"I don't stand by anything." Donald Trump on Obama wire tap claims

[Freighter]

How so? I'm curious as to your reasoning behind this.

Because instead of working illegally they could still come and work for minimum wage while a local worker might want more than just minimum wage. Not to mention, compromised job security as the employers would be able to replace workers even easier.

This just benefits the employers, not the local workers.

[PC2]

No, it's signalling to more people that they and their families can be rewarded with landed immigrant status if they can be contributing members of US society. Don't ignore the proposed solution. We're talking about a situation where they are no longer undocumented, and are here legally. So what's your issue, in that circumstance?

If they can prove that they can be contributing members then they can show that through the legal immigration process. If they are just typical people with no special skills then we don't need them at all. A national immigration system exists to benefit the nation and its citizens, not to merely let in any person who wants to move wherever they want.

[Endus]

Okay? So? What does this have to do with my point? If you flood the market, wages drops and job security becomes compromised due to more people having to compete.

1> There wouldn't be any "flooding"; they're already in the USA, and working. The market's already operating with their presence.
2> Their wages are often below minimum wage, because why else would employers bother? So this actually protects American workers and wages, by removing a reasonable means for employers to get around that protection.

[Allybeboba]

You realize the USA doesn't have an unemployment problem currently, right?

Plus, these people are already working in the USA. They're not taking even more jobs than they already are if you give them documentation.


This whole "won't stand by anything" is just symptomatic of a deeper issue, is what I'm driving at. It's not just Trump. It's a lot of his supporters. They want something, but they don't know WHY, or how they'll GET it, and when they're challenged, they can't actually defend those positions objectively. Maybe they don't understand their own viewpoint very well. Maybe they know it's based on stuff other people won't accept, so they hide their motives. Maybe they just want to kick the anthill and see what happens. But they, like Trump, aren't advocating real, comprehensive solutions, which is why it's so hard for them to stand by any particular position.

These people that are working in the US also send back billions of their income that they made to their home countries instead of spending it here in the US. That is money taken out of circulation here.

[Freighter]

1> There wouldn't be any "flooding"; they're already in the USA, and working. The market's already operating with their presence.

To a certain extent, yes.

2> Their wages are often below minimum wage, because why else would employers bother? So this actually protects American workers and wages, by removing a reasonable means for employers to get around that protection.

Read my reply to Edge-.

Local workers do not benefit from this one bit, employers do.

[Endus]

If they can prove that they can be contributing members then they can show that through the legal immigration process. If they are just typical people with no special skills then we don't want them at all. A national immigration system exists to benefit the nation and its citizens, not merely let in any typical person who wants to move wherever they want.

Is there a reason you're ignoring the point?

If a blanket amnesty is provided, and legal immigration is made quick and easy for anyone with employment and no criminal record, then that is the "legal immigration process", at that point. So your entire complaint falls apart; they ARE coming here legally, at that point.

And them working those jobs does help the USA. It's a critical component of the labor market. Trump isn't going to change that, and his wall will have basically no effect on it.

Stand by your position, and stop shifting goalposts whenever you're challenged. This is exactly what I'm driving at.

[Edge-]

Because instead of working illegally they could still come and work for minimum wage while a local worker might want more than just minimum wage. Not to mention, compromised job security as the employers would be able to replace workers even easier.

This just benefits the employers, not the local workers.

Again, these people are largely already working below minimum wage. This would require that they be paid minimum rage if they were legalized, which would mean they're getting a raise in many instances.

How would that depress wages?

[Freighter]

Again, these people are largely already working below minimum wage. This would require that they be paid minimum rage if they were legalized, which would mean they're getting a raise in many instances.

How would that depress wages?

Because there would be more competition on the market and more employers would be able to drop the wages due to the increased competition for the jobs. They would also be able to replace people more easily due to the compromised job security. This solely benefits the employers, it's of no use to the workers.

Local workers benefit from getting rid of them.

[PC2]

Is there a reason you're ignoring the point?

If a blanket amnesty is provided, and legal immigration is made quick and easy for anyone with employment and no criminal record, then that is the "legal immigration process", at that point. So your entire complaint falls apart; they ARE coming here legally, at that point.

And them working those jobs does help the USA. It's a critical component of the labor market. Trump isn't going to change that, and his wall will have basically no effect on it.

