, and of course verifiable 6 points of identification (if that's still the number-it was, as recently as 2005, the number to prove citizenship at a NJ DMV) at the time of the mass deportation. We as a nation dehumanize the visible source of the problem (here: illegals) to the point where we refuse to put our own thinking into their shoes, our own imaginations of how our family does live, will live, has lived put to the task of seeing what it would have been like if.... we were born Nicaraguan? Salvadoran? Croatian? This is what the police train you to do when thinking about shooting a human being. Human being? no, bad guy. Bad "guy"? no. "BG". BG? No, scum. Scum? Filth. it goes on. The thing is, the dehumanizing part is central to the achievement of the ability to do things to someone that you wouldn't like done to yourself. or your mother. or your child. or your dog. It's an essential part of building the warfare mentality, too. I'm not saying it's wrong or right. I'm just saying, the argument for an ideal America, in my mind, isn't one that is as simple as the original article suggests. An ideal America, to me, would entail a place which actually IS the living embodiment of dreams, actualized. Where (ok, in our last 50 years this has been a given, not a dream): we can have a chicken for dinner at least once a week, every week. Shall we define the American dream so narrowly as: a place you can't go without an RSVP? Or could we be a little bit more broadly, and define it as a place: where every citizen can get legal work, at a living wage, an education, and a chance at a greater prosperity than would have been possible for their grandparents, without building that prosperity on the backs of slaves excuse me serfs of any nationality/citizenship, including our own? The including our own is the bit that I'm arguing for -- I don't think mass deportation as described in the original post will arrive at a prosperous or particularly pleasant American economy. Sure, give it 10, 20, 50 years, we could overcome and adapt. Heck, look at what the Japanese have achieved in that timeframe. The Germans have certainly been able to achieve dramatic turnaround and prosperity after utter defeat not once but twice in the last century. Is it possible? Yes. Would I recommend it? Would you? Granted, the kind of economic devastation in those two countries was as a result of actual violent warfare followed by actual defeat in warfare followed by embargoes and taxation and any number of disciplinary economic and financial global "timeouts" that we would not have assigned us from some external party. Those examples do not adequately reflect the imagined legal, organized, orderly, structured, humane, bloodless removal over the course of 6 months of a significant portion of the populous. The effect, I think, would be similar. And likely, not without bloodshed, no matter how clean and pretty we imagine it happening from our philosophical and ideological couches. I could be wrong. Would love to hear what an actual economist (scientist, not politician), thinks.

    The problem of immigration is real. Dehumanizing the people who live in America illegally is not going to solve these problems. (It will, however, serve to convince us of legal American superiority. And make it easier to think about ideas like mass deportation without actually spending time thinking about how that act would impact real human lives on both sides of the "legal US resident" divide.)
    People who like this sort of thing will find this the sort of thing they like.
    - Abraham Lincoln

    A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
    - Winston Churchill

  12. #27
    Moderator
    Array gasmitty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Gilbert, AZ
    Posts
    11,275
    Quote Originally Posted by merischino View Post
    our vision of the ideal America (defined as: an America without immigrants)
    Holy cats... just WHOSE definition is THAT???

    I think my Philosophy 101 prof would have called that the logical fallacy of the straw man.

    Nearly every one of us ultimately was, at one time or another, an "immigrant" to North America - and that includes "Native Americans." You are drawing unsubstantiated conclusions based on fancy, not fact.

    One side of my family came over here in the 1600s, and the other side came into the country via Ellis Island before WWI. The one side helped found the new nation and develop its laws, the other side saw what it liked and decided to work to become part of it. All began as white Europeans, and all suffered "racial profiling" and discrimination. The early ones were Quakers who were ridiculed by the Puritans, the later ones were Slavs whose foreign tongue grated on the nerves of Americans who preceded them. Every generation of immigrants has had its struggles.

    You are mis-characterizing the argument as one of skin color... it isn't. It's about working within the existing structure and constraints of the laws of our nation. If you don't like them, then work to change them. Simply put - obey the laws, and if you want to be here legally and enjoy the fruits of American life, do it the right way.
    Smitty
    NRA Endowment Member
    NROI Chief Range Officer

  13. #28
    VIP Member Array zacii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    arizona
    Posts
    3,813
    What would happen if 20 million illegals left the US?

    Unemployment would probably drop. There would be more jobs available
    Trust in God and keep your powder dry

    "A heavily armed citizenry is not about overthrowing the government; it is about preventing the government from overthrowing liberty. A people stripped of their right of self defense is defenseless against their own government." -source

  14. #29
    VIP Member Array SatCong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    3,045
    Quote Originally Posted by zacii View Post
    Unemployment would probably drop. There would be more jobs available
    Yes it would.
    NRA PATRON LIFE
    BROWN WATER NAVY

  15. #30
    Distinguished Member Array 21bubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    ky.
    Posts
    1,890
    Quote Originally Posted by zacii View Post
    Unemployment would probably drop. There would be more jobs available
    You have said more in two sentences than some have in multiple paragraphs.

Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Having Illegals for neighbors
    By JerryRushing in forum Home (And Away From Home) Defense Discussion
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: March 17th, 2011, 12:54 AM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: March 27th, 2009, 05:27 PM
  3. The Cost of Illegals
    By HotGuns in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: May 26th, 2007, 04:15 PM
  4. Illegals in the Park
    By HotGuns in forum Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: July 8th, 2006, 11:24 PM
  5. Illegals Protest
    By Doc Holliday in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: May 4th, 2006, 02:06 PM

Search tags for this page

fact check tina griego
,
tina griego fact check
,

tina griego rocky mountain news

,

tina griego what if they left

,

what if illegals left

,
what if illegals left america
,
what if they left
,

what if they left fact check

,
what would happen if 20 million illegal imigrants
,
what would happen if 20 million illegals left us
,
what would happen if illegals left
,
what would happenif we exported 20 millions mexicans email
Click on a term to search for related topics.