NationStates Jolt Archive

Dear President George W. Bush and All Members of Congress:

People from around the world are drawn to America for its promise of freedom and opportunity. That promise has been fulfilled for the tens of millions of immigrants who came here in the twentieth century.

Throughout our history as an immigrant nation, those who are already here worry about the impact of newcomers. Yet, over time, immigrants have become part of a richer America, richer both economically and culturally. The current debate over immigration is a healthy part of a democratic society, but as economists and other social scientists we are concerned that some of the fundamental economics of immigration are too often obscured by misguided commentary.

Overall, immigration has been a net gain for existing American citizens, though a modest one in proportion to the size of our 13 trillion-dollar economy.

Immigrants do not take American jobs. The American economy can create as many jobs as there are workers willing to work so long as labor markets remain free, flexible and open to all workers on an equal basis.

Immigration in recent decades of low-skilled workers may have lowered the wages of domestic low-skilled workers, but the effect is likely to be small, with estimates of wage reductions for high-school dropouts ranging from eight percent to as little as zero percent.

While a small percentage of native-born Americans may be harmed by immigration, vastly more Americans benefit from the contributions that immigrants make to our economy, including lower consumer prices. As with trade in goods and services, the gains from immigration outweigh the losses. The effect of all immigration on low-skilled workers is very likely positive as many immigrants bring skills, capital and entrepreneurship to the American economy.

Legitimate concerns about the impact of immigration on the poorest Americans should not be addressed by penalizing even poorer immigrants. Instead, we should promote policies, such as improving our education system that enables Americans to be more productive with high-wage skills.

We must not forget that the gains to immigrants from coming to the United States are immense. Immigration is the greatest anti-poverty program ever devised. The American dream is a reality for many immigrants who not only increase their own living standards but who also send billions of dollars of their money back to their families in their home countries—a form of truly effective foreign aid..

America is a generous and open country and these qualities make America a beacon to the world. We should not let exaggerated fears dim that beacon.

Good points.

Might as well be pissing in the wind as far as the anti-immigration/border control freak crowd goes, though.

The outrage is not about immigration. It is about illegal entry.

The outrage is not about immigration. It is about illegal entry.

That's the same tired excuse I hear whenever an anti-immigration advocate doesn't want to appear to be xenophobic. Yet such people inevitably talk about the drain on our economy, taking our jobs and being "invaded" by "illegals." These are the hallmarks of anti-immigration stance.

And if people are really so supportive of doing anything and everything legally, how come so many Americans (including many who are against illegal immigration) commit crimes at some point in their life? Why do they not advocate deportation of any and all criminals? Because it's not about the principle of law enforcement. It's about the idea of "defending the nation" and perceiving immigration/illegal immigration as an "invasion."

The outrage is not about immigration. It is about illegal entry.

So why so much outrage about illegal entry? I dont see a similar level of outrage leveled at companies who hire illegal immigrants, even though that is breaking the law. And even for something that most people don't approve of such as drug dealing, no one has tried to use the national guard to stop it.

The outrage is not about immigration. It is about illegal entry.

So if the US liberalized immigration laws and let the people who are currently coming in illegally come in legally instead, no one would complain?

Dear President George W. Bush and All Members of Congress:

People from around the world are drawn to America for its promise of freedom and opportunity. That promise has been fulfilled for the tens of millions of immigrants who came here in the twentieth century.

Throughout our history as an immigrant nation, those who are already here worry about the impact of newcomers. Yet, over time, immigrants have become part of a richer America, richer both economically and culturally. The current debate over immigration is a healthy part of a democratic society, but as economists and other social scientists we are concerned that some of the fundamental economics of immigration are too often obscured by misguided commentary.

Overall, immigration has been a net gain for existing American citizens, though a modest one in proportion to the size of our 13 trillion-dollar economy.

Immigrants do not take American jobs. The American economy can create as many jobs as there are workers willing to work so long as labor markets remain free, flexible and open to all workers on an equal basis.

Immigration in recent decades of low-skilled workers may have lowered the wages of domestic low-skilled workers, but the effect is likely to be small, with estimates of wage reductions for high-school dropouts ranging from eight percent to as little as zero percent.

While a small percentage of native-born Americans may be harmed by immigration, vastly more Americans benefit from the contributions that immigrants make to our economy, including lower consumer prices. As with trade in goods and services, the gains from immigration outweigh the losses. The effect of all immigration on low-skilled workers is very likely positive as many immigrants bring skills, capital and entrepreneurship to the American economy.

Legitimate concerns about the impact of immigration on the poorest Americans should not be addressed by penalizing even poorer immigrants. Instead, we should promote policies, such as improving our education system that enables Americans to be more productive with high-wage skills.

We must not forget that the gains to immigrants from coming to the United States are immense. Immigration is the greatest anti-poverty program ever devised. The American dream is a reality for many immigrants who not only increase their own living standards but who also send billions of dollars of their money back to their families in their home countries—a form of truly effective foreign aid..

America is a generous and open country and these qualities make America a beacon to the world. We should not let exaggerated fears dim that beacon.

I would be curious as to what economist wrote this. I am an Econ major with a lowly BS in Economics, and can't fathom that any self respecting economist would address this matter in such vague very disputable terms. Come on we economists talk with graphs and numbers, a very boring lot we are, but precise is no doubt our forte.

The concern over illegal entry to the United States is perfectly valid, and it's not about immigrants taking American jobs. The concern, which I partially agree with, is that immigration to the United States is dreadfully difficult. This being the case, some people have been awaiting citizenship for decades, without getting it. I know two personally. One, a father of a teenaged daughter, has lived in America for nigh on thirty years, and he only just got his citizenship in 2004. The other, a resident for sixteen-seventeen years, is still working to get citizenship.

Thus, the concern is that illegal immigrants are getting many of the benifits that legal immigrants enjoy, without waiting for them. This has been the primary cause of support for the so called 'anti-immigration bill' in Congress that has been voiced to me.


And if people are really so supportive of doing anything and everything legally, how come so many Americans (including many who are against illegal immigration) commit crimes at some point in their life? Why do they not advocate deportation of any and all criminals? Because it's not about the principle of law enforcement. It's about the idea of "defending the nation" and perceiving immigration/illegal immigration as an "invasion."
Come on now, I think that's a bit extreme. Can you, personally, honestly say that at no point in your life have you had a parking ticket, shoplifted, or committed some other minor offense? Can anyone?

Furthermore, simply because someone has committed a crime doesn't preclude them from being able to desire that the law be upheld without being a hypocrite. After all, I doubt that any of us who've been cited for a moving violation would seriously advocate a lack of criminal prosecution for the murderers, rapists and white collar criminals.

EDIT: Since I actually came here to make a point about the OP, rathe than pick a fight:
The letter suffers a great deal from a lack of supportable statements. Furthermore, many of its other statements, while perhaps true, do not demonstrate anything without a few decent sources, graphs and above all, a bit of explanaton.

I'm perfectly willing to believe the bit about 'The US economy will provide jobs for those that need it, immigrants aren't stealing our employment', but I won't be able to without some kind of scientifically credible source. If you know the economist(s) who wrote this, or if you are that economist, then I would suggest that you encourage said economist to add to this letter.

Come on now, I think that's a bit extreme. Can you, personally, honestly say that at no point in your life have you had a parking ticket, shoplifted, or committed some other minor offense? Can anyone?

Of course. I've committed crimes, I am in my own way "illegal" but no one makes a big issue out of it. Because as I said the issue isn't simply breaking a law, it's much more base an instinct; territoriality and the innate fear of outsiders coming closer to us.


Furthermore, simply because someone has committed a crime doesn't preclude them from being able to desire that the law be upheld without being a hypocrite. After all, I doubt that any of us who've been cited for a moving violation would seriously advocate a lack of criminal prosecution for the murderers, rapists and white collar criminals.

It does show that their motivation isn't simply the principle of obedience to the law. I don't think murderers should be prosecuted because murder is illegal; I think they should be prosecuted because I believe murder is wrong.

Dear President George W. Bush and All Members of Congress:

People from around the world are drawn to America for its promise of freedom and opportunity. That promise has been fulfilled for the tens of millions of immigrants who came here in the twentieth century.

Throughout our history as an immigrant nation, those who are already here worry about the impact of newcomers. Yet, over time, immigrants have become part of a richer America, richer both economically and culturally. The current debate over immigration is a healthy part of a democratic society, but as economists and other social scientists we are concerned that some of the fundamental economics of immigration are too often obscured by misguided commentary.

Overall, immigration has been a net gain for existing American citizens, though a modest one in proportion to the size of our 13 trillion-dollar economy.

Immigrants do not take American jobs. The American economy can create as many jobs as there are workers willing to work so long as labor markets remain free, flexible and open to all workers on an equal basis.

Immigration in recent decades of low-skilled workers may have lowered the wages of domestic low-skilled workers, but the effect is likely to be small, with estimates of wage reductions for high-school dropouts ranging from eight percent to as little as zero percent.

While a small percentage of native-born Americans may be harmed by immigration, vastly more Americans benefit from the contributions that immigrants make to our economy, including lower consumer prices. As with trade in goods and services, the gains from immigration outweigh the losses. The effect of all immigration on low-skilled workers is very likely positive as many immigrants bring skills, capital and entrepreneurship to the American economy.

Legitimate concerns about the impact of immigration on the poorest Americans should not be addressed by penalizing even poorer immigrants. Instead, we should promote policies, such as improving our education system that enables Americans to be more productive with high-wage skills.

We must not forget that the gains to immigrants from coming to the United States are immense. Immigration is the greatest anti-poverty program ever devised. The American dream is a reality for many immigrants who not only increase their own living standards but who also send billions of dollars of their money back to their families in their home countries—a form of truly effective foreign aid..

America is a generous and open country and these qualities make America a beacon to the world. We should not let exaggerated fears dim that beacon.


HAHAHA what a total load of happy horseshit that all was. I have one thing to say to those out there who advocate the US slowly turning into Mexico:

HAVE FUN IN AZTLAN, YOU DIMWITS.............

http://www.mexica-movement.org/granmarcha.htm

Yes, that is what they really think of you. Yes, they really think that this is their continent, stolen from them by whites, even though Mexico surrendered in 1848, and the US proceeded to PAY Mexico for the land it surrended to the tune of millions of dollars. They believe it was stolen from them though, because the truth doesn't support their cause of coming here and taking advantage of a system they had no hand in building or funding. Enjoy the US 20 years down the road, when the Mexican immigrant population will explode to over 100 million individuals. Enjoy the laws they pass, that will not take any of your concerns into consideration. To put it plainly, enjoy living in Mexico, because I sure as hell won't be here for that lol. I'll be laughing at your misery from far far away.

Of course. I've committed crimes, I am in my own way "illegal" but no one makes a big issue out of it. Because as I said the issue isn't simply breaking a law, it's much more base an instinct; territoriality and the innate fear of outsiders coming closer to us.


