• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

In Praise of Illegal Immigrants

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
The following presents a few facts on unauthorized immigrants and immigration in the US. Many of these facts have been noted on divers threads here, but two Wikipedia articles conveniently collect and cite references for them.

Research shows that illegal immigrants increase the size of the U.S. economy, contribute to economic growth, enhance the welfare of natives, contribute more in tax revenue than they collect, reduce American firms' incentives to offshore jobs and import foreign-produced goods, and benefit consumers by reducing the prices of goods and services.[3][4][5][6][7] Economists estimate that legalization of the illegal immigrant population would increase the immigrants' earnings and consumption considerably, and increase U.S. gross domestic product.[8][9][10][11] There is scholarly consensus that illegal immigrants commit less crime than natives.[12][13] Sanctuary cities – which adopt policies designed to avoid prosecuting people solely for being in the country illegally – have no statistically meaningful impact on crime, and may reduce the crime rate.[14][15] Research suggests that immigration enforcement has no impact on crime rates.[16][17][14]

[. . . ]

The illegal immigrant population of the United States peaked in 2007, when it was at 12.2 million and 4% of the total U.S. population.[18][3] Since the Great Recession, more illegal undocumented immigrants have left the United States than entered it, and illegal border crossings are at the lowest levels they have been in decades.[19][20][21][22]


From 2005 to 2009, the number of people entering the U.S. illegally declined by nearly 67%, according to the Pew Hispanic Center, from 850,000 yearly average in the early 2000s to 300,000.[41]

Illegal immigration to the United States - Wikipedia


The 2008 global financial crisis has had a large impact on the United States. The construction sector and other areas illegal immigrants traditionally seek employment shrunk. The recession also led to a surplus of American labor, driving down the benefit of hiring illegal immigrants.[13] According to the Pew Research Center, in 2007 the number of unauthorized Mexican immigrants peaked at 6.9 million and has dropped by more than 1 million to an estimated 5.6 million in 2014.[14]

After the Great Recession, more immigrants actually returned to Mexico rather than migrated to the United States.[3] From 2009 to 2014, 1 million Mexicans and their families left the U.S. for Mexico. U.S. census data for the same period show an estimated 870,000 Mexican nationals left Mexico to return to the U.S.[3]

[. . . ]

Since about 2014, most illegal immigrants living in the U.S. have been long-term residents. In 2014, about two-thirds (66%) had been in the U.S. for ten years or more, while just 14% had been in the U.S. for less than five years.[4][3]

Just as the total population of illegal immigrants in the U.S. has declined since 2007, the proportion of illegal immigrants in the workforce has also declined; in 2012, illegal immigrants made up 5.1% of the U.S.'s civilian labor force. Unauthorized immigrant workers are over-represented in certain. economic sectors, making up 26% of farming, fisheries, and forest workers; 17% of cleaning, maintenance, and groundskeeping workers; 14% of construction workers; and 11% of food preparation workers.[15]

Illegal immigrant population of the United States - Wikipedia


From the above, one can readily deduce that the primary factor motivating illegal immigration can be summarized as "It's the economy, stupid." Further, the above facts demonstrate that there is a highly effective humanitarian way to reduce illegal immigration by way of traffic across the Southern border, namely, by supporting the labor markets and economic policies in Mexico and Central American countries. This is obviously easier said than done, and requires expertise beyond that of a delusional 70-year-old man who has lived all his life off the gift of hundreds of millions of dollars from his father and stealing from others through corporations.

Similarly obvious is the fact that not every labor-intensive job that Americans do not want to perform can be exported to Mexico and Central America. Facilitating temporary visas for such workers is necessary -- which is currently done to a degree now (apparently Trump hires them as dishwashers, servers and/or maids in his businesses). Naturally a certain percentage of such workers will overstay their visas. There is no rational reason to fearmonger about these illegal immigrants.

But the xenophobic and racist bigotry that motivates Trump and his sycophants to squeal for a border wall has largely diverted attention from truly effective humanitarian policies. The despicable squealing about rapists and murderers coming across the Southern border has largely diverted attention from appreciating the value of our neighbors to the South. Anyone who is ignorant of the value generally of persons who have entered by way of the Southern border and stayed here should seek out some of these "illegal aliens" and get to know them. I don't really expect that to be worthwhile or heeded advice for those who have their nose stuck in Trump's butt crack.

