Words of Advice:
"If Something Seems To Be Too Good To Be True, It's Best To Shoot It, Just In Case." -- Fiona Glenanne
“The Mob takes the Fifth. If you’re innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?” -- The TOFF *
"Foreign Relations Boil Down to Two Things: Talking With People or Killing Them." -- Unknown
“Speed is a poor substitute for accuracy.” -- Real, no-shit, fortune from a fortune cookie
"If you believe that you are talking to G-d, you can justify anything.” — my Dad
"Colt .45s; putting bad guys in the ground since 1873." -- Unknown
"Stay Strapped or Get Clapped." -- probably not Mr. Rogers
"The Dildo of Karma rarely comes lubed." -- Unknown
"Eck!" -- George the Cat
* "TOFF" = Treasonous Orange Fat Fuck, A/K/A Dolt-45,
A/K/A Commandante (or Cadet) Bone Spurs,
A/K/A El Caudillo de Mar-a-Lago, A/K/A the Asset., A/K/A P01135809
21 comments:
Or maybe because those who come via chain migration fail to assimilate into our culture and become "Americans"? Not even the next generation.
Fun how the studies don't show that, B. Care to cite your data?
Why?
You reject whatever I show if it doesn't fit your preconceptions anyway.
You like to toss that around, but you never cite your own either.
B., you made a statement, I asked for a citation on the work you seem to be quoting. I asked for it because a cursory search of your terms yields numerous studies that show the opposite of your position. I would like to see what your data is because it seems contrary to the facts, rather than arguing in the dark without knowing what your actually argument is. A statement, asserted as fact, with no supporting data is not a viable argument because it is impossible to address, pro or con.
In a similar vein, you had previously made a categorical statement about Amtrak and Unions, but then failed to provide either a citation or evidence. Without knowing the data you are relying upon, a person cannot conduct a reasonable discussion, they are compelled to just shine a flashlight in the dark, hoping to find what you say you can clearly see. By explaining the facts you are using, the lights come on, and we may all judge if the amazing statue you claim to have found is what you describe it as.
I am, sadly, resigned to the fact that you are filling the role of provocateur rather than really trying to comment and debate.
You could, of course, show your work and post cites to prove YOUR claim (and refute my statement). You know, walk the talk and all that. Credible sources only, please.
Since you don't, I'm calling pot/kettle.
B., my claim is that immigration to the U.S. is a net positive. Note that most “chain migration” numbers are inflated by considering direct relatives (spouses and children of the primary immigrant) and thus overstate the percentage of U.S. immigration attributed to this by about eight times (65% vs 8%). For immigration in assimilation, your field of statement, I offer:
https://www.nap.edu/read/4942/chapter/1
https://fee.org/articles/are-immigrants-still-assimilating-in-america/
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/01/magazine/what-does-it-take-to-assimilate-in-america.html
https://publicpolicy.stanford.edu/news/what-history-tells-us-about-assimilation-immigrants
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/do-we-really-want-immigrants-to-assimilate/
Now, the U.S. Governments own studies already show “illegal” immigrants are net contributors to the U.S., let alone “legal” immigrants. Many benefits to which U.S. born citizens are entitled are specifically blocked to immigrants. So all the horror stories are just that, stories.
On the assimilation, or the alleged lack thereof. As my links show, there is no comprehensive agreement on what assimilation even is. Some go with “grandpa Jose can’t speak English, so he isn’t assimilated”. The problem with that theory is two-fold; one, that English is NOT the Official language of the U.S. and, two, that there is no accounting for difficulties in learning a new language in adulthood, especially when working full time. The immersion method of language learning is demonstrated to have steadily reducing effectiveness as age increases.
OK, so the “those people” live in the same place and don’t mix. Hummmm, ever heard of Little Italy, Chinatown, Little Mexico? Immigrants have clustered together for centuries in order to harness each other’s knowledge, abilities and wealth to establish themselves in the U.S. Far from rejecting the U.S., they are diving in from a small safe area where they know they can find help.