This is simply your opinion and one I don't find at all talking to people. I don't know anyone who has a "territoriality and the innate fear of outsiders coming closer to us" regarding immigrants who came through the system legally. In both cases legal and illegal they are immigrants, if we had such a territorial and innate fear of outsiders coming closer to us why would we embrace legal immigrants? The issue is legality.

Does a law have to be one which you, I or other citizens think protects some kind of moral value, or can a law stand to protect other things as well? Does a law have to pass some kind of morality litmus test?

Take, for example, a moving violation. Speeding, in and of itself, is not morally wrong. Nor, for that matter, is parking in a no-parking zone. But if there were no laws for conduct on roads, driving and walking would be hazardous experiences. It's the same for immigration. We need to have limits on it, if only so we know how many people enter our country and who they are. It is not a moral imperative to control immigration, but it is in our intrest to do so.

EDIT: Benighted Leams, I suggest that you lurk more before your next post, and not pick the craziest-ass fringe website to illustrate your point. And Aztlan is a fun place. Don't hate. :p

EDIT 2: Been fun, guys, but I'm tired. Sleep now, debate-with-NSers tomorrow.

EDIT 2: Been fun, guys, but I'm tired. Sleep now, debate-with-NSers tomorrow.

Ditto, nighty night. :)

This is simply your opinion and one I don't find at all talking to people. I don't know anyone who has a "territoriality and the innate fear of outsiders coming closer to us" regarding immigrants who came through the system legally

Maybe they just don't admit it to you.

Most people don't like to admit to having any kind of fear, particularly one that isn't politically correct, like a fear of homosexuals or foreigners.

But of course there is territoriality in humans; we're apes just like the rest. The question is how many people apply that sense of territory to the community, city, county, state, nation. In my experience, a good many people do.

. In both cases legal and illegal they are immigrants, if we had such a territorial and innate fear of outsiders coming closer to us why would we embrace legal immigrants? The issue is legality.

Do you really "embrace" them? I have only your word if so. And I know that there are plenty of border control advocates who would never be caught embracing any Mexican immigrant, legal or otherwise.

I would be curious as to what economist wrote this. I am an Econ major with a lowly BS in Economics, and can't fathom that any self respecting economist would address this matter in such vague very disputable terms. Come on we economists talk with graphs and numbers, a very boring lot we are, but precise is no doubt our forte.

It was written by Alex Tabarrok and has been signed by Brad DeLong, Greg Mankiw, Vernon Smith, Tyler Cowen and many other economists from both the left and the right.

If you are wondering why it is written in simple language, look to the top of the letter and you will see it it addressed to the President of the United States and Congress.

Is there anything in the letter you would consider incorrect, or at least debatable?

HAHAHA what a total load of happy horseshit that all was. I have one thing to say to those out there who advocate the US slowly turning into Mexico:

Yes, and the U.S. slowly turned into Ireland a hundred and fifty years ago and now all Americans drink guinness and and have Irish accents because of Irish immigration.

Actually, I don't think it quite works that way.

There are some very good economic arguments against the unrestricted or lax immigration controls that most people in this discussion seem to advocate. Firstly, the poorest people in society invariably suffer the most when illegal or poorly educated immigrants enter the job market en masse. In simple terms, poorly educated immigrants compete with the poorest and least qualified in the host society thereby driving down wages to a level which all but guarantees poverty or welfare dependancy - after all, why work when you can claim more in benefits. The only winners in the 'immigration debate' are the employers who take advantage of cheap labor to drive down wage demands and keep workers' rights to a minimum. In fact, within the 'Black economy' workers - both indiginous and immigrant - have no labor laws to speak of and are subject to being hired and fired whenever their unscrupulous bosses see fit.

The second point I will make against unrestricted immigration is that it invariably puts a strain on the education system. For immigrants who are poorly educated and semi-literate in their own language, it is nigh on impossible to learn a second one - namely English. A good working knowledge of the English language should be considered essential, along with academic qualifications and professional skills, when considering who gets in and who doesn't.

Tough immigration laws that encourage qualified people - both academically and professionally - to enter the workforce are good for the economy and for the poorest Americans. If you keep the poorest, unqualified immigrants out then it benefits the poorest in this country: poorly paid workers wages will rise as the illegal supply of cheap labor dries up and crooked bosses will be forced to employ Americans at a decent hourly rate. By attracting highly qualified immigrants or those with desirable skills, you then add to value of the nation's ecomomy and accept only those with skills or talents who are needed. We do not need more unqualified people who bring little in the way of capital or key skills to the economy. Cheap labor only harms the poorest Americans!

Here is another economists' viewpoint (Gary Becker):
http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2006/03/the_new_america.html

And another's:
http://www.mises.org/story/2135

Yes, and the U.S. slowly turned into Ireland a hundred and fifty years ago and now all Americans drink guinness and and have Irish accents because of Irish immigration.

Actually, I don't think it quite works that way.

I don't want to buy into any of this argument, but you missed the point. The Mexicans consider themselves natives, the Irish cannot make that claim.

other countries build walls to keep their people in; its flattering that we build ours to keep people out. the fact that our country is good enough to attract so many people is part of Americas identity. on the other hand, it needs to be controlled a lot more than it is. public schools should not offer the chance to teach immigrant kids in spanish, or it will be the mexicans assimilating the southwest and not the other way around. if people must come here, they can stay off welfare and learn english. also, i find it a bit disturbing that anyone can walk across the border. it might as well be jihadists jumping those fences as illegal immigrants.

..... it might as well be jihadists jumping those fences as illegal immigrants.
You think so?:eek:

Dear President George W. Bush and All Members of Congress:

People from around the world are drawn to America for its promise of freedom and opportunity. That promise has been fulfilled for the tens of millions of immigrants who came here in the twentieth century.

Throughout our history as an immigrant nation, those who are already here worry about the impact of newcomers. Yet, over time, immigrants have become part of a richer America, richer both economically and culturally. The current debate over immigration is a healthy part of a democratic society, but as economists and other social scientists we are concerned that some of the fundamental economics of immigration are too often obscured by misguided commentary.

Overall, immigration has been a net gain for existing American citizens, though a modest one in proportion to the size of our 13 trillion-dollar economy.

Immigrants do not take American jobs. The American economy can create as many jobs as there are workers willing to work so long as labor markets remain free, flexible and open to all workers on an equal basis.

Immigration in recent decades of low-skilled workers may have lowered the wages of domestic low-skilled workers, but the effect is likely to be small, with estimates of wage reductions for high-school dropouts ranging from eight percent to as little as zero percent.

While a small percentage of native-born Americans may be harmed by immigration, vastly more Americans benefit from the contributions that immigrants make to our economy, including lower consumer prices. As with trade in goods and services, the gains from immigration outweigh the losses. The effect of all immigration on low-skilled workers is very likely positive as many immigrants bring skills, capital and entrepreneurship to the American economy.

Legitimate concerns about the impact of immigration on the poorest Americans should not be addressed by penalizing even poorer immigrants. Instead, we should promote policies, such as improving our education system that enables Americans to be more productive with high-wage skills.

We must not forget that the gains to immigrants from coming to the United States are immense. Immigration is the greatest anti-poverty program ever devised. The American dream is a reality for many immigrants who not only increase their own living standards but who also send billions of dollars of their money back to their families in their home countries—a form of truly effective foreign aid..

America is a generous and open country and these qualities make America a beacon to the world. We should not let exaggerated fears dim that beacon.

Pro immigration economists? What a surprise!! :rolleyes: Why would they be anti-immigrant when the companies can hire cheap immigrant (read slave) labour? If they are illegal, the better. Almost no pay, no insurence, can hire and fire as they please....

Oh my god, am I agreeing with libertarians?

What has this world come to?

Maybe they just don't admit it to you.

Most people don't like to admit to having any kind of fear, particularly one that isn't politically correct, like a fear of homosexuals or foreigners.

But of course there is territoriality in humans; we're apes just like the rest. The question is how many people apply that sense of territory to the community, city, county, state, nation. In my experience, a good many people do.



Do you really "embrace" them? I have only your word if so. And I know that there are plenty of border control advocates who would never be caught embracing any Mexican immigrant, legal or otherwise.

Fear?? That is funny. I frankly don't know anyone who is afraid of immigrants for territorial reasons. The only fear I know of regarding illegal immigrants is the fear of the strain on the economy, including local, state and federal. The only other "fear" I know of is the fear of terrorists, which though has some relevance to the illegal immigrant issue is not regarded as xenophobia.

I find it interesting that people seem to think this is somehow a "fear of foriegners" issue. That has to be the most simple minded reason to date. This is an argument used when people do not want to address the economic, security, and ethical reasons that in reality are what makes people take pause regarding illegals.

I would suggest instead of assuming those living near the border don't embrace illegals simply have a fear of foriegners, that you take an honest look at why they may not be embracing illegals. You perhaps could start in any local hospital.

Fear?? That is funny. I frankly don't know anyone who is afraid of immigrants for territorial reasons. The only fear I know of regarding illegal immigrants is the fear of the strain on the economy, including local, state and federal. The only other "fear" I know of is the fear of terrorists, which though has some relevance to the illegal immigrant issue is not regarded as xenophobia.

As I said, people aren't likely to admit that they're afraid of foreigners because they have dark skin, speak another language and don't share a similar culture.


I find it interesting that people seem to think this is somehow a "fear of foriegners" issue. That has to be the most simple minded reason to date. This is an argument used when people do not want to address the economic, security, and ethical reasons that in reality are what makes people take pause regarding illegals.

Ethical reasons? "Them's breakin' teh law, THATS WRONG!?"

lol

Please. The economic issues were discussed in the first post - why don't you address those. Myself, I know that the supposed "reasons" are justifications, rationalizations more than reasons.


I would suggest instead of assuming those living near the border don't embrace illegals simply have a fear of foriegners, that you take an honest look at why they may not be embracing illegals. You perhaps could start in any local hospital.

You're right, it's not just a fear of foreigners. It's also fear and hatred. Thanks. :)

What's the hospital reason again? Them illegals is taking white peoples' waiting room space, leeching off our system, etc etc? Hah. A common argument that is more or less like, "This town ain't big enough for the two of us."

And another's:
http://www.mises.org/story/2135

leave it to the good folks at mises.org to miss the boat completely by focusing on abolishing the welfare state instead.


"In other words, nearly all problems associated with immigration that appear to be demographic in nature are actually problems associated with regime intervention in what would otherwise be a peaceful trading environment. A single state ruling over a polyglot territory is an inherently unstable mix; add a vast welfare and regulatory state to it and you have an explosive situation on your hands.
...
If we truly want to solve the illegal immigration problem, we would do well to curb and abolish the regime-based reasons that immigration has become such a contentious issue."


what i'd like to know is what particular aspects of the welfare state were the real issue during the numerous previous nativist anti-immigrant panics. were they afraid that the irish would try to draw social security? were they afraid that the chinese were going to put too much of a strain on the hospitals? that the poles would bankrupt the nation by demanding welfare payments?

Dear President George W. Bush and All Members of Congress:

People from around the world are drawn to America for its promise of freedom and opportunity. That promise has been fulfilled for the tens of millions of immigrants who came here in the twentieth century.

