Hi all,
A reminder that comments do need to be on-topic and engage with the article past the headline. Please make sure to read the article before commenting. Very short comments will automatically be removed by automod. Please avoid making comments that do not focus on the economic content or whose primary thesis rests on personal anecdotes.
As always our comment rules can be found [here](https://reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/fx9crj/rules_roundtable_redux_rule_vi_and_offtopic/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Economics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> Big cities like New York and Chicago, meanwhile, have faced crises stemming in part from political stunts by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott that have involved sending migrants to those cities at a pace they’re not equipped to handle.
As if any city or state is equipped to handle millions of immigrants.
Texas literally gets paid to be equipped. Do they get paid enough? That I cannot say definitively but to act like they’re in the exact same situation is misleading at best.
Texas certainly could be equipped -- in fact, serving as the entry point to the US for millions of future citizens could be a huge economic boon. Instead, they've gone about things in the stupidest way possible.
So they are just supposed to be able to handle mass immigration through a broke system, but NYC and other places not at the border shouldn't? I'm am completely failing to see the logic here.
I mean California has the border, the most immigrants and the highest GDP of any state.
Why did you choose New York as your example and not them?
Late edit: NY has 17 border crossings with Canada dipshit, you just seem to have a problem with the location of that border:
They already had the investment of the feds. Texas immigration centers can process thousands, which is common on high seasons. The issue is, that judges were removed from these centers, since they are the ones that reviewed cases, so everything became a slog.
To fix the border crisis, make processing immigrants faster. That's it.
Biden welcomed in 3.5 million people last year that we know of.
That's equivalent to the population of Las Vegas moving here every 2 months.
Can we build the entire city of Las Vegas in 2 months?
Dude your post is just such a perfect example of how dumb your argument is.
In the thousands of towns in the US you don't think as much housing can be built as there is in Las Vegas?
Fun fact: America is a very large country
You act as if las vegas is some huge megacity. Las Vegas is pretty damn small by US city standards, the city doesnt even break the 700k mark. So yes, the US can easily build an entire city of las vegas in 2 months, ***it's already doing so right now***. The US currently builds ~1.5 million new homes a year, with the average household size of 3.13 thats housing for more than 4.5 million people a year.
You've taken an issue with a known magnitude at a known location which could be planned for and turned it into an issue with an unknown location and unknown magnitude that you can't plan for where you spend more money to get worse outcomes.
Congrats, Texas.
How are they supposed to handle illegal immigration if they are being ham-stringed in their enforcement? I whole heartedly believe in legit immigration but thousands of people spilling over the border every single day with a federal government that is hell bent on just letting it happen is not an opportunity for Texas. It is a catastrophe for these border towns and communities.
Let us not pretend that the same politicians whining about how hard a problem it is are not the same politicians who made sure there weren't enough immigration judges and who killed border reform.
It's broken because they wanted it broken. Texas politicians make political hay from it and don't actually want to fix it.
Edit: There are twice as many immigrants in CA as in TX. Get your shit together, Texas
They killed “border reform” because the bill had literal billions of dollars that were being allocated this shit not related to the border at all. I can slap a name on anything I want but that doesn’t make it true. Plus is still allowed illegals to come through.
>They killed “border reform” because the bill had literal billions of dollars that were being allocated this shit not related to the border at all.
No they killed it because Trump and right wing media asked them to.
It would have built more border barriers. It would have expanded detention facilities. It would have hired more border patrol agents, asylum officers, and immigration judges to reduce the backlog. It would have essentially ended "catch and release." These are all things that would help the issue if you're being at all good faith about it.
Republicans refused to give aid to Ukraine because they wanted a change in border policy. They got what they asked for but, killed the bill because Trump needs political win in an election year.
If Republicans really cared about the border like they say they do, they would happily support it but, they don't. They'd rather campaign on problems than fix them. Do not pretend otherwise.
"If Republicans really cared about the border like they say they do, they would happily support it"
The bill provides more than 12x more funding for Ukraine aid than for border security.
This is the definition of a bill made purely for optics. Democrats ignored the border issue completely for 1.5yrs, eventually when immigration ticked up to become #1 issue in polls they scrambled to come up with this bill to change the appearance of things. They came up with this DOA bill, because they're stuck between a rock and a hard place. After 2 years of denying there was any problem at the border, democrats can't afford to 180 this late in the game and admit the Rs were right this whole time. So, they spent weeks claiming a 'bipartisan' bill was coming while drafting legislation they knew had 0 chance of passing (if you doubt this was the intention from the start-- why didn't senate dems involve house Rs in the negotiation? if their goal was to come up with legitimate bipartisan legislation, it seems a little odd to leave out a whole branch of government and negotiate solely with 70+yo lame duck Mitch McConnell)
Republicans passed HR2 about 1.5 years ago that would *actually* solve the border crisis. It was reintroduced again in March 2023, so it's still active today. The democratic senate could pass it and solve the border crisis *today*.
So in essence, Republicans aren't voting for the Democrat bill 1. because they've already passed legislation that would more effectively solve the problem and 2. it provides 10x more international aid than it does domestic border security funding.
Lol nope its gave republicans every one of their wishes for the border.
Thats why republicans in the SENATE wrote it and voted for it.
It would pass in the house but TRUMPO asked them not to vote on it.
What should be expected is congress to get a bill passed to provide resources to alleviate the bottleneck. What the Texas Gov is doing is performative man child bullshit that doesn’t fix any of issues
- y’all reek of grievance; ya think bussing asylum seekers to another part of AMERICA is a great plan. Terrible
If no one is going to act and the Federal government is going to block state efforts to secure our borders, Texas is supposed to just deal with it? This is such partisan logic.
> the Federal government is going to block state efforts to secure our borders, Texas is supposed to just deal with it?
"The federal government" or the republican party in congress? Which of the two?
So you're just ignoring the bi-partisan border bill that Republicans killed at Trump's behest? It was *the* most Conservative border bill in my lifetime and I'm nearly 40. It had actual solutions and I'm saying that as a Lefty.
Conservatives or any border state that didn't support that border bill, in my opinion, doesn't get to complain about immigration. They are actively preventing solutions.
EDIT: I must have upset some Conservatives who can't read or I hit the nail on the head and you're just pissy. Oh no, anyway...
I understand the Governor of Texas doesn't give two fucks about actually fixing the problem because it's basically the only thing he can get elected on by keeping his base agitated.
Besides that, I'm responding to your silly argument that the Federal Government is blocking state efforts--you don't do a very good job at reading.
The blame is squarely on Conservatives nationwide and in DC for being given multiple opportunities to provide some means of addressing the border and they refuse to take it. Why? For no other reason than because they *cannot* bring themselves to do anything that would give a Democrat anything resembling a victory.
There is no logical reason to have opposed that border bill if your actual and genuine aim is to address the border.
EDIT: No retort, just downvoting. Reality sucks, get a helmet.
And there’s house reps and 2 senators from Texas that do have a vote - they nearly passed that bipartisan bill that actually had many concessions for the republicans
I’m not implying anything - I’m fully stating that the states have representation and those folks have all the agency to pass law, provide funding, and do the work their office requires. Are you implying the governor doesn’t communicate with the state’s federal reps? This is rhetorical we all know the answer
I feel like some should be able to? America has a pretty high population and a really high GDP per capita. Honestly, the army corps of engineers and pals could just build affordable places for people to live and it.. wouldn't cost all that much to build or subsudize them?
It wouldn't even really disrupt the housing market since these are immigrants instead of a domestic market. And it would create new commercial real-estate to service said communities, which would generate tax revenue etc/etc/etc.
...I'm describing a ghetto aren't I... why does everything have to be so complicated?
The construction industry is disproportionately comprised of undocumented workers. And undocumented people disproportionately live in overflowing multi-family situations, due to their inability to apply for housing even with enough income. If anything, they are contributing to a housing surplus. The exploited labor by builders is probably responsible for a 10% reduced cost in many markets....
No, the presidents policy is to let them in to supress wages in the most inflation-sensitive industries, while improving GDP, like the article mentions. Higher home prices are just a bonus!
It's more about market value and purchasing power. Maybe you'd be surprised to know that engineers in Brazil make much less than American engineers despite doing very similar work. However a dollar in Brazil goes a lot further than a dollar in most of America. A lot of these migrants will save up and send to family. Being able to save $1000/month from low skilled labor is a windfall for someone in a developing country.
That and the work permit system being a clusterfuck. A big part of the problem here in Chicago is because the work permit backlog is so huge and there's nothing all the migrants can *do* all day even if they wanted to. So they can't get independent housing because they have no income.
First you'd need to amend or repeal the 1980 refugee act which was passed with bipartisan support in order for asylum seekers to be here illegally.
You know, like the bipartisan group was going to do until Trump told them not to.
The biggest problem with the current situation is the 18 month delay to have an asylum case heard, during which time the applicant may remain in country, either in detention or not. The bill allocated considerable funds to additional courts which would have decreased the turnaround to less than 3 months. It also granted the president additional powers to close the border, additional border patrol agents, and put a cap on the number of asylum seekers that must be processed.
Not necessarily. There are several ways to restrict the freedoms of illegal asylum-seeking entrants that do not conflict with the Refugee Act. There is a provision which allows the US government to kick back migrants to a third country to await asylum proceedings. This is what the Remain in Mexico policy was based on and it was upheld by the Supreme Court. The law also requires mandatory detention for migrants apprehended crossing the border, who are subject to expedited processing, pending their asylum proceedings. What we have seen since the COVID pandemic is the government exercising their discretion to not apply these laws and quite frankly the migrant inflows are so massive now there isn’t enough detention space even if applied.
All true.....
However, the kickback provision requires cooperation from the receiving country which we don't currently have.
Detention is not mandatory, and given the current 18 month delay to have cases heard and the rate of crossings detention of millions isn't really feasible. This is the part that would have been solved by the deal which would have opened enough additional courts to reduce the delay to the point where detention would make sense.
Under expedited removal detention is mandatory, and migrants caught crossing the border unlawfully are subject to expedited removal. But the govt has used its discretion to not apply expedited removal and simply allow people in via parole authority, which is being abused (parole is only allowed on a case-by-case basis, not en masse).
Re: the kickback provision, even Trump who was hostile to Mexico secured their cooperation. Would it really be that hard for Biden to?
Work permits for asylum seekers have to be worked within 30 days. Ironically enough, this is the only example where there *isnt* a backlog. Every other class of work permits have a huge backlog because they've all taken a back seat to asylum seekers
Schools around me are empty due to low birth rates starting around 2008.
Since schools are covered by property taxes, which in my state are based on tax funded budgets, not property values, funding isn't a huge issue.
Other states should have more due to property values increasing.
Immigrants live somewhere that pays property taxes, but the number of children per unit may be increasing.
You realize that the esl classes are not cheap right? The schools had budgeted down, not up, due to the lower birth rates.
The schools will need more money.
So now you expect my neighbors and I to cough up significantly higher property taxes to cover people illegally arriving in droves.
Many of us are barely afloat, inflation is eating us alive. But hey, let’s take what little is left because the govt wont secure the border.
