Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

I'm gonna lay down some data and links, you respond with your interpretation of it all.

The following three graphs are from the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics.

(after a year of being unemployed you're no longer considered "unemployed" but "not in labor force" which is how they can say yaaay the economy is recovering unemployment is going back down Obama saved us all!)

BLS News Release

{ The unemployment rate for foreign-born persons in the United States was 5.6 percent in 2014, down from 6.9 percent in 2013, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. }

BLS Data Show All Net Employment Growth Has Gone to Immigrants

{ Data published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics on its website (see Table A-7) show that all of the net gain in employment since 2007 has gone to immigrants (legal and illegal), also referred to as the foreign-born. Native employment has still not returned to pre-recession levels, while immigrant employment already exceeds pre-recession levels.

More recently, natives have done somewhat better. However, even with job growth in the last two years
(November 2012 to November 2014), 45 percent of employment growth has gone to immigrants, though
they comprise only 17 percent of the labor force. }

Disney Pads Record Profits by Replacing U.S. Workers with Cheaper H-1B Guestworkers

{ What motivates a company to replace its American workers with H-1B guestworkers? One word: Profit. H-1B guestworkers are cheaper than American workers and don’t have much bargaining power, and any company would be foolish not to take advantage of this highly lucrative business model that has been inadvertently created by Congress and multiple presidential administrations. Of course, this business model is paid for by destroying the livelihoods and dignity of tens of thousands of American workers. The costs are also borne by American taxpayers, through foregone tax revenue and the additional social services that need to be provided for those newly unemployed American workers.

When it comes to using the H-1B to cut costs, Disney is far from an isolated case. The Disney news comes on the heels of multiple reports of corporate layoffs with H-1B replacements, at Southern California Edison, the Fossil Group in Texas, Pfizer and Northeast Utilities in Connecticut, Harley Davidson in Milwaukee and Kansas, and Cargill in Minnesota. }

What do you think about what you've read,
and most importantly,
what do you think we can do to remedy this issue?

I presume the issue you're referring to is that these employment practices leave more Americans unemployed, but I want to point out that clearly Disney, Pfizer, Harley Davidson, etc don't think these practices are wrong. I personally know people who would see this as simply good business, damn the consequences.

These kinds of trends are going to become the norm as the world globalizes (for better or worse), and I've personally been on both sides of the debate regarding protectionism, outsourcing, brain drain, etc. That said, I'm not all too familiar with the whole 'dey dook our jerrrrbs' sentiment that seems popular among conservatives, and I'm supportive of easier immigration policies ('cause it's the Murican dream, of course).

Before I really think about the issue I'd like to hear any opinions, ideas, and any info (especially if you know of any politicians that have taken a stand on this) that you have, OP.

I doubt anyone here would really want the kind of jobs that these immigrants are taking.

Slightly off-topic, but I've always somewhat preferred working with Migrant workers, who tend to be happier and prouder of what they do.

{ the kind of jobs that these immigrants are taking }

Ask the 40% of the population who has been without a job for at least a year if they'd pass on any job created after 2007. Ask all the employees whose last task was to train their cheaper immigrant replacement if they really truly wanted that job in the first place. Hell, ask the government if they miss the healthy economy that can't recover because the citizens who invest in it are all unemployed/on welfare and the visa workers making money are sending it all back home as remittances.

First, legal immigration is already drastically easier here than it is anywhere else. Other countries have standards you must meet to get any kind of visa, other countries strictly monitor and limit how many visa workers they take in because they know the detriment it will have on their own economies. It's only the US that gets told their policies are racist.

Do you know the number of visa workers our country's laws allow per year? It's 65,000. That's it. How many of our 41 million immigrants are here on visas that only 65k people get annually? How many are working in spite of that limit? It's allows an additional 20k for Master's degree holders and higher, despite unemployment for American degree holders plummeting. They get their degrees cheaply in a third world country then come practice here while we bury ourselves under tens of thousands of dollars in student debt just to get passed over for a migrant who'll take less pay.

The government is obligated to protect it's citizens interests, not open loopholes and blatantly ignore federal law, in Obama's case. Australia (who has the harshest border policy in the world btw) and Malaysia and Thailand and Indonesia have been turning away boats full of thousands and thousands of migrants, why does no one tell them that their "stop the boat" policies are racist? In Europe, the recent influx in immigrants is enough to hold crisis meetings to decide what to do. In America, we open the southern border and welcome them in with govt gift baskets.

Not only do these policies hurt American workers directly, but migrant workers are willing to work for much less money in much worse conditions. Why would any business employ workers that needed to be paid more and fussed over their working conditions when they could get 3 workers for the price of one and not have to worry so much about making employees comfortable?