Throughout our history as an immigrant nation, those who are already here worry about the impact of newcomers. Yet, over time, immigrants have become part of a richer America, richer both economically and culturally. The current debate over immigration is a healthy part of a democratic society, but as economists and other social scientists we are concerned that some of the fundamental economics of immigration are too often obscured by misguided commentary.

Overall, immigration has been a net gain for existing American citizens, though a modest one in proportion to the size of our 13 trillion-dollar economy.

Immigrants do not take American jobs. The American economy can create as many jobs as there are workers willing to work so long as labor markets remain free, flexible and open to all workers on an equal basis.

Immigration in recent decades of low-skilled workers may have lowered the wages of domestic low-skilled workers, but the effect is likely to be small, with estimates of wage reductions for high-school dropouts ranging from eight percent to as little as zero percent.

While a small percentage of native-born Americans may be harmed by immigration, vastly more Americans benefit from the contributions that immigrants make to our economy, including lower consumer prices. As with trade in goods and services, the gains from immigration outweigh the losses. The effect of all immigration on low-skilled workers is very likely positive as many immigrants bring skills, capital and entrepreneurship to the American economy.

Legitimate concerns about the impact of immigration on the poorest Americans should not be addressed by penalizing even poorer immigrants. Instead, we should promote policies, such as improving our education system that enables Americans to be more productive with high-wage skills.

We must not forget that the gains to immigrants from coming to the United States are immense. Immigration is the greatest anti-poverty program ever devised. The American dream is a reality for many immigrants who not only increase their own living standards but who also send billions of dollars of their money back to their families in their home countries—a form of truly effective foreign aid..

America is a generous and open country and these qualities make America a beacon to the world. We should not let exaggerated fears dim that beacon.

I think all of these statements are pretty much dead on. Although I agree with conservatives a lot of the time (I'm a neo-libertarian), I've found it interesting that one of the consistent complaints about immigration by the pundits has been "They drain social services and welfare." I'd expect a socialist, liberal, statist or a fan of the welfare state to use this statement, instead of any real free-marketeer. I'm actually afraid of what effects the welfare state may have on immigrants, as it would create a subservient class tied to the state and whatever party supports the rampant growth of the state.

Also worth mentioning is that immigrants, as with any free entries into a market, help to break up any monopolies that might otherwise form. In this case, it would be a labor monopoly. If the welfare state would be reduced, and the income tax removed, workers would 1.) Work for a wage that would provide for their needs and 2.) Companies would have more money to pay them. Real wages (i.e. wages adjusted for inflation) rise with productivity, after all, and government's intervention disturbs that. I would support better protection of BOTH borders (Mexican and Canadian), but not to keep immigrants out but to prevent illicit trafficking.

I would streamline the citizenship process so that it would not take 30 years, and I would expand the quotas of immigration so that people would not need to come illegally to have a better life, but instead allow for the capacity to have these immigrants come legally. I would not kick out the immigrants already here, since immigrating here without permission is not an evil act, just disorderly. (You wouldn't incarcerate someone for jay-walking, would you?) Those immigrants here should have a year to report themselves, and then have a background check, then be expected to integrate into society (learn English, history of US, etc.) This way, they will be able to not be marginalized, but rather be involved in society, and we can keep an eye on them and protect them more effectively.

I think it is also worth mentioning that there is a tightness in the labor market, due to regulations such as the minimum wage and low birthrates and a top-heavy age structure due to abortion, among other things. Because of this, there simply are not enough unskilled workers to expand the economy. To continue the economic growth, we must have a guest worker program to fill in for these holes in the economy. The economy benefits if companies can look around for laborers and bring them here to perform work, instead of being unable to hire to increase their capacity.

The problem is not with the immigrants- the problem is with the government.

It was written by Alex Tabarrok and has been signed by Brad DeLong, Greg Mankiw, Vernon Smith, Tyler Cowen and many other economists from both the left and the right.

If you are wondering why it is written in simple language, look to the top of the letter and you will see it it addressed to the President of the United States and Congress.

Is there anything in the letter you would consider incorrect, or at least debatable?

Dear President George W. Bush and All Members of Congress:

People from around the world are drawn to America for its promise of freedom and opportunity. That promise has been fulfilled for the tens of millions of immigrants who came here in the twentieth century.

Agreed, without a doubt this country promises freedom and opportunity to citizens. The requirements in return for this are legal status as an immigrant, there in begins the opportunity. The opportunity to become a citizen.

Throughout our history as an immigrant nation, those who are already here worry about the impact of newcomers. Yet, over time, immigrants have become part of a richer America, richer both economically and culturally. The current debate over immigration is a healthy part of a democratic society, but as economists and other social scientists we are concerned that some of the fundamental economics of immigration are too often obscured by misguided commentary.

Agree again to an extent. Yes the economics of immigration are often obscured. People (including economists) tend to target single areas without regard to the very complex nature of the issue. The economics of immigration should always include both macro and micro examination. The vague reference to misguided commentary without examples is poor reasoning on the part of the author.

Overall, immigration has been a net gain for existing American citizens, though a modest one in proportion to the size of our 13 trillion-dollar economy.

I absolutely do not agree with this. There are hundreds of models used to “score” the net. Most, certainly do not report a gain overall. Not to mention to report a gain, you must also include a “what if” scenario and genuinely try to project what the economy would have been without the variable of illegal immigrants. To realistically endorse a gain, a model must be run that also would have to conclude that the economy to date would have been in worse shape without illegals. Perhaps our economy would have a considerable net gain instead of a modest one without illegals. Yet, I don’t see the author commenting on how he has arrived a “modest net gain”. Again poor reasoning without reference.

Immigrants do not take American jobs. The American economy can create as many jobs as there are workers willing to work so long as labor markets remain free, flexible and open to all workers on an equal basis.

The point is the market is not remaining free at all. The market is shifting because of illegal immigrants and employers who hire them. The idea that the American economy can create the jobs sounds good on paper, and in a perfect labor environment it would be true. We don’t have a perfect labor environment and it is naïve to think we do. Workers are not on an equal basis, not illegals nor legals.

Immigration in recent decades of low-skilled workers may have lowered the wages of domestic low-skilled workers, but the effect is likely to be small, with estimates of wage reductions for high-school dropouts ranging from eight percent to as little as zero percent.

Likely, this is not a term that any self respecting scientist uses. One thing glaringly omitted here and in the discussion regarding labor is the jobs that are not minimum wage jobs, ie: construction jobs. The construction industry is taking a huge blow from contractors hiring illegals. What people like to ignore is that general construction labor is being undercut by $10 an hour in many areas. This is pulling many peoples standard wage rate down considerably. Yet the market is not showing a reduction in cost of construction by the consumer. Those hiring illegal labor are paying less but we as consumers are not gaining any benefit from it. Landscaping is another example, hiring illegals has certainly not reduced the price of landscaping for the consumer. Same issue actually for the minimum wage worker in the nearest drive thru. The cost of our lunches has not come down. So not only are laborers hurt but certainly consumers are also.


While a small percentage of native-born Americans may be harmed by immigration, vastly more Americans benefit from the contributions that immigrants make to our economy, including lower consumer prices. As with trade in goods and services, the gains from immigration outweigh the losses. The effect of all immigration on low-skilled workers is very likely positive as many immigrants bring skills, capital and entrepreneurship to the American economy.

This is not correct overall, as I have said and does not only effect low-wage industry. The only increase to our economy is the employer who hires the illegal is creating his own net gain. If this were a net over all gain to the economy we would see prices come down, they haven’t.

Legitimate concerns about the impact of immigration on the poorest Americans should not be addressed by penalizing even poorer immigrants. Instead, we should promote policies, such as improving our education system that enables Americans to be more productive with high-wage skills.

This comment ignores the basic understanding that we do not have a responsibility to educate anyone who is illegally in this country. I agree we should improve our education system, and in turn enable Americans (key word here Americans) to be more productive. We have no obligation to usurp our poorest Americans (again key word) in favor of illegal immigrants, which in reality is exactly what is happening.

We must not forget that the gains to immigrants from coming to the United States are immense. Immigration is the greatest anti-poverty program ever devised. The American dream is a reality for many immigrants who not only increase their own living standards but who also send billions of dollars of their money back to their families in their home countries—a form of truly effective foreign aid..

Here in lies the biggest oxymoron of this entire letter. First the writer states in vague terms that it is not hurting our economy, and then comments how wonderful it is that illegals are sending billions of dollars back to their home countries (which in fact they are). I had to laugh, because of course those billions of dollars are doing absolutely nothing to contribute to our economy.

America is a generous and open country and these qualities make America a beacon to the world. We should not let exaggerated fears dim that beacon.

This entire letter is an insult to any semi-thinking citizen. It completely omits the term illegal in an effort to somehow equate the glories that immigrants have brought into this country to all immigrants both legal and illegal. It ignores the issues of background checks, the ethics of those who ignore our immigration laws, and the employers who knowingly hire illegals in their sole drive to increase their own net worth. It is insulting to the consumer to imply that employers are hiring illegals in a charitable effort to help all consumers by keeping prices down when in reality nothing has come down in price as a result of illegal labor. The market is not free when the rules are violated by employers. In a perfect world there would be no rules, but as I stated earlier it isn’t a perfect world (labor market) and there are rules, ignoring them in this letter is shameful.

As I said, people aren't likely to admit that they're afraid of foreigners because they have dark skin, speak another language and don't share a similar culture.



Ethical reasons? "Them's breakin' teh law, THATS WRONG!?"

lol

Please. The economic issues were discussed in the first post - why don't you address those. Myself, I know that the supposed "reasons" are justifications, rationalizations more than reasons.



You're right, it's not just a fear of foreigners. It's also fear and hatred. Thanks. :)

What's the hospital reason again? Them illegals is taking white peoples' waiting room space, leeching off our system, etc etc? Hah. A common argument that is more or less like, "This town ain't big enough for the two of us."

I see your only view is to look into the emergency room see it as a "you got my chair" issue. Again too funny, try the accounting departments instead, be sure to ask how much each hospital has written off due to illegal immigrant services. I'll give you a starter, here in Atlanta, Grady this last year had to eat $30 million lost to illegal immigrant services. One hospital, $30 million, that 30 with six zeros behind it. Are you foolish enough to not recognize who will eventually pay these losses? Who will lose the services when the hospital can no longer operate?

And certainly you understand why ERs are the popular choice right? Because undocumented workers have no insurance, no workmans comp, no recourse. They have no recourse by their own decision to come into this country illegally. Yet, we as citizens will pay for that decision.

That's the same tired excuse I hear whenever an anti-immigration advocate doesn't want to appear to be xenophobic. Yet such people inevitably talk about the drain on our economy, taking our jobs and being "invaded" by "illegals." These are the hallmarks of anti-immigration stance.

And if people are really so supportive of doing anything and everything legally, how come so many Americans (including many who are against illegal immigration) commit crimes at some point in their life? Why do they not advocate deportation of any and all criminals? Because it's not about the principle of law enforcement. It's about the idea of "defending the nation" and perceiving immigration/illegal immigration as an "invasion."