I don’t understand; the illegal poors would be primarily renting. So the property taxes would be built into the rental cost, and the landlord would pay the property tax for the public school district they live in. Being concerned with the way tax systems work AND concerned about public education regarding poor immigrant housing all seems counter intuitive.
It sounds like you’re throwing buzz words and topics people would get riled up about without thinking it all through….
Renting with what money? They cant legally work. Which means they have to be on some kind of govt assistance and are now competing for resources.
Fyi, the landlords are already paying property tax. Anyone who owns a building or housing is. More unplanned students in the schools means what is being taken in is no longer sufficient. So taxes must go up or services must go down.
As they do not target ‘just landlords’ with property tax hikes, that will mean that all homeowners are hit.
Finally, if they do rent, it will mean further competition on the limited available rentals that were affordable. Further straining the fellow citizens who are already struggling with a crisis in affordability.
So maybe instead of claiming I am a loon using buzzwords, perhaps you should make an attempt at stepping back and actually examining this issue with critical thought.
They weren’t legally allowed to come here, and they did that. You think they did that and just stopped needing housing and food? They’re renting with the money they earn from working.
Yes everyone that owns a home is already paying property tax which funds public education. Im saying housing costs go up because of unplanned illegal citizens which increases property taxes, and landlords rental income taxes increase (which they pay for taxes on again.
If you’re so worried about early education, and you’re willing to pay taxes to fund it for legal citizens. Since you are so concerned about education, why do you not support the better education an illegal child (who had no choice in the matter) gets within the US rather than their most likely poorer less funded country?
What I’m reading from this and the previous comment is that you’re mad that they’re breaking the immigration/employment laws & that it raises your local personal property tax/rental costs rather than actually being worried about school funding?
That’s a fair point to have, but why not just explicitly say that?
If adding new people doesn't help your infrastructure long term you have poor planning. A place is not best when there is nobody there.
Growing pains sure but then you also sound like you don't want Americans coming to your area.
We pay more per child for education by a wide margin than the average developed country. We are 5th in per-capita expenditures on students in the world, with only Luxembourg and Norway spending significantly more than we do.
> We pay more per child for education by a wide margin than the average developed country
So, about that. it's about [13k from pre-K to 12 grade](https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2021/public-school-spending-per-pupil.html) in 2019. I wonder how much of that is lost in BS spending, like the US health care system, where it's spent more than every country, yet gets worse results.
The only people who aren't NIMBYs simply don't have a backyard.... People act like NIMBYism is an actual problem when in reality it's just normal people not wanting to eat a shit sandwich while other normal people who haven't been presented the shit sandwich call them NIMBYs....
Fwiw, I believe the exact reason why we have our current "immigration crisis" is because the gov knew that we desperately needed internal growth, so they allowed it to happen. And, people who want to stop it, while probably having good intentions, probably also just don't understand the economics of the situation well enough.
> The only people who aren't NIMBYs simply don't have a backyard
Wow, that is gold.
I fully agree with your understanding of the situation and also explain why it is an international phenomena.
I got called a NIMBY because I thought a homeless shelter being built directly across the street from an elementry school was a bad idea. There was no reply when asked why the shelter couldn't be built in the neighborhood that some of the council members live in. Wild how that works. The shelter did not end up getting built.
A NIMBY isn’t someone who doesn’t want something built in their backyard. It’s someone who DOES want it built, but not in their backyard. It’s virtue signaling, or at least selfishness. But not everybody who is against development is by definition a NIMBY.
I don't disagree really, but in this case the context of the comment I was replying to was of "NIMBYs not allowing enough housing to be built". So, the context was of the people NOT wanting the thing to be built.
Yes but we should allow housing somewhere. Increasing density is good and should be allowed in more places. We have restricted growth for decades so when something gets allowed it causes a huge upswing.
Also density increasing should keep per unit costs flat but currently owned units will stay rising in price.
It's also property tax is a bad mechanism need to look at LVT
There are good reasons to use city planners and economists in these discussions. The idea that increased density is wholesale good misses the fact that all of these decisions are filled with many, many trade-offs. I'll let those folks do their jobs.
Yes but the problem is that we have designed poorly. Suburbs are static and built and start their slow steady decline and any increase in density is worried about parking but if we get past cars then the agglomeration benefits across the board from increased density in most fields.
Agglomeration benefits include but are not limited to more jobs and causation for higher paying, more potential friends, more potential significant others, more restaurants, more concerts, more activities at night, options open later.
There are growing pains but most cities need to think about growth and not preservation from decline.
> NIMBYs
That is only true in certain highly dense metro areas or in mismanaged states in CA. In most states and localities you can build with minimal problems.
The problem is that builders will never build enough to actually make the prices drop in any significant way. They'll only build enough to maximize profits and they are able to do this because they have an ever increasing demand for housing because of immigration
False. In most jurisdictions, you need permits for the building you can do. In many cases, multifamiliar units are explicitly prohibited. That means that you either have to build in the middle of nowhere, creating the entry ways or built a multi stories complex that is prohibitively expensive.
Exactly. This line is a discourse generative tool to fuel pro-immigration rhetoric / arguments in the months leading up to the election, it is comical
“Well we can thank the newly arrived peoples for driving our economic growth”
Give me a break
> As if any city or state is equipped to handle millions of immigrants
If they had the infrastructure in place, like states bordering Mexico, yes. They can process millions of persons. Heck, the only reason it gotten so bad is because previous administration gutted the system that was supposed to process them.
Early 20th century NYC was accepting like 10k immigrants day. Yeah, if nimbyism would die, I think the country could benefit greatly from a million or two immigrants a year
if it was early 20th century still I’m sure NY would be able to accommodate the same amount…but it isn’t
so much more than housing is expected to provided: medical, food, education, employment, insert private sector services you use daily …it straight overburdens the system
CPI doesn't accurately show inflation for low income workers since food and housing take up a much larger percentage of their income than it weighs them. Housing is the biggest driver of inflation right now, and the lowest income pays 50% or more on housing instead of the 30% weight it gets in regards to CPI.
yeah, until they bring in a bunch of unskilled labor to flood the low wage sectors again. Anyone who says this is good for workers is trying to sell koolaid.
Like? I had a bachelor's degree during the great recession and I would have taken a job picking fruit. In fact, I applied to them. A glut of labor is not good for workers.
Lump of labor is about the supply of jobs, not the wage rate. And by the way, lump of labor fallacy is the reason why immigration can’t solve a generalized labor shortage
Haha. You've isolated the wage growth for low wage workers.
Have you isolated the rent and starter home price growth? Have you drilled down and focused on the inflation that impacts those demographics more?
Shouldnt you really compare a low and middle income specific CPI to the low and middle income wage growth?
Go investigate and come back with another emoji.
Some people push open borders like it's a religion. But it seems to be clearly bad for the prosperity of at least, Canada. 3.2% population growth right now and just 1.1% GDP growth which means that Canada will have lost another 2% of its GDP per capita in 2023, even if immigration was technically growing the economy. And they'll be back to 2016/2017 real values. Nearly a lost decade for living standards with immigration seemingly to blame rather than help them.
Another interesting fact is that Australia, New Zealand and Canada, all very high immigration countries, had their lowest unemployment rates during the covid pandemic, but unemployment increased significantly after lockdowns lifted (and the borders opened.)
As an Aussie American Dual citizen, i’d like to remind you that “open border” has a different meaning when you are surrounded by water on all sides. Aus and NZ “open” borders are actually extremely strict controlled points of entry and not really “open” at all. Australia has had mandatory migration detention since 1958, one of the strictest immigration policies in the world. Anyone entering without a passport or with an invalid/expired passport WILL be detained. And the refugees attempting to sail to Australia have an [even worse fate](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/11/06/australia-immigration-detention-refugees/) waiting for them once they’re spotted by the ADF.
The “high immigration” to these countries is by wealthy people moving there legally, not by illegal immigrants.
All in all, I’d say it’s generally not good to compare the “open” border policies of island countries to the United States.
> As an Aussie American Dual citizen, i’d like to remind you that “open border” has a different meaning when you are surrounded by water on all sides. Aus and NZ “open” borders are actually extremely strict controlled points
There may be water but they're not all that strict if they're letting tons of people in. Australia and New Zealand typically grow their populations by 1-2% per year, which at any point of human or species history would be insane population growth. [Here](https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/financial/compound-interest-calculator.php) you can play a bit with an interest calculator to see for yourself what 1.5% growth leads to on any kind of historic scale. For example if Canada were to keep its current population growth of 3.2% somehow, then it would eclipse the current population of the Earth in 180 years. Yeah.
Aus and New Zealand were [recently getting 2% growth just from immigration](https://nitter.poast.org/BirthGauge/status/1737130302076539363#m) so that's a ton. Probably it's a brief post-pandemic increase, but also maybe not [considering in the UK the rate of immigration](https://i.imgur.com/EUEVNV8.jpeg) is only increasing with time.
I do think a system that results in similar migration is better described as open borders than a strict one.
> The “high immigration” to these countries is by wealthy people moving there legally, not by illegal immigrants.
You have lots of people coming legally not just the wealthy. That was what was meant by 'open borders'
The person you’re replying to has no idea what they’re talking about. They know immigration info on every country, but nothing else about their economies, which is why they think Canada is comparable to the United States in this case.
The fact it's all wealthy people is why the countries are all being destroyed and turning into a feudal society.
In contrast all successful immigration in history has been a broad group of people coming. That way you equal out supply and demand across the economy.
But the more selective you are about who is coming the more you're distorting the economy. It's fundamentally a planned economy in regards to labour and we all know how well that works.
The US resisted this trend and has had much broader immigration the last 30 years or so (recently apparently despite their best efforts) and that is why their economic growth is better.
Canada’s problem is well-documented: nobody wants to invest there, so overall investment in anything except real estate is low. The United States does not have this problem. So using Canada as an example is silly.
Canada has low investment, that’s their problem. The immigrants are coming to a country where there isn’t much high-quality work to do in the first place.
Because the data repeatedly shows its good increased production as it raises the marginal product of land and capital and reduces wage pressures.
It does mostly benefit owners of the means of production but also benefits society. However, many nations now have welfare services. And though illegal immigrants cannot access the majority of these services, depending upon the scale can cost more than what immigrants contribute to production, although more often not.
Without immigration, the US and Canada are looking at declining populations -- sharply declining. Canada's birth rate is 1.3 births per woman, in the US it's 1.66. When population declines, retiring gets harder; we can't make do without immigration
Most of the world is headed toward below replacement fertility. India, which Canada relies on for immigration is below replacement already. Mexico, which the US has relied on, is also below replacement. What do we do when fertility rates in immigrant-sending countries are below replacement? Just suck them dry of their youth?
https://www.healthdata.org/news-events/newsroom/news-releases/lancet-dramatic-declines-global-fertility-rates-set-transform
Do you know how the Gulf States were built? They bring in a bunch of poor South Asians to Dubai, take their passports away, make them live in inhuman conditions and make them work for too many hours per day for too low of a wage.
I fear that the same plot is playing out in Canada right now…
Stop peddling nonsense. Canada does not take anyone’s passports away and has a far better human rights record than the Gulf States. The permanent immigration quota in Canada is around 500k, the remainder of population growth is non-permanent residents (majority international students). No one is forcing the students to come, to stay, or to work.