OK, “those people” don’t share our customs. Really, what customs would those be? St. Patrick’s Day, Cinco de Mayo, Halloween, Christmas, Easter, New Years Day? The Four5 of July can be said to be truly American, and I see plenty of “those people” celebrating that.
But, but, “those people” are criminals (careful, that undermines your black folks commit all the crimes argument). Well, State and Federal studies show immigrants are LESS likely to be involved in or arrested for criminal behavior. Kinda like the cops would make more arrests if they searched the vehicles of more white folks they stop, showen in the same studies.
So, there’s my argument and above are my links from plenty prestigious groups, including a libraterian think tank you should love, and the New York Times. I await your missive.
Nice arguments, but they mean little. I worked for immigrants who made this country their home. They perhaps never spoke GOOD english, but they learned to make themselves understood and could understand. Their loyalty was to the US, not their ancestral homeland. Their kids grew up, integrated with and absorbed the culture in the area. My mother's family is Mexican. They live here, they speak english (and spanish) and yet they have assimilated. They are part of this country and *this* country is their home.
They integrated with, both socially and professionally, their community. Both the family I grew up in, and the Italians I washed dishes for in high school. Also the Albanian that I welded for when I was in college, who paid me to work for him and tutored me in my engineering classes. The Russian Jew who taught me goldsmithing while I worked as a clerk in his shop.... the Chinese woman I did engineering for....the doctor who is my GP, whose son is a pilot for United, and whose daughter is a nurse. The Palestinian who supplied most of my supply needs when I ran a motel, who introduced me to his good friend the Jewish cleaner who supplied services to that same motel....The Hindu who bought my motel when I sold it, and his kids and their families...These folks are great for our country. A part of our society, not separate from it. This is their home and they act like it, and they are proud of it. They mix with others, not just of their culture, and not just business either. I can name a lot more, from a lot more cultures as well.
Yes, there were "Little Italy" and "Chinatown". And they did their best to move up and out from those Ghettoes. Most did, and their next generation surely did. The Grandmothers still mostly speak Polish amongst themselves in the neighborhood I grew up in, but they also speak English.
Not so today in the Mexican (and, to a lesser extent, other) immigrant communities. They don't, even after 3 generations, become a part of the greater "Melting Pot" that the US is supposed to be.
What, exactly, is the "Net Gain" that the illegal immigrants you claim provide to this country? The cheap labor that lowers wages across the board? The BILLIONS of dollars in freebies that they use? The billions of dollars that they cost our schools? The billions of dollars that the increased crime they bring to our country costs? The money that they send home to their families in the country they fled, that NEVER gets spent in our economy? The decreased housing values when they move into an area?
Which of those is a "Net Gain"?
I'm all for immigration. Just legal, and measured immigration. Immigrants are what made this country great, and will continue to do so...those that actually take this country as their own. When they come here illegally, they can't do so.
One would think that after 5 or 8 or 10 or more years living in any country that those folks would bother to learn the dominant language if they intended to become part of the society of the land they call home.
Lastly, I'm not sure where you got your data, or what you think your referenced cites are supposed to state, but they have no statistics, no numbers, and do not back up your statements. (Yes, I read 'em). The NAP comes closest, but really doesn't make any definitive statements, rather it beamoans the lack of data. The others are, at best, opinion pieces.
B., you forgot your references for YOUR assertations.
OK, so let's go into your comments:
"Not so today in the Mexican community"...really? Data? Where are these three generations of isolated immigrants located?
"One would think that after...bother to learn..." And you base this upon what? Again, I note that the ability to learn a language is based upon time and opportunity. When you are working two or three menial jobs you don't have much of a chance. When attending classes in English exposes you to the ICE people hanging around, you don't risk it. Hell, even leagl immigrants are scared to go to court these days because ICE is hanging around.
