Trump: we don’t want more Latin Americans!

[Hammy]

If this racist pile of sh**t is re-elected I give up, America is lost.

America's been lost ever since the right's reaction to Obama's candidacy, which was the point at which I gave up on this country.

[Badger]

If this racist pile of sh**t is re-elected I give up, America is lost.

America's been lost ever since the right's reaction to Obama's candidacy, which was the point at which I gave up on this country.

Electing a black man president?

[GP270watch]

42 million Latin Americans is a great exaggeration like most things Trump posts. But if tens of millions Latino Americans came to this country in the next few decades the economy would explode and it would be a good thing. Do the research Latino immigration is a positive to America by every metric.

Unless that metric is the rate of wages and the material position of the native-born American working class by creating a surplus to the American labour market.

 Wages haven't rose in segments where there is virtually no competition from immigration either. The reason for wage stagnation is wealth inequality. The investor class has had outsized gains, people who earn a paycheck are at a disadvantage because the government has made a tax environment where investors and businesses pay very little, and workers get the brunt of the tax burden. Companies have also taken profits and divided them among investors/shareholders and executive management in the form of stock compensation and buybacks over raising wages for workers. This doesn't have a damn thing to do with immigration.

[Famous Mortimer]

42 million Latin Americans is a great exaggeration like most things Trump posts. But if tens of millions Latino Americans came to this country in the next few decades the economy would explode and it would be a good thing. Do the research Latino immigration is a positive to America by every metric.

Really weird that these millions of Latin Americans can't make Latin America rich.

[GP270watch]

 Like I said look at the examples of Italian and Irish immigration. 40% of the entire population of Ireland left that country because it could not provide, many of those immigrants came to America and did contribute to America's wealth and success. So your point makes no sense.

 The Central Americans countries can not currently provide because of bad governance. This is not the fault of the people. Just like it wasn't the fault of those Italian and Irish immigrants. The United States has also made bad foreign policy decisions that has directly contributed to the bad governance in Central America.

[Big Abraham]

42 million Latin Americans is a great exaggeration like most things Trump posts. But if tens of millions Latino Americans came to this country in the next few decades the economy would explode and it would be a good thing. Do the research Latino immigration is a positive to America by every metric.

Unless that metric is the rate of wages and the material position of the native-born American working class by creating a surplus to the American labour market.

 Wages haven't rose in segments where there is virtually no competition from immigration either. The reason for wage stagnation is wealth inequality. The investor class has had outsized gains, people who earn a paycheck are at a disadvantage because the government has made a tax environment where investors and businesses pay very little, and workers get the brunt of the tax burden. Companies have also taken profits and divided them among investors/shareholders and executive management in the form of stock compensation and buybacks over raising wages for workers. This doesn't have a damn thing to do with immigration.

Oh but it does, and it's unfortunate to see so many ostensibly left-leaning people siding with the interests of multinational corporations and liberal economists on this issue. The large-scale importation of cheap labour into a domestic market naturally drives down the wage level, and even if there is no oversupply of low-wage workers, illegal immigrants will still be paid appreciably less than their American-born counterparts, and less than immigrant workers with legal status. This inevitably produces a substantial downward pressure on wages for American-born workers in job categories with high rates of participation by illegal immigrants. Even if the wage penalty for these workers is on the low side, it by necessity depresses wages for other workers in the same industry.

And don't get me wrong, I'm far from declaring that increased immigration is the sole or even the primary force for wage stagnation; the primary catalyst is not only wealth inequality (which is really more of an effect than a cause), but the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, which is counterbalanced by several factors, including the rate of exploitation, the reduction of wages below the value of labour, and the increase in the use of share capital by joint-stock companies. But to fail to take into account immigration at all, especially to suggest that the wholesale importation of millions of Latin Americans is good by "every metric", is quite foolish

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

42 million Latin Americans is a great exaggeration like most things Trump posts. But if tens of millions Latino Americans came to this country in the next few decades the economy would explode and it would be a good thing. Do the research Latino immigration is a positive to America by every metric.

Really weird that these millions of Latin Americans can't make Latin America rich.

Wow, you must be very ignorant of history.

[Famous Mortimer]

Like I said look at the examples of Italian and Irish immigration. 40% of the entire population of Ireland left that country because it could not provide, many of those immigrants came to America and did contribute to America's wealth and success. So your point makes no sense.

 The Central Americans countries can not currently provide because of bad governance. This is not the fault of the people. Just like it wasn't the fault of those Italian and Irish immigrants. The United States has also made bad foreign policy decisions that has directly contributed to the bad governance in Central America.