Do you have any proof at all of this except anecdotal evidence and a willingness to claim that people are hiding their true thoughts for fear of how their true thoughts would make them appear? Perhaps people really DONT like foreign nationals entering the country illegally. Perhaps there IS a reason for laws restricting immigration and the US border should not be open to any person willing and able to break US law in order to cross it.

As far as deporting all criminals goes, where? No civilised country who wanted to stay that way would accept US citizens as immigrants merely because they were criminals which the US didnt want. Thats why civilised countries have immigration laws and guard their borders. Why on Earth would someone who thinks that controlling immigration legally is good also think that illegally expatriating citizens to other countries is a good idea? This sounds more like the brainchild of someone who likes citizenship to apply equally to all countries.

While we are on the subject of citizenship, I want the vast majority of people living here to have all the rights and responsibilities and loyalties of citizenship. I dont think it is wise or healthy to have tens of millions of foreign nationals illegally living in any nation. Not only is their loyalty in question, but worse, they have no representation and every reason to dodge taxation. They have not mekded in they are not even second class citizens. They are not citizens at all. Tolerating illegal aliens is paramount to tolerating an underclass of non citizens without representation and no hope of rising above this. It is NOT charitable to ignore illegal immigration "because all they want is a better life" it IS making certain that their life wont ever be up to the actual standard it could and should be if they immigrated legally. Tolerating illegal immigration mostly helps those who can take advantage of their situation. It is largely giving them a taste of what might be and a slightly better life if they are lucky, but not more than that.

I see your only view is to look into the emergency room see it as a "you got my chair" issue.

Well, chair, government services, same thing.

Again too funny, try the accounting departments instead, be sure to ask how much each hospital has written off due to illegal immigrant services. I'll give you a starter, here in Atlanta, Grady this last year had to eat $30 million lost to illegal immigrant services. One hospital, $30 million, that 30 with six zeros behind it. Are you foolish enough to not recognize who will eventually pay these losses? Who will lose the services when the hospital can no longer operate?

In what way do you know that 30 million from this hospital was due solely to illegal immigrants?



And certainly you understand why ERs are the popular choice right? Because undocumented workers have no insurance, no workmans comp, no recourse. They have no recourse by their own decision to come into this country illegally. Yet, we as citizens will pay for that decision.

California, certainly one of the primary states for illegal immigrants, pays out in taxes more than it receives in services. I can only guess that maybe your shitsplat Atlanta hospitals suffer from the problem of not being in an economically productive state.

Do you have any proof at all of this except anecdotal evidence and a willingness to claim that people are hiding their true thoughts for fear of how their true thoughts would make them appear?

Well, I have an understanding of human nature.

No one admits to being a xenophobe or racist. It just doesn't happen. So what, maybe there are no xenophobes, or racists?

Perhaps people really DONT like foreign nationals entering the country illegally. Perhaps there IS a reason for laws restricting immigration and the US border should not be open to any person willing and able to break US law in order to cross it.

And so what is the reason people don't like "foreign nationals" entering the country illegaly? The foreign part, or the illegal part?

Well let's see. 1, it breaks the law, and people have an extreme fondness for obedience of the law, the principle of justice. Or, 2, foreigners are perceived as encroaching on one's turf, taking one's jobs, and causing all those signs to be in both english and spanish.

So it comes down to: what is more common, people who adhere to the principle and letter of justice, or people who have negative feelings towards other cultures, languages and/or ethnicities?

Given the crime rate in this country I'd have to say the latter is more common.

As far as deporting all criminals goes, where? No civilised country who wanted to stay that way would accept US citizens as immigrants merely because they were criminals which the US didnt want. Thats why civilised countries have immigration laws and guard their borders. Why on Earth would someone who thinks that controlling immigration legally is good also think that illegally expatriating citizens to other countries is a good idea? This sounds more like the brainchild of someone who likes citizenship to apply equally to all countries.


I guess that's why if the Mexican government declares you to be a criminal that Mexico doesn't want, you're basically screwed since you can't immigrate legally, and if you immigrate illegally, concerned "civilized" Americans spit on you.

Well, chair, government services, same thing.



In what way do you know that 30 million from this hospital was due solely to illegal immigrants?




California, certainly one of the primary states for illegal immigrants, pays out in taxes more than it receives in services. I can only guess that maybe your shitsplat Atlanta hospitals suffer from the problem of not being in an economically productive state.



Well, I have an understanding of human nature.

No one admits to being a xenophobe or racist. It just doesn't happen. So what, maybe there are no xenophobes, or racists?



And so what is the reason people don't like "foreign nationals" entering the country illegaly? The foreign part, or the illegal part?

Well let's see. 1, it breaks the law, and people have an extreme fondness for obedience of the law, the principle of justice. Or, 2, foreigners are perceived as encroaching on one's turf, taking one's jobs, and causing all those signs to be in both english and spanish.

So it comes down to: what is more common, people who adhere to the principle and letter of justice, or people who have negative feelings towards other cultures, languages and/or ethnicities?

Given the crime rate in this country I'd have to say the latter is more common.



I guess that's why if the Mexican government declares you to be a criminal that Mexico doesn't want, you're basically screwed since you can't immigrate legally, and if you immigrate illegally, concerned "civilized" Americans spit on you.

You know I will tell you something regarding my personality, it is extremely rare that I feel the urge to get angry. On those rare occassions it consistently boils down to my frustration at someone being completely obtuse and impudent.

You my dear are absolutely the most ignorant person I have ever seen post on ANY public forum. You have no desire to understand the issues, you just want to hate. And because that is your view you cannot comprehend that anyone would have any real reason to not like illegal immigrantion besides the only function you seem to pocess yourself.

Please litter the boards some more with your piles of crap and know without any question that anyone with one ounce of sense sees exactly the reason you cannot carry on an intelligent debate.

Now please excuse me, I can have a more intelligent conversation with my German Shepard than with you.

Dear President George W. Bush and All Members of Congress:

People from around the world are drawn to America for its promise of freedom and opportunity. That promise has been fulfilled for the tens of millions of immigrants who came here in the twentieth century.

Throughout our history as an immigrant nation, those who are already here worry about the impact of newcomers. Yet, over time, immigrants have become part of a richer America, richer both economically and culturally. The current debate over immigration is a healthy part of a democratic society, but as economists and other social scientists we are concerned that some of the fundamental economics of immigration are too often obscured by misguided commentary.

Overall, immigration has been a net gain for existing American citizens, though a modest one in proportion to the size of our 13 trillion-dollar economy.

Immigrants do not take American jobs. The American economy can create as many jobs as there are workers willing to work so long as labor markets remain free, flexible and open to all workers on an equal basis.

Immigration in recent decades of low-skilled workers may have lowered the wages of domestic low-skilled workers, but the effect is likely to be small, with estimates of wage reductions for high-school dropouts ranging from eight percent to as little as zero percent.

While a small percentage of native-born Americans may be harmed by immigration, vastly more Americans benefit from the contributions that immigrants make to our economy, including lower consumer prices. As with trade in goods and services, the gains from immigration outweigh the losses. The effect of all immigration on low-skilled workers is very likely positive as many immigrants bring skills, capital and entrepreneurship to the American economy.

Legitimate concerns about the impact of immigration on the poorest Americans should not be addressed by penalizing even poorer immigrants. Instead, we should promote policies, such as improving our education system that enables Americans to be more productive with high-wage skills.

We must not forget that the gains to immigrants from coming to the United States are immense. Immigration is the greatest anti-poverty program ever devised. The American dream is a reality for many immigrants who not only increase their own living standards but who also send billions of dollars of their money back to their families in their home countries—a form of truly effective foreign aid..

America is a generous and open country and these qualities make America a beacon to the world. We should not let exaggerated fears dim that beacon.
wow... good point. so does this mean then that we can tax anyone recieving money for doing work in America even if they are not American citizens?

and where does it state that Illegal Aliens (who for the most part, send their money back to their families across the border) are the same as Immigration?

Open letter on immigration from economists which economists?

their qualifications? linky

or is this your Open Letter, from one Economist?

clarification please.

wow... good point. so does this mean then that we can tax anyone recieving money for doing work in America even if they are not American citizens?

um, you are aware that the irs already does, right? and not just money from inside the u.s. either.

My biggest problem with illegal immigration is less the economic effects (which I agree are a net positive) than the fiscal effects. The majority of illegals don't pay income tax - yet their children attend public schools, and beyond the mere standard per-child cost of normal education, actually cost schools extra money because of bilingual necessities and ESL programs. Plus, these kids, being non-English speakers who get little to no English at home to reinforce whatever gains they make in school, get less benefit out of the same educational run, making their education a worse investment for the American taxpayer, among whom are again not counted the parents of those kids. And that's not even mentioning the mandatorily government-funded emergency room trips for accidents and illnesses.

um, you are aware that the irs already does, right? and not just money from inside the u.s. either.
the irs does so for those who have records of earning money from the US.

I cant see Illegal aliens filling out a w2 or other income tax forms.

which economists?

their qualifications? linky

or is this your Open Letter, from one Economist?

clarification please.


Written by Alex Tabarrok, signed by Brad DeLong, Greg Mankiw, Vernon Smith, Tyler Cowen and many others.

Here is a linky, but you'll have to scroll down a bit.

http://www.marginalrevolution.com/

Written by Alex Tabarrok, signed by Brad DeLong, Greg Mankiw, Vernon Smith, Tyler Cowen and many others.

Here is a linky, but you'll have to scroll down a bit.

http://www.marginalrevolution.com/
Thanks. without this, it kinda looks like you just wrote it. :D

That's the same tired excuse I hear whenever an anti-immigration advocate doesn't want to appear to be xenophobic. Yet such people inevitably talk about the drain on our economy, taking our jobs and being "invaded" by "illegals." These are the hallmarks of anti-immigration stance.

And if people are really so supportive of doing anything and everything legally, how come so many Americans (including many who are against illegal immigration) commit crimes at some point in their life? Why do they not advocate deportation of any and all criminals? Because it's not about the principle of law enforcement. It's about the idea of "defending the nation" and perceiving immigration/illegal immigration as an "invasion."

What the...? I didn't realize that you had been riding my back like a tick, observing my every thought and move.
What else do you know about me?

So why so much outrage about illegal entry? I dont see a similar level of outrage leveled at companies who hire illegal immigrants, even though that is breaking the law. And even for something that most people don't approve of such as drug dealing, no one has tried to use the national guard to stop it.
So if the US liberalized immigration laws and let the people who are currently coming in illegally come in legally instead, no one would complain?

Someone please point me to the TOS reference that stipulates that only one opinion can be expressed per thread.

Also, not knowing this about either of you guys by the way, if you are not a legal citizen of the US OUR immigration policies are none of your business.

Please, outline for me how porous borders benefit any soverign nation.

Someone please point me to the TOS reference that stipulates that only one opinion can be expressed per thread.