Of course big business doesn't think these practices are wrong, that's the exact reason the government began enforcing worker visa/immigration policy in the first place. Worker/consumer protection is solely on the government. Big business is obligated to make as large a profit as they can, not care about whether or not their employees are being paid a liveable wage. The government is reversing and ignoring the legislation created in the past to deal with exactly the problem they're intentionally creating. Big business funds the government, it funds their campaigns, it sends them lobbyists, big business has bought the protection of the government that used to belong to the people.

Major politicians are pretty party-line on the issue. Conservatives do not want, liberals do (which is funny considering how everyone always says the GOP is in the pocket of big business but it's Democrats that fight for their cheap labor). Some of them have some hybrid ideas that are too moderate to be taken seriously by the aging extremists.

@jarbox: Shitty job is better than no job, every time.

@lisalombs: I suppose I'm confused about what the topic is, because I'm not sure what's up for debate…

Yes, the United States is (among many things) an immigrant nation and though recently conservatives have tried to barrel their agenda in Congress and the states, barley a third of that legislation has passed (for better or worse, I guess we can talk about that). As a second-gen I think immigration and the American Dream are inseparable, but we're all entitled to our own opinions on the matter.

You say that anti-immigration in many nations is motivated to protect their economies from the detriment that immigrants cause, but that perspective ignores some of the reasons countries desire immigrants; eg the NHS is scrambling to nab as many foreign doctors as they can because they're losing doctors. Continuing with the example of Britain, the anti-immigration movements are based on the same reasons as they are here; the noncompetitive natives are losing their jobs so turn to the government for help, some people are nativist and a little racist (google "UKIP Racism" and behold the madness), they conflate immigrants with violent crime (which is false in the US at least, as immigrants are proven to be less likely to commit crime), etc. To say some countries have strict immigration policies because they want to protect their economies is willfully ignoring all the ways that those very same countries encourage expats to come (so I'm not saying that strict immigration policy doesn't exist, it obviously does especially in Europe, but the way you're portraying it is a little misleading).

The Cato Institute and the Rand Corporation (whom I trust) both have studies that suggest leaner immigration policies will improve the GDP, so immigration's effect on the economy isn't a black-or-white, good-or-bad thing; the question is whether it is ultimately beneficial or harmful, and who wins/loses. Business seeks to make a quick profit (and incidentally improve the GDP), the Average Joe wants a well-paying job that isn't taken by some under-qualified immigrant, but either way it seems like neither Congress nor the states can actually achieve anything on the issue (perhaps a Republican taking office in '16 will change that, but I guess that particular question can be discussed in the presidential race thread).

On a side note something tells me that you and I are politically aware enough to see through the Democrats' "boo corporations, boo bad business!" image as a total lie, both the D and R parties are beholden to big business.

Ask the 40% of the population who has been without a job for at least a year if they’d pass on any job created after 2007. Ask all the employees whose last task was to train their cheaper immigrant replacement if they really truly wanted that job in the first place.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/05/us/farmers-strain-to-hire-american-workers-in-place-of-migrant-labor.html?_r=0

http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/magazine/why-americans-wont-do-dirty-jobs-11092011.html
"One of the big selling points of the immigration law was that it would free up jobs that Republican Governor Robert Bentley said immigrants had stolen from recession-battered Americans. Yet native Alabamians have not come running to fill these newly liberated positions."

I've watched tv shows about farmers and they all say the same thing; They want to hire local people, but they can't, they won't take the job.

{ I’ve watched tv shows about farmers and they all say the same thing; They want to hire local people, but they can’t, they won’t take the job. }

So do you think farming jobs have been the only jobs added since 2007 or…?

The jobs legal immigrants take are not the labor intensive jobs that illegal immigrants flock towards.

{ I suppose I’m confused about what the topic is, because I’m not sure what’s up for debate… }

We're not having a debate, we're having a discussion. We're not arguing a side, we're sharing ideas and opinions about the current state of a global issue. Debates are structured arguments on a single topic with two clear sides. People hear "debate" and think "I MUST WIN" when 99% of the time there is no right or wrong answer. Debating is what Congress does instead of discussing, which is why nobody can reach a compromise. OUR SIDE'S RIGHT HERE'S WHY, NO OUR SIDE'S RIGHT HERE'S WHY is nothing but a formal circlejerk.

Bold for clarification: I'm not anti-immigration, I'm anti-mass amnesty and pro-enforcing our immigration laws.

