The Wall

[BananaStand]

Surely you see that the American who hires the Mexican is helped by the cheaper labor cost.

You mean the criminal American who hires....

But it doesn't stop there. I doubt that employer is collecting FICA taxes, and I also doubt that he's remitting the employer-portion of FICA taxes on his gross payroll. He's helped by way of an unfair advantage in the form of lower-costs, and less tax burden.

That hurts the honest businesses who play by the rules. It also hurts the citizens would benefit from those taxes being collected.

That's why this stuff is illegal man. C'mon

[Savy]

You mean the criminal American who hires....

But it doesn't stop there. I doubt that employer is collecting FICA taxes, and I also doubt that he's remitting the employer-portion of FICA taxes on his gross payroll. He's helped by way of an unfair advantage in the form of lower-costs, and less tax burden.

That hurts the honest businesses who play by the rules. It also hurts the citizens would benefit from those taxes being collected.

That's why this stuff is illegal man. C'mon

So you're for huge hikes in workers rights such as health benefits, minimum wage, etc?

[BananaStand]

So you're for huge hikes in workers rights such as health benefits, minimum wage, etc?

The word "rights" makes it a loaded question. I'm also not seeing how it's relevant to anything I said.

Rephrase please.

[Poopadoop]

So you're for huge hikes in workers rights such as health benefits, minimum wage, etc?

Don't play dumb bananananana. It's a clear manifestation of having 'legal' labour that employer's costs would rise.

[Savy]

Don't play dumb bananananana. It's a clear manifestation of having 'legal' labour that employer's costs would rise.

My reply is purposely as obtuse as the answer.

[BananaStand]

Don't play dumb bananananana. It's a clear manifestation of having 'legal' labour that employer's costs would rise.

I'm not playing dumb, I truly don't understand your point. It's certainly not news that criminal activity, when unpunished, will benefit the criminal perpetrators.

[Savy]

I'm not playing dumb, I truly don't understand your point. It's certainly not news that criminal activity, when unpunished, will benefit the criminal perpetrators.

Why is it criminal when it's so optimal?

[Poopadoop]

I'm not playing dumb, I truly don't understand your point. It's certainly not news that criminal activity, when unpunished, will benefit the criminal perpetrators.

Ok then well I guess you just don't understand the issue well enough then, or maybe you just prefer to focus on one side of it as it's easier to argue that way.

Illegal immigrants pick the strawberries, sweep the floors, and work other menial jobs for less than minimum wage. If they are no longer available, other people will have to do those jobs - and they will be 'official' workers with rights to a minimum wage and all the other rights legals have. This means a cost to business owners, a cost that will be passed on to consumers. That's of course assuming they can find anyone to do those jobs.

[BananaStand]

Illegal immigrants pick the strawberries, sweep the floors, and work other menial jobs for less than minimum wage. If they are no longer available, other people will have to do those jobs - and they will be 'official' workers with rights to a minimum wage and all the other rights legals have. This means a cost to business owners, a cost that will be passed on to consumers. That's of course assuming they can find anyone to do those jobs.

I reject the argument that American's don't want to do those jobs. Can you prove that?

There is no such thing as any legit industry in America that is solely supported by illegal labor. Every job you just mentioned does has legal citizens working in them. Their wages are held down because of the illegal labor. Their employers are at an unfair competitive disadvantage. And the lost tax revenue hurts everybody.

Those costs get passed on to the rest of the economy as well

[Poopadoop]

I reject the argument that American's don't want to do those jobs. Can you prove that?

Pretty sure you'd be hard pressed to find a lot of people willing to do all those shit jobs illegals are doing, though obviously there's no way to prove it one way or another.

There is no such thing as any legit industry in America that is solely supported by illegal labor. Every job you just mentioned does has legal citizens working in them. Their wages are held down because of the illegal labor. Their employers are at an unfair competitive disadvantage. And the lost tax revenue hurts everybody.

Those costs get passed on to the rest of the economy as well

You make good points but in the end the costs and benefits tend to wash out. There is a benefit to employers, there is a pool of labour that wouldn't otherwise be available, and it's cheap labour. Those benefits get passed on to consumers in lower prices for goods.

[Poopadoop]

It's also clear to me that restricting illegal immigrants is bad for business, and that Trump knows that. Maybe it's worth him politically to do that, but seems there is a clear relationship between restricting illegals and restricting cheap labour for business. A part of me thinks that for this reason the wall will never be built. But we shall see.

[BananaStand]

It's also clear to me that restricting illegal immigrants is bad for business, and that Trump knows that. Maybe it's worth him politically to do that, but seems there is a clear relationship between restricting illegals and restricting cheap labour for business. A part of me thinks that for this reason the wall will never be built. But we shall see.

You can solve both problems. Illegal workers give an unfair advantage to criminal employers, and hurt society as a whole by not paying taxes. You can stop illegal immigration, and still keep labor costs low by implementing a generous guest-worker program.

We have one, it's just currently being exploited by companies seeking to replace American jobs with cheaper "guest" workers, who somehow remain "guests" in perpetuity.

Fixing the guest worker program seems like a much more practical solution than turning a blind eye to the problems of illegal labor.

[Poopadoop]

You can solve both problems. Illegal workers give an unfair advantage to criminal employers, and hurt society as a whole by not paying taxes. You can stop illegal immigration, and still keep labor costs low by implementing a generous guest-worker program.

We have one, it's just currently being exploited by companies seeking to replace American jobs with cheaper "guest" workers, who somehow remain "guests" in perpetuity.

Fixing the guest worker program seems like a much more practical solution than turning a blind eye to the problems of illegal labor.

Do you need a wall to do that? Or is it just there to keep drugs and criminals out?

[BananaStand]

Pretty sure you'd be hard pressed to find a lot of people willing to do all those shit jobs illegals are doing

There's just so many racist angles here. Why is it ok to take our shittiest occupations, staff them with brown people, and pay them a sub-standard wage, just so we can enjoy lower priced luxuries? 150 year ago, that was called slavery. You know America fought a civil war to end this exact practice right?

Out of curiosity, how would you handle enforce labor laws and workers rights? I read a story last week about a dude from Bangladesh who answered an ad and came over on some kind of work visa to be a cook. He was studying culinary arts in his home country. He was promised a salary and an apartment. When he arrived he was given squalid conditions, a wage far less than what was promised, and his duties were mostly janitorial, with some short-order cooking in a diner. When he complained, his employer threatened to revoke his visa sponsorship and send him home. And that dude was here LEGALLY!

Now imagine how much leverage an employer would have over an illegal immigrant! If everyone is turning a blind eye to illegal labor....how do you protect these people from exploitation?

You make good points but in the end the costs and benefits tend to wash out. There is a benefit to employers, there is a pool of labour that wouldn't otherwise be available, and it's cheap labour. Those benefits get passed on to consumers in lower prices for goods.

It's really convenient for your argument if they do indeed "wash out", but I haven't seen any accounting to that effect whatsoever. Even if you're right, and it's a wash, then there's no economic downside to doing things the legal way. Right?

Do you need a wall to do that? Or is it just there to keep drugs and criminals out?

Terrorist too. But no, you don't need a wall. And I'm not sure how I became the wall spokesperson here. I am on record as being opposed to the wall. I do agree with the motivations for it though, I just think it's an ineffective solution to those problems. Other arguments against the wall, in this thread, seem to be limited to "drugs are fine" and "illegal workers aren't bothering anyone". Both of which I find completely absurd.