Also, not knowing this about either of you guys by the way, if you are not a legal citizen of the US OUR immigration policies are none of your business.


Someone please point me to the TOS reference that stipulates only legal US citizens can express their opinion in this thread.

Don't be a fucking hypocrite.

Someone please point me to the TOS reference that stipulates that only one opinion can be expressed per thread.

Also, not knowing this about either of you guys by the way, if you are not a legal citizen of the US OUR immigration policies are none of your business.

Please, outline for me how porous borders benefit any soverign nation.
it allows the undesirables to easily pass from my nation to another. also I can use that porous borders to send agents and spies into that nation, where they can then obtain forged papers and after a while, they would be considered citizens. more I put in there, the better influence I would have in the cities near the borders and I can slowly infiltrate that nation. after all, I would have a sizable amout of "citizens" there that would help others cross... not to mention when that government tries to solidify the borders, they can raise public outcry and turn the cities slowly against the government.

or were you talking about the nation that my people would be infiltrating.

it allows the undesirables to easily pass from my nation to another. also I can use that porous borders to send agents and spies into that nation, where they can then obtain forged papers and after a while, they would be considered citizens. more I put in there, the better influence I would have in the cities near the borders and I can slowly infiltrate that nation. after all, I would have a sizable amout of "citizens" there that would help others cross... not to mention when that government tries to solidify the borders, they can raise public outcry and turn the cities slowly against the government.


This is the part where you get dismissed as a raving conspiracy nut.

Here in lies the biggest oxymoron of this entire letter. First the writer states in vague terms that it is not hurting our economy, and then comments how wonderful it is that illegals are sending billions of dollars back to their home countries (which in fact they are). I had to laugh, because of course those billions of dollars are doing absolutely nothing to contribute to our economy.

I'll just tackle one of your points that I really do not understand. You say that remittances by immigrants are contributing nothing to the U.S. economy? I find this to be a very strange way of looking at things. So when my American friend sends some money from the U.S. to me in Australia what do you think happens to the money? Since I can't spend it here in Australia I am going to sell it to a bank in return for Australian dollars. And what is the bank going to do with it? It's going to sell it to someone who wants American dollars. Who would want U.S. dollars in Australia? Someone who wanted to buy something from America of course. Perhaps a mining company that wants to buy some mining equipment, a lot of which comes from the U.S. So any money the people remit overseas comes back to the U.S. in exchange for exports. The dollars will always come back to the United States. Think about it for a while and you'll see it's true.

And just because one of the United States largest exports is treasury bills doesn't change anything. America sells debt, in return they get a lower interest rate than they would if they financed their debt domestically.

Thanks. without this, it kinda looks like you just wrote it.

Nah, if I wrote to the President and Congress I would use crayon and include lots of pictures of hungry catapillars and pet goats. Maybe a shiny bicycle. He likes bicycles.

the irs does so for those who have records of earning money from the US.

I cant see Illegal aliens filling out a w2 or other income tax forms.

they can and do. and more would do so if they knew that they could and that doing so wouldn't get them arrested.

of course, you original response made it clear that you were not only unaware of the fact that undocumented immigrants are taxed, but that you were unaware that all non-citizens who earn money in the country are taxed.

it allows the undesirables to easily pass from my nation to another. also I can use that porous borders to send agents and spies into that nation, where they can then obtain forged papers and after a while, they would be considered citizens. more I put in there, the better influence I would have in the cities near the borders and I can slowly infiltrate that nation. after all, I would have a sizable amout of "citizens" there that would help others cross... not to mention when that government tries to solidify the borders, they can raise public outcry and turn the cities slowly against the government.

well then, we'd best round up all the japanese and put them in camps again

they can and do. and more would do so if they knew that they could and that doing so wouldn't get them arrested.

of course, you original response made it clear that you were not only unaware of the fact that undocumented immigrants are taxed, but that you were unaware that all non-citizens who earn money in the country are taxed.
nope, I knew about the taxing on non citizens who were here legally and doing legal business, but I was refering to Illegals.

guess we can send the bill to their country of origin. and we can do that whenever we deport them back. make it more cost effective for their countries to stop them from illegally crossing over.

well then, we'd best round up all the japanese and put them in camps again
yep... if they are here Illegally.

also round up the mexicans, cubans, and even the canadians.

as long as they are here illegally.

after all, there are ways to come into any country. if it's a long and cumbersome process, then it's up to the citizens as well as the government to change the process, not break the law.

yep... if they are here Illegally.

also round up the mexicans, cubans, and even the canadians.

as long as they are here illegally.

after all, there are ways to come into any country. if it's a long and cumbersome process, then it's up to the citizens as well as the government to change the process, not break the law.

Wouldn't it be cheaper and easier to round up people who hire illegal immigrants? I mean they're breaking the law. Owners of companies would think twice about hiring illegals if they knew they might end up in a concentration camp out in the middle of the desert.

This is the part where you get dismissed as a raving conspiracy nut.
Then answer why have borders?
if people can move freely from one nation to another, what's stopping one nation from sending their military over to another nation if borders are not ment to be secure?

besides, if you think about it necessity of borders and secure lines that define where the Government of one nation ends is needed.

besides, It's the right of the Nation to protect their border the way they see fit. as long as they do it on their side of the border no one else can do anything about it.

If the US gov. does not want a Porous border, it is their right to tighten it. If the US Gov does not want Illegal Aliens inside our nation, it is their right to kick em out.

you want to live in a place where people can come and go where they please. then the first thing you do is remove your doors, remove your windows and put away your drapes. then see how it feels like to let any stranger just enter your home and demand to be treated like family.

Wouldn't it be cheaper and easier to round up people who hire illegal immigrants? I mean they're breaking the law. Owners of companies would think twice about hiring illegals if they knew they might end up in a concentration camp out in the middle of the desert.
that's an idea. unfortunatly, if the illegal signs the contract that states they are a legal worker and has the forged documents. then what?

but, that is an idea. and not just companies. anyone who hires an illegal alien without obtaining proof of their legal status.

so homeowners who hire Pedro and Maria to do their landscaping and housecleaning can also be arrested.

heck, and a hefty fine and you have another source of revenue.

and it will open jobs to citizens who need it. if they don't want the job, then that boils down to an argument between hunger and ego.

so I change my mind. go after the Illegal Aliens AND those who would hire them. the only exemption is if the employer provides names of those who help sneak Illegal Aliens into our nation.

and it will open jobs to citizens who need it. if they don't want the job, then that boils down to an argument between hunger and ego.

Well it doesn't really open a job. When there are people there is stuff to do. There isn't a set number of jobs to go around. People see a way they can make money and they do it. For example if I realize I can make money from a lawn mowing service in my town I can start one right away. I don't have to wait for someone to leave their employment before I can work.

Then answer why have borders?
if people can move freely from one nation to another, what's stopping one nation from sending their military over to another nation if borders are not ment to be secure?


Erm, you are aware that it's not a line on the map that prevents any military from moving into another nation, yes?

As for why having borders, that's a good point. I don't believe in them.


you want to live in a place where people can come and go where they please. then the first thing you do is remove your doors, remove your windows and put away your drapes. then see how it feels like to let any stranger just enter your home and demand to be treated like family.

Continuing with the analogy, you're the guy who builds a moat around his house, ringed with barbed wire, automatic sentries, guard dogs and hired mercenaries who'll shoot anyone who can't show their ID in a satisfactory way on site. I rate my place much better.

But it's a stupid analogy. A nation isn't a house. A house is a private residence. A nation is by definition not private at all. And "nation" isn't like "family," either. If it is, then you "treat like family" American child molestors, rapists, thieves, serial murderers... and that's supposed to be superior than welcoming illegal immigrants? What a messed up family.

Erm, you are aware that it's not a line on the map that prevents any military from moving into another nation, yes?actually there is a line. while it won't prevent military from moving across it, shoud it be tresspassed in such a way without proper diplomatic permission as well as procedures, it does allow that nation to use whatever force to kick the invading military out. even to the point in calling in allies.

As for why having borders, that's a good point. I don't believe in them. cool, you realize that also applies to property lines.

Continuing with the analogy, you're the guy who builds a moat around his house, ringed with barbed wire, automatic sentries, guard dogs and hired mercenaries who'll shoot anyone who can't show their ID in a satisfactory way on site. I rate my place much better.and that, is relative. some people out there might actually like the moat, barbed wire etc deal. I wouldn't mind a moat on my property. of course it would be filled with fish that people can enjoy watching.

But it's a stupid analogy. A nation isn't a house. A house is a private residence. A nation is by definition not private at all. And "nation" isn't like "family," either. If it is, then you "treat like family" American child molestors, rapists, thieves, serial murderers... and that's supposed to be superior than welcoming illegal immigrants? What a messed up family.and you will disown anyone who does not meet your standards? every nation has their criminals, but guess what. the government provides for them to. They, just like mis-behaving kids, get punnished by their government (parents)

you live in your nation, you live in your house/apartment building. You have to treat your nation as if you are living in it. your fellow citizens are you family/roomates and the government the head of the household/building council. the government provides for you, and gives you opportunities to grow. you treat your fellow citizens like you would treat your roommates. they respect you, I hope, and you return that respect... I hope. You argue about pollution, you complain when your roommate leaves the pizza box out and now you got ants.

and you got borders. why do you lock your doors and windows. to protect yourself, your family/friends and your stuff. same reason why Governments watch their borders. to protect their family/friends (citizens) and their stuff

think about that analogy. Everyone you invite into your home you expect to follow the "House Rules" same with people who visit other nations. you expect them to follow that Nation's Laws. everyone who is there not by your invitation needs to explain themselves or leave. (people seeking assylum, busness trades, even the illegal aliens.)

you have the Noisey Neighbor (Spies) you have Neighborhood feuds (War) and you have the police to complain to when there's trouble. (UN: and some may argue which is more effective, but I'll leave that for another thread.)

when tragedy strikes one house (nation) people tend to help each other (send aid) and expect some aid in return (borrowing stuff)

In your home, there is an allowance (grants, fundings, even tax breaks) there are bills to pay (budgets) and if there is always money set asside for non essential things (how much did the Military pay for that hammer? :D )

Each home has their own rules and types of parents (head of household). the strict parents (dictatorships) the Parents that involve their kids/roommates (?) and even those that use forms of congress or parlament. Building Councils, family councils. and you also have your incompetant families.

the Head of the house/president of an apartment buildings council has the right and responsibility to not only lay the law down (if it passes) but also enforcement.

look at how a home runs or a set of flats/apartments and you can match that up with the Government. how you interact with your neighbors is the same as your governments foreign policy.

you have allies, and you have those who will wish you harm.

you home/apartment building is exactly like a government, and how you secure your home should be the same as how you secure your nation.

actually there is a line. while it won't prevent military from moving across it, shoud it be tresspassed in such a way without proper diplomatic permission as well as procedures, it does allow that nation to use whatever force to kick the invading military out. even to the point in calling in allies.

It allows one to 'diplomatically' defend with the military. But in itself, a border means nothing.


cool, you realize that also applies to property lines.


