Speak English

[jsanders]

Thought I add a new twist, more on the cost of illegal aliens.

Everyone is always talking about the health care cost and the social cost of having such a large population of illegal immigrants. But one that is not often mentioned is the disproportionate cost to funding ratio on public schools.

Many, if not most, illegal aliens rent a single family home and have several families living in them, as much as 10 or 12 kids or even more. The economics dictate this arrangement.

As you all know in America, public schools are funded by assessments on real-estate. So a normal American family pays the taxes on one American dwelling and that establishes the ratio of cost per student per household. Now people without children pay anyway but we all benefited one way or another from this program.

But for the illegals, the dynamics are much different. The school system is educating multiple families on the taxes collected from a single dwelling. In addition to this, these students require special attention. They must have Spanish speaking teacher to accommodate them.

Fortunately this immigration problem is being raised in our current gubernatorial races

 

[Kraj]

I've not said anything on this topic so far (at least I don't think I have), so I'm just going to add this:

I live and work in downtown Chicago. Granted, the situation regarding illegal immigrants in Illinois is vastly different than in Texas, BUT...

...every day I encounter at least a half dozen panhandlers. When I'm walking to work, going to lunch, going to dinner, stepping out in front of my bulding. They're everywhere. In my two years living here (not to mention travel to other cities), I've seen about 3-4 different white panhandlers, dozens of black ones, but not one single latino. Ever.

In a discussion about whether an entire demographic is a drain on society or not, I think it's an interesting observation.

 

[The Stoat]

There is a flavour of hypocrisy to some of the replies in this thread.

The West particularly the US has championed free market economics across the world. This has more often than not benefited rich countries who can use there greater economic leverage to prevent fair competion. A good example are the massive European and US farm subsidies which have made it extremely difficult for poor countries to compete on a level playing field even though their produce is cheaper at source.

There are no complaints when the system is functioning as intended i.e. when it allows unfair advantage in the global market; so how can complaints be justified when companies use the system to reduce overheads to make greater profit.

It's free market capaitalist economics in action a system of our own creation. As rich nations we can either choose to take the rough with the smooth or divise an alternative.
If we will not allow poor countries to be protectionist about their markets we cannot justify protectionism for ourselves.

If you want to protect your jobs from cheap foreign labour or cheap Chinese imports then the only logical alternative is to cease trading with other countries and rescind the global free trade agreements, close the borders and practice isolationism. Logical yes, viable No.

TS

 

[jsanders]

There is a flavour of hypocrisy to some of the replies in this thread.

The West particularly the US has championed free market economics across the world. This has more often than not benefited rich countries who can use there greater economic leverage to prevent fair competion. A good example are the massive European and US farm subsidies which have made it extremely difficult for poor countries to compete on a level playing field even though their produce is cheaper at source.

There are no complaints when the system is functioning as intended i.e. when it allows unfair advantage in the global market; so how can complaints be justified when companies use the system to reduce overheads to make greater profit.

It's free market capaitalist economics in action a system of our own creation. As rich nations we can either choose to take the rough with the smooth or divise an alternative.
If we will not allow poor countries to be protectionist about their markets we cannot justify protectionism for ourselves.

If you want to protect your jobs from cheap foreign labour or cheap Chinese imports then the only logical alternative is to cease trading with other countries and rescind the global free trade agreements, close the borders and practice isolationism. Logical yes, viable No.

TS

That's an extreme oversimplification.

The people don’t want illegal immigration large corporations do.

Our government is being run by these same corporations. The distress you hear here is an attempt at voicing our views to get more people involved in the process of reacquiring our country.

This unabated and almost unregulated global trade is lowering the standard of living for Americans and Western Europeans alike. And all the while international companies continue to get a higher and higher percentage of the wealth.

No one says we need to stop using immigrants to provide the work force for the low paid jobs. We’re simply saying they should learn English and pay taxes. The taxes part is the fault of the corporation run government, not the immigrants themselves. Even the language part is partially because the lack of will to force change is dominated by Uncle/Big Business.

 

[Rich]

What's a panhandler?

 

[jsanders]

What's a panhandler?

Street Begger

 

[jsanders]

I've not said anything on this topic so far (at least I don't think I have), so I'm just going to add this:

I live and work in downtown Chicago. Granted, the situation regarding illegal immigrants in Illinois is vastly different than in Texas, BUT...