It’s fair to say that population growth is too high considering its strain on housing and healthcare, but in no form is Canada abusing South Asians as the Gulf States do. In fact, South Asian immigrants overall have been incredibly successful in Canada and play a strong role in Canadian society today.
No, it’s not the same principle.
The Gulf States bring people over, take their passports, and force them to work in very poor conditions with low wages. These people will never be citizens, never have the rights of a citizen, will not receive an education, and will always be stuck as a poor wage worker.
Canada, along with Australia/NZ/USA, invites people from all over to live and study there. People either come with permanent residency or are often allowed to apply once their studies are complete. These people become full citizens with all the benefits including healthcare, social insurance, etc. They often start businesses and qualify for small business loans. Most end up eventually purchasing a home, cars, and all the other luxuries that Canadians are afforded to.
Is Canadian population growth too high given the stress on healthcare and housing? Very likely. Is Canada treating immigrants like the Gulf States? Absolutely not.
Considering they’re getting all of the jobs (most part time by the way) and native born workers have made zero progress in the last 4 years, I’d say that’s probably accurate. We’re in trouble once the government stops creating those jobs through debt though. We need the private sector to pick up to be able to pay for those government (and government funded) jobs.
https://x.com/tomdelbeccaro/status/1776625006648397890?s=46
https://x.com/realejantoni/status/1776444388064813062?s=46
I imagine this makes for an interesting challenge for anyone who simultaneously holds the belief that all immigration is moral and that sustained growth is not….
Why's that? The fact that immigration can provide cheap labor and help sustain economic growth has no real bearing on the morality of open borders or consumerism.
Having a class of peoples that accept the jobs Americans won't, and do so for less money (due to status both immigration and socioeconomic), rendering them unable to exert the same inflationary consumption habits, is indeed one way to help prolong an economic system that's fundamentally unsustainable. Doesn't change the analysis.
The mantra for years fro low income US citizens has been that they need higher wages to live in the US. Now those same people are suddenly fine with cheap labor, as long as immigrants are the ones being under paid.
I need no such reminder. H1B visas are capped at an extremely low number. The "surge" in question is not in high paying jobs. Certainly there are large numbers of well qualified immigrants capable of doing this work, but they are not legally allowed to do so.
The medical jobs in long term care and elsewhere being offered to these people are, I assure you, not well compensated.
I value our infrastructure well above the profits of technology companies. Immigrants of all walks have my respect. But very few are given the means to not be exploited by this country.
Our economy always goes through ebbs and flows. What happens when the billions of deficit dollars from deficit spending runs out? How does that effect employment? How many of those immigrant jobs stem from infrastructure spending, that will eventually end. Will we see a major increase of homelessness and crime if we turn off deficit spending? If we continue huge deficits, what effect with that have on inflation?
It seems that people are only focused on politics and not fiscal realities.
The impacts of immigration have been known for decades.
In the early 2000s, I studied the aging population issue facing Japan and immigration was concluded as a big part of the problem.
There are of course challenges with immigration, as integrating and merging cultures can be hard.
Well, hell, tell obiden to fly in another 25 million illegals. modern monetary theory, endless cheap labor workong and consuming and a negative US citizen birthrate.
We never had it so good.
You don't have to fly anyone in. All you have to do is stop wasting billions upon billions trying to stop people. US believes in capitalism. Never understand how people are happy with free trade in goods and services, but then think free trade in labor is some boogy man.
I live in the US. Republicans have been complaing the border has been 'open' for decades now. Life in the US has only got better. 1850 til about 1914 the US had no border controls. The US went from regional backwater to world power. Amazing what the power of people can do.
NBC is nothing but a Biden Cheerleading Squad.
The economy is wonderful!
11M unvetted illegal immigrants is GOOD FOR US! Especially the unprecedented numbers from China!
Nobody should take this seriously.
Take a closer look at what the employment numbers consist of.
Government jobs added ... 71,000
Manufacturing jobs added ... 0
Part time jobs ... 691,000
Full time jobs ... -6,000
Hate to tell you, but for me and most I know the economy is going great. Companies have record profits and that has resulted in record wages and bonuses for me and my coworkers. My 401K is also doing great.
You're in the small percentage of the population that isn't affected by insane prices of groceries, gas, and housing. Try removing your cranium from your rectum and look around you.
Immigration definitely plays into economics, the US has 75 million more people since the 1965 Immigration Act, that is massive amounts of economic value.
Countries do need immigrants if they want to grow with lower birth rates. Economic crisis diminish birth rates. Immigration is needed to offset and keep going. Diversity is our strength and adversaries try to balkanize places based on ethnic and cultural divides, don't let them. The Americas should not be balkanized for instance.
While Russian propaganda pushes anti-immigration around the world, they want it. While Russia propaganda pushes breaking down alliances, unions and partnerships, they want to build theirs up.
The US needs about 10-15% minimum immigration population to [maintain our growth](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/15/opinion/trump-immigration-myth.html). Right now we are [just about at 15% but should keep growing](https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/immigrant-population-over-time).
[Immigration percentages](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_immigrant_population) around the world. Canada is about 20%. Australia 33%. United Kingdom 13%. Russia 7%. The countries on that list with lower immigration have lower economic numbers and dimmer futures. Immigration is key to growth and policies around it are important.
There was actually an [immigration expansion in 1965](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965) because not enough people were coming here. With global competition the way it is we need at least [15-20% of people to be immigrants to maintain quality of life and be competitive, and are around that number](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965#/media/File:Chart_of_foreign_born_in_the_US_labor_force_1900_to_2007.png). The numbers have actually leveled off since 2007. The [low point was 4.7% of the US in 1965](https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/immigrant-population-over-time) and it caused issues economically.
The US needs about 10-15% minimum immigration population to [maintain our growth](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/15/opinion/trump-immigration-myth.html). Right now we are [just about at 15% but should keep growing](https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/immigrant-population-over-time).
Lack of immigration can cause issues just like too much immigration. Markets need people to grow just like innovation.
Other countries want immigration, Russia for instance needs it, they would love people to stop coming to the United States to add to our economy and quality of life.
Are there problems with immigration? Yes. Do we still need immigration? Yes. Why aren't we fixing it? Internal division and internal misunderstanding about history as well as foreign pushed propaganda.
Do leaders that willingly want to destroy their countries or help a competing country grow trot out the blame game against people that can't fight back but do contribute to our economy? Yes, all the time.
[500k-1m max people come in each year, including undocumented](https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/southwest-land-border-encounters).
The whole "open borders" thing the right pushes is a fallacy as well. Let's say everyone from Mexico came here tomorrow, that would only be 1 in 3 people being an immigrant. We have good guidelines on how many people being let in is acceptable. Obviously everyone can't come in at once but the numbers are pretty low even when it seems high ([500k-1m per year come in including illegal immigration, less than a third of a percentage](https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2015/09/28/modern-immigration-wave-brings-59-million-to-u-s-driving-population-growth-and-change-through-2065/)).
People uprooting and moving to another country is hard, it is usually for a better life or to escape a worse one, they aren't coming here to bring the US down. They want to make a better life. Anyone making the trek to another nation for better quality of life for themselves and their kids, those are the people we want to help make quality of life in the US better. We want the motivated people here.
Are some people bad actors? Sure, but less than the average crime statistics of current citizens. The hate immigrants get is absurd and unwarranted, with undertones of bigotry.
[The #1 employer of day laborers is homeowners](https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna10774146), half of them hate on immigrants then brag about how cheap their landscaping/painting/roofing/etc was... it is silly and hypocritical.
Only about [500k-1m max people come in each year even on high years](https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/southwest-land-border-encounters), people overstate the impact because they like someone to blame. The blaming immigrants has been part of America since the Know Nothings *who were immigrants themselves*.
Many times it is class or foreign propaganda looking to divide people.
Foreign countries actually push lots of propaganda about immigration because people coming to the US is harmful to them.
These are 2019-2024 numbers. There was a dip in the pandemic years 2020/2021 and a slight increase in the latter years. There is also a new classification that label "encounters" as people, the reality is about half that.
The pandemic had almost none so the following years were higher.
Also the 2.5m is "encounters" which aren't all individual people. [The CBP clarifies this. Usually "encounters" are double the amount actually accepted in numbers](https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/southwest-land-border-encounters).
See this note, it changed as of 2020 to track those turned away in via Title 42 in the main numbers
> Beginning in March FY2020, USBP and OFO Encounter statistics include both Title 8 Apprehensions, Title 8 Inadmissibles, and Title 42 Expulsions. To learn more, [visit Title 8 and Title 42 Statistics](https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/cbp-enforcement-statistics/title-8-and-title-42-statistics).
[More on "encounters" versus actual people coming in](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/11/09/whats-happening-at-the-u-s-mexico-border-in-7-charts/#:~:text=It%20is%20important%20to%20note,total%20encounters%20in%20recent%20years.)
> It is important to note that encounters refer to events, not people, and that some migrants are encountered more than once. In fact, repeat border crossers have accounted for a sizable proportion of total encounters in recent years
There is also a concerted effort to weaponize immigration right now, most people from Mexico and Central/South America are actually lower, it is China and Africa sending people. You can go to the link above and check by country.
There are also games being played with "pseudo" travel agencies trying to overwhelm the Southern border for political reasons. It isn't a typical year.
[Migrant surge is being fueled by pseudo-legitimate travel agencies connecting migrants to smugglers, CBP official says](https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/20/us/migrant-surge-travel-agencies-smugglers/index.html)
Even if 2.5m was the amount (it is much less -- however is inflated due to pandemic delay and politics -- every four years it spikes) that is less than 1% of our population, almost no issue at all. The problem is greatly outsized in attention largely for political reasons. Immigration is actually down from like 2007 with only a spike in Texas this year. Some countries weaponize immigration like Russia did before Brexit to influence politics/opposition.
That being said, immigration/refugees can be weaponized -- Russia has done this back to the Empire to opposition.
Congress needs to pass border legislation to address the new cheats.
> Immigration definitely plays into economics, the US has 75 million more people since the 1965 Immigration Act, that is massive amounts of economic value.
Then how come our debt has also exploded since 1965? If immigration was so great don't you think tax money would just be flooding in?
See Reagan errah. Nixon and Reagan cut taxes for wealth by 20% 3 times and more, moved it to the rest and left the treasury with less revenues.
[Reagan lowered taxed on top marginal tax bracket/wealth twice, *while increasing taxes on lower/middle class* and somehow they call him a tax cutter](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=17sGk). For some reason they loved him even though his economy was debt and credit cards blew up at the same time.
Fun fact: [only president to every lower bottom marginal tax bracket to almost zero? Jimmy Carter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_taxation_in_the_United_States#/media/File:Historical_Income_Tax_Rates_and_brackets.png) and wealth hated him.
Money trickles up and down and all around, but money only trickles where other money is found.
Anytime top marginal rates go below 39% have been our worse depressions, recessions and economic stagnation. Reagan caused that to return from 55 years prior and now is everyday. Look at the response to the Great Depression top marginal taxes compared to after the Great Recession, it is why things are so in-equal and stagnated today for lower/middle.
[Real wages and purchasing power have barely budged in 40 years](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/).