No, because "property lines" are not part of the subset "borders."


and you will disown anyone who does not meet your standards? every nation has their criminals, but guess what. the government provides for them to. They, just like mis-behaving kids, get punnished by their government (parents)

Right. Little Joey, the Serial Rapist. Little Suzy, the Mass Murderer. But Jose the Gardener can't even stay for tea. Because he doesn't meet the standards upheld by our beautiful family.


you live in your nation, you live in your house/apartment building. You have to treat your nation as if you are living in it.

*sigh* No, now you're just trying to force the analogy when it just doesn't hold. I live in my house, I can do what I want in my house. I cannot do what I want in the nation. The nation is publically owned and governed, my house is not. Public, private. This difference can't be ignored.


you home/apartment building is exactly like a government, and how you secure your home should be the same as how you secure your nation.

I guess I'm too literal minded to accept your insistence upon this analogy. A government is a bunch of old guys in D.C or the state capital who have degrees in law and debate politics and argue and make press conferences. A house is a building where I happen to live. So no, it's not exactly the same. And what applies to one doesn't necessarily apply to the other.

Even so, I often let people I don't really know into my home. Maybe I'm that kind of guy. I don't demand identification from everyone who enters, and I don't make them wait through 17 years of bureacratic red tape. I don't complain if they start washing the dishes, or breathing my air. I don't get self righteous if they're looking for a new life; say they came from an abusive home, I don't slap them and tell them to go back. I don't assume they must be a criminal, a spy, an invader, a terrorist. I guess we just have a different view as to running a house, or a nation.

It allows one to 'diplomatically' defend with the military. But in itself, a border means nothing. without borders, you cannot dipolmatically defend anything. thus more chances of military clashes. but if that's what you want...
No, because "property lines" are not part of the subset "borders."yes they are. in the broad use of borders, they are.

Right. Little Joey, the Serial Rapist. Little Suzy, the Mass Murderer. But Jose the Gardener can't even stay for tea. Because he doesn't meet the standards upheld by our beautiful family.Jose can stay for tea since the family invited him in. Jose cannot break into a home and sit down at the table and expect to be fed.

yet that's what illegal aliens do. they sneak in and expect to be treated like citizens.

*sigh* No, now you're just trying to force the analogy when it just doesn't hold. I live in my house, I can do what I want in my house. I cannot do what I want in the nation. The nation is publically owned and governed, my house is not. Public, private. This difference can't be ignored.wrong you actually have less freedom in your home. Your family makes the rules that you follow in your home. don't believe me? try do anything that you cannot do in the Nation at your home. Hit your father. (assault) I bet you will be punnished. break curfew laws, I bet your parents would punnish you (if those laws apply to your age that is.)
talk back to your parents, bet you will see retaliation while at least in the national laws, you can use the first amendment to defend yourself.
steal from your parents or family members bet they will tattle on you and guess what...

at least with the Government, you can have a trial.


I guess I'm too literal minded to accept your insistence upon this analogy. A government is a bunch of old guys in D.C or the state capital who have degrees in law and debate politics and argue and make press conferences. I've seen some of those building councils... it's almost a perfect match. except after listening to some of their meetings.... the government isn't as thick-headed.
A house is a building where I happen to live. So no, it's not exactly the same. And what applies to one doesn't necessarily apply to the other. and where is your home located... in your Nation... so if you are literal Minded. yes you live IN YOUR NATION.

Even so, I often let people I don't really know into my home. but you're willing to let strangers, people who don't properly introduce themselves to the government via forms and proper immigration procedures to enter the nation. you don't know who's coming in or why and in most cases, where they go.
Maybe I'm that kind of guy. I don't demand identification from everyone who enters, and I don't make them wait through 17 years of bureacratic red tape. then let strange people into your home while your younger siblings are around and lets see what your parents do?
I don't complain if they start washing the dishes, or breathing my air. I don't get self righteous if they're looking for a new life; so you won't complain that at the same time they take your stereo, your car, your computer, your room, food out of the fridge and a portion of your allowance since they did your work/chores.
say they came from an abusive home, I don't slap them and tell them to go back.and how will you know if they come from an abusive home? you ask right. they tell you. Say like when people seeking assylum will tell the country they want to go to these things right?
I don't assume they must be a criminal, a spy, an invader, a terrorist. and you don't assume that the person breaking into your home is a criminal either. :rolleyes:

I guess we just have a different view as to running a house, or a nation.and that is the problem. the Ideals people want of their nation is far different and often times opposite of what they actually practice at home. yet no one cares/minds that they are speaking one thing and doing what they speak out against.

I would be curious as to what economist wrote this. I am an Econ major with a lowly BS in Economics, and can't fathom that any self respecting economist would address this matter in such vague very disputable terms. Come on we economists talk with graphs and numbers, a very boring lot we are, but precise is no doubt our forte.


HAHAHA - Wait till get out of university and you start working!

You'll see how precise Economists work and I got a joke for you:

One night a policeman saw a macroeconomist looking for something by a lightpole. He asked him if he had lost something there. The economist said, "I lost my keyes over in the alley." The policeman asked him why he was looking by the lightpole. The economist responded, "it's a lot easier to look over here."

Cheers:p

I'll just tackle one of your points that I really do not understand. You say that remittances by immigrants are contributing nothing to the U.S. economy? I find this to be a very strange way of looking at things. So when my American friend sends some money from the U.S. to me in Australia what do you think happens to the money? Since I can't spend it here in Australia I am going to sell it to a bank in return for Australian dollars. And what is the bank going to do with it? It's going to sell it to someone who wants American dollars. Who would want U.S. dollars in Australia? Someone who wanted to buy something from America of course. Perhaps a mining company that wants to buy some mining equipment, a lot of which comes from the U.S. So any money the people remit overseas comes back to the U.S. in exchange for exports. The dollars will always come back to the United States. Think about it for a while and you'll see it's true.

And just because one of the United States largest exports is treasury bills doesn't change anything. America sells debt, in return they get a lower interest rate than they would if they financed their debt domestically.

I agree that the dollars must be spent on our exports to re-enter our economy. But certainly you do realize that this is not the case for a very large portion of currency leaving this country. It would be misleading to imply that dollar for dollar our currency returns to our economy in the form of purchased goods only. That in fact is not what is happening and hasn't been for a long time.

It is late and I am too tired to summarize it so I will leave you a link to read that lays out what is happening and why it is dangerous to our economy. Please note the article is from 2002, so understand this issue has been around for a while and the concern is only more now.

http://www.vdare.com/roberts/no_think3.htm

HAHAHA - Wait till get out of university and you start working!

You'll see how precise Economists work and I got a joke for you:

One night a policeman saw a macroeconomist looking for something by a lightpole. He asked him if he had lost something there. The economist said, "I lost my keyes over in the alley." The policeman asked him why he was looking by the lightpole. The economist responded, "it's a lot easier to look over here."

Cheers:p

:p I love it!! Actually I have been out for 10 years. I have often said that economists and weathermen are the only two fields who can be consistently wrong and still keep their job.

You must have a sense of humor to crunch numbers all day, believe me. Thanks for the laugh!

I agree that the dollars must be spent on our exports to re-enter our economy. But certainly you do realize that this is not the case for a very large portion of currency leaving this country. It would be misleading to imply that dollar for dollar our currency returns to our economy in the form of purchased goods only. That in fact is not what is happening and hasn't been for a long time.

It is late and I am too tired to summarize it so I will leave you a link to read that lays out what is happening and why it is dangerous to our economy. Please note the article is from 2002, so understand this issue has been around for a while and the concern is only more now.

http://www.vdare.com/roberts/no_think3.htm

Could you give me one example of how an immigrant in the U.S. could send money to someone in another country and it would not return to the United States? I bet you can't.

Even if someone sent envelopes of cash to their mad Uncle in Pakistan who who then ate it, the money would still return to the United States. As soon as the treasury noticed that there wasn't enough currency in circulation it would print up some more. Voila! Money from nothing, or rather, money magically returned from a crazy man's gullet, all shiny and new, less the cost of paper and ink. Let's say he doesn't eat it but puts it under his bed. Each year it is out of circulation it will decrease in value by about 3% since that's about the average rate of U.S. inflation. By holding the cash it's as if they have borrowed it from the U.S. government and are paying 3% interest on it per year. This holds true even if people in his village use the U.S. cash as there own currency and circulate it around their village. Foreigners holding U.S. cash means the U.S. gets money for nothing.

I looked at the link you provided and it talks about the trade deficit. But the trade deficit comes from two things. People and the government borrowing money from overseas and people and the government selling assets to foreigners. The government borrows money to fund its budget deficit. People borrow money from overseas because Americans save so little. Now I think the U.S. government shouldn't run a deficit and I think U.S. citizens would be better off if they saved more, but it doesn't relate to remittences by immigrants.

If you can give me one example of how money sent by an immigrant to friends or family overseas will not return to the U.S. I will eat my virtual hat.

In regards to the article thread starter posted, not all economists agree....



Double Dodge
Have Americans avoided the facts about both immigration and aging because candor seems insensitive and politically awkward?
May 17, 2006 - President Bush's immigration speech mostly missed the true nature of the problem. We face two interconnected population issues. One is aging; the other is immigration. We aren't dealing sensibly with either, and as a result we face a future of unnecessarily heightened political and economic conflict. On the one side will be older baby boomers demanding all their federal retirement benefits. On the other will be an expanding population of younger and poorer Hispanics—immigrants, their children and grandchildren—increasingly resentful of their rising taxes that subsidize often-wealthier and unrelated baby boomers.

Does this look like a harmonious future?
But you couldn't glean the danger from Bush's speech Monday night. Nor will you hear of it from most Democrats and (to be fair) the mainstream media. There is much muddle to our immigration debate. The central problem is not illegal immigration. It is undesirably high levels of poor and low-skilled immigrants, whether legal or illegal, most of whom are Hispanic. Immigrants are not all the same. An engineer making $75,000 annually contributes more to the American economy and society than a $20,000 laborer. On average, the engineer will assimilate more easily.
Testifying recently before Congress, University of Illinois economist Barry Chiswick—a respected immigration scholar—said this of low-skilled immigrants:
"Their presence in the labor market increases competition for low-skilled jobs, reducing the earnings of low-skilled native-born workers.... Because of their low earnings, low-skilled immigrants also tend to pay less in taxes than they receive in public benefits, such as income transfers (e.g., the earned income tax credit, food stamps), public schooling for their children, and publicly provided medical services. Thus while the presence of low-skilled immigrant workers may raise the profits of their employers, they tend to have a negative effect on the well-being of the low-skilled native-born population, and on the native economy as a whole."
Hardly anyone is discussing these issues candidly. It is politically inexpedient to do so. We can be a lawful society and a welcoming society simultaneously, to use the president's phrase, but we cannot be a welcoming society for limitless numbers of Latin America's poor without seriously compromising our own future—and, indeed, the future of many of the Latinos already here. Yet, that is precisely what the president and many senators (Democratic and Republican) support by endorsing large "guest worker" programs and an expansion of today's system of legal visas. In practice these proposals would result in substantial increases of low-skilled immigrants.
How fast can they assimilate? We cannot know, but we can consult history. It is sobering. In 1972 Hispanics were 5 percent of the U.S. population and their median household income was 74 percent of that of non-Hispanic white households. In 2004 Hispanics were 14 percent of the population, and their median household income was 70 percent of the level of non-Hispanic whites. These numbers suggest that rapid immigration of low-skilled workers and rapid assimilation are at odds. Some immigrant families make huge advances, but many don't and newcomers represent a constant drag.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12838790/site/newsweek/

Could you give me one example of how an immigrant in the U.S. could send money to someone in another country and it would not return to the United States? I bet you can't.