{ eg the NHS is scrambling to nab as many foreign doctors as they can because they’re losing doctors. }

The 1st world is losing doctors because it now costs a literal small fortune and fifteen years to become one. As I was saying in an earlier post, we're importing doctors who get their degrees cheaply in India (who often can't even pass the exams to get a license in the US) who then come here and make bank but remit it all. If we fixed public education in this country we wouldn't have so many Ph.D+ jobs to fill.

We'd still have some, like I said, not anti-immigration, but the policies that were put in place to protect our citizens (and the citizens of brain drained countries) from this very effect must be enforced. Nobody can achieve anything on the issue because nobody actually wants to enforce the law, who knows what that would do to their public ratings and corporate donations.

I care 0% about the crime rate of immigrants and other non-economic factors. My concern with immigration is solely its effect on my ability to make money in the future.

{ something tells me that you and I are politically aware enough }

Doesn't mean everyone reading this thread is.

In my defense, the forum is called "Serious Debate", so naturally I presumed we'd be debating something. Just looking around this forum, it seems that you (OP) and peaceful 'discussion' are mutually exclusive…

I think everyone would agree with what you're saying; laws should be enforced, politicians should listen to their people, education should be better, corporations should be held accountable, and people should consider switching their traditionally high-carbohydrate breakfasts (cereals, toast, bagels, muffins, etc) to a high-protein, low carb meal for more energy throughout the day and better results in the gym. To this end people should raise awareness of the issue, vote accordingly (especially by holding their congressmen and governors responsible for ignoring lots of attempted legislation), and switch to scrambled eggs or high-protein yogurts instead of filling up on bread.

People think I just want to argue because that's what I did in the fb comments but here I focus more on the word "serious". Every thread I've made so far I've said there is no right or wrong answer and people keep trying to prove my opinions "wrong" because they don't agree instead of putting forth their own opinions and suggestions. Every Islam thread I make gets turned into an apologist soapbox when all I want to do is talk about terrorists and fundamentalists. Haven't you noticed yet that there's two people who go through my forum posts every day just to downvote? KYM isn't exactly my fanclub.

{ I think everyone would agree with what you’re saying; }

Every Democrat who has announced so far is running on exactly the opposite of what I'm saying. If you want a stated discussion topic, we could talk about which candidate has the best idea or what we would add/remove to make it actually work.

Every thread I’ve made so far I’ve said there is no right or wrong answer

Which is why you titled your global warming thread "Deconstructing the myth of anthropogenic global warming", right?

I actually have noticed the constant downvotes on literally every post. You have dedicated haters, which is hilarious. [Insert cliched Churchill quote about having enemies here].

Since you brought up the race, I want to point out that the top R candidate right now, Bush, is actually at odds with the party over immigration. The Tea Party types are rabidly against his ideas, so I wonder if during the primaries he's going to take his agenda a few steps back (which wouldn't surprise me, since he's flip-flopped before: he supported the DREAM act in 2002). Though it may be irrelevant in your opinion, and I admit I'm a bit of a sap about it, Bush clearly appreciates what the American Dream means to immigrants (check out his book if you want know more) and I respect him in that regard. Additionally, Rubio (who is a contender IMO) had his comprehensive immigration reform shot down by house Republicans in 2013, and he's been on an anti-party streak since (vowing to see his plan done piece-by-piece despite his own party's 'no go'). So I think that's two significant R candidates who can't seem to see eye-to-eye with their party on immigration. I'll read up on Hillary and see what Democrats are up to. And perhaps you can explain what Scott Walker is up to, consider your his fangirl.

If you have any interesting info that conflicts with what I'm saying then share. Anyway, I think looking at the candidates is as good a way as any to consider the issue, but I want to stress the role that state governments play in all the dimensions of immigration as well (as a former Texan I have the instinctual urge to blame Washington for our problems, but the govs of California, Arizona, and Florida are sometimes masterclasses in incompetent immigration legislation).

On a highly off-topic note, I see what you mean about discussions regarding Islam. I was ready to jump in on that ISIS thread that's still going, but it looks like the battle of Stalingrad in there (back-and-forth gun battles and fire bombings over every damn sentence). Perhaps after some of the heat has died down someone (you, me, anyone else reading this) open a thread on Sharia Law; I'm convinced by some of the comments in the ISIS thread that people have a hard time seeing Sharia as the medieval, misogynist, vindictive, fundamentalist crap that it is (which is shocking considering many of these users presumably come from liberal democracies with secular law). But that's a flame war for another time, I suppose.

{ Which is why you titled your global warming thread “Deconstructing the myth of anthropogenic global warming”, right? }

That is confirmed scientific fact stated in a way that would generate emotional response.

Lisa Lombardo's thread titles are intenTIONALLY BAITING PPL U GUYS THAT'S SO UNLIKE HER!!1!

