The 2016 presidential race (former: The race to the 2016 presidential race)

[Condottiere 40K]

1181
If they become the new underclass, and the current generation of the previous one gets to fulfil it's aspirations on moving up the economic and social ladder.

[Heathen Hammer]

Yeah you keep on repeating this without any sort of back up.

Shillary has valid corruption allegations against her and she helped instigate wars. Trump is just making edgy comments. While Trumps shenanigans are harmless, Shillary and other Wall Street crooks are dangerous people.

[snuggans]

While Trumps shenanigans are harmless, Shillary and other Wall Street crooks are dangerous people.

i like dangerous women.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Sphere]

The Clinton's are well known for corruption . The Clinton Foundation is not far off from being a simple slush fund.

The left leaning and respected New York Times reporting on one recent event involving Uranium mining.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us...m-company.html

Here's the left leaning and respected Washington Post's article on the rampant corruption using the Clinton Foundation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...f5c_story.html

This isn't right wing fringe groups latching on to nonsense like with Obama's birth certificate or Benghazi. It's real and well reported.

[snuggans]

The Clinton's are well known for corruption . The Clinton Foundation is not far off from being a simple slush fund.

The left leaning and respected New York Times reporting on one recent event involving Uranium mining.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us...m-company.html

Here's the left leaning and respected Washington Post's article on the rampant corruption using the Clinton Foundation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...f5c_story.html

This isn't right wing fringe groups latching on to nonsense like with Obama's birth certificate or Benghazi. It's real and well reported.

the WP article does not give the illusion of rampant corruption, it goes through the life of CGI and i'd say i came out of it with a more positive outlook on their philanthropy and entrepeneurship.

the Uranium deal has already been discussed before, and to sell the rights required the approval of a large part of the US government, not just Clinton, if somebody wants to allude that Hillary was bought then they have to allude that a large part of the US gov was also bought. and Bill will always be receiving money for speeches, donations do not necessarily mean that the Clintons are in someone's pocket, rather that they are being courted, probably because they are so influential.

[Riverknight]

The Clinton's are well known for corruption . The Clinton Foundation is not far off from being a simple slush fund.

The left leaning and respected New York Times reporting on one recent event involving Uranium mining.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us...m-company.html

Here's the left leaning and respected Washington Post's article on the rampant corruption using the Clinton Foundation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...f5c_story.html

This isn't right wing fringe groups latching on to nonsense like with Obama's birth certificate or Benghazi. It's real and well reported.

Both of those Newspapers have been attacking the Clintons since the beginning.

Many on the medium to far left DID NOT LIKE BILL CLINTON, he was a New Democrat that didn't want to increase the size of Government. The Republican Revolution made him even more of a centrist.

[tgoodenow]

I think you are confusing "gut feeling" and "fact". Academic research has been conducted on the topic to measure the two offsetting effects of immigrant labor; downward pressure on wages vs. increased economic activity/growth. Have a read.

http://www.hamiltonproject.org/paper...ent_and_wages/


http://www.epi.org/publication/bp255/


http://www.frbsf.org/economic-resear...-productivity/


Of course in some specific industries, the precence of immigrants will substaintially reduce wages. But overall it is better for American workers to have them rather than not.

And if you are trully worried about helping the working poor, providing millions of immigrants with jobs surely is better than the alternative of having them remain in rather desperate poverty back in their home countries. Poor brown people are human beings too.

I'm not going to bother with your "you're racist for not supporting immigrants" dig at the end.
Studies in the UK, Euro, Etc, have concluded that there is a minor to modest decrease in pay for the lowest working class owing to immigration. While the overall price of some goods is reduced leading to a "net positive effect" on the economy. What this essentially does is rob the poor to help out the middle class. As I have stated before, a 2%, 3%, or 4% decrease in wages may not effect you, but these decreases are extremely detrimental to someone who is budgeting and making minimum wage. Let alone if they have a kid(s). Immigrants will work for the lowest wages because they will not get higher wages in their native economy. This leads to wage stagnation and the only way their wages are increased is by government benevolence. The same government that has stymied their pay by increasing a higher pool of low skill labor.

