Even Sean Hannity Gets It: It's Time for Immigration Reform

[2ADMNLOVER]

Oh, I see.
Force the people to assimilate!!!!

That's right , either they learn the ways , customs , language of the land or force them (all of them) by bayonet if needed to gtfo .

And.....
why are they getting paid 'less than fair market wages'?

Because of the lack of integrity of those that hire them.

Put whatever liberal , PC , BS spin on it you need to , I still call it what it actually is , old fashioned greed .

If liberals actually gave a damn about these people like they claim to they'd be pissed that they're being taken advantage of and screwed hard .

It still doesn't change the fact that if they weren't here to work for next to nothing , the jobs would have to pay a decent wage .

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

They take the jobs that Americans don't want and not just one job but multiple jobs.

The first part of your sentence is a liberal BS lie told so many times people believe it .

I can introduce you to plenty of Hoosiers born and raised right here , that went into construction after HS , that are now struggling because of too many immigrants have flooded the Indpls . construction market .

The immigrants have taken over just about every trade that doesn't require a state license to do .

For example , you'll see very few immigrant plumbers or electricians around here .

If anything, all of the nipple-sucking trash in this country needs to take a page from their book.

I agree here , cut it all off ! The well has ran dry ! Sink or swim folks .

Kick all the immigrants out ( say from the last ten years) along with liberals and commiefornia and lets "fundamentally change" this country back to a great nation again .

 

[downzero]

Real unemployment is somewhere in the neighborhood of 16% and labor force participation is as low as it's been in decades because people are giving up looking (and going on disability instead)

This is not "frictional unemployment" which historically is ~4-5%.

Illegals are not bringing in skills that are unavailable here. Most are unskilled laborers.

Nor does it address the very simple fact that adding excess capacity doesn't create demand.

I don't know why you think that telling me about historical rates of frictional unemployment tells me anything about what the rate is today. Economic analysis is not performed by looking backward.

I also am not sure why you don't think that the type of unemployment is relevant. I suspect it's because you fail to understand the signals sent by the different types of unemployment, and instead fall for the media's plot to convince you that all unemployment is bad.

Before Milton Friedman explained to us that some amount of frictional and structural unemployment was healthy (which was over 50 years ago), policymakers and economists thought the same thing. They sought to push unemployment to zero, with the resulting negative consequences based on the Phillips curve.

I've often heard peoples say that often, the response to economic analysis is to use shoddy economics or no economics at all. I've also not ever seen any evidence at all that immigrants are a drain on the economy. I have seen economists argue about the magnitude of net positive effect, but I'm not aware of even a single study that finds that the effect is negative.

The point of social science is not to look backward, but rather, to let the data drive one's conclusions. The data show a positive effect even from the current broken policy. The idea that we cannot gain more from immigration because there is a fixed quantity of jobs and that they should go to Americans and not immigrants is both 1) based on a fallacy and 2) dead wrong about the net effect of immigrants on our society.

This nation was built by immigrants--our ancestors, at least for most of us reading this. It might have become politically popular to pull up the ladder behind us as we climbed to the top, but that doesn't mean that doing so would be economically beneficial.

The people who want to close the borders fit into two categories, in my observation:

1. Hyper-nationalists, bigots, and xenophobes who don't want "other" people here, and

2. Union workers and other groups who want to use monopoly power to drive up wages for their own gain at the expense of the rest of the market.

Both are anti-capitalist positions that are to the detriment of our overall economy. The trouble is, both are also well-funded, politically-driven special interests in which both major parties are glad to put their support.

 

[Rob377]

I don't know why you think that telling me about historical rates of frictional unemployment tells me anything about what the rate is today. Economic analysis is not performed by looking backward.

I also am not sure why you don't think that the type of unemployment is relevant. I suspect it's because you fail to understand the signals sent by the different types of unemployment, and instead fall for the media's plot to convince you that all unemployment is bad.

Before Milton Friedman explained to us that some amount of frictional and structural unemployment was healthy (which was over 50 years ago), policymakers and economists thought the same thing. They sought to push unemployment to zero, with the resulting negative consequences based on the Phillips curve.

I've often heard peoples say that often, the response to economic analysis is to use shoddy economics or no economics at all. I've also not ever seen any evidence at all that immigrants are a drain on the economy. I have seen economists argue about the magnitude of net positive effect, but I'm not aware of even a single study that finds that the effect is negative.

The point of social science is not to look backward, but rather, to let the data drive one's conclusions. The data show a positive effect even from the current broken policy. The idea that we cannot gain more from immigration because there is a fixed quantity of jobs and that they should go to Americans and not immigrants is both 1) based on a fallacy and 2) dead wrong about the net effect of immigrants on our society.