Net Gain, well here a quick snapshoot from the Wharton School: http://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2016/1/27/the-effects-of-immigration-on-the-united-states-economy
Incidently, it also debunks your immigrants drag down the wages argument. You also know that immigrants don't get all these "freebies" you bitch about. Crime, immigrants are less criminal than native born residents, so much for that argument (http://criminology.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264079.001.0001/acrefore-9780190264079-e-93 ). As for immigrants lowering property valuse, not so much (
https://www.realtor.com/news/trends/immigrants-homeownership/ ).
Still waiting for your "credible" links.
From your first link:
" In regions with large populations of less educated, low-income immigrants, native-born residents bear significant net costs due to immigrants’ use of public services, especially education."
Wages:
https://cis.org/Report/Immigration-and-American-Worker
"The immigration surplus or benefit to natives created by illegal immigrants is estimated at around $9 billion a year or 0.06 percent of GDP — six one-hundredths of 1 percent.
Although the net benefits to natives from illegal immigrants are small, there is a sizable redistribution effect. Illegal immigration reduces the wage of native workers by an estimated $99 to $118 billion a year, and generates a gain for businesses and other users of immigrants of $107 to $128 billion"
Crime:
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/crime/329589-the-truth-about-crime-illegal-immigrants-and-sanctuary-cities
"To extrapolate out these statistics, this means that a population of just over 3.5 percent residing in the U.S. unlawfully committed 22 percent to 37 percent of all murders in the nation. This is astounding.
Illegal immigrants clearly commit a level of violent and drug related crimes disproportionate to their population"
As for property values, ask any real estate agent. Look at trends over time.
Question: Do you even read the cites you post?
OK, I'll tell you the net gain: Our workforce isn't replacing itself anywhere near fast enough to support the levels of GDP growth that the goddamn Republicans have just baked into the tax code, so we either get a bunch more immigrants real soon, or they have to admit that they were lying all along and only wanted to hurt poor people.
And here in Oakland, my experience with immigrants, documented and otherwise, bears no resemblance to your description of them. Median price for a two bedroom was $687,000 last I checked, and we have very large communities of Hispanic, Asian, Middle Eastern, Pacific Islander, and a few others, in their own communities (read that neighborhoods) where in my experience I, a white guy, have been "assimilated" (read that lived there as neighbors like anyone else) again and again for the last 34 years. As for crime, the only burglaries I have experienced were in white neighborhoods; three on 62ond st. just south of the Berkeley border, and one when I was living in Berkeley for a little while.
That's just what I have lived through, but that at least means that there do exist places that don't conform to the right-wing anti-immigrant dogma that gets sold as truth so often these days, and I would imagine this isn't the only place like it.
-Doug in Oakland
You need to get out more, Dale. Most places DO fit the descriptions I posted. But most places don't have a median home cost of +$600,000.00, either. I think your neighborhoods have self-selected for a better class of people. Try looking in the less good areas in and around Chicago, Dallas, Indianapolis, Louisville, Cincinnati, and St.Louis to start.
Can you explain the bit about the illegals and the Tax code and the replacement? I'm trying to understand what you meant there...
Who is Dale?
GDP growth is a function of working population growth times the spending they do in the economy (plus stateside corporate expansion, which is itself a function of demand in the economy). Goods and services rendered.
We, somewhat like Japan but not as severe, have an aging workforce and a birth rate that is not replacing the retiring workers fast enough to cause an expansion (growth) of the GDP when at full employment.
After the crash at the end of the Bush administration, unemployment soared to 10% and beyond, creating a lot of space for growth as those displaced workers slowly reentered the workforce. Now that we are nearing full employment again, there's just not enough formerly not employed people to enter the workforce and add to the economy to support the kind of GDP growth numbers we've been seeing since around 2010.
When selling the tax cut, the Republicans claimed that GDP growth would accelerate to between 3 and 4 percent and make their numbers add up.
Reliable economists mostly say that given the lack of workforce expansion, the real numbers are closer to 1.5%, and the proposed expulsion of a big chunk of the immigrants in the workforce will only exacerbate the problem.
I won't even go into the staggering dishonesty they have displayed at every level of this issue, but in this one area their stated economic policy goal does conflict directly with their immigration policy goal, and all they seem to be able to respond with is lies and fearmongering.