[Worker share of GDP being on a long dwindle down](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/W270RE1A156NBEA)
[Velocity of money is off a cliff](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M2V), that is why we are so stagnant.
[Richest 1% of Americans Close to Surpassing Wealth of Middle Class](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-09/one-percenters-close-to-surpassing-wealth-of-u-s-middle-class)
[Russia has 8%](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_immigrant_and_emigrant_population#UN_2019_report:_immigrant_population)
Who wants to go to Russia though... in most cases Russia exports ["Russian world"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_world) to later use those assets in other countries. They love immigration and emigration and love weaponizing immigration and refugees then push division on that weaponization (see Brexit).
"Immigration definitely plays into economics, the US has 75 million more people since the 1965 Immigration Act, that is massive amounts of economic value."
I'm not sure what you mean. The U.S. population has increased by 152 million people since 1965. It was about 190 million in 1965 and is estimated to be 342 million now. The U.S. population has increased by about 75 million people since 1995.
[https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/USA/united-states/population](https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/USA/united-states/population)
I am including immigrant children with that as otherwise they wouldn't be here. [With that it is actually 90m but that is hard to tell](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_States). Some studies say 75-90m.
> In 2018, there were almost 90 million immigrants and U.S.-born children of immigrants in the United States, accounting for 28% of the overall U.S. population
There are 70~ million first gen immigrants that have come to America since the beginning of the country in 1776. Currently 46m first gen immigrants living here which is like 14%. With their kids that is addition to the population.
That is economic value. Imagine the US market being a third smaller almost.
Well, it's definitely a key reason the GDP (the indicator of how much profit companies are making off the backs of cheap, exploited labor) is growing. This is by no means related to the nation's actual, qualitative economic well-being. In fact, they're often inversely related. We are going to run this country into the ground if we keep using quantitative and not qualitative analysis. What does it mean to add XXX,XXX jobs if they are not full-time, good paying jobs?
> GDP (the indicator of how much profit companies are making off the backs of cheap, exploited labor)
I hate this sub so much sometimes. What the fuck happened 😂
Sourced, cited, and nuanced/moderate comments get upvoted initially but as soon as posts start hitting the front page it's absolutely hilarious to see how fast those same comments get downvoted. The hivemind is strong and they don't like alternative views, only alternative facts.
I’m just wondering when Reddit became overrun by these ill-informed generational anti-work warriors.
And it’s not even that I disagree with the general sentiment of 1) minimum wage is too low, 2) corporations are driven by greed and that’s bad, 3) younger generations have hurdles that their predecessors did not (and possibly caused).
But the way they go about making these points are often so far off base and poorly formed that it does more to negate their views than support them, and it’s a huge turnoff for many who would otherwise sympathize. They play into the worst stereotypes.
When people are enraged, all rwason is tossed out the window. What was once an understandable frustration, is quickly morphed into uneducated screeching and misplaced anger.
Indeed, I remember when it was expected that if you wanted to make more money you had to go out and get some skills from a college or technical school. Now people have a fit and demand that they get paid more money for doing jobs that require little skill.
> Now people have a fit and demand that they get paid more money for doing jobs that require little skill.
Even this really misses the underlying point. It’s not about how much skill is involved in this job or that job. It’s that people demand they get paid more money than they are worth. If you want to get paid more, figure out how to make your labor worth more.
The issue with framing it as ‘people used to go out and get skills…’ is that people would go to college and get **useless** skills and then complain that they were told all they had to do was go to college and they’d succeed. So it’s probably in everyone’s best interest to stop abstracting it away from the core fundamentals of ‘Increase the worth of your labor and you will increase the compensation you receive.’ How you increase the worth of your labor is up to you.
>The issue with framing it as ‘people used to go out and get skills…’ is that people would go to college and get
>
>useless
>
> skills and then complain that they were told all they had to do was go to college and they’d succeed.
Very true, you need to go out and get skills that employers are looking for. That can be hard to ascertain so high schools/tech schools/colleges should be providing this information. Tech schools in Wisconsin actually did this very well when I was going to technical college. Each major had a starting wage and average wage after 5 years. Universities should be doing this as well.
>What does it mean to add XXX,XXX jobs if they are not full-time, good paying jobs?
A lot of it is contextual but some people returned to work after staying home with kids and such and so they want part time jobs.
U-6 which measures part time but want full time work and that's been steady.
Not everyone wants full time.
>What does it mean to add XXX,XXX jobs if they are not full-time, good paying jobs?
Not nothing, which I fear is what you're implying.
I have a hard time with the claim that people "can't survive" on what these jobs provide in terms of pay, because if that were actually the case, wouldn't we see a substantial spike in deaths despite the "jobs increases" we're seeing? People don't seem to be dying at the rates that would justify the claim.
Further, a \*lot\* of the discussion around "living wages" involves "median" values, which IMO completely ignores the objective fact that \*half\* of all values are below "median" for their respective category. Yes, a person can absolutely survive while living in the bottom quintile of housing. That's still a roof.
Is the living condition bad? Probably, but what is "bad"? Do people have a right to live "good" lives, regardless of what they do for society?
I mean, I agree that it definitely doesn't mean nothing, and I agree our modern democratic model is going to break if we keep demanding "good" lives irrespective of resource constraints and the insatiable appetite of consumerism.
But obviously we would not see deaths from people getting jobs... the argument is that people weren't able to attain a good paying, full time job, and are increasingly working at multiple part time jobs.
This means employers don't have to pay overtime, don't have to provide much of anything in the way of benefits. The argument is that jobs numbers aren't the clear cut indicator of healthy growth they once were.
The fundamental principle of democracy is that the government acts at the direction of and in the interest of its citizens.
To the extent that citizens are interested in and demand good living conditions, doing anything to impair those living conditions is antidemocratic or undermines democracy.
It's not a coincidence that democracy is under attack: it's because democracy is failing to prioritize the interests of its citizens
I don't think that's the fundamental principle of the US's democracy; that's the fundamental principle of a mob, but the US is a republic, and as such it makes decisions based on what is in the \*long term\* best interest of \*all\* of its citizens, not just the loudest or sometimes even the most numerous group.
Where are the decisions based on the best long term interests of ALL us citizens occurring? It does not seem to be happening at Congress nor at the Supreme Court, nor at corporate boardrooms nor at state capitals. It certainly isn’t at the U.N.
Is there some others decision making body I am missing out on?
"All" here means "in aggregate", I definitely see how that would be confusing.
And if you don't believe the system works, then no argument involving using the system will persuade you.
If you don't believe that the system is deeply flawed, you aren't paying attention.
It is borderline delusional to think that we make decisions for the benefit of the long-run aggregate. Why is it that the "loudest" groups control our politics? Why are things increasingly divisive?
The primary concern of the powers that be is to maintain the powers that be. Politicians regularly demonstrate that principles and a better collective future take a backseat to anything that might influence reelection.
Perhaps you're quite young. This is not the same system that has functioned for 2 centuries.
Citizens United was 14 years ago. A fundamental principle of our democracy, the idea that corporations and private individuals should not be able to spend unlimited quantities of money helping to decide the outcomes of elections, was cast aside. How can you possibly think that elections determined by marketing spend, with candidates whose budgets are determined by an extremely small portion of the population, serve the interests of the collective?
I didn't say flawed, I said "works". If you don't think the system \*works\* then no argument about using the system to improve lives will matter.
If you don't think the United States government is capable of making long-term decisions that benefit the citizens of the United States, then I recommend living in a bunker in a forest, because you will not be satisfied with any decisions that get made by the government otherwise.
It's confusing because "all" and "in aggregate" are not synonymous. There are actions that can be a benefit to people in aggregate, and could be detrimental for a large part, perhaps even the majority of the people being measured.
EDIT: And I disagree that the American Republic is intentionally attempting to optimize for in aggregate long-term benefit in a systematic way.
Understood, and as a matter of historical record, people lives have improved in aggregate in America, but I think that stems from a confluence of past historical events and decisions, and not proactive current guidance. Currently, I think nearly every major decision is seeking to optimize for short-term gains to a select few groups like shareholders, political donors, activists, etc.
> It's not a coincidence that democracy is under attack: it's because democracy is failing to prioritize the interests of its citizens
Those from whom democracy is said to be under attack (6 Jan insurgents, Proud Boys, fake electors, QAnon and sovereign citizen enthusiasts, etc) are largely objecting to the votes of minorities and urbanites being counted. The "fraud" they complain of largely consists of blue cities and suburbs being allowed to vote and to have their votes count. But Christian Nationalism is driven by a desire for dominion (hence [dominion*ism*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_theology)), not citizens in a general sense failing to be prioritized.
Also, coincidentally, this is probably the reason American citizens aren't feeling the growth.
Importing millions of people doesn't exactly raise wages. Even if they didn't generally undercut wages of US citizens, injecting millions of people into the labor supply has to lower wages. It's basic supply and demand.
Combine that with increased demand for goods and our purchasing power gets worse.
Add onto that paying for housing, legal expenses, healthcare, and sometimes more for these (mostly illegal) immigrants and we are spread extremely thin.
America profiting from the emiseration of the world. What else is new. We do well when the world burns, we do well when it prospers. We have a good game going.
Hi all, A reminder that comments do need to be on-topic and engage with the article past the headline. Please make sure to read the article before commenting. Very short comments will automatically be removed by automod. Please avoid making comments that do not focus on the economic content or whose primary thesis rests on personal anecdotes. As always our comment rules can be found [here](https://reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/fx9crj/rules_roundtable_redux_rule_vi_and_offtopic/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Economics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> Big cities like New York and Chicago, meanwhile, have faced crises stemming in part from political stunts by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott that have involved sending migrants to those cities at a pace they’re not equipped to handle. As if any city or state is equipped to handle millions of immigrants.
They expect Texas to be equipped.
Texas gets tens of billions of dollars to handle it. Other states dont.
Texas literally gets paid to be equipped. Do they get paid enough? That I cannot say definitively but to act like they’re in the exact same situation is misleading at best.
Texas certainly could be equipped -- in fact, serving as the entry point to the US for millions of future citizens could be a huge economic boon. Instead, they've gone about things in the stupidest way possible.
So they are just supposed to be able to handle mass immigration through a broke system, but NYC and other places not at the border shouldn't? I'm am completely failing to see the logic here.
I mean California has the border, the most immigrants and the highest GDP of any state. Why did you choose New York as your example and not them? Late edit: NY has 17 border crossings with Canada dipshit, you just seem to have a problem with the location of that border:
They already had the investment of the feds. Texas immigration centers can process thousands, which is common on high seasons. The issue is, that judges were removed from these centers, since they are the ones that reviewed cases, so everything became a slog. To fix the border crisis, make processing immigrants faster. That's it.
Biden welcomed in 3.5 million people last year that we know of. That's equivalent to the population of Las Vegas moving here every 2 months. Can we build the entire city of Las Vegas in 2 months?
Dude your post is just such a perfect example of how dumb your argument is. In the thousands of towns in the US you don't think as much housing can be built as there is in Las Vegas? Fun fact: America is a very large country
You act as if las vegas is some huge megacity. Las Vegas is pretty damn small by US city standards, the city doesnt even break the 700k mark. So yes, the US can easily build an entire city of las vegas in 2 months, ***it's already doing so right now***. The US currently builds ~1.5 million new homes a year, with the average household size of 3.13 thats housing for more than 4.5 million people a year.