This nation was built by immigrants--our ancestors, at least for most of us reading this. It might have become politically popular to pull up the ladder behind us as we climbed to the top, but that doesn't mean that doing so would be economically beneficial.

The people who want to close the borders fit into two categories, in my observation:

1. Hyper-nationalists, bigots, and xenophobes who don't want "other" people here, and

2. Union workers and other groups who want to use monopoly power to drive up wages for their own gain at the expense of the rest of the market.

Both are anti-capitalist positions that are to the detriment of our overall economy. The trouble is, both are also well-funded, politically-driven special interests in which both major parties are glad to put their support.

Throw the xenophobe card along with a few more nonsensical liberal tropes. Classy.

That's not a good faith argument.

And it's flat out crappy economic to say that bringing in more excess un-needed labor capacity (that will end up on gov't assistance) is a good thing. 16+% is not "good" unemployment. It is not frictional or structural.

 

[Solitaire]

How many times does it have to be said before the liberals get it ?

We already have a pathway to citizenship , it ain't broke so stop trying to fix it .

Too many immigrants already willing to work "blue collar" jobs for less than fair market wages destroys the middle class by forcing more Americans out of the labor market and on to the guberment teet in one form or another .

Too many immigrants UNWILLING TO ASSIMILATE into the American culture destroys the country .

How so ? By not forcing them to assimilate we have a "free for all" where they can come set up whole city blocks and neighborhoods where the businesses and cultural environment is just like whatever Third world s**t hole they came from .

In doing so they (1 neighborhood at a time ) destroy the American way of life and further divide the country , destroying all that made this a great country in the first place .

Need proof ?

Take west Washington street for example , from White river parkway all the way up to Lynhurst is mexican or some sort of latino .

From Lynhurst up to 465 the mexicans are creeping up to the somali restaurants and coffee houses .

So no we don't need more immigrants , we need operation GTFO !

Them brown people scare you, don't they?



Third world s***hole? Funny, I don't see you complaining about Mars Hill or Bullfrog Trailer Park. I guess those places are the bastions of the American Way.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Downzero, I did not read all of what you just wrote yet. You used the term economic analysis and suggest you could look at it in the future. How does one analyze something that has yet to exist?

 

[popsmoke]

My first thought after the Tuesday massacre was that I'd love to see Arizona throw in the towel and tell the feds, "We are immediately stopping any help our state is giving the federal government in trying to hold back the illegals crossing every day." Let the flood gates open. My kids are all college grads who aren't going to get beat out of a job by an unskilled illegal. Let the union workers, the unskilled burger flippers who don't even seem to know what day it is and the crying guilt ridden liberals compete against people who will break their backs at hard labor and be thankful to make half what the "poor" folks in the country make.

To be honest, those aren't the type of immigrants crossing the border these days. Maybe 20 years ago, and even as recently as 10 years ago, but it costs so much to do these days that only the successful men and women who can afford the price of coyotes can make it.

These are people with degrees, business experience, ownership... they aren't Home Depot line formers. They're honest talent. Nobody else can afford the exorbitant price of being run across the border.

The people you're thinking about are the ones we see on the news, getting caught at the border.

 

[downzero]

Throw the xenophobe card along with a few more nonsensical liberal tropes. Classy.

That's not a good faith argument.

And it's flat out crappy economic to say that bringing in more excess un-needed labor capacity (that will end up on gov't assistance) is a good thing. 16+% is not "good" unemployment. It is not frictional or structural.

Saying that the other side is wrong is not argument, Rob.

And you can't convince me that the current unemployment is all cyclical, because I have seen the data, and I know that's not the case.

The fact is that even with millions of illegals, our economy, right now, benefits from them being here.

That's what the data show, despite the fact that we've made them second class members of our labor force based on broken policies.

The implicit argument you're making, if there is any, is that unemployment would be lower if we kicked them all out. And that is also obviously false, because the drop in output alone, if we could remove all of them, would result in a nasty recession.

We need them. We ought to figure out a better way to use them. Call it "liberal" all you want. Name calling isn't argument, either.

I make no apologies about being a "liberal" either. That's what libertarianism is. "Liberalism" is what the whole world calls free trade and free markets.

Downzero, I did not read all of what you just wrote yet. You used the term economic analysis and suggest you could look at it in the future. How does one analyze something that has yet to exist?

No, what I said is that economic analysis is not looking backward. Does yesterday's stock price tell you anything about Monday's? Or if it'll go up or down?

I am not an economic theorist, although I do work with a few of them. I can't imagine any of them would tell you that they are historians or that their work is anything like historians'. They spend all day coming up with complicated models that attempt to explain their current observations, not arguing about data that has since past. They have objective evidence of the past; there's no reason for them to argue about it.