And I said the median price was $687,000 not that I lived in a home that cost that much. Being a poor musician, I have mostly lived in what you would characterize as "ghettos" for the past few decades, and from my experiences there, I would take issue with your characterization of wealthier folks being a "better class" of people.
-Doug in Oakland
B., I said credible, as you did. The “Center of Immigration Studies” is far from credible, as is “The Hill”.
Since the link on home values was from Realtor.com, that seems to cover asking agents.
Best try again.
Doug: Sorry about the name screwup.
That's what Germany thought they were fixing when they brought all those Migrants into their society....where they, again, failed (for the most part) to become part of the German society.
Thanks you for explaining politely. I'm not sure that I agree with your conclusions, but I am not sure you are incorrect, either. Gonna have to look int0 that a bit.
CP: They were as decent a cite as any of the other cites posted here. Pleas, feel free to show me where the data in those cites was incorrect? Again, as I have asked you before: What defines a credible cite? Only articles with data with which you agree? A nameless think tank? What, exactly" I read and refuted the data in the cites presented to me. The data in the Hill article can be found elsewhere. Just because it comes from the "Hill" does not make it incorrect. I understand that you don't like it when someone shows data that goes against your beliefs. I don't like it either. But when someone does, I take it as a learning experience. Perhaps you could as well.
Also, please note that the Realtor.com article does not differentiate between legal and illegal immigrants. In fact, while it does not state so, it really mostly uses data from LEGAL immigrants (or households where at least one member IS legal). So that data is pretty suspect. Most of the homes used as examples in the article were not the types of immigrants to which I was referring (and you know it)...And, again, it does not match with the real world data *in areas to which where large numbers of poor illegals move* ...which is when others move out due to rising crime and gangs. Again, ask a real estate agent. Ask more than one. When poor illegal migrants move in in large numbers, property values drop.
OK, B., I just used your standard, "credible", which is valueless, as you point out.
Wages, from the Wharton study: "Table 2 presents the results of two academic analyses of the wage impacts of immigration over the last several decades. These studies account for firms’ investment response and the imperfect substitutability between immigrant and native-born workers. They find a small but positive effect, equal to about half a percentage point, on the average wages of native workers. One of the studies indicates a minor decline in the wages of those without a high school degree or with a college degree, while the other study finds only positive gains."
Fiscal impact, again Wharton: "Immigrants in general — whether documented or undocumented — are net positive contributors to the federal budget. However, the fiscal impact varies widely at the state and local levels and is contingent on the characteristics of the immigrant population — age, education, and skill level — living within each state.
Figure 3 shows that immigrants, and especially recent arrivals, are generally of working age; thus, they impose relatively small costs on Social Security and Medicare — the largest components of federal non-defense spending. While immigrants’ taxes help pay for defense spending, they do not generate any additional significant costs for the military, thereby somewhat reducing the federal tax burden of the average native."
For crime, lets go to a 2015 National Academy of Sciences study" "Immigrants are in fact much less likely to commit crime than natives, and the presence of large numbers of immigrants seems to lower crime rates."
"This disparity also holds for young men most likely to be undocumented immigrants: Mexican, Salvadoran, and Guatemalan men."
"Today, the belief that immigrants are more likely to commit crimes is perpetuated by ‘issue entrepreneurs’ who promote the immigrant-crime connection in order to drive restrictionist immigration policy."
The academy is a nonprofit research organization charged with providing independent advice to the nation. It is funded largely by the federal government.
Findings in a March 2017 study by the libertarian Cato Institute:
"Illegal immigrants are 44 percent less likely to be incarcerated than natives. Legal immigrants are 69 percent less likely to be incarcerated than natives. Legal and illegal immigrants are underrepresented in the incarcerated population while natives are overrepresented."
1/3
And next, from Fox News: "llegal immigrants are not all criminals, as most immigration offenses are civil violations and not criminal ones. Civil violations in immigration law are punished with deportation, while criminal violations are punished with jail time. The Center for Migration Studies estimates that 66 percent of illegal immigrants who entered in 2014 did so by overstaying a visa, which is not a crime. It’s difficult to prove in court that the other 36 percent committed a crime by entering illegally.