1) The Irish didn't help the economy. Ellis Island immigration polices led to the Gilded Age, as in crap economy that only looks good because it's covered by a thin veneer of gold. Irish helped themselves and they helped big business but they didn't help native born Americans or the middle class. The situation was very similar to the situation today, only the situation today is worse. The country only started recovering from the Gilded Age/the middle class only started growing when we started once we started restricting immigration in 1924. We need to start restricting it again if we want a middle class and not a recreation of the Latin American class system here.

2) We didn't have a social safety net when the Irish came here. That's the reason immigration today is even more harmful than immigration in the past (which was already harmful). Nowadays, even if an immigrant pays taxes and doesn't use welfare themselves (big if), they typically pop out a couple kids who do use welfare, and that totally cancels out their parents contribution to the economy.

3) "It's not the fault of the people, it's the fault of governance" Who is governing them? Latin American people are governing them. Almost all of the current Latin American leaders were elected in democratic elections. The problems of Latin America are the fault of the people of Latin America and they will bring those problems with them if they move anywhere in large numbers.

[GP270watch]

42 million Latin Americans is a great exaggeration like most things Trump posts. But if tens of millions Latino Americans came to this country in the next few decades the economy would explode and it would be a good thing. Do the research Latino immigration is a positive to America by every metric.

And don't get me wrong, I'm far from declaring that increased immigration is the sole or even the primary force for wage stagnation; the primary catalyst is not only wealth inequality (which is really more of an effect than a cause), but the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, which is counterbalanced by several factors, including the rate of exploitation, the reduction of wages below the value of labour, and the increase in the use of share capital by joint-stock companies. But to fail to take into account immigration at all, especially to suggest that the wholesale importation of millions of Latin Americans is good by "every metric", is quite foolish

  I don't agree. Exploited immigrant labor, and it is intentionally exploited because of the system that sets people up to be undocumented is mostly found in jobs that Americans don't want to work. We've seen the effects of this directly when states like Alabama tried to get tough on immigration. It hurt agriculture tremendously and there was no rush of Americans to work in those fields, for any wage.

 There is also a job shortage in the trades, not immense competition among the working class. There are literally not enough capable and willing hands to build and repair everything in America that is needed. Ask anybody in the trades. Work like Plumbing is facing a shortage and because it is highly regulated, hasn't been impacted by undocumented immigration. Plumbers wages have gone up but not because of lack of competition from immigrants but lack of Plumbers in general.

 Public school Teachers are a perfect example that destroys your narrative. They face virtually zero competition due to immigration because teaching is a highly certified field and requires many higher education qualifications and yet teacher's wages have been stagnant. We're seeing the revolt of teachers from state to state who've seen wages and benefits not keep pace, and seen their work environment degraded by government cutbacks to education. Cutbacks to education I might add by furthering the wrong policies of low taxes for businesses and investors, the very thing that stagnates wages.

 Outside of conservative think tanks I haven't found any studies of a negative economic impact because of immigration. All the serious studies are almost completely one-sided that it's a net boom to the local and national economy.  
 

[chocobar]

Like I said look at the examples of Italian and Irish immigration. 40% of the entire population of Ireland left that country because it could not provide, many of those immigrants came to America and did contribute to America's wealth and success. So your point makes no sense.

 The Central Americans countries can not currently provide because of bad governance. This is not the fault of the people. Just like it wasn't the fault of those Italian and Irish immigrants. The United States has also made bad foreign policy decisions that has directly contributed to the bad governance in Central America.

1) The Irish didn't help the economy. Ellis Island immigration polices led to the Gilded Age, as in crap economy that only looks good because it's covered by a thin veneer of gold. Irish helped themselves and they helped big business but they didn't help native born Americans or the middle class. The situation was very similar to the situation today, only the situation today is worse. The country only started recovering from the Gilded Age/the middle class only started growing when we started once we started restricting immigration in 1924. We need to start restricting it again if we want a middle class and not a recreation of the Latin American class system here.

2) We didn't have a social safety net when the Irish came here. That's the reason immigration today is even more harmful than immigration in the past (which was already harmful). Nowadays, even if an immigrant pays taxes and doesn't use welfare themselves (big if), they typically pop out a couple kids who do use welfare, and that totally cancels out their parents contribution to the economy.

