Infrastructure costs from Immigration

It does push farmers out because prime farmland is also the easiest to develop and developers will pay prices that farmers cannot resist. I have been passing through your neck of the woods since the 1970s and every time I travelled down the 101 there was more and more prime farmland swallowed up by the sprawl of development. Santa Rosa, Petaluma, Novato and San Rafael are enormously larger than they used to be, all at the expense of prime farmland.

Residents complain about the smell and the dust from farming operations next to their suburban ideal. This leads to restrictions that make it impossible for farmers to actually operate their farms so the sell out to developers.

There is plenty of farming in the USA, it is the world's leader in farming.

You ignore the power of marketing, which is a most powerful force in driving consumption. Developers and banks collude on projects and create powerful marketing programs that convince consumers to buy in. You only have to look at the recent economic collapse, driven by over development, to see the mass delusion of marketing that consumers can fall under.

How do they decide what is affordable. In my state there is an affordable housing requirement for developers but their definition of affordability seems to include a two bedroom condo at a $1,200 a month mortgage with $300 a month condo fees. That $1500 a month is half the local median wage. Apparently spending half your wages to buy a home is considered affordable. When I was growing up the rule of thumb for affordability was one months wages for a car and one years wages for a house. Now it is six months wages for a car and five years wages for a home. Somehow that is considered economic progress.

No, it is quite ubiquitous all across the US that there are districts of cities directly adjacent to the city core that are poor areas with depressed housing prices. Housing directly adjacent to these areas but considered a "safe street" is often double in price. Houses just outside city limits are often triple the price of houses just across the street but within these districts. The only real difference is that within the city limits it is still a lot harder to get a mortgage from a bank and your kids will have to go to the grossly underfunded city schools.

 

The cities you mention are not really considered prime farming areas. Sure they had some apples and dairy but not really farming.

People are who stupid to buy a home next to an airport, or next to farm, and don't expect smells and sounds...well they are stupid.

When we have improved nutrition and no hunger in the USA then I'll agree we have enough farming...until then we need to double farming.

Here we go again...if consumers are so stupid to fall for marketing gimmicks...well they are stupid.

Every area has a different definition of affordable housing.

I am unaware of anyone who sets their sights on buying an inner-city home in the ghettos? Ghettos make up a small portion of cities. The remaining areas are in high demand and more costly than the average suburbs...

 

This is an interesting point. The effect of lots of poor minorities paradoxically both increases and decreases property prices. Let me explain. It increases prices because all those people leads to a shortage of living space and puts strain on the supply of affordable housing, not to mention overcrowding many workers into a single dwelling, in many cases. On the other hand, it makes the neighborhood much less desirable for everyone else. Usually this starts with rising crime, declining school districts, and unkempt homes.

So the net effect, one could say, is that prices tend to fall only to a moderate degree, without the upside to potential homebuyers, because the only reason prices have fallen is because people don't really want to live there... and yet at the same time it is overcrowded.

 

You know, every year I hear the same claim that our "infrastructure is outdated and deteriorating".... and yet, every year the roads get better. At least here in Ohio. Perhaps the rest of the country, it is falling apart.

I really don't care what the ASCE says. After all, Engineers saying we need more Engineering, is like a bankruptcy attorney saying you need to file, or a car salesmen saying you need a new car.

There are two problems.

First in places like LA CA, they have many laws on property, that prevent the development. This causes the population to be spread out more, which necessarily increases the number of long distance commuters. This problem would exist because of these bad land use laws, regardless of immigration. Any area that has such land use restrictions, has this problem.

Second, all areas that focus on mass transit, tend to have problems, because mass transit itself, subsidized by tax payers, increases the number of people commuting, and reduces what otherwise would be a free-market push to move businesses to where the people are.

Further, buses, have a hugely negative impact on traffic, far more than people realize. During the bus strike in Chicago, the traffic flowed so smoothly, and quickly through Chicago, that the public started openly celebrating the strike, and comments on TV and the media, started hoping that the strike would continue indefinitely. The union actually hurried to an agreement, because they were worried public opinion would shut down bus service.

The solution to the problem is actually fairly simple. Cut spending on things you do not absolutely need, and start spending on infrastructure that you do need.

Cut spending on mass transit that will never pay for itself, and start spending on roads and bridges that you need. Cut spending on welfare and food stamps, and medicaid, and start spending on sewers, and other needed public services.