...every day I encounter at least a half dozen panhandlers. When I'm walking to work, going to lunch, going to dinner, stepping out in front of my bulding. They're everywhere. In my two years living here (not to mention travel to other cities), I've seen about 3-4 different white panhandlers, dozens of black ones, but not one single latino. Ever.

In a discussion about whether an entire demographic is a drain on society or not, I think it's an interesting observation.

The majority come here to work.

The system is flawed.

The employers get the benefits, while the middle class pays the price.

The society suffers when we are forced to adapt their language, instead of vice versa.
The country suffers when immigrants aren’t required to learn the basis for our freedoms. These are new developments in America, previous generations of immigrants assimilated joyfully into the society. This latest wave is trying to bring theirs here.

Can you blame them we don’t force them to adapt, we actually alienate them by not requiring them to adapt.

It’s a double edged sword.

 

[jsanders]

You guys have been missing my insightful repartees, haven’t you?

 

[The Stoat]

That's an extreme oversimplification.

The people don’t want illegal immigration large corporations do.

Our government is being run by these same corporations. The distress you hear here is an attempt at voicing our views to get more people involved in the process of reacquiring our country.

This unabated and almost unregulated global trade is lowering the standard of living for Americans and Western Europeans alike. And all the while international companies continue to get a higher and higher percentage of the wealth.

No one says we need to stop using immigrants to provide the work force for the low paid jobs. We’re simply saying they should learn English and pay taxes. The taxes part is the fault of the corporation run government, not the immigrants themselves. Even the language part is partially because the lack of will to force change is dominated by Uncle/Big Business.

Firstly I think any discourse on this subject is going to be a simplification. viz your second paragraph, This unabated...... But i'd like to think its a masterly summing up [Joke]

Secondly the US has the biggest % of private citizens investing in the stock market of any country. Unless you withdraw support for companies who practice these methods then they will continue to use them. The benefits these investors see are a direct consequence of the practices of these companies. But of course that will never actually happen as people are very good proposing sacrifices on the behalf of others but do little when their own pocket might suffer.

The fact is countries including the US continue to support such practices by voting for the proponents of them. If your government is run by big business and it's influence is malign then why support them? We often hear people say i dislike policy x but it's such a small issue i still feel i can support the party. Well this isn't a small issue. Economic competence is a fundamental election winning issue -well here it is - yet you continue to vote for people who you are arguing are give your jobs away, diluting your culture and lowering your standard of living. Why?

TS

 

[Kraj]

The employers get the benefits, while the middle class pays the price.

If there were no illegal workers, wouldn't the middle class also pay higher prices on goods and services these businesses provide?

 

[jsanders]

If there were no illegal workers, wouldn't the middle class also pay higher prices on goods and services these businesses provide?

Not really because the savings from using illegal aliens goes to the bottom line, and less to lower pricing.

The cheep imports actually do help the working class, in that it provides lower prices. But it is at the expense of adding more people to the lower wage class. Wal-Mart displaces small businesses that employ people at middle class pay and hires foreigners at lower than living wages.

 

[Kraj]

I'll buy that

 

[Rich]

But it is at the expense of adding more people to the lower wage class. Wal-Mart displaces small businesses that employ people at middle class pay and hires foreigners at lower than living wages.

Don't you have a minimum wage over there?

 

[The Stoat]

We have a minimum wage law but illegal aliens hardly have any recourse. We also has a president wo saw fit to dispense with minimum wage laws in the aftermath of Katrina. So, instead of New Orleans residents and local companies being employeed to rebuild their distroyed city, out of state companies are importing illegal aliens to do the work for slave wages. They are even advertising in Mexico and Central America. No papers are required and wages are low but the wages are still enough to attract more people. Especially with the potential of an amnesty.

It's interesting that you mention Katrina. In the Katrina thread there were advocates for the view that many of the victims were people unwilling to help themselves. We were told that they had become dependant on a culture of welfare and expected the government(s) to bail them out of the crisis. If this point of view is correct then surely these are the very Americans who are refusing the jobs that are being given to the Mexican immigrants?


TS

 

[The Stoat]

Not really because the savings from using illegal aliens goes to the bottom line, and less to lower pricing.

The cheep imports actually do help the working class, in that it provides lower prices. But it is at the expense of adding more people to the lower wage class. Wal-Mart displaces small businesses that employ people at middle class pay and hires foreigners at lower than living wages.

Are not the middle classes primarily the supporters of a government who's policies and stance towards big business create this situation. Is it not also the case that the Middle class are the primary investors with both personal and pension investments in these companies stock?

TS