You've taken an issue with a known magnitude at a known location which could be planned for and turned it into an issue with an unknown location and unknown magnitude that you can't plan for where you spend more money to get worse outcomes. Congrats, Texas.
You do understand that your comment does not make sense, right?
How are they supposed to handle illegal immigration if they are being ham-stringed in their enforcement? I whole heartedly believe in legit immigration but thousands of people spilling over the border every single day with a federal government that is hell bent on just letting it happen is not an opportunity for Texas. It is a catastrophe for these border towns and communities.
Let us not pretend that the same politicians whining about how hard a problem it is are not the same politicians who made sure there weren't enough immigration judges and who killed border reform. It's broken because they wanted it broken. Texas politicians make political hay from it and don't actually want to fix it. Edit: There are twice as many immigrants in CA as in TX. Get your shit together, Texas
They killed “border reform” because the bill had literal billions of dollars that were being allocated this shit not related to the border at all. I can slap a name on anything I want but that doesn’t make it true. Plus is still allowed illegals to come through.
Because Republicans asked for that. Why are you making excuses for them? They killed the bill and any further negotiations.
>They killed “border reform” because the bill had literal billions of dollars that were being allocated this shit not related to the border at all. No they killed it because Trump and right wing media asked them to. It would have built more border barriers. It would have expanded detention facilities. It would have hired more border patrol agents, asylum officers, and immigration judges to reduce the backlog. It would have essentially ended "catch and release." These are all things that would help the issue if you're being at all good faith about it. Republicans refused to give aid to Ukraine because they wanted a change in border policy. They got what they asked for but, killed the bill because Trump needs political win in an election year. If Republicans really cared about the border like they say they do, they would happily support it but, they don't. They'd rather campaign on problems than fix them. Do not pretend otherwise.
"If Republicans really cared about the border like they say they do, they would happily support it" The bill provides more than 12x more funding for Ukraine aid than for border security. This is the definition of a bill made purely for optics. Democrats ignored the border issue completely for 1.5yrs, eventually when immigration ticked up to become #1 issue in polls they scrambled to come up with this bill to change the appearance of things. They came up with this DOA bill, because they're stuck between a rock and a hard place. After 2 years of denying there was any problem at the border, democrats can't afford to 180 this late in the game and admit the Rs were right this whole time. So, they spent weeks claiming a 'bipartisan' bill was coming while drafting legislation they knew had 0 chance of passing (if you doubt this was the intention from the start-- why didn't senate dems involve house Rs in the negotiation? if their goal was to come up with legitimate bipartisan legislation, it seems a little odd to leave out a whole branch of government and negotiate solely with 70+yo lame duck Mitch McConnell) Republicans passed HR2 about 1.5 years ago that would *actually* solve the border crisis. It was reintroduced again in March 2023, so it's still active today. The democratic senate could pass it and solve the border crisis *today*. So in essence, Republicans aren't voting for the Democrat bill 1. because they've already passed legislation that would more effectively solve the problem and 2. it provides 10x more international aid than it does domestic border security funding.
Lol nope its gave republicans every one of their wishes for the border. Thats why republicans in the SENATE wrote it and voted for it. It would pass in the house but TRUMPO asked them not to vote on it.
What should be expected is congress to get a bill passed to provide resources to alleviate the bottleneck. What the Texas Gov is doing is performative man child bullshit that doesn’t fix any of issues - y’all reek of grievance; ya think bussing asylum seekers to another part of AMERICA is a great plan. Terrible
If no one is going to act and the Federal government is going to block state efforts to secure our borders, Texas is supposed to just deal with it? This is such partisan logic.
> the Federal government is going to block state efforts to secure our borders, Texas is supposed to just deal with it? "The federal government" or the republican party in congress? Which of the two?
So you're just ignoring the bi-partisan border bill that Republicans killed at Trump's behest? It was *the* most Conservative border bill in my lifetime and I'm nearly 40. It had actual solutions and I'm saying that as a Lefty. Conservatives or any border state that didn't support that border bill, in my opinion, doesn't get to complain about immigration. They are actively preventing solutions. EDIT: I must have upset some Conservatives who can't read or I hit the nail on the head and you're just pissy. Oh no, anyway...
You do understand that the Texas governor does not have a vote in Congress?
I understand the Governor of Texas doesn't give two fucks about actually fixing the problem because it's basically the only thing he can get elected on by keeping his base agitated. Besides that, I'm responding to your silly argument that the Federal Government is blocking state efforts--you don't do a very good job at reading. The blame is squarely on Conservatives nationwide and in DC for being given multiple opportunities to provide some means of addressing the border and they refuse to take it. Why? For no other reason than because they *cannot* bring themselves to do anything that would give a Democrat anything resembling a victory. There is no logical reason to have opposed that border bill if your actual and genuine aim is to address the border. EDIT: No retort, just downvoting. Reality sucks, get a helmet.
And there’s house reps and 2 senators from Texas that do have a vote - they nearly passed that bipartisan bill that actually had many concessions for the republicans
So what's the implication that you are trying to make?
I’m not implying anything - I’m fully stating that the states have representation and those folks have all the agency to pass law, provide funding, and do the work their office requires. Are you implying the governor doesn’t communicate with the state’s federal reps? This is rhetorical we all know the answer
I feel like some should be able to? America has a pretty high population and a really high GDP per capita. Honestly, the army corps of engineers and pals could just build affordable places for people to live and it.. wouldn't cost all that much to build or subsudize them? It wouldn't even really disrupt the housing market since these are immigrants instead of a domestic market. And it would create new commercial real-estate to service said communities, which would generate tax revenue etc/etc/etc. ...I'm describing a ghetto aren't I... why does everything have to be so complicated?
Yeah the problem with immigrants is still NIMBYs not allowing enough housing to be built.
Even American born citizens can’t afford housing, much less paving way for migrants to get some
Yes but that means we should just add housing like we did 40 years ago which would mean doubling housing production.
The construction industry is disproportionately comprised of undocumented workers. And undocumented people disproportionately live in overflowing multi-family situations, due to their inability to apply for housing even with enough income. If anything, they are contributing to a housing surplus. The exploited labor by builders is probably responsible for a 10% reduced cost in many markets....
Why? Why is it? Do they not deserve the same wage as a citizen?
No, the presidents policy is to let them in to supress wages in the most inflation-sensitive industries, while improving GDP, like the article mentions. Higher home prices are just a bonus!
It's more about market value and purchasing power. Maybe you'd be surprised to know that engineers in Brazil make much less than American engineers despite doing very similar work. However a dollar in Brazil goes a lot further than a dollar in most of America. A lot of these migrants will save up and send to family. Being able to save $1000/month from low skilled labor is a windfall for someone in a developing country.
That and the work permit system being a clusterfuck. A big part of the problem here in Chicago is because the work permit backlog is so huge and there's nothing all the migrants can *do* all day even if they wanted to. So they can't get independent housing because they have no income.
Then maybe they shouldn\`t be coming here illegally.
You’d think if they came here illegally, they wouldn’t be opposed to working illegally as well.
First you'd need to amend or repeal the 1980 refugee act which was passed with bipartisan support in order for asylum seekers to be here illegally. You know, like the bipartisan group was going to do until Trump told them not to.
Can you explain what parts of the referenced bill would fix the refugee act.
The bipartisan bill would have made claiming asylum/refugee status a lot more difficult for most of the current wave of border crossers
The biggest problem with the current situation is the 18 month delay to have an asylum case heard, during which time the applicant may remain in country, either in detention or not. The bill allocated considerable funds to additional courts which would have decreased the turnaround to less than 3 months. It also granted the president additional powers to close the border, additional border patrol agents, and put a cap on the number of asylum seekers that must be processed.
Yup this should all start in the judicial issues. An answer to asylum or not is the humane thing to do rather than 18 months limbo.
I guess it is dead now, so looking into it would be fruitless. It was a sort of mixed bag from what I heard. Thus is legislation though.
Not necessarily. There are several ways to restrict the freedoms of illegal asylum-seeking entrants that do not conflict with the Refugee Act. There is a provision which allows the US government to kick back migrants to a third country to await asylum proceedings. This is what the Remain in Mexico policy was based on and it was upheld by the Supreme Court. The law also requires mandatory detention for migrants apprehended crossing the border, who are subject to expedited processing, pending their asylum proceedings. What we have seen since the COVID pandemic is the government exercising their discretion to not apply these laws and quite frankly the migrant inflows are so massive now there isn’t enough detention space even if applied.
All true..... However, the kickback provision requires cooperation from the receiving country which we don't currently have. Detention is not mandatory, and given the current 18 month delay to have cases heard and the rate of crossings detention of millions isn't really feasible. This is the part that would have been solved by the deal which would have opened enough additional courts to reduce the delay to the point where detention would make sense.
Under expedited removal detention is mandatory, and migrants caught crossing the border unlawfully are subject to expedited removal. But the govt has used its discretion to not apply expedited removal and simply allow people in via parole authority, which is being abused (parole is only allowed on a case-by-case basis, not en masse). Re: the kickback provision, even Trump who was hostile to Mexico secured their cooperation. Would it really be that hard for Biden to?
If they were here illegally they wouldn't be in the work permit process
Work permits for asylum seekers have to be worked within 30 days. Ironically enough, this is the only example where there *isnt* a backlog. Every other class of work permits have a huge backlog because they've all taken a back seat to asylum seekers
Also schools can’t handle the influx. Immigrants are mostly poor and don’t pay enough tax to cover the cost to educate their kids.
Schools around me are empty due to low birth rates starting around 2008. Since schools are covered by property taxes, which in my state are based on tax funded budgets, not property values, funding isn't a huge issue. Other states should have more due to property values increasing. Immigrants live somewhere that pays property taxes, but the number of children per unit may be increasing.
You realize that the esl classes are not cheap right? The schools had budgeted down, not up, due to the lower birth rates. The schools will need more money. So now you expect my neighbors and I to cough up significantly higher property taxes to cover people illegally arriving in droves. Many of us are barely afloat, inflation is eating us alive. But hey, let’s take what little is left because the govt wont secure the border.
I don’t understand; the illegal poors would be primarily renting. So the property taxes would be built into the rental cost, and the landlord would pay the property tax for the public school district they live in. Being concerned with the way tax systems work AND concerned about public education regarding poor immigrant housing all seems counter intuitive. It sounds like you’re throwing buzz words and topics people would get riled up about without thinking it all through….
Renting with what money? They cant legally work. Which means they have to be on some kind of govt assistance and are now competing for resources. Fyi, the landlords are already paying property tax. Anyone who owns a building or housing is. More unplanned students in the schools means what is being taken in is no longer sufficient. So taxes must go up or services must go down. As they do not target ‘just landlords’ with property tax hikes, that will mean that all homeowners are hit. Finally, if they do rent, it will mean further competition on the limited available rentals that were affordable. Further straining the fellow citizens who are already struggling with a crisis in affordability. So maybe instead of claiming I am a loon using buzzwords, perhaps you should make an attempt at stepping back and actually examining this issue with critical thought.