The problem is, the US is turning into the Roman empire. During the Roman empire, they built all these public works in far away places, that didn't have the domestic means to maintain those things. When the Romans ran out of other peoples money, to fund those public works, support dropped, and the local economies didn't have the money to fund maintenance on them. The result is, all those things crumbled into nothing.

The lesson is that local economies, like individual states, need to fund their own public services themselves, and not rely on the Federal Government, which is so well known for it's wise handling of money. If they want to build a bridge, and they don't have the money, then they can't build the bridge. But that's not popular. Instead you get the Federal Government to fund it.

One day, that money will run out. And when it does, states dependent on that money, will fall like the Roman states.

 

Not exactly. There was a direct push by government to increase home ownership. This push resulted in unqualified people, now being qualified to buy a home. Naturally, with a direct increase in demand, there was a corresponding increase in investment. The price signals, showed that there was a need for more housing. Of course, in reality, the price signals were fake, driven by bad government policy. There was no collusion, except by government pushing sub-prime loans.

This does not surprise me. Any time you have an "affordable housing requirement" the result is almost always that there is very little affordable housing. Typically such requirements have an exemption for luxury housing, and as a result, builders only build exclusively luxury housing, so that they are not harmed by the affordable housing provision.

That said, it is true that houses and cars have become more expensive, it is specifically because there is progress. Look at the quality of houses, and cars. Houses used to be tiny. My grand mothers old home, was less than half the size of my parents home. And, cars are no where near the quality of cars today.

That isn't all that surprising. The housing in the core of most cities, is often the oldest housing. They are also tend to be filled with crime and problems. Housing farther out, is often newer, and on larger lots, and typically have less crime. There are exceptions of course, but typically that's the reason for price differences.

As for schooling... grossly underfunded? I don't think so. City schools are often well funded. They suck because of bad unions, protecting bad teachers, protecting bad students.

I know this for a fact with Columbus Ohio public schools. According to the Ohio Department of Education, which released funding numbers for each school district, Columbus public spent roughly $15,000 per student. Dublin spent $13,000 Hilliard $11,300, Gahanna $11,600, New Albany $12,200.

Now out of that list, which were the best?
Doing the best was New Albany, then Dublin, Hilliard, Gahanna, and Columbus public doing the worst.

What my point? My point is, money is not the problem. It's the Unions, Teachers, and Students.

 

What precisely is it that 'illegal' immigrants do not pay for which average Americans must pay?

Many don't pay federal and state income taxes. Many don't pay FICA. What else?

'Illegal' immigrants pay excise taxes, property taxes, all sales taxes, many pay federal and state income taxes, many pay FICA taxes.

And you can't talk about the so-called 'negative' economic effect without also talking about the 'positive' economic effects. How much do 'illegal' immigrants add to the US economy?

IMO most of this discussion is about xenophobia...

 

LA is the result of many decades of unrestricted development. Land use restrictions are an inevitable consequence as the people who have to live in that mess try to make it better.

New York City and many cities in the world would be completely impossible without mass transit. Properly deployed mass transit moves more people and creates more economic activity more efficiently and with less land use than any highway centred city could ever accomplish. If this was not true cities would not be the centres of commerce and economic activity that they are.

In case you don't know, mass transit was originally built out and financed by private initiative. What killed it was decades of deliberate government interference in the market through the building of public roads and highways, massive subsidies to oil and auto manufacturers, and zoning and other laws that made the continued private ownership of mass transit unprofitable. This allowed those whose interests were in auto travel to buy up most of the private mass transit infrastructure in the US and close it down, forcing people to buy autos.

In a few cities some of the private transit lines were taken over by municipal authorities due to public clamour and the realization that mass transit was a vital part of their continued viability. These are the transit systems in places like NYC and Boston and Chicago that continue to move millions of people every day despite decades of hostile lobbying that resulted in almost impossible conditions for their continued operation by the highway lobby. New highways are mandated and fully financed with state and federal funding, new transit is mandated by the state but only partly financed, forcing transit authorities to take on ever more debt while restricting their ability to raise fares or other revenue to pay for it. The result is continually underfunded transit systems saddled with ever increasing debt under imposed revenue restrictions that force them to borrow to finance their operating expenses.

It is a bad joke. If transit systems were financed the same as highways they would be able to pay for their operations and fund expansion from revenues but saddling them with fifty years of mandated capital expenditures with no accompanying revenue stream has, predictable to even the biggest idiot, bankrupted them.

