It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Immoral Argument: Illegals Improve Our Economy

page: 3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 06:41 PM

originally posted by: Grambler
If your argument was true, then we would have incentive to purposefully print money and just send it over seas for no reason. This would in turn increase demand as you say, making our currency even more valuable. Clearly this isn't the case.

We do, it's called government bonds that cover the deficit (this is also why a small and steadily increasing deficit is a good thing). Buying that debt is a symbol of faith in our currency. From private investors it means they expect dollars to be worth something in the future, from states it means they're going to use dollars as part of their national holdings to back their currency, which in turn leads to strengthening our currency.

Look at in on a town level. People come into a town to work, but never spend any money there. Would that town thrive because fiat currency? No, it would die because no wealth was being spent there. The same is true on a national level. Every dollar sent over seas is a dollar the US businesses do not get. If legal workers had this money and spent it here, it would increase sales for many other products.

And what happens when that town can create it's own currency?

As far as people still not accepting jobs at $25 and hour maybe you are right. I worked on a Christmas tree farm about 15 years ago for $6.50 an hour. It sucked, but I was a teenager and needed money. The industry will develop technologies that can do the work easier if people won't take the jobs. Also, maybe we should end the welfare system that makes people feel entitled to not have to work for a living.

They haven't yet, for many crops. These are problems people are trying to solve but they could be 10, 20, or 50 years into the future. Maybe we'll get lucky and they'll be solved tomorrow. Until automation solves it though, we need to figure out how to make the economic system work with what we have.

One solution that has been proposed is expanding our temporary visa program. Deporting the illegals, letting them come in to harvest crops, and then sending them back home until they're needed again. It would be a win/win solution because we get rid of illegals, they can still work here, and their quality of life improves.

It requires cooperation from foreign governments though, which is something we haven't yet gotten. It also requires a demonstrated need that American's won't do these jobs, and some people instead feel we should make the farmers raise wages until Americans will do them rather than look elsewhere.

Again, every argument you make here was made about ending slavery. It would kill ag, it would raise food prices, our economy would collapse. Yet none of this was a reason to keep slaves, and neither is it a reason to keep illegals now. Just like when we ended slavery, we will carry on and be fine.

The cotton gin is what made ending slavery economically viable for farmers.

originally posted by: jellyrev
a reply to: Aazadan

Or these farmers could have you know picked another crop to farm, they do not seem that high into specific high capital equipment if they are still hand picking their product. I suppose I am used to the midwest where crops cycle in the fields and illegal labor is sparse except for cow milking.

If berries are expensive, who cares, Ill not buy berries. In actuality the berry field will likely be turned into a field where more calories produced per acre, such as wheat, corn, potatoes. If this strawberry to wheat field conversion happened en masse the average calorie cost would likely decrease not increase.

As someone who enjoys fruit (and many other foods), I would be opposed to this. There's more to life than minimizing the cost per calories. If you want to do that, you can go buy a large Royal Blizzard from Dairy Queen for $3.75 or whatever they sell them for and get 3900 calories, or you could go to Taco Bell and buy a 10 pack of taco's for $6, that's 8000 calories. Diets need to be balanced, and loading up on nothing but starch and grains isn't balanced. You can say "I'll just pay more for X" but not everyone can do that. People on food stamps already can't afford fruits and vegetables, and instead rely entirely on junk food loaded with high fructose corn syrup. Is that really the diet we should be encouraging?

originally posted by: ketsuko
I would have to ask you if you are opposed to the concept of foreign aid?

I'm fine with foreign aid, it's one of the best tools we have to get influence with a nation. That influence in turn becomes expansion opportunities for our corporations, trade deals, military rights of passage, and the ability to align nations with us rather than with our rivals.
edit on 1-9-2016 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 06:42 PM
a reply to: Grambler

Blame your country's drug addiction on cartels. Atleast some illegals come here to work. Not smoke or use drugs.

posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 06:48 PM

originally posted by: luciferslight
a reply to: Grambler

Blame your country's drug addiction on cartels. Atleast some illegals come here to work. Not smoke or use drugs.

Whom do you think also does a brisk trade in human trafficking that was mentioned not too long ago in this thread? Not to mention, the cartels roam both sides of the border and they aren't legal Americans either.

If the left outlawed guns, they'd traffic in those, too.

posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 06:55 PM

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Aazadan

I cannot let this stand.

Alabama's HB56 law did not fail. It was gutted by the Federal government. It worked perfectly until that. Unemployment was down and small farms were showing record profits.


The parts the feds struck down had nothing to do with employing illegals, but rather how the state treated them such as denying them an education.

Everyone recognized it as a failure in the end, including the very people who wrote the law in the first place.

Unemployment was down overall, but there were significant job shortages in fields typically manned by illegals such as agriculture, the job growth was in sectors that were already insulated from that like automotive.

posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 07:08 PM
a reply to: Aazadan

You can make claims all you want. I was here. The parts that were struck down were the parts that prohibited anyone from assisting illegal immigrants in obtaining a job and residence... the very intent of the bill.