Even if someone sent envelopes of cash to their mad Uncle in Pakistan who who then ate it, the money would still return to the United States. As soon as the treasury noticed that there wasn't enough currency in circulation it would print up some more. Voila! Money from nothing, or rather, money magically returned from a crazy man's gullet, all shiny and new, less the cost of paper and ink. Let's say he doesn't eat it but puts it under his bed. Each year it is out of circulation it will decrease in value by about 3% since that's about the average rate of U.S. inflation. By holding the cash it's as if they have borrowed it from the U.S. government and are paying 3% interest on it per year. This holds true even if people in his village use the U.S. cash as there own currency and circulate it around their village. Foreigners holding U.S. cash means the U.S. gets money for nothing.

I looked at the link you provided and it talks about the trade deficit. But the trade deficit comes from two things. People and the government borrowing money from overseas and people and the government selling assets to foreigners. The government borrows money to fund its budget deficit. People borrow money from overseas because Americans save so little. Now I think the U.S. government shouldn't run a deficit and I think U.S. citizens would be better off if they saved more, but it doesn't relate to remittences by immigrants.

If you can give me one example of how money sent by an immigrant to friends or family overseas will not return to the U.S. I will eat my virtual hat.

You got no idea about economics, have you? The more US dollars, the less valuable it'll be. Money printing increases inflation.

You got no idea about economics, have you? The more US dollars, the less valuable it'll be. Money printing increases inflation.
I thought inflation was a function of money actually in circulation. If the dollars are taken out of circulation by being taken out of the economy, or eaten or placed carefully under a mattress or whatever, that would have a deflationary effect.

I thought inflation was a function of money actually in circulation. If the dollars are taken out of circulation by being taken out of the economy, or eaten or placed carefully under a mattress or whatever, that would have a deflationary effect.

Do you think the mad pakistani uncle he was talking about burns dollars? No. He exchanges them to pakistani currency and those dollars circulate world wide.

Do you think the mad pakistani uncle he was talking about burns dollars? No. He exchanges them to pakistani currency and those dollars circulate world wide.
But if the money remains in circulation, why print more? I suspect the point is moot anyway, I doubt that actual hard currency is much of a component of inflation in an advanced economy.

You got no idea about economics, have you? The more US dollars, the less valuable it'll be. Money printing increases inflation.

Pakistani eat dollars = Less dollars = Deflationary. Pakistani then no have any U.S. dollars. Value of existing dollars go up tiny amount. Treasury see not enough notes in cirulation, print up more so the U.S. government creates money via treasury. When dollar bills are destroyed for whatever reason, U.S. government gets to print new money. It doesn't give this money away. It spends it. Follow me so far?

If you put a dollar of yours in a jar for 25 years and if inflation is about 3% it will lose half its value. Who loses that value? You do, it's your money. Where does it go? Again to the government when the treasury prints up another dollar to replace the one you took out of circulation when you put it in a jar for 25 years. Do you understand what I'm getting at? If not I can try again even more simply.

Could you give me one example of how an immigrant in the U.S. could send money to someone in another country and it would not return to the United States? I bet you can't.

Even if someone sent envelopes of cash to their mad Uncle in Pakistan who who then ate it, the money would still return to the United States. As soon as the treasury noticed that there wasn't enough currency in circulation it would print up some more. Voila! Money from nothing, or rather, money magically returned from a crazy man's gullet, all shiny and new, less the cost of paper and ink. Let's say he doesn't eat it but puts it under his bed. Each year it is out of circulation it will decrease in value by about 3% since that's about the average rate of U.S. inflation. By holding the cash it's as if they have borrowed it from the U.S. government and are paying 3% interest on it per year. This holds true even if people in his village use the U.S. cash as there own currency and circulate it around their village. Foreigners holding U.S. cash means the U.S. gets money for nothing.

I looked at the link you provided and it talks about the trade deficit. But the trade deficit comes from two things. People and the government borrowing money from overseas and people and the government selling assets to foreigners. The government borrows money to fund its budget deficit. People borrow money from overseas because Americans save so little. Now I think the U.S. government shouldn't run a deficit and I think U.S. citizens would be better off if they saved more, but it doesn't relate to remittences by immigrants.

If you can give me one example of how money sent by an immigrant to friends or family overseas will not return to the U.S. I will eat my virtual hat.

Money when taken out of the country is exchanged as you said. That is the end of the first step of the process as you pointed out it is then sold to others presumably for purchasing power to buy export goods. But as the article points out, US currency is being squirreled away and/or not being used to purchase US exports, which creates a supply issue where currency is concerned.

Currency values go directly to supply and demand issues just as any commodity. The amount of money in circulation isn't a count of "oh we are short 20 billion in circulation, so let's print more". Monetary policy dictates how much money can be in circualtion (whether being held or spent). If the rate is set at XY and Y is being held, only XO is available for trade, which affects our economy. If we proceed to flood the market with new currency we create inflation. Why in the world would we want to do that?

Currency can only be printed as follows:

In the United States the supply of money outside of coins minted by the Mint can ONLY increase if the private banks issue more by loaning into circulation through Fractional Reserve Bank Lending Practices. Subsequently paper notes are increased ONLY as they are printed by the BEP on behalf of the Federal Reserve Fractional Banking System and are swapped at par value by the Federal Reserve Bank with Private Banks for their already issued electronic credits, which are then expunged (some believe retained) from the system by the Federal Reserve Bank. Thus, these printed money tokens (notes) merely replace already issued electronic credits on a one-for-one basis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_supply

Monetary policy has very direct implications to our economy, and cannot be driven by a printing press. Thus those holding currency outside of the US are creating an artificial short supply.

For monetary policy see here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetary_policy

So when Joe sends his US currency to Aunt Minnie in Peru, there is no way you can guarantee what becomes of that currency, and no way you can say unequivacally that it will return to the US ever. As the first article I linked points out many foriegners are stashing US currency in savings because it is the strongest currency currently.

What flavor hat do you prefer?

Do you think the mad pakistani uncle he was talking about burns dollars? No. He exchanges them to pakistani currency and those dollars circulate world wide.

Okay, he takes the check down to the bank and exchanges the American dollar check for local currency. What does the bank then do with those dollars? Do you know what happens to them next? I'd like to hear what you think happens to it then.

I'll give you one example of what happens to U.S. currency overseas. Right now in Zimbabwe people are using U.S. dollars instead of their own currency. Zimbabwe has hyperinflation at the moment. Their currency is almost useless. People prefer U.S. dollars instead. What does this mean? This means that Zimbabweans are getting U.S. dollars by selling stuff. (People usually don't just give them away.) Then they are putting them into circulation in Zimbabwe. The U.S. government makes money from this. If Zimbabwe starts sucking in U.S. notes the treasury gets to print up more and America gets some money for nothing. It's called seniorage.

If Zimbabwe starts sucking in U.S. notes the treasury gets to print up more and America gets some money for nothing. It's called seniorage.

Umm no that is not what seigniorage is at all. Seigniorage is the face value of money versus the cost of producing and distributing it.

Seigniorage, also spelled seignorage or seigneurage, is the net revenue derived from the issuing of currency. It arises from the difference between the face value of a coin or bank note and the cost of producing and distributing it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seniorage

What flavor hat do you prefer?

You haven't given me an example of the money not returning to the U.S. yet.

If we proceed to flood the market with new currency we create inflation. Why in the world would we want to do that?

Because it's really annoying when you can't withdraw money because the bank doesn't have enough cash on hand? The right of inflation is controlled by monetary policy in the U.S. The treasury prints up enough notes and mints enough coins so things are convenient and no one complains about not having enough coins or notes.

In the United States the supply of money outside of coins minted by the Mint can ONLY increase if the private banks issue more by loaning into circulation through Fractional Reserve Bank Lending Practices. Subsequently paper notes are increased ONLY as they are printed by the BEP on behalf of the Federal Reserve Fractional Banking System and are swapped at par value by the Federal Reserve Bank with Private Banks for their already issued electronic credits, which are then expunged (some believe retained) from the system by the Federal Reserve Bank. Thus, these printed money tokens (notes) merely replace already issued electronic credits on a one-for-one basis.

Yes. I said the government doesn't give them away. The government prints them up and swaps them for electronic transfers and adds it to general revenue. Generally the government doesn't need wads of notes or piles of coins. It's the people who find cash convenient.

Maybe its the whole Pakistani uncle eating notes thing has got you in a spin.

Anyway, still waiting for an example of the money not returning to the U.S. I'll get you started. The Pakistani uncle takes the check in American dollars down to the bank and exchanges it for local currency. What does the bank then do with the dollars?

That's the same tired excuse I hear whenever an anti-immigration advocate doesn't want to appear to be xenophobic. Yet such people inevitably talk about the drain on our economy, taking our jobs and being "invaded" by "illegals." These are the hallmarks of anti-immigration stance.

And if people are really so supportive of doing anything and everything legally, how come so many Americans (including many who are against illegal immigration) commit crimes at some point in their life? Why do they not advocate deportation of any and all criminals? Because it's not about the principle of law enforcement. It's about the idea of "defending the nation" and perceiving immigration/illegal immigration as an "invasion."

This idea of deporting any and all criminals is a red herring.. America, like any country is limited by its size and resources, and cannot ever hope to house the worlds population. It is to this very reason that we limit the number of people who come in annually. This very effect is evident on boarder states, whose education, and healthcare systems are taxed to their limit because of the presence of undocument individuals. Its nice to say we should allow all into the State, but it is an unrealistic prospect.

Not only that, but it is difficult to accept this added taxation on our already strained social services as these individuals show nothing but contempt for our laws "cutting in front of the immigration line" and taking our generosity then Demanding additional rights. I dont doubt most who come over are good hard working people, but this point does not dismissed the realities of limited resources and unlawful activities.

Umm no that is not what seigniorage is at all. Seigniorage is the face value of money versus the cost of producing and distributing it.

Seigniorage, also spelled seignorage or seigneurage, is the net revenue derived from the issuing of currency. It arises from the difference between the face value of a coin or bank note and the cost of producing and distributing it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seniorage

You know it's funny, but I looked up the definition of seniorage too just to make sure I was getting it right. So we are now using the same definition to prove to each other that we are right. Well I guess this is what the internets is all about.

What does the bank then do with the dollars?