 

[downzero]

To be honest, those aren't the type of immigrants crossing the border these days. Maybe 20 years ago, and even as recently as 10 years ago, but it costs so much to do these days that only the successful men and women who can afford the price of coyotes can make it.

These are people with degrees, business experience, ownership... they aren't Home Depot line formers. They're honest talent. Nobody else can afford the exorbitant price of being run across the border.

The people you're thinking about are the ones we see on the news, getting caught at the border.

And we, as an economy, cannot afford to NOT let them come here! We need the output to grow our economy, period. Output = income!

 

[Rob377]

And we, as an economy, cannot afford to NOT let them come here! We need the output to grow our economy, period. Output = income!

Then GM should be making bank with all the excess capacity they have. They can put out 3-5x as many cars as they are with the output capacity they have. Why didn't they think of that?

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

Them brown people scare you, don't they?

Scare me ? Not at all . Just ticks me off to see what this state / country is becoming .

Just to clarify , I mean all immigrants . The two groups I mentioned happened to be the closest groups to me .



Third world s***hole? Funny,
Compared to the average American city yes , both mexico and somalia are s**t holes .

I don't see you complaining about Mars Hill or Bullfrog Trailer Park. I guess those places are the bastions of the American Way.

Actually they are and if you search my posts you'll see I bag on Mars Hill plenty .

The difference is , the inhabitants speak English and for the most part are familiar with the customs and laws of the land , even if they choose to do things their own redneck way .

 

[downzero]

Then GM should be making bank with all the excess capacity they have. They can put out 3-5x as many cars as they are with the output capacity they have. Why didn't they think of that?

Actually, there is a 100-level macroeconomics answer to that question as well.

Increases in inventory are included in GDP as investment. In fact, if you look at the data for 4Q 2008, you'll find that the increases in inventory prior to the massive cuts in output did significantly add to GDP and make the recession look smaller than it actually was. The numbers for 1Q 2009 looked FAR worse.

So if GM were to do that, it would constitute an "investment," and it would boost output, and by definition, GDP.

The problem is, however, if they couldn't sell the cars, they wouldn't be able to meet their obligations. They would bleed cash because they would have to borrow to buy the materials to build all those cars.

The same is not true of these immigrants, as long as we assure that immigration reform includes entitlement reform as well. As long as they can't suck on any public benefits, they will have to dip into their own savings--and bleed their own cash (and this process itself boosting our economy!) to survive until they can get a job. And if they can't, they'll go home. If they do (which is far more likely, at least if the future immigrants resemble the present ones), they will produce even more output, which increases the national income.

And because the answer to your question is obviously the opposite of what you contemplated it would be, I'm not sure why you posted it. Unless you can explain what a bunch of immigrants who would do here if they were 1) ineligible for public benefits and 2) unable to get a job.

It's not even clear why they'd come if that was the likely result, but that's been the argument all along. In fact, that's one of the strongest arguments for leveraging this in our favor to get entitlement reform at the same time. It'd be win-win for both sides.

 

[Rob377]

Actually, there is a 100-level macroeconomics answer to that question as well.

Increases in inventory are included in GDP as investment. In fact, if you look at the data for 4Q 2008, you'll find that the increases in inventory prior to the massive cuts in output did significantly add to GDP and make the recession look smaller than it actually was. The numbers for 1Q 2009 looked FAR worse.

So if GM were to do that, it would constitute an "investment," and it would boost output, and by definition, GDP.

The problem is, however, if they couldn't sell the cars, they wouldn't be able to meet their obligations. They would bleed cash because they would have to borrow to buy the materials to build all those cars.

The same is not true of these immigrants, as long as we assure that immigration reform includes entitlement reform as well. As long as they can't suck on any public benefits, they will have to dip into their own savings--and bleed their own cash (and this process itself boosting our economy!) to survive until they can get a job. And if they can't, they'll go home. If they do (which is far more likely, at least if the future immigrants resemble the present ones), they will produce even more output, which increases the national income.

And because the answer to your question is obviously the opposite of what you contemplated it would be, I'm not sure why you posted it. Unless you can explain what a bunch of immigrants who would do here if they were 1) ineligible for public benefits and 2) unable to get a job.

It's not even clear why they'd come if that was the likely result, but that's been the argument all along. In fact, that's one of the strongest arguments for leveraging this in our favor to get entitlement reform at the same time. It'd be win-win for both sides.

LOL, entitlement reform. Right. And we'll discover free energy from unicorn poop too.

And your answer about mal-investment still being investment and thus good is the lamest attempt at sophistry I've seen lately. Thanks for the laugh though.

 

[Solitaire]

Actually they are and if you search my posts you'll see I bag on Mars Hill plenty .