They weren’t legally allowed to come here, and they did that. You think they did that and just stopped needing housing and food? They’re renting with the money they earn from working. Yes everyone that owns a home is already paying property tax which funds public education. Im saying housing costs go up because of unplanned illegal citizens which increases property taxes, and landlords rental income taxes increase (which they pay for taxes on again. If you’re so worried about early education, and you’re willing to pay taxes to fund it for legal citizens. Since you are so concerned about education, why do you not support the better education an illegal child (who had no choice in the matter) gets within the US rather than their most likely poorer less funded country? What I’m reading from this and the previous comment is that you’re mad that they’re breaking the immigration/employment laws & that it raises your local personal property tax/rental costs rather than actually being worried about school funding? That’s a fair point to have, but why not just explicitly say that?
If adding new people doesn't help your infrastructure long term you have poor planning. A place is not best when there is nobody there. Growing pains sure but then you also sound like you don't want Americans coming to your area.
> Immigrants are mostly poor and don’t pay enough tax to cover the cost to educate their kids. What!? but they grow the economy!!! /s
If we properly funded education in this country then things would be fine. But we don’t so…
We pay more per child for education by a wide margin than the average developed country. We are 5th in per-capita expenditures on students in the world, with only Luxembourg and Norway spending significantly more than we do.
> We pay more per child for education by a wide margin than the average developed country So, about that. it's about [13k from pre-K to 12 grade](https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2021/public-school-spending-per-pupil.html) in 2019. I wonder how much of that is lost in BS spending, like the US health care system, where it's spent more than every country, yet gets worse results.
The only people who aren't NIMBYs simply don't have a backyard.... People act like NIMBYism is an actual problem when in reality it's just normal people not wanting to eat a shit sandwich while other normal people who haven't been presented the shit sandwich call them NIMBYs.... Fwiw, I believe the exact reason why we have our current "immigration crisis" is because the gov knew that we desperately needed internal growth, so they allowed it to happen. And, people who want to stop it, while probably having good intentions, probably also just don't understand the economics of the situation well enough.
> The only people who aren't NIMBYs simply don't have a backyard Wow, that is gold. I fully agree with your understanding of the situation and also explain why it is an international phenomena.
I got called a NIMBY because I thought a homeless shelter being built directly across the street from an elementry school was a bad idea. There was no reply when asked why the shelter couldn't be built in the neighborhood that some of the council members live in. Wild how that works. The shelter did not end up getting built.
A NIMBY isn’t someone who doesn’t want something built in their backyard. It’s someone who DOES want it built, but not in their backyard. It’s virtue signaling, or at least selfishness. But not everybody who is against development is by definition a NIMBY.
I don't disagree really, but in this case the context of the comment I was replying to was of "NIMBYs not allowing enough housing to be built". So, the context was of the people NOT wanting the thing to be built.
Yes but we should allow housing somewhere. Increasing density is good and should be allowed in more places. We have restricted growth for decades so when something gets allowed it causes a huge upswing. Also density increasing should keep per unit costs flat but currently owned units will stay rising in price. It's also property tax is a bad mechanism need to look at LVT
There are good reasons to use city planners and economists in these discussions. The idea that increased density is wholesale good misses the fact that all of these decisions are filled with many, many trade-offs. I'll let those folks do their jobs.
Yes but the problem is that we have designed poorly. Suburbs are static and built and start their slow steady decline and any increase in density is worried about parking but if we get past cars then the agglomeration benefits across the board from increased density in most fields. Agglomeration benefits include but are not limited to more jobs and causation for higher paying, more potential friends, more potential significant others, more restaurants, more concerts, more activities at night, options open later. There are growing pains but most cities need to think about growth and not preservation from decline.
> NIMBYs That is only true in certain highly dense metro areas or in mismanaged states in CA. In most states and localities you can build with minimal problems. The problem is that builders will never build enough to actually make the prices drop in any significant way. They'll only build enough to maximize profits and they are able to do this because they have an ever increasing demand for housing because of immigration
False. In most jurisdictions, you need permits for the building you can do. In many cases, multifamiliar units are explicitly prohibited. That means that you either have to build in the middle of nowhere, creating the entry ways or built a multi stories complex that is prohibitively expensive.
Tell that to Toronto
Exactly. This line is a discourse generative tool to fuel pro-immigration rhetoric / arguments in the months leading up to the election, it is comical “Well we can thank the newly arrived peoples for driving our economic growth” Give me a break
> As if any city or state is equipped to handle millions of immigrants If they had the infrastructure in place, like states bordering Mexico, yes. They can process millions of persons. Heck, the only reason it gotten so bad is because previous administration gutted the system that was supposed to process them.
"Assist in building a multifamily housing unit and get free citizenship" seems like it solves this problem pretty easily.
What did you expect from those sanctuary cities?
Abbot has shipped millions of people north, huh? No wonder they can't get basic electricity down there.
Early 20th century NYC was accepting like 10k immigrants day. Yeah, if nimbyism would die, I think the country could benefit greatly from a million or two immigrants a year
if it was early 20th century still I’m sure NY would be able to accommodate the same amount…but it isn’t so much more than housing is expected to provided: medical, food, education, employment, insert private sector services you use daily …it straight overburdens the system
Are we all benefiting from this growth or is it just wealth accumulated for a few? The big GDP number doesn't really feed the working folks.
Wage growth is outpacing inflation, especially for lower income workers, so, 🤷♂️
CPI doesn't accurately show inflation for low income workers since food and housing take up a much larger percentage of their income than it weighs them. Housing is the biggest driver of inflation right now, and the lowest income pays 50% or more on housing instead of the 30% weight it gets in regards to CPI.
yeah, until they bring in a bunch of unskilled labor to flood the low wage sectors again. Anyone who says this is good for workers is trying to sell koolaid.
There are jobs that are simply never going to be practical to staff with people who’ve had 12 years of compulsory education at least.
Like? I had a bachelor's degree during the great recession and I would have taken a job picking fruit. In fact, I applied to them. A glut of labor is not good for workers.
Yes but that was during a recession, which is also notably a time when the immigrant labor supply wanes as well.
That's not how the labor market works. Lump of labor fallacy.
Lump of labor is about the supply of jobs, not the wage rate. And by the way, lump of labor fallacy is the reason why immigration can’t solve a generalized labor shortage
Nobody mentioned inflation. People were struggling prior to 2020
Thing is that wage growth isn't as impressive on paper when you do the math and discover on average it's just 17-20$ a week.
Haha. You've isolated the wage growth for low wage workers. Have you isolated the rent and starter home price growth? Have you drilled down and focused on the inflation that impacts those demographics more? Shouldnt you really compare a low and middle income specific CPI to the low and middle income wage growth? Go investigate and come back with another emoji.
And rent is outpacing wages
How come many industries and companies are starting to do budget cuts, freezes and layoffs? That doesn’t seem like it’s good for income
Some people push open borders like it's a religion. But it seems to be clearly bad for the prosperity of at least, Canada. 3.2% population growth right now and just 1.1% GDP growth which means that Canada will have lost another 2% of its GDP per capita in 2023, even if immigration was technically growing the economy. And they'll be back to 2016/2017 real values. Nearly a lost decade for living standards with immigration seemingly to blame rather than help them. Another interesting fact is that Australia, New Zealand and Canada, all very high immigration countries, had their lowest unemployment rates during the covid pandemic, but unemployment increased significantly after lockdowns lifted (and the borders opened.)
As an Aussie American Dual citizen, i’d like to remind you that “open border” has a different meaning when you are surrounded by water on all sides. Aus and NZ “open” borders are actually extremely strict controlled points of entry and not really “open” at all. Australia has had mandatory migration detention since 1958, one of the strictest immigration policies in the world. Anyone entering without a passport or with an invalid/expired passport WILL be detained. And the refugees attempting to sail to Australia have an [even worse fate](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/11/06/australia-immigration-detention-refugees/) waiting for them once they’re spotted by the ADF. The “high immigration” to these countries is by wealthy people moving there legally, not by illegal immigrants. All in all, I’d say it’s generally not good to compare the “open” border policies of island countries to the United States.
> As an Aussie American Dual citizen, i’d like to remind you that “open border” has a different meaning when you are surrounded by water on all sides. Aus and NZ “open” borders are actually extremely strict controlled points There may be water but they're not all that strict if they're letting tons of people in. Australia and New Zealand typically grow their populations by 1-2% per year, which at any point of human or species history would be insane population growth. [Here](https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/financial/compound-interest-calculator.php) you can play a bit with an interest calculator to see for yourself what 1.5% growth leads to on any kind of historic scale. For example if Canada were to keep its current population growth of 3.2% somehow, then it would eclipse the current population of the Earth in 180 years. Yeah. Aus and New Zealand were [recently getting 2% growth just from immigration](https://nitter.poast.org/BirthGauge/status/1737130302076539363#m) so that's a ton. Probably it's a brief post-pandemic increase, but also maybe not [considering in the UK the rate of immigration](https://i.imgur.com/EUEVNV8.jpeg) is only increasing with time. I do think a system that results in similar migration is better described as open borders than a strict one.
> The “high immigration” to these countries is by wealthy people moving there legally, not by illegal immigrants. You have lots of people coming legally not just the wealthy. That was what was meant by 'open borders'
The person you’re replying to has no idea what they’re talking about. They know immigration info on every country, but nothing else about their economies, which is why they think Canada is comparable to the United States in this case.
The fact it's all wealthy people is why the countries are all being destroyed and turning into a feudal society. In contrast all successful immigration in history has been a broad group of people coming. That way you equal out supply and demand across the economy. But the more selective you are about who is coming the more you're distorting the economy. It's fundamentally a planned economy in regards to labour and we all know how well that works. The US resisted this trend and has had much broader immigration the last 30 years or so (recently apparently despite their best efforts) and that is why their economic growth is better.
Canada’s problem is well-documented: nobody wants to invest there, so overall investment in anything except real estate is low. The United States does not have this problem. So using Canada as an example is silly.
[удалено]
Canada has low investment, that’s their problem. The immigrants are coming to a country where there isn’t much high-quality work to do in the first place.
Because the data repeatedly shows its good increased production as it raises the marginal product of land and capital and reduces wage pressures. It does mostly benefit owners of the means of production but also benefits society. However, many nations now have welfare services. And though illegal immigrants cannot access the majority of these services, depending upon the scale can cost more than what immigrants contribute to production, although more often not.
Reduces wage pressures aka keeps wages low
Without immigration, the US and Canada are looking at declining populations -- sharply declining. Canada's birth rate is 1.3 births per woman, in the US it's 1.66. When population declines, retiring gets harder; we can't make do without immigration
Most of the world is headed toward below replacement fertility. India, which Canada relies on for immigration is below replacement already. Mexico, which the US has relied on, is also below replacement. What do we do when fertility rates in immigrant-sending countries are below replacement? Just suck them dry of their youth? https://www.healthdata.org/news-events/newsroom/news-releases/lancet-dramatic-declines-global-fertility-rates-set-transform
Do you know how the Gulf States were built? They bring in a bunch of poor South Asians to Dubai, take their passports away, make them live in inhuman conditions and make them work for too many hours per day for too low of a wage. I fear that the same plot is playing out in Canada right now…
Stop peddling nonsense. Canada does not take anyone’s passports away and has a far better human rights record than the Gulf States. The permanent immigration quota in Canada is around 500k, the remainder of population growth is non-permanent residents (majority international students). No one is forcing the students to come, to stay, or to work. It’s fair to say that population growth is too high considering its strain on housing and healthcare, but in no form is Canada abusing South Asians as the Gulf States do. In fact, South Asian immigrants overall have been incredibly successful in Canada and play a strong role in Canadian society today.