That said, the pitiful amount of new transit built in the past few decades has had a decidedly positive effect on economic development and growth. Northern Virginia is booming along the expanded Metro lines. Developers are investing $Billions in high density developments around the new stations.

[/QUOTE]
Further, buses, have a hugely negative impact on traffic, far more than people realize. During the bus strike in Chicago, the traffic flowed so smoothly, and quickly through Chicago, that the public started openly celebrating the strike, and comments on TV and the media, started hoping that the strike would continue indefinitely. The union actually hurried to an agreement, because they were worried public opinion would shut down bus service.

The solution to the problem is actually fairly simple. Cut spending on things you do not absolutely need, and start spending on infrastructure that you do need.

Cut spending on mass transit that will never pay for itself, and start spending on roads and bridges that you need. Cut spending on welfare and food stamps, and medicaid, and start spending on sewers, and other needed public services.[/QUOTE]

If you live in the woods cutting back on mass transit might seem like a good idea but if you actually live in a city it would appear idiotic even if you don't ever use it because imagining all those people on the bus and the subway suddenly driving their cars on the already overcrowded highway with you every morning is just not something you ever want to think about.

Yes, like the Roman Empire the US will collapse from the weight of its military and a lack in its ability to tax those who had accumulated the empires wealth for themselves to pay for it. As wealth and lands accumulated to the top the Roman Empire found itself governing an ever larger territory while the lands that it was able to raise taxes from shrank as the more and more of the most profitable lands fell into the hands of Roman citizens who were exempt from taxation. This is not much different than today where all economic growth has gone to the wealthy, who pay far less tax on it than would be the case if economic gains were more widespread.

The Roman Empire collapsed because it could not raise enough revenue to sustain its armies. This was caused by not taxing Roman citizens, who owned most of the economy.

OK, then we will go back to a hundred years ago, when all the roads were dirt and the only way to get around was the private railroads or the trolley, which could charge whatever they wanted because there was no other way to get from here to there.

There is plenty of money, always has been. The only problem is getting it to do the most good for the most people. Rome failed in that, with enough people who think like you the US will soon follow.

 

But it's not unrestricted. That's the problem. If it truly was unrestricted, then builders would provide housing, in relation to market demand, and prices would be stable. But that is not what is happening. Tiny huts, end up being hundreds of thousands, and the prices are either shooting straight up, or straight down.

I have never seen information yet that shows that mass transit is more efficient. You really think that pumping 12,000 volts down 100 miles of track, is more efficient than what? A city bus, or an 18-wheel semi perhaps, but certainly not more efficient than a car. Worse is subways, with additional power used for lighting, and air circulation, 24 hours a day.

As for more economic activity, there isn't a country that has heavily invested into mass transit that has shown a significant economic increase. Certainly not in Greece, Portugal, Spain, Japan. In fact, is there any country where you can say conclusively that light rail directly boasted economic output? I'd be interested in seeing what country you would cite as an example.

Yes and no. The difference is, public streets are cheap and the public wanted to drive their cars. Yes, when cars were too expensive for the average people, then yes rail service was profitable, and was build with private investment.

Fast forward to reality. Some of the poorest people in our country have an automobile, and the public wants a road to drive on. They don't care what you think is more efficient. They don't care what you think they should do. I have never once met a person anywhere ever, that claimed they were 'forced' to buy a car. They love their cars. And as long as they can vote, they are going to get their roads. And if the government spent less on money losing rail, and instead of building tracks, built roads, they would both save money, and reduce traffic congestion.

Government didn't kill the tram. The public killed the tram. The public choose the automobile over the tram. Period.

See this is the problem. You want mass transit. Great. But the system doesn't pay for itself. Then you want to complain because government doesn't have unlimited cash to fund what *you* think is needed. Guess what dude... everyone thinks their pet policy is needed. The fact remains, there is limited amounts of money, and again, there are far more people with cars, that want roads to drive on, than people who want trains. Just a fact.

So where should the money go? To a project that benefits a tiny fraction of the population? Or to something that benefits everyone? See roads benefit absolutely everyone. I've driven through Detroit, Chicago, even though I don't live there. The roads benefited me. Even the people who do ride the train benefit from roads, because nearly all of those people still own cars. But the rail, only benefits the people who use it, and the vast majority do not, and worse, it costs the rest of society tons of tax money. So not only do we not benefit from rail, but we get stuck with the bill, lowering economic growth, lowering our standard of living. The average mass transit system is 70% subsidized. Users of rail service do not even cover half the cost of operating the service, and that ignores the billions spent in capital investment.