To claim a law failed when that law was forcibly rescinded at the first hint of success is the height of dishonesty. And where my state is falsely accused, I will stand and defend it.

Go revise someone else's history. Your attempts will be challenged here.


posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 07:30 PM
lower the taxes on farmers on agreement that the money saved goes to wages, higher wage equals more attractive job.
the money lost on lowering farmers taxes could be recovered by bringing in a maximum wage, and bonus cap, let's use some wall street company as an example, a wage ceiling without stupendous bonuses equals more profit and less need to pay taxes at a lower rates to the caymans or ireland.
blaming the poor for being poor, all the while the rich give themselves pay hikes, bonuses and pensions only leads to bigger class divides.

posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 07:33 PM

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
Humans have migrated since before we have written words, there will never be a stop to people moving to a different part of the world, people act like they invented this illegal immigration crap, the more walls we build between each other the more people will break them down.

So I assume this is an argument for no borders then right? I mean, if people will always immigrate, why even try to control a border. This would be anarchy.

Since we are discussing history, name me one country that ever survived with completely open borders.

I am not claiming that we invented illegal immigration, clearly it has been going on for all of history. And for all of history, people respected the idea that countries had the right to enforce their borders. You are the one bucking the trend of history.

On a side note, since the beginning of time people have murdered, so why make it illegal and enforce laws against it? The more laws we make, the more they will be tore down, right?

I couldn't care less what country or what people make up to make them feel better about themselves, fact is humans create and destroy borders all the time, this is not our first dance, but hey keep on trucking, i know i wont.

But thanks for trying really hard, heres a cookie.

posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 07:33 PM
a reply to: TheRedneck

What history revision? I gave you a source.

Here's 4 more: 2792f854297_story.html

The law failed, and it had nothing to do with the big bad feds coming in and suing for changes. That may be your perception of things, but if your previous posts are to be believed, at the time you would have been busy working on an engineering degree on very little income and a family to support. I doubt you would have had the time or resources to research indepth what was going on.

posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 07:35 PM
a reply to: Aazadan

The other problem with illegals sending the money they are paid under the table in wages home is this:

They use our tax supported infrastructure like schools and to a certain extent hospitals, but they are not fully paying into the system themselves. They are not legal employees so the usual taxes and fees an employer must pay not being paid and the usual rounds of employment taxes are not withheld. They then have access to the public schools and ERs for their use.

They are sending the money they take out to their country of origin, so that money isn't even put back into circulation for someone else to get taxed on.

posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 07:46 PM
a reply to: stinkelbaum
Keep in mind that the farmer with 500 acres isn't going to receive the tax break. The corporate farms with 10's of thousands of acres would, and trickle down tax cut employee wage increases sounds like a non starter.

posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 07:47 PM
a reply to: Aazadan

Your own Wikipedia link just called that post a lie. So did your previous post. Alabama HB56 was stripped of it's important provisions by a Federal court. If I remember right, it was within a month or two of going into effect.

As for my time? I can watch TV while studying. That was the top story locally for quite some time. Are you now claiming that only retired folk can watch the news?

Again, claim it was signed with a crayon if you want. You are wrong. For every time you try to preach untruth, I will state the facts. My state and my people have been lied about enough.


posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 09:06 PM

originally posted by: Aazadan

We do, it's called government bonds that cover the deficit (this is also why a small and steadily increasing deficit is a good thing). Buying that debt is a symbol of faith in our currency. From private investors it means they expect dollars to be worth something in the future, from states it means they're going to use dollars as part of their national holdings to back their currency, which in turn leads to strengthening our currency.

How is an illegal sending moeny home the same as countries buying bonds? I think you have the argument backwards. People come here for our money and send it back because it is perceived as valuable. This doesn't effect the value of our money though, it is just a sign that our money is valued in these countries. There is no evidence that illegals sending money home helps our country. Again, Then why don't we print trillions more and just give it away over seas?

And what happens when that town can create it's own currency?

Ok, the town creates there own currency. Then people go in there and take all of the currency, and the town has nothing left. No products are purchased in the town, only people working there. This town would die. The more purchases that are made in the town, the better, regardless of what the currency is.

And if other countries haven't lost faith in the fat that we just print money(which is absurd, we should end the Fed) why would this be the starw that breaks the back?

As for the rest, people would work if they were not receiving money for not working. Sure the transition could be somewhat painful, but that is the fault of the businesses that took shortcuts by hiring illegals. At this rate, people will say we are never ready, and these illegals will continue to be exploited.

As far as the cotton gin helping end slavery, exactly. The market forces people to innovate. Rather through technology or wages, the work glut will be filled.

To say that laws must be broke and people exploited because hypothetically or economy could get hurt is a poor argument.

posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 09:40 PM
I haven't read your entire post

I really don't think they drop prices or stop raising them because they got cheap labour. They make more profit and are happy with that!

I also think it's more likely the illegals are distributed in the southern states closer to the border they hopped across.