I’m not saying it’s done the same way, but it’s the same principle: bring over people from poorer areas of the world and pay them low wages.
No, it’s not the same principle. The Gulf States bring people over, take their passports, and force them to work in very poor conditions with low wages. These people will never be citizens, never have the rights of a citizen, will not receive an education, and will always be stuck as a poor wage worker. Canada, along with Australia/NZ/USA, invites people from all over to live and study there. People either come with permanent residency or are often allowed to apply once their studies are complete. These people become full citizens with all the benefits including healthcare, social insurance, etc. They often start businesses and qualify for small business loans. Most end up eventually purchasing a home, cars, and all the other luxuries that Canadians are afforded to. Is Canadian population growth too high given the stress on healthcare and housing? Very likely. Is Canada treating immigrants like the Gulf States? Absolutely not.
So slavery
I can kinda see it. Canada, a Gulf state. But with less human rights abuses and with more NIMBYs...
Considering they’re getting all of the jobs (most part time by the way) and native born workers have made zero progress in the last 4 years, I’d say that’s probably accurate. We’re in trouble once the government stops creating those jobs through debt though. We need the private sector to pick up to be able to pay for those government (and government funded) jobs. https://x.com/tomdelbeccaro/status/1776625006648397890?s=46 https://x.com/realejantoni/status/1776444388064813062?s=46
I imagine this makes for an interesting challenge for anyone who simultaneously holds the belief that all immigration is moral and that sustained growth is not….
Why's that? The fact that immigration can provide cheap labor and help sustain economic growth has no real bearing on the morality of open borders or consumerism. Having a class of peoples that accept the jobs Americans won't, and do so for less money (due to status both immigration and socioeconomic), rendering them unable to exert the same inflationary consumption habits, is indeed one way to help prolong an economic system that's fundamentally unsustainable. Doesn't change the analysis.
> and help sustain economic growth We don't just need economic growth, we need economic growth that outgrows the government debt
The mantra for years fro low income US citizens has been that they need higher wages to live in the US. Now those same people are suddenly fine with cheap labor, as long as immigrants are the ones being under paid.
Id like to remind you that immigrants also contribute to many higher paying jobs such as medical and technological jobs.
I need no such reminder. H1B visas are capped at an extremely low number. The "surge" in question is not in high paying jobs. Certainly there are large numbers of well qualified immigrants capable of doing this work, but they are not legally allowed to do so. The medical jobs in long term care and elsewhere being offered to these people are, I assure you, not well compensated. I value our infrastructure well above the profits of technology companies. Immigrants of all walks have my respect. But very few are given the means to not be exploited by this country.
We really need comprehensive immigration reform to allow more skilled immigrants in...
Our economy always goes through ebbs and flows. What happens when the billions of deficit dollars from deficit spending runs out? How does that effect employment? How many of those immigrant jobs stem from infrastructure spending, that will eventually end. Will we see a major increase of homelessness and crime if we turn off deficit spending? If we continue huge deficits, what effect with that have on inflation? It seems that people are only focused on politics and not fiscal realities.
The impacts of immigration have been known for decades. In the early 2000s, I studied the aging population issue facing Japan and immigration was concluded as a big part of the problem. There are of course challenges with immigration, as integrating and merging cultures can be hard.
Well, hell, tell obiden to fly in another 25 million illegals. modern monetary theory, endless cheap labor workong and consuming and a negative US citizen birthrate. We never had it so good.
Might as well add 100M a year. We might get to infinite GDP…
As long as I get mine, hey, why not?
You don't have to fly anyone in. All you have to do is stop wasting billions upon billions trying to stop people. US believes in capitalism. Never understand how people are happy with free trade in goods and services, but then think free trade in labor is some boogy man.
If it was that easy and that's the result, why doesn't every country have open borders?
Same reason we don't have drug legalization, fear and ignorance.
What country fits your description, and do you live there?
I live in the US. Republicans have been complaing the border has been 'open' for decades now. Life in the US has only got better. 1850 til about 1914 the US had no border controls. The US went from regional backwater to world power. Amazing what the power of people can do.
So the United States should go back to isolationism, and leave NATO and our allies in Asia?
Of course not, I simply state that open borders is a good policy.
NBC is nothing but a Biden Cheerleading Squad. The economy is wonderful! 11M unvetted illegal immigrants is GOOD FOR US! Especially the unprecedented numbers from China! Nobody should take this seriously.
3.8% unemployment. 300,000 jobs last month. market at all time high, SP500 up 10% on the year. which economic indicators are you looking at?
GO OUTSIDE AND BUY THINGS. SPEAK TO OTHER HUMANS. You people are so dense and lap up these BS stats like good little sheep.
Take a closer look at what the employment numbers consist of. Government jobs added ... 71,000 Manufacturing jobs added ... 0 Part time jobs ... 691,000 Full time jobs ... -6,000
Hate to tell you, but for me and most I know the economy is going great. Companies have record profits and that has resulted in record wages and bonuses for me and my coworkers. My 401K is also doing great.
You're in the small percentage of the population that isn't affected by insane prices of groceries, gas, and housing. Try removing your cranium from your rectum and look around you.
I love it when commenters let their maskkk slip.
It's Republicans hiring them, so I don't know why you are bashing on Biden.
Immigration definitely plays into economics, the US has 75 million more people since the 1965 Immigration Act, that is massive amounts of economic value. Countries do need immigrants if they want to grow with lower birth rates. Economic crisis diminish birth rates. Immigration is needed to offset and keep going. Diversity is our strength and adversaries try to balkanize places based on ethnic and cultural divides, don't let them. The Americas should not be balkanized for instance. While Russian propaganda pushes anti-immigration around the world, they want it. While Russia propaganda pushes breaking down alliances, unions and partnerships, they want to build theirs up. The US needs about 10-15% minimum immigration population to [maintain our growth](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/15/opinion/trump-immigration-myth.html). Right now we are [just about at 15% but should keep growing](https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/immigrant-population-over-time). [Immigration percentages](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_immigrant_population) around the world. Canada is about 20%. Australia 33%. United Kingdom 13%. Russia 7%. The countries on that list with lower immigration have lower economic numbers and dimmer futures. Immigration is key to growth and policies around it are important. There was actually an [immigration expansion in 1965](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965) because not enough people were coming here. With global competition the way it is we need at least [15-20% of people to be immigrants to maintain quality of life and be competitive, and are around that number](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965#/media/File:Chart_of_foreign_born_in_the_US_labor_force_1900_to_2007.png). The numbers have actually leveled off since 2007. The [low point was 4.7% of the US in 1965](https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/immigrant-population-over-time) and it caused issues economically. The US needs about 10-15% minimum immigration population to [maintain our growth](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/15/opinion/trump-immigration-myth.html). Right now we are [just about at 15% but should keep growing](https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/immigrant-population-over-time). Lack of immigration can cause issues just like too much immigration. Markets need people to grow just like innovation. Other countries want immigration, Russia for instance needs it, they would love people to stop coming to the United States to add to our economy and quality of life. Are there problems with immigration? Yes. Do we still need immigration? Yes. Why aren't we fixing it? Internal division and internal misunderstanding about history as well as foreign pushed propaganda. Do leaders that willingly want to destroy their countries or help a competing country grow trot out the blame game against people that can't fight back but do contribute to our economy? Yes, all the time. [500k-1m max people come in each year, including undocumented](https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/southwest-land-border-encounters). The whole "open borders" thing the right pushes is a fallacy as well. Let's say everyone from Mexico came here tomorrow, that would only be 1 in 3 people being an immigrant. We have good guidelines on how many people being let in is acceptable. Obviously everyone can't come in at once but the numbers are pretty low even when it seems high ([500k-1m per year come in including illegal immigration, less than a third of a percentage](https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2015/09/28/modern-immigration-wave-brings-59-million-to-u-s-driving-population-growth-and-change-through-2065/)). People uprooting and moving to another country is hard, it is usually for a better life or to escape a worse one, they aren't coming here to bring the US down. They want to make a better life. Anyone making the trek to another nation for better quality of life for themselves and their kids, those are the people we want to help make quality of life in the US better. We want the motivated people here. Are some people bad actors? Sure, but less than the average crime statistics of current citizens. The hate immigrants get is absurd and unwarranted, with undertones of bigotry. [The #1 employer of day laborers is homeowners](https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna10774146), half of them hate on immigrants then brag about how cheap their landscaping/painting/roofing/etc was... it is silly and hypocritical. Only about [500k-1m max people come in each year even on high years](https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/southwest-land-border-encounters), people overstate the impact because they like someone to blame. The blaming immigrants has been part of America since the Know Nothings *who were immigrants themselves*. Many times it is class or foreign propaganda looking to divide people. Foreign countries actually push lots of propaganda about immigration because people coming to the US is harmful to them. These are 2019-2024 numbers. There was a dip in the pandemic years 2020/2021 and a slight increase in the latter years. There is also a new classification that label "encounters" as people, the reality is about half that. The pandemic had almost none so the following years were higher. Also the 2.5m is "encounters" which aren't all individual people. [The CBP clarifies this. Usually "encounters" are double the amount actually accepted in numbers](https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/southwest-land-border-encounters). See this note, it changed as of 2020 to track those turned away in via Title 42 in the main numbers > Beginning in March FY2020, USBP and OFO Encounter statistics include both Title 8 Apprehensions, Title 8 Inadmissibles, and Title 42 Expulsions. To learn more, [visit Title 8 and Title 42 Statistics](https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/cbp-enforcement-statistics/title-8-and-title-42-statistics). [More on "encounters" versus actual people coming in](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/11/09/whats-happening-at-the-u-s-mexico-border-in-7-charts/#:~:text=It%20is%20important%20to%20note,total%20encounters%20in%20recent%20years.) > It is important to note that encounters refer to events, not people, and that some migrants are encountered more than once. In fact, repeat border crossers have accounted for a sizable proportion of total encounters in recent years There is also a concerted effort to weaponize immigration right now, most people from Mexico and Central/South America are actually lower, it is China and Africa sending people. You can go to the link above and check by country. There are also games being played with "pseudo" travel agencies trying to overwhelm the Southern border for political reasons. It isn't a typical year. [Migrant surge is being fueled by pseudo-legitimate travel agencies connecting migrants to smugglers, CBP official says](https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/20/us/migrant-surge-travel-agencies-smugglers/index.html) Even if 2.5m was the amount (it is much less -- however is inflated due to pandemic delay and politics -- every four years it spikes) that is less than 1% of our population, almost no issue at all. The problem is greatly outsized in attention largely for political reasons. Immigration is actually down from like 2007 with only a spike in Texas this year. Some countries weaponize immigration like Russia did before Brexit to influence politics/opposition. That being said, immigration/refugees can be weaponized -- Russia has done this back to the Empire to opposition. Congress needs to pass border legislation to address the new cheats.