Again, that's the whole point. The cost to build a road, is a tiny tiny fraction of what it costs to build a rail service. One kilometer of road is only about one million. The cost for a mile of track is anywhere from $20 Million to $30 Million. For every mile of track, they could build three miles of a six-lane highway.

The BART system in California, one of the most busy and 'successful' system cost over $15 Billion initially (in 2004 dollars). Starting in the 90s, they have had to conduct massive repairs for $1.6 Billion, and have a continuous plan of future repairs, as the infrastructure has worn out. They plan to spend $2 Billion during this decade, and additional $3 Billion over the following decade.

Yet the entire system is only 106 miles long. They could build a 6 lane highway, 106 miles long, at an average cost of $2 Million a mile, for only $1.3 Billion. (I'm assuming $2 Million a mile because California is more expensive on everything).

And during this entire time, the system is subsidized heavily by tax payers to cover operational losses, and those loses don't even include such things as police service and other expense.

Again, the point is, rail service is a MASSIVE budget expense to local and state governments, and roads are a relative fraction of that. The cost to build and maintain a road, a tiny fraction of that of a rail, and the roads serve the entire public, not just a tiny minority of rail riders. So of course if they are going to cut spending, they are going to cut rail.

All rail service seems brilliant, until the funding runs out. Rail service is always a loser money wise.

First if the space for the rail was freed up for roads, there would be more road to drive on, reducing congestion. Second, you are assuming that everyone on the bus would drive. Not everyone on the rail would drive. People arrange their lives around the services available to them. Without a rail, perhaps they would get a job closer, or rent an apartment closer to where they work.

Also traffic only happens at specific times. The rest of the day, there is rarely congestion. This is why many businesses are changing work hours to miss high traffic times. My job starts at 7 AM and closes at 3:30 PM. The traffic is always light both coming and going. More businesses will do this, as traffic gets worse.

Military is a fraction of the budget, just as it was with Rome. The problem is, governments have little reason to be economical when it's not their own money they are spending. It's merely tax payer money. So Rome spent tons to build expensive public works, that the local governments could never afford on their own.

Similarly, when cities in the US build massive structures with Federal Revenue, that they could never afford to maintain on their own, this is a disaster in the making.

Sounds like a country where 47% of the public does not pay income tax. I think Romney mentioned that at one point.

Plenty of money? I think we just had 5 years of trillion dollar deficits.

 

Nothing of what you said, applied to my post at all. Not one thing. I assume you saw a different post, and accidentally clicked my post to reply to.

Nevertheless...

Culture Clash
The primary negative effects of immigration is social, not economic. Socially having unrestricted immigration creates culture rifts. Despite the mindless unsupportable claims that diversity is a positive, the reality is that homogeneity consistently results in a more successful and stable society. We can see this in Japan, and Nordic countries. The recent Swedish riots only occurred in areas of 'cultural diversity'.

The solution, or at least mitigation of this problem, is merely to have a controlled immigration policy. Immigrants over time will become acclimated to the culture, and will integrate into society. This is why immigrants from years prior, oppose immigration today. They see the social problems caused by cultural clash.

Jewish immigrants saw these problems in the decades past, and had actually setup programs to teach culture norms to new Jewish immigrants, so that new immigrants could more quickly be integrated into society.

When immigration is controlled at a steady pace, the culturization process is faster, and can keep pace with immigration. Also we need to stop teaching that cultural diversity is a positive, when it clearly is not.

Economic
Now outside the culture clash problems, the reality is that all immigration from a strictly economic perspective, is a positive. Immigrants create more demand for goods and services, which increases value to the economy. And provided they all work, they all produce value to the economy too.

All economic negatives, such as higher cost to government, is also true of all domestic citizens. The solution there is to reduce government programs, not reduce immigration.

Rule of Law
Now this actually goes back to Culture, but it's formation of culture through the lack of rule of law.

I am in favor of legal immigration. Legal immigration is a net positive. But the key is *LEGAL*. The biggest issue we have right now, is that we have tons of illegal immigration. While economically this is still a positive, socially this is a horrible thing, because we are actually teaching people that breaking the law will be rewarded.

Again, this is a culture clash, but of the worst kind, because we are actually creating a hostile negative culture. This is one of the fundamental errors people make, in assuming because I am in favor of deportation of illegal immigrants, that must mean that I am against immigration. That's wrong. I'm against supporting people who break the law.