Regardless, fear of an illegal immigrant crime wave is not sparked by the specter of people breaking administrative immigration rules, but by fear that they are overwhelmingly murderers, rapists, and thieves. In reality, illegal immigrants have lower incarceration rates and live in places with lower crimes rates than native-born Americans. Far from perpetrating a crime wave, immigrants actually decrease crime rates.
Those who think illegal immigrants are unusually crime-prone tend to make several errors when making their case. The most common is to only look at non-citizen incarcerations in federal prisons. First, that is a bad measurement because non-citizens includes illegal immigrants and also legal non-citizens, so it is an over count. Second, federal prisons only hold about 10 percent of all prisoners, with the other 90 percent incarcerated in state and local prisons and jails.
Federal prisons hold prisoners convicted of federal crimes or crimes committed while crossing a border, including immigration offenses and drug smuggling, which disproportionately lead to foreigners being imprisoned. In May 2017, the last month for which data are available, 46.3 percent of federal inmates were incarcerated for drug offenses and 8.2 percent for immigration crimes. Imprisonment of non-violent drug and immigration offenders is not the hallmark of a crime wave.
Looking at all incarcerated prisoners in state, federal, and local adult correctional facilities provides a more accurate picture of illegal immigrant criminality. Based on census data, the numbers show that illegal immigrants are about 44 percent less likely to be incarcerated than native-born Americans. Focusing on prisoners between the ages of 18 and 54, 1.53 percent of all native-born adults are incarcerated, compared with 0.85 percent of illegal immigrants in the same age range – including those incarcerated for immigration crimes and in immigration detention. Excluding those particular crimes brings the illegal immigrant incarceration rate down to 0.50 percent – one third of the native rate.
This holds true even when you take race into account. Whereas white, native-born Americans are incarcerated at a rate of 0.90 percent, illegal immigrants of every race and ethnicity are still less likely to be incarcerated, at a rate of 0.85 percent.
American cities with more illegal immigrants do not have higher crime rates. Even immigration restrictionists like Representative Steve King, R-Iowa, admit that legal immigrants are less crime-prone than natives, but they also live in the same cities as illegal immigrants. This makes it difficult to estimate how illegals affect crime rates on the local level.
However, the evidence strongly suggests that they at least don’t worsen them. A study of recidivism rates in Los Angeles conducted by two RAND Corporation scholars discovered that there was no difference between rearrest rates over a 30-day period between illegal and legal immigrants. While not perfect, this study is still broadly consistent with the others.
Federal and state governments do not consistently record the number of incarcerated illegal immigrants – they should start doing so immediately. Regardless, the available evidence overwhelmingly shows that illegal immigrants are incarcerated at lower rates than native-born Americans. As for the supposed illegal immigrant crime-wave, the evidence for that remains to be seen."
2/3
And finally, housing...let's check out a CityLab report: "Okay, so what happens to housing prices after immigrants move in? A new report from the Americas Society/Council of the Americas and Partnership for a New American Economy calculates that impact, in dollars and cents, using population and housing data from 1970 to 2010. The top line result: Each immigrant adds 11.6 cents to the home value in their counties. That seems small, but for the 40 million immigrants who live in the dense U.S. counties, that snowballs to $3.7 trillion. “Their dowry on the community is the effect on the community’s housing wealth,” said the report’s author, Jacob Vigdor, a professor of public policy and governance at the University of Washington."
There is a noted positive relationship: "“It’s a basic story of supply and demand,” Vigdor explained. When an immigrant moves in, they need a roof over their head. And as the demand for housing rises, so do prices—all else remaining equal. Of course, all else doesn’t remain equal. Vigdor’s model assumes, for example, that there’s no new construction, which is not the case everywhere in real life. It also doesn’t work as well for less dense areas, where immigrants are increasingly settling. So, in practice, the value immigrants add to housing market isn’t fixed for each county.