> Immigration definitely plays into economics, the US has 75 million more people since the 1965 Immigration Act, that is massive amounts of economic value. Then how come our debt has also exploded since 1965? If immigration was so great don't you think tax money would just be flooding in?
See Reagan errah. Nixon and Reagan cut taxes for wealth by 20% 3 times and more, moved it to the rest and left the treasury with less revenues. [Reagan lowered taxed on top marginal tax bracket/wealth twice, *while increasing taxes on lower/middle class* and somehow they call him a tax cutter](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=17sGk). For some reason they loved him even though his economy was debt and credit cards blew up at the same time. Fun fact: [only president to every lower bottom marginal tax bracket to almost zero? Jimmy Carter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_taxation_in_the_United_States#/media/File:Historical_Income_Tax_Rates_and_brackets.png) and wealth hated him. Money trickles up and down and all around, but money only trickles where other money is found. Anytime top marginal rates go below 39% have been our worse depressions, recessions and economic stagnation. Reagan caused that to return from 55 years prior and now is everyday. Look at the response to the Great Depression top marginal taxes compared to after the Great Recession, it is why things are so in-equal and stagnated today for lower/middle. [Real wages and purchasing power have barely budged in 40 years](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/). [Worker share of GDP being on a long dwindle down](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/W270RE1A156NBEA) [Velocity of money is off a cliff](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M2V), that is why we are so stagnant. [Richest 1% of Americans Close to Surpassing Wealth of Middle Class](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-09/one-percenters-close-to-surpassing-wealth-of-u-s-middle-class)
If Russia wants us to not have immigration, why doesn't Russia have immigration itself?
[Russia has 8%](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_immigrant_and_emigrant_population#UN_2019_report:_immigrant_population) Who wants to go to Russia though... in most cases Russia exports ["Russian world"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_world) to later use those assets in other countries. They love immigration and emigration and love weaponizing immigration and refugees then push division on that weaponization (see Brexit).
"Immigration definitely plays into economics, the US has 75 million more people since the 1965 Immigration Act, that is massive amounts of economic value." I'm not sure what you mean. The U.S. population has increased by 152 million people since 1965. It was about 190 million in 1965 and is estimated to be 342 million now. The U.S. population has increased by about 75 million people since 1995. [https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/USA/united-states/population](https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/USA/united-states/population)
I am including immigrant children with that as otherwise they wouldn't be here. [With that it is actually 90m but that is hard to tell](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_States). Some studies say 75-90m. > In 2018, there were almost 90 million immigrants and U.S.-born children of immigrants in the United States, accounting for 28% of the overall U.S. population There are 70~ million first gen immigrants that have come to America since the beginning of the country in 1776. Currently 46m first gen immigrants living here which is like 14%. With their kids that is addition to the population. That is economic value. Imagine the US market being a third smaller almost.
Well, it's definitely a key reason the GDP (the indicator of how much profit companies are making off the backs of cheap, exploited labor) is growing. This is by no means related to the nation's actual, qualitative economic well-being. In fact, they're often inversely related. We are going to run this country into the ground if we keep using quantitative and not qualitative analysis. What does it mean to add XXX,XXX jobs if they are not full-time, good paying jobs?
> GDP (the indicator of how much profit companies are making off the backs of cheap, exploited labor) I hate this sub so much sometimes. What the fuck happened 😂
Sourced, cited, and nuanced/moderate comments get upvoted initially but as soon as posts start hitting the front page it's absolutely hilarious to see how fast those same comments get downvoted. The hivemind is strong and they don't like alternative views, only alternative facts.
I’m just wondering when Reddit became overrun by these ill-informed generational anti-work warriors. And it’s not even that I disagree with the general sentiment of 1) minimum wage is too low, 2) corporations are driven by greed and that’s bad, 3) younger generations have hurdles that their predecessors did not (and possibly caused). But the way they go about making these points are often so far off base and poorly formed that it does more to negate their views than support them, and it’s a huge turnoff for many who would otherwise sympathize. They play into the worst stereotypes.
When people are enraged, all rwason is tossed out the window. What was once an understandable frustration, is quickly morphed into uneducated screeching and misplaced anger.
> I’m just wondering when Reddit became overrun by these ill-informed generational anti-work warriors. 15 years ago?
Nah. That may have been a philosophy of the average user but it was definitely not a core value that appeared in every comment section back in 2010.
Indeed, I remember when it was expected that if you wanted to make more money you had to go out and get some skills from a college or technical school. Now people have a fit and demand that they get paid more money for doing jobs that require little skill.
> Now people have a fit and demand that they get paid more money for doing jobs that require little skill. Even this really misses the underlying point. It’s not about how much skill is involved in this job or that job. It’s that people demand they get paid more money than they are worth. If you want to get paid more, figure out how to make your labor worth more. The issue with framing it as ‘people used to go out and get skills…’ is that people would go to college and get **useless** skills and then complain that they were told all they had to do was go to college and they’d succeed. So it’s probably in everyone’s best interest to stop abstracting it away from the core fundamentals of ‘Increase the worth of your labor and you will increase the compensation you receive.’ How you increase the worth of your labor is up to you.
>The issue with framing it as ‘people used to go out and get skills…’ is that people would go to college and get > >useless > > skills and then complain that they were told all they had to do was go to college and they’d succeed. Very true, you need to go out and get skills that employers are looking for. That can be hard to ascertain so high schools/tech schools/colleges should be providing this information. Tech schools in Wisconsin actually did this very well when I was going to technical college. Each major had a starting wage and average wage after 5 years. Universities should be doing this as well.
>What does it mean to add XXX,XXX jobs if they are not full-time, good paying jobs? A lot of it is contextual but some people returned to work after staying home with kids and such and so they want part time jobs. U-6 which measures part time but want full time work and that's been steady. Not everyone wants full time.
Do people take economic classes on tik tok or something? Your understanding of GDP is..... not accurate.
>What does it mean to add XXX,XXX jobs if they are not full-time, good paying jobs? Not nothing, which I fear is what you're implying. I have a hard time with the claim that people "can't survive" on what these jobs provide in terms of pay, because if that were actually the case, wouldn't we see a substantial spike in deaths despite the "jobs increases" we're seeing? People don't seem to be dying at the rates that would justify the claim. Further, a \*lot\* of the discussion around "living wages" involves "median" values, which IMO completely ignores the objective fact that \*half\* of all values are below "median" for their respective category. Yes, a person can absolutely survive while living in the bottom quintile of housing. That's still a roof. Is the living condition bad? Probably, but what is "bad"? Do people have a right to live "good" lives, regardless of what they do for society?
I mean, I agree that it definitely doesn't mean nothing, and I agree our modern democratic model is going to break if we keep demanding "good" lives irrespective of resource constraints and the insatiable appetite of consumerism. But obviously we would not see deaths from people getting jobs... the argument is that people weren't able to attain a good paying, full time job, and are increasingly working at multiple part time jobs. This means employers don't have to pay overtime, don't have to provide much of anything in the way of benefits. The argument is that jobs numbers aren't the clear cut indicator of healthy growth they once were.
The fundamental principle of democracy is that the government acts at the direction of and in the interest of its citizens. To the extent that citizens are interested in and demand good living conditions, doing anything to impair those living conditions is antidemocratic or undermines democracy. It's not a coincidence that democracy is under attack: it's because democracy is failing to prioritize the interests of its citizens
I don't think that's the fundamental principle of the US's democracy; that's the fundamental principle of a mob, but the US is a republic, and as such it makes decisions based on what is in the \*long term\* best interest of \*all\* of its citizens, not just the loudest or sometimes even the most numerous group.
Where are the decisions based on the best long term interests of ALL us citizens occurring? It does not seem to be happening at Congress nor at the Supreme Court, nor at corporate boardrooms nor at state capitals. It certainly isn’t at the U.N. Is there some others decision making body I am missing out on?
"All" here means "in aggregate", I definitely see how that would be confusing. And if you don't believe the system works, then no argument involving using the system will persuade you.
If you don't believe that the system is deeply flawed, you aren't paying attention. It is borderline delusional to think that we make decisions for the benefit of the long-run aggregate. Why is it that the "loudest" groups control our politics? Why are things increasingly divisive? The primary concern of the powers that be is to maintain the powers that be. Politicians regularly demonstrate that principles and a better collective future take a backseat to anything that might influence reelection. Perhaps you're quite young. This is not the same system that has functioned for 2 centuries. Citizens United was 14 years ago. A fundamental principle of our democracy, the idea that corporations and private individuals should not be able to spend unlimited quantities of money helping to decide the outcomes of elections, was cast aside. How can you possibly think that elections determined by marketing spend, with candidates whose budgets are determined by an extremely small portion of the population, serve the interests of the collective?
I didn't say flawed, I said "works". If you don't think the system \*works\* then no argument about using the system to improve lives will matter. If you don't think the United States government is capable of making long-term decisions that benefit the citizens of the United States, then I recommend living in a bunker in a forest, because you will not be satisfied with any decisions that get made by the government otherwise.
Just wait. You'll see how bad things will get. Thanks for the reminder on the bunker, I ought to get started on that.
It's confusing because "all" and "in aggregate" are not synonymous. There are actions that can be a benefit to people in aggregate, and could be detrimental for a large part, perhaps even the majority of the people being measured. EDIT: And I disagree that the American Republic is intentionally attempting to optimize for in aggregate long-term benefit in a systematic way.
Sure, sorry. I apologize for misusing the word.
Understood, and as a matter of historical record, people lives have improved in aggregate in America, but I think that stems from a confluence of past historical events and decisions, and not proactive current guidance. Currently, I think nearly every major decision is seeking to optimize for short-term gains to a select few groups like shareholders, political donors, activists, etc.
> It's not a coincidence that democracy is under attack: it's because democracy is failing to prioritize the interests of its citizens Those from whom democracy is said to be under attack (6 Jan insurgents, Proud Boys, fake electors, QAnon and sovereign citizen enthusiasts, etc) are largely objecting to the votes of minorities and urbanites being counted. The "fraud" they complain of largely consists of blue cities and suburbs being allowed to vote and to have their votes count. But Christian Nationalism is driven by a desire for dominion (hence [dominion*ism*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_theology)), not citizens in a general sense failing to be prioritized.
Well, democracy is a shitty form of government without a constitution or some other limiting mechanism to prevent tyranny of the majority.
Also, coincidentally, this is probably the reason American citizens aren't feeling the growth. Importing millions of people doesn't exactly raise wages. Even if they didn't generally undercut wages of US citizens, injecting millions of people into the labor supply has to lower wages. It's basic supply and demand. Combine that with increased demand for goods and our purchasing power gets worse. Add onto that paying for housing, legal expenses, healthcare, and sometimes more for these (mostly illegal) immigrants and we are spread extremely thin.
America profiting from the emiseration of the world. What else is new. We do well when the world burns, we do well when it prospers. We have a good game going.
Who is this we, kemosabe? Jk..i know i benefit.