That is not a good legal immigration process because it isn't an intelligent system that screens individuals based on how they benefit the US and the existing citizenry.

[Endus]

Because there would be more competition on the market and more employers would be able to drop the wages due to the increased competition for the jobs.

To repeat what both myself and Edge- have been saying, you can't "drop the wages" when you're already having to bring them up from below the minimum wage to that minimum level.

They would also be able to replace people more easily due to the compromised job security.

This is blatantly false.

Right now, all an employer has to do to get rid of an illegal employee is call Immigration officials and report them. By granting them legit status, they can't do that any more, which increases job security.

Somehow, you have basic facts completely backwards.

- - - Updated - - -

That is not a good legal immigration process because it isn't an intelligent system that screens individuals based on how they benefit the US and the existing citizenry.

Except that it is. We've established that they A> are employed, and B> have no criminal record. They're more of an asset than the average American, by that measure.

You're still shifting goalposts and refusing to stand by your position. I'm not sure WHY you're choosing to provide such a good example of the phenomenon I'm talking about, but thanks, I guess?

[Freighter]

To repeat what both myself and Edge- have been saying, you can't "drop the wages" when you're already having to bring them up from below the minimum wage to that minimum level.

No, you're ignoring that I'm talking about american citizens wages. The people who are there illegaly will get a raise, yeah, but the others will see a drop due to the increased competition.

This is blatantly false.

Right now, all an employer has to do to get rid of an illegal employee is call Immigration officials and report them. By granting them legit status, they can't do that any more, which increases job security.

Somehow, you have basic facts completely backwards.

No, this is not false. Increase in labor pool means less job security for the local workers.

[Allybeboba]

1> There wouldn't be any "flooding"; they're already in the USA, and working. The market's already operating with their presence.
2> Their wages are often below minimum wage, because why else would employers bother? So this actually protects American workers and wages, by removing a reasonable means for employers to get around that protection.

Should all countries do this?

[DocSavageFan]

1> There wouldn't be any "flooding"; they're already in the USA, and working. The market's already operating with their presence.
2> Their wages are often below minimum wage, because why else would employers bother? So this actually protects American workers and wages, by removing a reasonable means for employers to get around that protection.

It's modern day slavery imo and I frankly don't know why anyone would support it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2593772.html

http://www.tampabay.com/features/hum...is-day/1098420

[Endus]

No, you're ignoring that I'm talking about american citizens wages. The people who are there illegaly will get a raise, yeah, but the others will see a drop due to the increased competition.

Competition for what? The jobs they already weren't doing?

No, this is not false. Increase in labor pool means less job security for the local workers.

That's not what "job security" means, at all. And you're forgetting that, in this argument, these are "local workers".

[PC2]

Except that it is. We've established that they A> are employed, and B> have no criminal record. They're more of an asset than the average American, by that measure.

If they are being screened on an individual bases and their work, skills, and history is scrutinized then I could accept this as being a substitute for a legal immigration process for outsiders.

[TheFirstOnes]

How's that wall going?

Going well, thank you very much...

[kail]

That is not a good legal immigration process because it isn't an intelligent system that screens individuals based on how they benefit the US and the existing citizenry.

Many of them are already working and that won't change. I'm curious how the rate for illegal's willingness to work compares to U.S. citizens.

[NYC17]

We cant rule out further measures against illegals. Nothing is off the table just because its 2017. But until then I guess I'll just have to keep paying a bit less in the produce aisle.

What we can rule out, however, is that you have any clue what you're talking about.

[Freighter]

Competition for what? The jobs they already weren't doing?

Oh, you're one of those.

That's not what "job security" means, at all. And you're forgetting that, in this argument, these are "local workers".

Americans is what I'm talking about when I say local workers. Some guy from mexico that got amnesty would obviously have better job security but an american would have worse with an increase in labor pool.

[Endus]

Oh, you're one of those.

One of the people who recognizes hard facts?

We're talking about jobs currently filled by illegal immigrants. Pretty much by definition, American workers aren't filling those jobs.

Americans is what I'm talking about when I say local workers. Some guy from mexico that got amnesty would obviously have better job security but an american would have less with an increase in labor pool.

And what you're still ignoring is that there's been no change in that labor pool. They're already here, and working.