3) "It's not the fault of the people, it's the fault of governance" Who is governing them? Latin American people are governing them. Almost all of the current Latin American leaders were elected in democratic elections. The problems of Latin America are the fault of the people of Latin America and they will bring those problems with them if they move anywhere in large numbers.

Could you cite/link those sources to those three claims?

[Woody]

42 million Latin Americans is a great exaggeration like most things Trump posts. But if tens of millions Latino Americans came to this country in the next few decades the economy would explode and it would be a good thing. Do the research Latino immigration is a positive to America by every metric.

 Over 100 years ago 3 million Italians came to America alone form 1900-1915. In 1900 the US population was only 72 million and by 1915 it was 100 million. The Italians were fleeing violence, bad governance, political strife, and lack of opportunity in their homelands. Many came from southern Italy and Sicily and had no education but the ability and will to work hard and provide a better life for their children.

 The immigration scare mongering Trump is doing is nothing new. People did it back then too. They were wrong then and they're wrong now. There were many Americans who said Italians and Sicilians were all criminals. That they could never be Americanized because they were mostly Catholics and therefore their allegiance was to the Pope in the Vatican. Great insults were made about their intelligence, their sexual proclivities and "breeding". Go back and read the garbage people wrote about these poor people. And if you have an Italian surname, think about what your ancestors went through to get here before you judge Central Americans doing the same.

And in return we ended up with violent gangsters like Al Capone filling our streets. Why? Because we didn't have proper immigration control, that's why.

[Famous Mortimer]

Like I said look at the examples of Italian and Irish immigration. 40% of the entire population of Ireland left that country because it could not provide, many of those immigrants came to America and did contribute to America's wealth and success. So your point makes no sense.

 The Central Americans countries can not currently provide because of bad governance. This is not the fault of the people. Just like it wasn't the fault of those Italian and Irish immigrants. The United States has also made bad foreign policy decisions that has directly contributed to the bad governance in Central America.

1) The Irish didn't help the economy. Ellis Island immigration polices led to the Gilded Age, as in crap economy that only looks good because it's covered by a thin veneer of gold. Irish helped themselves and they helped big business but they didn't help native born Americans or the middle class. The situation was very similar to the situation today, only the situation today is worse. The country only started recovering from the Gilded Age/the middle class only started growing when we started once we started restricting immigration in 1924. We need to start restricting it again if we want a middle class and not a recreation of the Latin American class system here.

2) We didn't have a social safety net when the Irish came here. That's the reason immigration today is even more harmful than immigration in the past (which was already harmful). Nowadays, even if an immigrant pays taxes and doesn't use welfare themselves (big if), they typically pop out a couple kids who do use welfare, and that totally cancels out their parents contribution to the economy.

3) "It's not the fault of the people, it's the fault of governance" Who is governing them? Latin American people are governing them. Almost all of the current Latin American leaders were elected in democratic elections. The problems of Latin America are the fault of the people of Latin America and they will bring those problems with them if they move anywhere in large numbers.

Could you cite/link those sources to those three claims?

You want sources that there were a lot of poor people during the Gilded Age?

That inequality goes down when you stop taking in massive numbers of poor people?

That we didn't have a welfare system before the 1930s?

That Latin America is ruled by Latin Americans who are usually elected?

Which specific facts do you have trouble believing?

[chocobar]

Like I said look at the examples of Italian and Irish immigration. 40% of the entire population of Ireland left that country because it could not provide, many of those immigrants came to America and did contribute to America's wealth and success. So your point makes no sense.

 The Central Americans countries can not currently provide because of bad governance. This is not the fault of the people. Just like it wasn't the fault of those Italian and Irish immigrants. The United States has also made bad foreign policy decisions that has directly contributed to the bad governance in Central America.

1) The Irish didn't help the economy. Ellis Island immigration polices led to the Gilded Age, as in crap economy that only looks good because it's covered by a thin veneer of gold. Irish helped themselves and they helped big business but they didn't help native born Americans or the middle class. The situation was very similar to the situation today, only the situation today is worse. The country only started recovering from the Gilded Age/the middle class only started growing when we started once we started restricting immigration in 1924. We need to start restricting it again if we want a middle class and not a recreation of the Latin American class system here.

2) We didn't have a social safety net when the Irish came here. That's the reason immigration today is even more harmful than immigration in the past (which was already harmful). Nowadays, even if an immigrant pays taxes and doesn't use welfare themselves (big if), they typically pop out a couple kids who do use welfare, and that totally cancels out their parents contribution to the economy.