But Vigdor’s overall conclusion has been corroborated by a separate study conducted in 2007 by Albert Saiz when he was at the University of Pennsylvania. That analysis found that a 1 percent increase in the immigrant population at the metro level leads to a 1 percent rise in housing prices."
But in smaller neighborhoods, immigrants can trigger “native flight”
So at county- and metro-levels, an influx of residents can uplift the housing market. At the neighborhood level, it’s a very different story.
Housing price drops may occur because the people moving in a not white...their status immigrant (and or legal or not), did not matter: "What they found was that when the share of immigrant residents rises from 0 to 30 percent, housing values decline by 6 percent. “A negative association between local housing prices and share of immigrants is an unequivocal sign of native preferences for segregation,” Wachter said. ”Housing prices cannot be lower in a locale unless there’s perceived negative deferential.” In other words, housing prices drop not because immigrants cause crime or worsen their neighborhoods in some other way, but because natives perceive that they do.
The response to dark-skinned immigrants causes natives to leave, and housing prices to drop. (Courtesy of Susan Wachter) But as they got deeper into the weeds of these results, a familiar (and bleak) picture started forming. The negative relationship between immigrant influx and decline in housing prices was strongest in whiter, richer neighborhoods. In fact, in minority and low-income neighborhoods, immigrants left little or no impact. Also, this effect wasn’t true for all immigrants. When they analyzed the results by race and ethnicity, Wachter and Saiz found that the relationship was “very negative” when black immigrants moved in. For non-Hispanic white immigrants, it was positive—meaning native residents saw them as an amenity. So, it wasn’t the “foreignness” of immigrants—it was simply skin color that elicited native, white flight.
“In sum, natives are willing to pay a premium to live in predominantly native neighborhoods,” Wachter concluded. That “might change with time as we move to a majority-minority nation.”
It’s not clear what direction America will move in with respect to immigration, or whether the seemingly intractable tendency for white folks to self-segregate will ever ease. But if it doesn’t, the children of immigrants currently growing up in racially segregated neighborhoods will certainly bear the long-term economic costs. And so will the children of homeowners who were born in the U.S.""
3/3
Nicely done. I like how you conflate ILLEGAL immigrant with all immigrants. You are, as I pointed out earlier conflating ALL immigrants, of all races, with the illegals from south of our border. Most asians (not all) and most other immigrant groups (except, oddly, russians) are overwhelmingly legal. The percentage of illegal hispanics is much higher.
Yes, I will say that when hispanics move in, and blacks move out, crime goes down. But when Hispanics ILLEGAL are a high percentage of the population, then crime does go up when they replace whites. It largely dpends on the percentage of illegals.
Now, things may be different in the greater LA area than it is in the greater Chicago, Indianapolis, Lousiville etc areas. There, crime goes up and property values go down. No one other than additional hispanics want to live where there are a large number of illegals. Call it "White Flight" if you wish but it happens for a reason, and that reason isn't racism.
But really, dude, stop mixing up (you really aren't that stupid, nor am I) legal immigrants with illegals to make your statistics look good, Show some numbers for ILLEGALs, tell the truth.
I'm done arguing with you when you won't be honest. Effectively, you are lying when you try to twist the numbers using the stats the way you do.
But a question: Why is the Hill a bad reference, but the Times a good one? One could argue that the Hill is at least honest, whereas the Times is very biased. The other references you posted are as unknown and unreliable as any I posted. Why the double standard? Again, be honest. At least the articles I posted have links as to where the data came from, unlike yours.
When you want to have an honest discussion, and not one where you toss lies, half truths and propaganda about, let me know.
Until then.
Mixing illegal/legal? You started with assimilation isn’t occurring, not assimilation isn’t occurring in illegal households. You started with cherry picked stats that ignored legal immigrants in one case and added them in another.
The NYTimes piece was about what is assimilation and asserted no facts and was clearly label opinion while asking a question, not posing an answer. The Hill simply recited tired and disproven tropes.
I note that you considered Fox News to be credible by not arguing about their story, which is a step forward.
Post a Comment