All of your articles study legal immigration impacts. None of this is relative to the US economy because illegal immigrants take less than minimum wage. They take a lot less. There is not even close to the amount of minimum wage protection that exists in Europe. US workers cannot compete with someone who works for 50% of the pay.
Here is a study done by the US civil rights council:|

http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/IllegImmig_10-14-10_430pm.pdf

They set their study up to deal with bias by using economists from all over the country and from all over the political spectrum. Yet, the majority of the economists found the same thing: Illegal Immigrants lower American wages. They had to do this study because African Americans make up a large portion of the low class labor force and are therefore disproportionately effected by the job displacement from illegal immigrants.

Major part of conclusion:

Illegal immigration to the United States in recent decades has tended to depress both wages and employment rates for low-skilled American citizens, a disproportionate number of whom are black men. Expert economic opinions concerning the negative effects range from modest to significant. Those panelists that found modest effects overall nonetheless found significant effects in industry sectors such as meatpacking and construction.

Dr. Hanson‘s coauthored research suggested that a 10 percent immigrant-induced increase in the labor supply is associated with a 4 percent decrease in black wages, a 3.5 percent decrease in the black employment rate, and a 0.8 percent increase in the black incarceration rate.11 This correlation held true in both national and state-level data, according to Hanson. The same data source showed that the effect of immigration on white men also produced a 4.1 percent decrease in wages, but had much less effect on employment and incarceration rates. Thus,wages went down for the skill group generally, but black men lost proportionally more jobs and disproportionally increased in incarceration rates.

In both his written and oral testimony, Professor Briggs stated that no issue has negatively―affected the economic well-being of African Americans more‖ than immigration.
Dr. Briggs also stated that the inflow of immigrants has resulted in low-skilled wages not rising over time.21 He viewed the reduction of both wages and jobs as a massive violation of the civil rights of all low-skilled workers, and of black workers in particular.

Professor Holzer23 made four major points in his remarks to the Commission. The first was his assertion that most statistical evidence suggests that immigration over the past few decades has had a modest negative effect on the employment outcomes of blacks, especially those without high school diplomas

Dr. Briggs responded that if illegal immigrants in such great numbers were competing for the jobs of professors, lawyers, and doctors, the debate would not be occurring because public policy would already have demanded reform. But because many illegal immigrants go into low-income jobs, Dr. Briggs viewed policy makers as deciding that freshman economics (the law of supply and demand) does not apply. Dr. Briggs objected strongly to loading up a labor market with a big labor force that is not legally in the country. He said that while ethnic networking is illegal under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, sociology recognizes its strength,especially in finding employment.31

Basic law of supply and demand. Higher supply lower demand. Especially when there are new supplies at half the cost.

[Sphere]

What this essentially does is rob the poor to help out the middle class

I hope you can understand this only is true if you do not count the immigrants themselves as "poor people".

I'm not going to bother with your "you're racist for not supporting immigrants" dig at the end.

Maybe you should. Otherwise you've played right into it by posting eight paragraphs without a single sentence addressing the well being of the immigrants in question. On what grounds do you ignore them?

[tgoodenow]

I hope you can understand this only is true if you do not count the immigrants themselves as "poor people".


Maybe you should. Otherwise you've played right into it by posting eight paragraphs without a single sentence addressing the well being of the immigrants in question. On what grounds do you ignore them?

Your argument was that American workers are better off with illegal immigrants. I believe that I have provided sufficient evidence that this is not the case. Do you have a counter analysis to present or is your strategy to win this argument to paint me as a racist?

[chilon]

Many on the medium to far left DID NOT LIKE BILL CLINTON, he was a New Democrat that didn't want to increase the size of Government. The Republican Revolution made him even more of a centrist.

huh, I always looked at it the other way. The Republicans shifting more to the right made Clinton's centrist views appear more liberal than they actually were.

Especially in the late 90s at the height of the Luntz propaganda machine for the RNC.

