22 is saying immigration has a net cost, but can't prove it. Yellow is saying immigration has a cost to the Danish government and has provided evidance. I'm saying the cost or benefit to the U.S. economy is still unknown, but that the right is to blame for the weak enforcement in this nation.
This is weird that you can't get this. I'm an open mind asking for a sound argument. I'm not expressing a belief on the net cost. You simply haven't been able to provide a sound argument. That makes me believe your position is weak. Maybe tomorrow someone will step up with better evidence.
What are they costing? Maybe they are all being cared for with one income? Get me data. It's not my fault you locked in on a position with no support. I'm not so cavalier about my positions, so convince me.
I don't think there is much doubt that the "right" is just as much to blame as anyone for the current immigration mess....cheap labor is good for business.....anything that helps to artificially depress wages is a good thing for those of the right and the C of C. I agree that a growing population is better than a stagnant population as far a growing the economic pie.......Europe is a funny place.....they like their own and really are insistant upon "conformity" to established culture. EU populations are pretty constant and their economies are vibrant enough to take on large influxes of people.
I suspect because the message plays well to white cons and not so well with brown D voters. It's the modern iteration of the Nixon Southern strategy. The Ds are the team that supported arresting CEOs like trump for hiring illegals. The Rs are the team that blocked that. Now that was in the 80's when Ds were more liberal. The DLC probably would be loath to stick it to the Trumps of the world today too, but that's the logical way to deal with this problem.
Does every person need a job? Do you think every person with out a job is on government benefits? Simply not working doesn't mean a person is a cost to the society. You need to look deeper and find better analysis.
That analysis is suspect too, because they don't vote. If they did, Texas would be a blue state. The only thing Ds get out of this is they seem fair to their bleeding heart race sensitive base. Rs are the people that get concreat advantages from our immigration policy.
Google it this isn't the Khan academy, you will find lots of data. And that data is based only on the Hispanic citizens, not the illegals who often get tossed into your argument but don't vote. Texas has managed to keep their Hispanic voters home in record numbers.
http://www.ibtimes.com/texas-new-ba...ligible-hispanic-voters-turn-out-more-1558383
And an Econ guy should know that's not the only factor to determine if immigration is a net economic benefit or cost to society. I guess your cover is blown. And lazy hypocrite isn't actually a name. it's an accurate description of one who won't provide evidance for their position, even deriding one for asking for it, but insists other do.
Yep, I appreciated it, thanks. I do think you read more into your evidence than may be warranted, but at least I see where the government of Denmark is making the claim that they are saving money on immigrants and pointing that money to domestic people. Its not clear that an immigrant to the US costs the same to the US government as one in Denmark. Its also not clear that we couldn't have Denmark like social policy and deal with immigration differently too. Afterall your border security and deportation solution to immigration is wildly expensive. The previously D endorsed plan to hold employers liable for hiring illegals would cost greatly less. If we adopted the D plan on immigration we could likely have both fewer new immigrants and a domestic population better sharing in the wealth of this nation.
I hate to say it, but this data isn't very good either. First the report isn't conclusive saying "Over the past two decades, most efforts to estimate the fiscal impact of immigration in the United States have concluded that, in aggregate and over the long term, tax revenues of all types generated by immigrants—both legal and unauthorized—exceed the cost of the services they use". Second, it has the same problem Yellow's Denmark data has in that its only looking at the government side of the equation. We need a study that looks at the total economic impact to know if that immigrant is really a cost or benefit. Third, this study is mostly about illegal immigration, where Yellow was talking about all immigration. Its entirely possible we make illegal immigrants cost effective simply by making them legal and hence more likely to pay more taxes and contribute more economic activity.
Because I am trying to remain open minded and allow myself to be persuaded by the evidence. I assumed someone here must have based their anti-immigration position on sound reasoning that looked at the entire economic impact. We will see if anyone has, its not looking real promising so far.
I think the US could learn a lot from Scandinavian nations. What I'm trying to determine is if we could learn anything about the economic impact of immigration from them. Or is the main lesson to be learned around this issue more about emotions. Your story shifts this from an argument about the cost benefit analysis of new immigrants to one about feelings and sentiments surrounding the religion and ethnicity of the new people. I'm not sure that's the best face for the anti-immigrant position, but it may be the ugly truth.