They appear to be very hard working. Perhaps the white race is lazier, but if they had to get these jobs because they became available after the illegals left, they would soon have to do the jobs and suck it up.

It's been argued they do pay taxes. I don't believe that! Come on now, if you can pay cash for cheaper labour you will. Cash won't be reported as income to be taxed . Let's be real here. The employer will be ok about not claiming paid wages since what they would have been refunded doesn't equate to what they paid the workers.

These workers send money home, so it leaves the country.

I also wouldn't feel too sorry for them , they get to live in a great country with comforts theirs might not have. They most likely get free rent , place to stay , clothed etc etc.

posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 10:07 PM
a reply to: Grambler

I kind of have to laugh when I hear the fair wage argument. My grandfather immigrated here in 1917 from Italy, worked in the coal mines of West Virginia, I think they got 50 cents for every TON of coal shovelled back then. He didnt get any help from anyone, any public assistance, made a life for himself and his family from NOTHING. He did a stint in the Army, and became a citizen. His kids learned English as well as Italian. He didnt curse this country, he was glad to be here. So when I hear how tough these people have it with EBT cards and medical care, I am wondering, compared to what? Its ALWAYS been tough to be an immigrant, its nothing new. The only new thing is the bitching. And I dont think the previous immigrants burned our flag and told the people who are here to go back to Europe, that's new too. So, I wish them luck and well, but they should remember those who came before them, and they should also remember that some of the hostility they find here, they have earned with the way they conduct themselves.
edit on 1-9-2016 by openminded2011 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 10:19 PM
a reply to: violet

Here's why they depress the price of labor.

Most construction labor is done by contract which means each company bids for the job putting in a bid for what it will cost for his or her company to do that work.

Which company do you think will be able to realistically offer the lowest bids? The one who hires all legal workers and pays them legal wages with all the necessary taxes and fees that implies or the one who hires a certain percentage of his labor under the table and only pays cash and even then pays less than the prevailing construction hourly wage rate for skilled trade? Now, if his laborers do not produce quality work, he is in trouble, but if they do, then he can undercut his competitors on labor rates and win contracts all the time. All the work he can handle.

The only way for his competitors to compete would be for them to find ways to compete with his cost of labor. What do you think that implies?

posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 10:31 PM
They depress wages because its the same thing that counterfeiting does, if someone floods the money supply with fake 100 dollar bills, the value of the entire cash supply drops. If you flood a labor market with an overabundance of workers, suddenly the value of each workers labor has dropped. Its EXACTLY the same principle.

posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 10:31 PM
I take issue with the idea that illegals are doing work no one else wants to do.

Three industries in which I challenge this "obvious truth."

Construction in TX pays $20 and hour. But you cannot get hired unless you are an illegal. The supervisor of a crew hires his relatives, and then takes ~12 bucks an hour for "la familia". The industry would pay enough for whites to work it, if they were allowed to do so--IF they didn't have to pay hush money. And if they could get hired with the wrong background. The mexican gangs totally control construction in TX, like unions.

Lawn care
In the suburbs, practically no one mows their own yard anymore. If you work outside the home, you can only mow it on the weekends; half the time, it's too rainy. A friend of mine is anglo and competes in this work. He quit a job as a delivery driver in order to do this. He says that Hispanics have a lock on landscaping connected to new construction (see above), but he competes with them for weekly mowing on existing lots, and charges about what they do: $25-30 per regular sized yard per week. He and his diverse crew offer fertilizing, tree trimming, and weeding which helps them edge out the competition.

Agriculture jobs pay well. Many employers only hire illegals, because they don't have to pay benefits, or worker's comp claims on them.

posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 11:01 PM
a reply to: ketsuko

I didn't fully understand all you wrote. I'd think the person who can do the job the cheapest wins the bid, so that means the one who hires illegals, since his labour costs are lower.

Is that what you meant?

Depends on the type of work. It's assuming most people hire the cheapest . It's not what I personally do if I'm hiring somebody to work in my home, I go by most reputable, experienced, licensed and bonded, in case of injury on my premises for liability reasons. Depends on the job. If I foresee possible dangers that's how I go about it and I don't want crappy work done.

Then there are big commercial jobs that are a whole other story, the bids are fixed, it's all corrupt. Doing a job fir the city, a worker there will get some cash on the side to secure the buds. A company that keeps bidding low and getting all the jobs will be wiped off the map, bought out or told to buzz off, work someplace else. Like what Hilary's LaFarge company does, it's bought out every gravel pit and controls the market

posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 11:44 PM
a reply to: Grambler

Thanks for explaining this
to the attention span challenged
"download app now"

Great format layout.
I envy your abilities,
as my skills are maxed out
at the ability to add a

I cant even add a photo on here.

Damn it all!
I need a secretary!


posted on Sep, 2 2016 @ 01:30 AM
a reply to: Christosterone

People begging for amnesty and open borders are usually insulated from the reality of this. I spend a lot of time in a border city on both sides of the border and it is no joke.

Fortunately, when I cross the border I am the biggest man in the country so most people leave me alone.

top topics

<< 1  2    4 >>

log in