The primary reason we still have such a high crime rate in our country, is because we don't enforce the laws. Laws must be enforced, and that includes immigration laws.

Now again I think legal immigration should be made easier, with a more simple process to complete. We should allow more legal immigration, with fewer restrictions. But at the same time, we must also ruthlessly enforce illegal immigrant laws. And those caught should be barred from ever immigrating for life.

We are either a nation of civil laws, or we are not.

 

Zoning was completely unrestricted in the past, that it exists at all now is a direct consequence. Zoning is about the only way that people can exert some influence on their locale and the people have made it quire clear that they do not believe unrestricted development to be in their best interest. If someone wishes to do something with land that does not conform to zoning regulations they are free to seek an exemption, which may or may not be granted after a period of public debate.

Even Alaska has zoning. This is because the people their did not want their beautiful villages and towns to become like the wasteland that is the Matanuska valley, which is where Sara Palin is from.

Much of the efficiency of mass transit comes from its ability to move more people while taking up less space. This allows cities to achieve increased densities of occupation and economic activity. It is 20 times cheaper and takes up 20 times less space to move people a mile on subways than in private cars, buses are a little less efficient than subways, they are only 8 times more efficient.

I have my doubts that you have ever actually been in a city with mass transit and observed how the city functions with it.

The payback from light rail investment cannot be measured nationally because its effects are local and those are easily drowned by national economic trends. It is akin to asking how much a new local bridge contributes to GDP, it is immeasurable nationally. The evidence of economic growth from light rail expansion is quite clear, all you need to do is take a ride on it and you will see all the new building along the line and at the stations, regardless of where.

Public streets are not cheap, especially when the interstate highways are included. The Federal gas tax has become inadequate to even maintain the interstate highway system, let alone afford the needed replacement of its 10,000 bridges that are currently in danger of failure.

Amtrak makes a good profit in the northeast corridor. If it was not under congressional mandate to operate money losing trains across republican districts it would be able to use the money to upgrade and expand its system where people actually want to use it.

Poor people benefit the most from mass transit because it is far cheaper than having a car. If they can take transit to work they do. The only reason they even need a car is because there is no other way to get around. The US has been designed and built over the past 60 years for the automobile instead of for people because the price of gas was cheap. Gas is not cheap any more and will never be cheap again. It is inevitable that the people will migrate to the places that best suit their desires and ability and the ability of the average salary earner to commute from the distant suburbs is becoming increasingly unaffordable so they are looking for alternatives. Moving closer to mass transit is a very appealing alternative, especially since their taxes make it affordable.

Do you have some basic philosophical or political belief to base your hostility to mass transit on, or are you just convinced that anything that allows people to get around without cars is evil because it is paid for with taxes?

No, that is not how it happened, The government built roads and the companies that built cars and tires and sold gasoline formed a corporation that bought up the private tram lines, replaced them with buses and then reduced service so that people had to buy cars just to get to work. The perpetrators were found guilty of conspiracy in a federal court but by then it was too late, the tram lines had been dismantled and everyone was driving cars.

I want transit because I have lived in cities all over the US and I see how necessary it is. Most of the people in the US live in or near cities and that is increasing. I see no reason why my taxes should pay for a road that 100 people a day drive on instead of a transit line that will take 1,000 people an hour off of an already crowded highway.

You have driven through Chicago. Did you notice the transit lines that run in the middle of the highways?
They move ten times as many people per hour as the roads they run along during rush hour.
That is a huge benefit for everyone who goes that way.

The cost to build a highway through a densely populated a city is enormous. The 12 miles of the big dig in Boston cost over $14Billion, more than a $Billion a mile.

Bart survived the earthquake. The highways and bridges did not. Replacing the Oakland Bay Bridge is an order of magnitude more expensive than fixing BART.

They could do that at that cost if it excluded the price of the land takings, which would be about $10Billion more because, as you say, everything in California is more expensive.

BART makes enough revenue to fund its operating budget, but like many transit systems is obligated by state legislation that does not provide increased funding mechanisms for mandatory capital outlays.

Rail costs per mile are a fraction of the cost to build and maintain a highway with similar traffic. Heavily travelled roads need repaving every ten years. Rails last 50 years. A mile of roadbed with two tracks is half the cost of a mile of two lane highway at the same grade.