3) "It's not the fault of the people, it's the fault of governance" Who is governing them? Latin American people are governing them. Almost all of the current Latin American leaders were elected in democratic elections. The problems of Latin America are the fault of the people of Latin America and they will bring those problems with them if they move anywhere in large numbers.

Could you cite/link those sources to those three claims?

You want sources that there were a lot of poor people during the Gilded Age?

That inequality goes down when you stop taking in massive numbers of poor people?

That we didn't have a welfare system before the 1930s?

That Latin America is ruled by Latin Americans who are usually elected?

Which specific facts do you have trouble believing?

I want you to cite sources for your facts so that you act like you at least went to college

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Some fascinating modus ponens/modus tollens bullet-biting going on in this thread. Sad!

[GP270watch]

And in return we ended up with violent gangsters like Al Capone filling our streets. Why? Because we didn't have proper immigration control, that's why.

 Prohibition led to Al Capone(who was born in America), there were gangsters from every single ethnicity, the Italians were just the best at it because the founder Lucky Luciano modeled their organizing structure after American corporations. Prohibition was a dumb American policy that led to murderers and bootleggers becoming rich. The mafia was allowed to run rampant because for whatever reason J Edgar Hoover allowed them to. The mafia has always been a small part of Sicilian and Southern Italian culture in America, outsized by pop culture references and salacious headlines but still small. The overall contribution of Italians to America can not be denied.

 

[Middle-aged Europe]

And in return we ended up with violent gangsters like Al Capone filling our streets. Why? Because we didn't have proper immigration control, that's why.

Al Capone was born in the United States. His father was a barber and his mother was a seamstress.

What "proper" immigration control would have prevented him from becoming a violent gangster?

[Famous Mortimer]

Like I said look at the examples of Italian and Irish immigration. 40% of the entire population of Ireland left that country because it could not provide, many of those immigrants came to America and did contribute to America's wealth and success. So your point makes no sense.

 The Central Americans countries can not currently provide because of bad governance. This is not the fault of the people. Just like it wasn't the fault of those Italian and Irish immigrants. The United States has also made bad foreign policy decisions that has directly contributed to the bad governance in Central America.

1) The Irish didn't help the economy. Ellis Island immigration polices led to the Gilded Age, as in crap economy that only looks good because it's covered by a thin veneer of gold. Irish helped themselves and they helped big business but they didn't help native born Americans or the middle class. The situation was very similar to the situation today, only the situation today is worse. The country only started recovering from the Gilded Age/the middle class only started growing when we started once we started restricting immigration in 1924. We need to start restricting it again if we want a middle class and not a recreation of the Latin American class system here.

2) We didn't have a social safety net when the Irish came here. That's the reason immigration today is even more harmful than immigration in the past (which was already harmful). Nowadays, even if an immigrant pays taxes and doesn't use welfare themselves (big if), they typically pop out a couple kids who do use welfare, and that totally cancels out their parents contribution to the economy.

3) "It's not the fault of the people, it's the fault of governance" Who is governing them? Latin American people are governing them. Almost all of the current Latin American leaders were elected in democratic elections. The problems of Latin America are the fault of the people of Latin America and they will bring those problems with them if they move anywhere in large numbers.

Could you cite/link those sources to those three claims?

You want sources that there were a lot of poor people during the Gilded Age?

That inequality goes down when you stop taking in massive numbers of poor people?

That we didn't have a welfare system before the 1930s?

That Latin America is ruled by Latin Americans who are usually elected?

Which specific facts do you have trouble believing?

I want you to cite sources for your facts so that you act like you at least went to college

Sorry dude with 4 comments who has made no arguments or contributions to this thread, who just says "give citations!" out of nowhere, I am not going to give a citation for every sentence I write including ones that espouse common knowledge or basic observations of cause and effect just because you told me to.

Because I am way too nice, I will provide citations if you can name a specific fact you have an issue with.

[Famous Mortimer]

And in return we ended up with violent gangsters like Al Capone filling our streets. Why? Because we didn't have proper immigration control, that's why.

Al Capone was born in the United States. His father was a barber and his mother was a seamstress.

What "proper" immigration control would have prevented him from becoming a violent gangster?

Not letting his father in. Duh.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

And in return we ended up with violent gangsters like Al Capone filling our streets. Why? Because we didn't have proper immigration control, that's why.

Al Capone was born in the United States. His father was a barber and his mother was a seamstress.

What "proper" immigration control would have prevented him from becoming a violent gangster?

Not letting his father in. Duh.

