Couple it with a welfare cutoff and you have something.
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....
There would be no "economy" as we think of it today. Plain and simple.What would happen if 20 million illegals left the US?
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
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!!
"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
I American and I Ameriwill!
I would not call that a low paying wage but it is back breaking hard work that requires one to make the effort.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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 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?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?
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.
AZCDL Life Member
NRA Patron Member
NROI Chief Range Officer
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.
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
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.
AZCDL Life Member
NRA Patron Member
NROI Chief Range Officer
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