No, there are many rail services that operate at a profit.

It has been proven, over and over again, that just building more roads increases congestion. People do arrange their lives according to the services available to them and with rail they are able to live in a place they can afford. This is quite apparent in cities with established transit networks.

That is interesting, but most businesses are about communication can that can only happen when both parties are present. While I completely disagree with the whole 9-5 mindset I do not see that changing anytime soon

Who did that?
Massachusetts built the big dig with $3Billion in Federal revenue and the state is paying off the other $11Billion from its taxpayers pockets. Even so, It has a high credit rating and the taxpayers are not revolting. I wonder what sort of disaster you are imagining.



Sounds like a country where 47% of the public does not pay income tax. I think Romney mentioned that at one point.



Plenty of money? I think we just had 5 years of trillion dollar deficits.[/QUOTE]

 

Just curious who you believe will take all the jobs currently held by illegal immigrants if you round them up and send them home?

Many decades ago migrant workers were encouraged to enter the USA and assist with harvests and other farm labor intensive tasks. Some of this turned into year-around work as they learned to perform other jobs. Decades pass, these people have kids, they assimilate into society, etc. etc. etc. During this same time so-called American workers IMO refused more and more types of work which immigrants gladly filled these jobs. Then the arrogant American workers began losing their jobs to outsourcing and the global economy, and today these workers complain about illegal immigrants taking jobs, but the so-called Americans still refuse to do most of this work.

So...I'm curious your answer to my question above...

 

So 63% of the people on the road are illegal immigrants or children of illegal immigrants. Based on the fact you "have been to Los Angeles." This seems to be an unrealistic assertion.



​

 

Again, I don't care about any of that. Illegal, is *ILLEGAL*. I also don't care about arrogant American whatever, or outsourcing, or global whatever.

This isn't an economics question. This is a social question. Do you support the rule of law, and civil society? Or do you support break whatever laws you can as long as you don't get caught?

One leads to stable society, and the other leads to Anarchy. It's one or the other, and no long list of history and rationalizations matters.

You asked who is going to fill jobs. As I said in the previous post, I have no problem with *LEGAL* immigration. If that isn't enough, there are free-market capitalist alternatives.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-10-05/the-210-000-cow-milking-robot

They now have found a way to make robots to milk cows. They are developing robots to handle other farming duties as well.

So this assumption that if Illegal Immigrants don't do the work, then no one will, is a joke.

 

If you're hell-bent on the illegal issue, then I'm assuming you don't mind if we round up the tens of millions of American immigrants and their offspring who arrived in the USA the past 150 years who DID NOT come through legal channels?

All the things above 'you don't care about' are reality...ignoring reality is a fools game.

You are ignorant about farming; farming requires manual labor.

If you don't like the illegals, then just allow them to become legal and all of your xenophobic problems are solved...

 

So you support people breaking the law? That's basically what you are saying. You are saying that people who violate the law should be allowed to do so. Supporting Anarchy is a fools game.

Again, I don't care. People need food. Should we allow people to steal, just because they need food? If so, give me your address, and I'll help myself.

See, this is the problem. When the breaking of laws doesn't effect you personally, suddenly the "well farming requires labor, therefore breaking immigration laws is ok" makes perfect sense. But when it does directly effect you, well then "that's not right! The law says stealing is wrong!". Hypocrite, make a choice. Either we have laws, or we don't. You can't have it both ways depending on whether it effects you are not.

And just dump your xenophobic crap. You people make up all kinds of bull crap arguments, assigning motives to people you don't know, like the pathetic judgmental pricks you all are. Stop being a hypocrite. If you don't know what someone holds a position, then just shut up. No one cares what *you think* someone's motives are.

Can I just make up your motives? I think you are a greedy farmer, that doesn't want to pay a fair wage for hard labor. You are just a greedy capitalist trying to exploit people.... Or maybe we shouldn't make up bull crap judgements? You choose. Which way do you want this to go?

 

In my community, Hispanics are very much appreciated and have assimilated into all aspects of our society. Some of them undoubtedly are illegal while most are not. Without Hispanics in this area willing to perform farm work, the farms will disappear and the economy will shut down. So...do you actually think I care if hard working people are legal or illegal?

Illegal immigrants have absolutely nothing to do with anarchy so why do you keep sensationalizing the discussion?