[chilon]

i dont think it's that cut and dried just yet, there's plenty of reading material to go through and dissenting voices:

I like Megan McArdle a lot but she is a bit off base on that issue. Not sure if you want to get deep into the economics there but we can if you want.

Also found this list. So its 5 of her top 10 donors are Wall Street banks with an additional 2 being the big Wall Street law firms that represent the banks (DLA Piper and Skadden)
:

[Elfdude]

This is what I like to see:

https://www.opensecrets.org/politici...&cid=N00000528

It's funny, out of all of the politicians talking about dirty money, only the socialist seems to actually put his money where his mouth is.

[athanaric]

Maybe you should. Otherwise you've played right into it by posting eight paragraphs without a single sentence addressing the well being of the immigrants in question. On what grounds do you ignore them?

If you illegally immigrate to another place, your well-being is your own problem. Same thing goes for the situation in Europe (which is arguably far worse).

[Hobbes]

It really isn't. Even countries like the US have special laws in place that guarantee anyone, regardless of immigration status, access to health services in case of an emergency, for example.

[alhoon]

It really isn't. Even countries like the US have special laws in place that guarantee anyone, regardless of immigration status, access to health services in case of an emergency, for example.

And there's Geneva convention that guarantees such things even for prisoners of war; people with arms that try to kill you. So if those are protected, people that flee poverty should be protected too.

[Derpy Hooves]

This is what I like to see:

https://www.opensecrets.org/politici...&cid=N00000528

It's funny, out of all of the politicians talking about dirty money, only the socialist seems to actually put his money where his mouth is.

Uh, actually you can find that out about any politician. I have an app on my Chrome that allows me to see any politicians top donors when their name appears on a webpage.
Of course, Trump has zero donors since he is his own donor.

[chilon]

Bernie supports legalizing the current illegals because he knows that without citizenship there can be no minimum wage protection. When someone undercuts another worker, he may benefit and his employer may benefit but the other worker loses. Both want to stop illegal immigration, can we agree that is their stance?

That is a somewhat misleading question because it doesn't take into account they have very different ideas about what "stopping illegal immigration" means.

Someone that wants to legalize the current illegals as part of their solution is very different than the types of people who think the Deport Them All and Build a Wall strategy is a good idea.

Anyway, the only solution to "illegal immigration" would be for the actual laws and system of immigration in the USA to be changed to pragmatically meet the economic reality of the current era.

Any immigrant policy based on idealism and ideology like most Republican and right wing plans that fall close to the Deport Them All and Build a Wall ideas are inevitably going to fail miserably because they don't recognize the pragmatic economic reality.

[Elfdude]

It should tell you something about their sensibilities when Democrats almost universally eschew the use of the word Illegal, and instead refer to them as "Undocumented Citizens". The democratic platform is that illegals aren't illegal but rather citizens who we've yet to give documentation to.

I would also point out that without illegal immigration the U.S. population growth rate would be unsustainable and we'd see the same impending economic collapse that is looming in Japan as their population shrinks.

http://fortune.com/2014/03/05/withou...ic-old-europe/

[Condottiere 40K]

6990
But they have secret Gundam technology.

[tgoodenow]

That is a somewhat misleading question because it doesn't take into account they have very different ideas about what "stopping illegal immigration" means.

Someone that wants to legalize the current illegals as part of their solution is very different than the types of people who think the Deport Them All and Build a Wall strategy is a good idea.

Anyway, the only solution to "illegal immigration" would be for the actual laws and system of immigration in the USA to be changed to pragmatically meet the economic reality of the current era.

Any immigrant policy based on idealism and ideology like most Republican and right wing plans that fall close to the Deport Them All and Build a Wall ideas are inevitably going to fail miserably because they don't recognize the pragmatic economic reality.

Which pragmatic reality would that be? People will have to pay extra for tomatoes, lettuce, etc.? Multi billion dollar hotel operations will have to compensate their workers with competitive wages? I won't be able to get my hedges trimmed for 20 dollars? If illegal immigrants are so beneficial to the economy, why is Australia not deep into economic depression?