:|

{ I’m convinced by some of the comments in the ISIS thread that people have a hard time seeing Sharia as the medieval, misogynist, vindictive, fundamentalist crap that it is (which is shocking considering many of these users presumably come from liberal democracies with secular law) }

stop yer being rly racist not everywhere is AMERICA u xenophobe




No policy from Bush would convince me to vote for another Bush. He's not the only one with good ideas. Anybody but Bush/Clinton, plz.

Rubio's immigration plan is that plan that's too moderate for all the extremists to take seriously, unfortunately. It's a solid idea. No de facto amnesty but it opens an alternative path for illegal immigrants already here to become citizens. I appreciate that he specifically notes it costs marginally more in terms of money and time to stay in the country and wait 15 years with no govt handouts (his idea) and being deported to their home country for 10 years on a waiting list (what we do now), so it wouldn't be encouraging more illegal immigration just to take advantage of a loophole.

Part of why I'd be fine with him as VP on the GOP ticket, but it's one of few issues overall where we agree.


Walker is sort of on board with Rubio, he would be very likely to implement his ideas. He doesn't want straight up amnesty but he doesn't think we can simply deport all the illegal immigrants here right now.

The "problem" with Walker right now is that he's playing both sides of the field, which will only hold up until the debates. His actions and policies as Gov. of Wisconsin are on the moderate end of conservatism but Iowa/etc are the extreme end of conservatism, so to win primary votes he has to appease them. That goes for all candidates, of course, everyone reverts to far-right or far-left opinions during the primaries (barring Rand Paul [and a couple others] and we see how much support he gets). There's just not enough 18-25 voters to win a primary against the nearly 80% turnout of the 60+ generation for either party. I firmly believe if he takes the primary his campaign will swing more center and he'll start speaking about his environmental and social actions in Wisconsin instead of sticking heavily to his economic success there, as he is now.

That is confirmed scientific fact stated in a way that would generate emotional response.

Several people in the thread provided counterpoints to that.

Perhaps after some of the heat has died down someone (you, me, anyone else reading this) open a thread on Sharia Law; I’m convinced by some of the comments in the ISIS thread that people have a hard time seeing Sharia as the medieval, misogynist, vindictive, fundamentalist crap that it is (which is shocking considering many of these users presumably come from liberal democracies with secular law).

If you read the ISIS thread, you'd realize that the biggest debate was on the topic of military intervention, not Sharia law.

Yes, people posted government-funded studies from nearly ten years ago in response to the IPCC's latest data release from less than six months ago.

.5% of published, peer-reviewed (none of the govt agencies go through peer review) global climate research supports the theory that at least 50% climate change is caused by human action. All other research indicates we simply don't have that kind of influence. Anthropogenic global warming has been dead for decades.

@lisalombs: Let's be 100% clear: my dislike for Sharia law and the brutal extremists waging wars of conquest in its name is not motivated out of some desire to see human rights prevail around the world, nor because Islamic fundamentalist rule is a totalitarian outlet for misogynist thugs to violate every principle and ideal the Free World was founded on; it's simply because I personally crave the annihilation of every Muslim that has ever existed as that is the only thing that can bring me joy. Obviously! Also, u genocidal racist Murican stahp starting crusades plz k thx bye.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Bush fan (Bush vs Hillary is like Alien vs Predator, no matter who wins we lose), I just think he's the inevitable choice for the R ticket. I guess this is a topic better left to the 2016 Pres thread, but I read an article about how Walker has been flip-flopping on immigration specifically; in two years he's gone from supporting amnesty alllll the way to suggesting we curb legal immigration, which is a pretty far leap. Like you said, he needs to appear as far right as he can leading up to the primaries and then he'll presumably settle back to the center/mainstream (where he belongs) if he wins. I'm not confident he understands the issue to the degree that Bush or Rubio do, so I'll say that the best GOP combo for the purpose of immigration policy would be Bush/Rubio (as for the economy/jobs, the environment, the military, etc I think there are better candidates). Again, I feel like the '16 Pres thread is bleeding into this discussion.

And though you and I might cordially disagree on certain things, I'm gonna go ahead and say you're a little crazy if you're denying anthropogenic climate change. 'Cause that's just wrong, mkay.

@jarbox: Yes, that's why I called it "the ISIS thread" and not "the Sharia Law" thread, because it was primarily concerned with military intervention against ISIS, but many of the comments demonstrated a failure in many people's minds to distinguish Islam the faith from Islam the fundamentalist political regime responsible for brutality, subjugation, and theocratic totalitarianism. Hence why I want to start a new thread about a different subject (Sharia, not ISIS or military intervention) rather than derail that already wild thread.