You refused to comment about deporting all American immigrants and their offspring who did not come into the US through legal paths? You're being so righteous about this that you cannot understand that people have been migrating to all areas of the world to seek food or money or a better way of life and it's not always via a legal path. Are they technically breaking a law...sure they are but so are YOU each time you exceed the speed limit.

I have Hispanics on my property every day so no need to give you my address. And guess what...none of them steal.

Xenophobia is the ONLY reason you can feel as you do. They're not hurting anyone, they fill jobs Americans won't do, they stimulate the economy, and they're human beings. With my first hand experience on this issue...I honestly cannot find a single negative issue sharing our community with legal and illegal immigrants.

I'm a farmer but I'm not greedy. I pay fair market wages for day labor of which I never set the rates...they are determined by supply and demand. I pay between $12/hour and $16/hour depending on the work. If your wonderful Americans wished to do this work...well...then where are they? Never once in my farming career has there been anyone but Hispanics at the local labor halls.

 

Oh give me a break. You people make up stuff all the time. You sound like the bankers on Wall St. "IF YOU DON'T BAIL US OUT, THE ECONOMY WILL CRASH AND THE COUNTRY IS DOOMED!"

Bull crap! Farms will go on, like always. So we can just break the law whenever we want.... because my business will crash, and the economy will shut down? Garbage! There are hundreds of possibilities. I already posted about the robotic milking system. As the cost of doing whatever chore goes up, the value of finding a cheaper method will increase. That's the whole reason they created a robotic milking system.

A similar free market system will effect all areas of farming. Either farms will find new ways of farming that requires less labor, or they will automate it, or they will do something else. And again, there is more than enough low wage labor in the US. Tons of it. And we have more LEGAL immigrants all the time. That's not going to change.

The only thing I am against is ILLEGAL immigration. That's it. Those people need rounded up and shipped back. Criminals are not welcome here, or shouldn't be.

Yes, they do. When you allow people to violate the law, and give them excuses for doing it, they tend to violate the law more. In case you missed it, this is EXACTLY why we have the highest rates of incarceration in the world. If we really enforced the law, *including immigration laws*, we wouldn't have this problem.

Problem is, I don't. I set my cruise control at the speed limit every time I drive. This computer I'm on right now, has not a single pirated software on it. Nor does it have any illegally downloaded songs or videos. My father was a police officer, and my extended family has police officers in it.

Am I perfect? Of course not. But what I am, is someone who when I screw up, I expect to get punished, and I don't make excuses about it. You catch me doing something wrong, I take my punishment, and I don't complain. So when people come here illegally, I don't give a crap about your lame excuses for why it's ok for them to break the law. No.... it's not. Period. End of discussion. I don't need your rationalizations. None. No thanks. Find some else to give your hot air too.

I don't care if they steal or not. If they are breaking law by being here illegally.... them not stealing, doesn't make them law abiding people. The guy who gets pulled over for speeding didn't steal. That doesn't mean he wasn't breaking the law. Funny how you can point that out, and yet not grasp it yourself.

No, you don't know jack. You are just being a typical judgmental prick, making unsupportable accusations against people you don't know. But that's all you to fall back on, so I don't blame you.

LOL! Perfect! You are a greedy farmer! You are just selfishly protecting your own income, at the cost of society! I knew it! Perfect.... you don't care about people breaking our laws, because you are profiting from law breakers. You just discredited yourself.

Have a nice day.

 

You and too many others simply have no idea about reality. You can continue your righteous rants but if you notice they never solve anything. In order to solve these types of issues you need to remove yourself from the righteousness and get in the trenches with reality with a dose of compassion for 'others'...

 

Oddly, I think exactly the same about you.

 

And what immigration problems have you solved lately with your biased politics?

The illegal humans you despise are here so deal with them 'here'. How about requiring that everyone in the USA be registered either as US citizens or green card workers? Give all illegals six months to obtain a green card and social security number so you know how many there are and they can pay applicable taxes. They already stimulate the US economy so why remove their billion$ in personal consumption from the US economy?

Regarding eventual US citizenship, IMO they just apply through the current citizenship process. It's the government's decision how many new citizens each year they will process...this can be 0 to millions...government will decide.

If the US allows US citizens to have numerous misdemeanors and felony crime violations, then IMO the same applies to illegal immigrants as long as they are registered.

Lastly, no matter the xenophobia, and righteousness, unless the USA places 24/7 security around the entire perimeter of the USA, there will always be people entering the US illegally. I suggest if we give them a simple process to work and register, and require employers to comply, this is a good start...