On the other hand, if Bavaria hadn't deported Trump's grandfather, we could have probably avoided having him here.

[Big Abraham]

I don't agree. Exploited immigrant labor, and it is intentionally exploited because of the system that sets people up to be undocumented is mostly found in jobs that Americans don't want to work. We've seen the effects of this directly when states like Alabama tried to get tough on immigration. It hurt agriculture tremendously and there was no rush of Americans to work in those fields, for any wage.

While it's obviously true that the exploitation is both intentional and an inherent part of the system, there are tons of industries that are facing stiff competition from immigrant labour, and the rebuff that "Americans don't want those jobs anyway" doesn't stand up to basic scrutiny.  Regardless, you completely dismissed my claim that, even when a shortage of labour does not occur, illegal immigrants are still paid far less than their American-born counterparts, and less than immigrant workers with legal status, which in turn drives down American wages.

There is also a job shortage in the trades, not immense competition among the working class. There are literally not enough capable and willing hands to build and repair everything in America that is needed. Ask anybody in the trades. Work like Plumbing is facing a shortage and because it is highly regulated, hasn't been impacted by undocumented immigration. Plumbers wages have gone up but not because of lack of competition from immigrants but lack of Plumbers in general.

Like I said, many industries face stiff competition. Undocumented workers in 2005 accounted for 36% of all insulation workers and 29% of all roofers and drywall installers. Even if the wage penalty for these workers is low, it undoubtedly depresses wages for other workers in these construction jobs. And that's just one example. Obviously some trades are going to be affected more than others, but most unskilled manual labour (non-union) trades are affected, which in turn creates a large pool of a reserve army of labour.

Public school Teachers are a perfect example that destroys your narrative. They face virtually zero competition due to immigration because teaching is a highly certified field and requires many higher education qualifications and yet teacher's wages have been stagnant. We're seeing the revolt of teachers from state to state who've seen wages and benefits not keep pace, and seen their work environment degraded by government cutbacks to education. Cutbacks to education I might add by furthering the wrong policies of low taxes for businesses and investors, the very thing that stagnates wages.

I'm obviously talking about unskilled cheap labour, not technical professions which require a degree. The vast majority of immigrations, undocumented or otherwise, in the United States are performing unskilled labour. Regardless, you still missed the part of my post where I obviously said that immigration was not the only, not even the primary cause of driving down wages. I merely said it was one factor among many, and you are denying that it even a factor at all, which is indefensible and economically illiterate.

Outside of conservative think tanks I haven't found any studies of a negative economic impact because of immigration. All the serious studies are almost completely one-sided that it's a net boom to the local and national economy.  
 

The problem with the assumptions of liberal economists is that they assume that the only factors determining wage levels are labor supply and demand and immigrant workers' education and skill levels. In the real world, of course, there are many other forces at work. It's not because unionised workers are better educated that they earn more than their non-union counterparts, for instance.

[Middle-aged Europe]

And in return we ended up with violent gangsters like Al Capone filling our streets. Why? Because we didn't have proper immigration control, that's why.

Al Capone was born in the United States. His father was a barber and his mother was a seamstress.

What "proper" immigration control would have prevented him from becoming a violent gangster?

Not letting his father in. Duh.

Just like fathers/ancestors of Ike and Billy Clanton, Jesse James, and Billy the Kid shouldn't have been let into the country?

[Famous Mortimer]

 Outside of conservative think tanks I haven't found any studies of a negative economic impact because of immigration. All the serious studies are almost completely one-sided that it's a net boom to the local and national economy.  
 

"Outside of conservative think tanks"

lol. Delusionally trying to pretend your pro-immigration position is in opposition to conservatism.

Most mainstream conservatives are pro-immigration. Trump is an exception. His opposition to immigration is why they fought tooth and nail against giving him the nomination.

In fact, even when liberals and leftists try to push immigration, they usually do so by citing studies from the libertarian-conservative Cato Institute.

[Blue3]

Those saying "42 million new people would be too many."

1. He pulled that number out of nowhere, it's baseless.

2. He didn't say 42 Million people/immigrants/whatever. He said LATIN AMERICANS.


This is racism.

[Famous Mortimer]

Those saying "42 million new people would be too many."

1. He pulled that number out of nowhere, it's baseless.

2. He didn't say 42 Million people/immigrants/whatever. He said LATIN AMERICANS.


This is racism.

He pulled it out of a poll that was done of Latin Americans.

[Pielover]

oh wow I love racism /s