Sells it to someone who is exchanging their currency for US dollars. Someone who then stashes it in a savings account because US dollars are a stronger currency than theirs. Thus taking it out of circulation and contributing nothing to the US economy.

Sombrero perhaps?

You know it's funny, but I looked up the definition of seniorage too just to make sure I was getting it right. So we are now using the same definition to prove to each other that we are right. Well I guess this is what the internets is all about.

That is funny no doubt! :p

Pakistani eat dollars = Less dollars = Deflationary. Pakistani then no have any U.S. dollars. Value of existing dollars go up tiny amount. Treasury see not enough notes in cirulation, print up more so the U.S. government creates money via treasury. When dollar bills are destroyed for whatever reason, U.S. government gets to print new money. It doesn't give this money away. It spends it. Follow me so far?

If you put a dollar of yours in a jar for 25 years and if inflation is about 3% it will lose half its value. Who loses that value? You do, it's your money. Where does it go? Again to the government when the treasury prints up another dollar to replace the one you took out of circulation when you put it in a jar for 25 years. Do you understand what I'm getting at? If not I can try again even more simply.

Pakistani eat dollars? Because they are too rich and neednt spend them? Or is it because of their religious beliefs that US dollar is evil? Maybe they are too hungry but I guess if they buy real food with that money, it's more nutrituous. Have you taken your medication today? I understand what you are saying, which is absolute idiocy. But you dont understand me when I say US dollars arent destroyed when they are sent outside USA. How old are you?

Sells it to someone who is exchanging their currency for US dollars. Someone who then stashes it in a savings account because US dollars are a stronger currency than theirs. Thus taking it out of circulation and contributing nothing to the US economy.

Sombrero perhaps?

Actually the only way money goes out of ciriculation is if the government takes it out by increasing the required reserve or by buying selling bonds.... when u deposit money into a bank the bank uses that money to loan out, in this case the bank would take those dollars, sell it back the US and loan out the currency they get in exchange.... basic macroeconomic currency exchange >.>

Sells it to someone who is exchanging their currency for US dollars. Someone who then stashes it in a savings account because US dollars are a stronger currency than theirs. Thus taking it out of circulation and contributing nothing to the US economy.

Okay good, so now the money is in U.S. dollars and is in a savings account. What is the bank doing with those dollars in the savings account? They must be doing something with them otherwise they wouldn't be paying interest.

Sombrero perhaps?

We have to follow the money to the end. You've only told me one step so far.

Okay, he takes the check down to the bank and exchanges the American dollar check for local currency. What does the bank then do with those dollars? Do you know what happens to them next? I'd like to hear what you think happens to it then.

I'll give you one example of what happens to U.S. currency overseas. Right now in Zimbabwe people are using U.S. dollars instead of their own currency. Zimbabwe has hyperinflation at the moment. Their currency is almost useless. People prefer U.S. dollars instead. What does this mean? This means that Zimbabweans are getting U.S. dollars by selling stuff. (People usually don't just give them away.) Then they are putting them into circulation in Zimbabwe. The U.S. government makes money from this. If Zimbabwe starts sucking in U.S. notes the treasury gets to print up more and America gets some money for nothing. It's called seniorage.

Duh! What do you think what happens to them? They are mostly used to buy foreign goods or saved at country's dollar reserve. In pakistan those goods would probably be mostly non-american. Again, how old are you?

Pakistani eat dollars? Because they are too rich and neednt spend them? Or is it because of their religious beliefs that US dollar is evil? Maybe they are too hungry but I guess if they buy real food with that money, it's more nutrituous. Have you taken your medication today? I understand what you are saying, which is absolute idiocy. But you dont understand me when I say US dollars arent destroyed when they are sent outside USA. How old are you?

I'm trying to make the point that even if foreigners burn U.S. money it doesn't harm the U.S. economy. The idea was that people if people realized that burning it didn't harm the U.S. economy then other uses such as buying food wouldn't hurt the U.S. economy either. However, now people think I have a crazy Pakistani uncle who likes to eat money. I brought this on myself.

Duh! What do you think what happens to them? They are mostly used to buy foreign goods or saved at country's dollar reserve. In pakistan those goods would probably be mostly non-american. Again, how old are you?

Follow the money. It's not that difficult. He takes the check in American dollars down to the bank and exchanges it for local currency. What does the bank then do with the American dollars?

If the US think they've got it bad - look at the UK!

Yes I know you have lots more immigrants, but doesn't it depends on who they are? You have harmless mexicans, we in England have extremeist religous nutters from the middle east!!! Not to mention the cultural and social problems of our immigration.

There was a poll out by the UK watchdog Migration Watch, which said that 70% of Brits are worried about immigrationk, and want a limit...

...and still the politicians and the liberals stand in the way!

Follow the money. It's not that difficult. He takes the check in American dollars down to the bank and exchanges it for local currency. What does the bank then do with the American dollars?

Million different things. Exchange it back to another pakistani who will visit Africa and make profit from the difference in exchange rate? Loan it to another pakistani who will import goods? The point is NOT ALL money going outside USA returns. Some might, eventually, but not all.


China, Japan, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Korea, Singapore and India are one of the largest holders of U.S. dollar. China and Japan will soon have to diversify their holdings. The current trade surplus enjoyed by Asian nations has increased their vulnerability to U.S. dollar price volatility. Total U.S. dollar reserve of these six nations is now approaching $3 trillion. With the holdings of Japan and China at $880 billion, Hong Kong, India, Taiwan and Singapore holding between $150 and $200 billion each. Middle Eastern countries have established a similar U.S. dollar reserve of more than $600 billion and Russia now holds $220 billion in its foreign currency and gold portfolio.

http://www.kitco.com/ind/Shah/apr252006.html

Million different things. Exchange it back to another pakistani who will visit Africa and make profit from the difference in exchange rate? Loan it to another pakistani who will import goods? The point is NOT ALL money going outside USA returns. Some might, eventually, but not all.

Okay, I think that if you could make a profit on the exchange rate by taking money to Africa Wall Street would be all over that and soon there would be no profit to be made.

So what is the bank going to do with it? They are going to sell it to someone who wants American dollars. Who wants American dollars? Generally people who want to buy stuff from America. Now sometimes they might buy T-bills but that's America's own fault for selling them. If you don't want foreingers to buy your T-bills stop selling them to them. People will also use it for transactions outside of America such as with the Zimbarbwe example where U.S. dollars take over from local currency, but this doesn't hurt America. This just means that foreigners are holding a lot of U.S. dollars. If it's currency it will gradually wear out and the U.S. treasury gets to print more. If it's electronic it still decreases in value at the rate of inflation. So if Zimbabwe sells coffee for a million dollars to the U.S. and then just keeps that money for use in local transactions, the U.S. gets the coffee and they also get an inflation "tax" on that money. So let's say that after a year 3 years Zimbabwe fixes it's own currency and they no longer want to hold the million American dollars, that money can now be used to buy goods from the U.S. but due to inflation it will be worth maybe 10% less. The longer foreigners hold U.S. dollars the less claim they have on U.S. resources. So when foreigners hold U.S. dollars Americans can have coffee and have future claims on their own production reduced.

China, Japan, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Korea, Singapore and India are one of the largest holders of U.S. dollar. China and Japan will soon have to diversify their holdings. The current trade surplus enjoyed by Asian nations has increased their vulnerability to U.S. dollar price volatility. Total U.S. dollar reserve of these six nations is now approaching $3 trillion. With the holdings of Japan and China at $880 billion, Hong Kong, India, Taiwan and Singapore holding between $150 and $200 billion each. Middle Eastern countries have established a similar U.S. dollar reserve of more than $600 billion and Russia now holds $220 billion in its foreign currency and gold portfolio.

This is all terrible interesting but really has nothing to do with immigrants sending money to their families and a lot to do with the U.S. goverment running a deficit and selling hundreds of billions of dollars in T-bills each year. Don't see how you can blame immigrants for this.

Okay, I think that if you could make a profit on the exchange rate by taking money to Africa Wall Street would be all over that and soon there would be no profit to be made.

So what is the bank going to do with it? They are going to sell it to someone who wants American dollars. Who wants American dollars? Generally people who want to buy stuff from America. Now sometimes they might buy T-bills but that's America's own fault for selling them. If you don't want foreingers to buy your T-bills stop selling them to them. People will also use it for transactions outside of America such as with the Zimbarbwe example where U.S. dollars take over from local currency, but this doesn't hurt America. This just means that foreigners are holding a lot of U.S. dollars. If it's currency it will gradually wear out and the U.S. treasury gets to print more. If it's electronic it still decreases in value at the rate of inflation. So if Zimbabwe sells coffee for a million dollars to the U.S. and then just keeps that money for use in local transactions, the U.S. gets the coffee and they also get an inflation "tax" on that money. So let's say that after a year 3 years Zimbabwe fixes it's own currency and they no longer want to hold the million American dollars, that money can now be used to buy goods from the U.S. but due to inflation it will be worth maybe 10% less. The longer foreigners hold U.S. dollars the less claim they have on U.S. resources. So when foreigners hold U.S. dollars Americans can have coffee and have future claims on their own production reduced.



This is all terrible interesting but really has nothing to do with immigrants sending money to their families and a lot to do with the U.S. goverment running a deficit and selling hundreds of billions of dollars in T-bills each year. Don't see how you can blame immigrants for this.

It shows you not all US dollars go back to USA. US Dollar is kinda like international currency, it's not used only when buying goods from USA.

If the US think they've got it bad - look at the UK!

Yes I know you have lots more immigrants, but doesn't it depends on who they are? You have harmless mexicans, we in England have extremeist religous nutters from the middle east!!! Not to mention the cultural and social problems of our immigration.

There was a poll out by the UK watchdog Migration Watch, which said that 70% of Brits are worried about immigrationk, and want a limit...

...and still the politicians and the liberals stand in the way!

I agree, id rather have mexicans then extremist islamists... then again, the US took care to foster rather close relations with muslim communities, which serves as the primary reason why so little of any extremist have been able to surplant their roots here

It shows you not all US dollars go back to USA. US Dollar is kinda like international currency, it's not used only when buying goods from USA.

(Sorry for the delay in getting back to you.)

But do you agree that immigrants sending money overseas doesn't hurt the U.S. economy? You see that the U.S. makes money on the deal? Firstly as foreigners increase increase their holdings of U.S. dollars the U.S. gets a sort of interest free loan as foreigners have to pay in goods to get the dollars in the first place. Then on top of that the longer foreigners hold money the less claim they have on the future production of the U.S. For example if inflation is around 3% and a foreigner holds $100 U.S. for 100 years it will only be worth about six bucks in today's money. So even when foreigners hold money it is losing value all the time and America gains. So it is still "returning" to America, even if it is at only 3% a year.

Okay, I think that if you could make a profit on the exchange rate by taking money to Africa Wall Street would be all over that and soon there would be no profit to be made.




It is when you know the displaced queen of Nigeria and have opened a bank account for her to wire $50 million dollars into!! HA!!!

Actually - you're pissin in the wind - most folks here have no idea what money is nor how it differs from currency.

Good luck.