The difference is , the inhabitants speak English and for the most part are familiar with the customs and laws of the land , even if they choose to do things their own redneck way .

You didn't say anything about illegal immigrants, so I guess you are simply an anti-immigrant bigot. Got it, thanks.

I'm betting, however, that you wouldn't have a problem with a sudden influx of Canadian immigrants.

I'd wager that your particular group of immigrants were quite annoying to the people already here as well, especially if they got here in the early 1800's or so.

 

[downzero]

LOL, entitlement reform. Right. And we'll discover free energy from unicorn poop too.

And your answer about mal-investment still being investment and thus good is the lamest attempt at sophistry I've seen lately. Thanks for the laugh though.

Again, insults are not argument. Try again.

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

You didn't say anything about illegal immigrants, so I guess you are simply an anti-immigrant bigot. Got it, thanks.

I'm betting, however, that you wouldn't have a problem with a sudden influx of Canadian immigrants.

You'd lose that bet . I'd send everybody that came here since clinton / nafta back to where ever they came form .

I'd wager that your particular group of immigrants were quite annoying to the people already here as well, especially if they got here in the early 1800's or so.

If they'd played Glock , paper , scissors they'd have understood that bows and arrows don't beat gunpowder and lead , even on a good day .

As annoying as I'm sure they were to the natives my ancestors followed the law of the land and went through Ellis Island and assimilated into the newly forming American culture .

Every generation since then has done their civic duty and been cops or soldiers to give back to this nation instead of sucking off the guberment hand outs .

 

[BrianJacobsen]

Downzero:

Question one: is a nation anything more than an economy?

Question two: If it's 'bigotry' to be against legal immigration is it oikophobic to treat your despise your fellow citizens by flooding the market with cheap labor and destroying wages?

Question three: If illegal immigrants (of any stripe) are such an amazing boon to the economy (sez you) why are their neighborhoods sclerotic crime ridden hell holes. (full disclosure: Before I moved to Indy I lived in Chicago's Humboldt Park)

You say Sean Hannity finally got one right? I say we now see exactly what his principles are made of, and it's about as impressive as I expected from that low IQ clown. He's crapping his pants because the GOP got shellacked, well my .02 is that it is precisely this lack of principles that make the GOP a non-starter for me.

Here's Heather MacDonald on why even if you tickle their bums and give them backrubs and chocolates Hispanics ain't voting for the GOP any time soon if ever...

Why Hispanics Don’t Vote for Republicans - By Heather Mac Donald - The Corner - National Review Online

 

[downzero]

1. Yes, but the government is not. One of the government's few legitimate functions is to keep the economy going. What's good for the market is good for the nation. That's what economic growth is all about. We should figure out how to maximize that in the best way possible.

2. I don't have anything against my fellow citizens, nor do I desire their wages to go either up or down. Those are decisions for the market, not me, or you for that matter. It is the humble position to value the results of the price system and the market over my own subjective judgment.

3. I think you're confusing cause and effect. People who come here to work, but are stuck in a second-class status because of a broken policy are the victims of bad governance, not the cause. (no doubt, Humboldt Park is a mess. I once saw someone get hit over the head with a piece of pipe in broad daylight at the gas station at North and Kedzie)

I don't know why or if you're assuming that all immigrants, or even all illegal immigrants are "Hispanics." I suspect there's plenty of European illegals here as well.

And not to make this personal, but I am "hispanic," so if they got their heads out of their rears, perhaps they could get one hispanic vote?

 

[Trooper]

Even a broken clock is right twice a day:
Hannity: I've 'evolved' on immigration and support a 'pathway to citizenship' - POLITICO.com

We are bankrupting our economy by not bringing in new workers.

More workers = more taxpayers = lower deficits and less entitlement reform.

It's a winner for everybody.

Now let's just see if Hannity sticks with this or reneges.

We used to have a good migrant worker program back in the 1960s. Then LBJ wanted to have the Great Society and the Unions said only if we block all immigration plus have a minimum wage. Thus we made it very hard to come into the US plus made it expensive to use the bottom end of society as labor. It became easier to import labor in the black market (illegal aliens) who then would work for less than minimum wage.

An amnesty will not solve the problem. Only going back to an migrant worker program plus getting rid of the minimum wage laws. Even then we might have to annex Mexico as it is now a failed state.

 

[88GT]

You didn't say anything about illegal immigrants, so I guess you are simply an anti-immigrant bigot. Got it, thanks.

I'm betting, however, that you wouldn't have a problem with a sudden influx of Canadian immigrants.

I'd wager that your particular group of immigrants were quite annoying to the people already here as well, especially if they got here in the early 1800's or so.

Depends. Are the Canadians bringing their version of bacon? Because that's a deal breaker.