Nevertheless, yesterday at least Senator Schumer's attention was not sp diverted that he overlooked the fact that it isn't miles of border wall that should stand as the symbol of the US, but the Statue of Liberty. I couldn't help but finish out his sentence by remembering those last lines of Emma Lazarus' poem that always bring a lump to my throat:

The New Colossus


Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,

With conquering limbs astride from land to land;

Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand

A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame

Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name

Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand

Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command

The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

"Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she

With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"​
Open border creates a more mobile labor force that can move to places where the jobs are...creatung a better balance between labor and capital supply....thus creating a more vibrant economy. Its that obvious.

Further since there is absolutely no cultural and religious clash here (both North and Latin Americans are mixtures of European colonists and Native Americans and are predominantly Christians of various denominations)....there is nothing here that requires any need of enforcing much restrictions on the movement of people.
Illegal drugs is a different issue...but walls are entirely ineffective on that front when one can move it through the sea-way, tunnels, or smuggle it secretly through airports.
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
So, having read (or at least skimmed) every post so far, I didn't see where anyone cited any fact that refutes any fact cited in the OP. If anyone did cite any fact that refutes any fact cited in the OP, or plans to do so, be sure to provide the source that substantiates it.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Here I need to mention that the average immigrant is more productive than the average native born American. Really they are supporting you.:D
That is oft said.
I've read cromulent studies showing otherwise.
Oh, you want links?
I provided as many as you just did.

But setting aside the evidential arguments for the moment,
your claim has problems.....
- You addressed the "average immigrant", rather
than my "immigrants who come here in need"
- Illegal immigrants would tend to have greater needs,
& aren't vetted for skills...or anything.
- We "native born Americans" have no obligation to increase
the number of unproductive residents.just because we ourselves
are unproductive.

I've long maintained that our immigration policies should be more
like Canuckistan's. Do you find that too harsh?

"Economic benefit"....we see that being touted by those who advocate
illegal immigration. But this is a broad & somewhat misleading term
for economic expansion. It assumes that always increasing the number
of people, & always making & consuming more & more goods is a
beneficial & even necessary thing. It was one thing to pursue unlimited
expansion in pioneer days. There were natives to conquer, seemingly
limitless land to expand into, & the need to become a greater economic
powerhouse so that we could defend against our enemies.
Those needs are obsolete.

Let's say that we double our population in the next 30 years.....
Will our quality of life improve because of increased density?
How much wild space will be paved over to accommodate the influx?
I dislike the assumption of endless economic expansion.
 
Last edited:

Audie

Veteran Member
Here I need to mention that the average immigrant is more productive than the average native born American. Really they are supporting you.:D

As an immigrant, I cannot very well oppose immigration.

Could somehow there be some sort of agreement on
how immigration is a good thing, but, like, LEGAL
immigration?
 

Audie

Veteran Member
So, having read (or at least skimmed) every post so far, I didn't see where anyone cited any fact that refutes any fact cited in the OP. If anyone did cite any fact that refutes any fact cited in the OP, or plans to do so, be sure to provide the source that substantiates it.


Here are some fact,.about Angelina Jolie

her teeth are crooked, face is lopsided, one eye bigger
and higher than the other, (or is it lower). uneven complexion, and one leg is shorter than the other.

These facts add up to what I call "lying with the truth",
and like such facts as are presented in the OP are
calculated to give a false impression.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
"Economic benefit"....we see that being touted by those who advocate
illegal immigration. But this is a broad & somewhat misleading term
for economic expansion.

There is economic benefit in a hurricane. Look at all
the cleanup and construction jobs.

If one wishes as the illegal immigrant folks do, to
lie with the truth, why then, let us tout the benefits
of hurricanes too. If only we could encourage them
somehow!
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
There's a moral obligation to erect a steel slated border security barrier
So, let Mexico build "the Wall" as Trump repeatedly promised.

President Trump tweets his love for Hispanics,
Is that why he and those who worked for him had Hispanic children put into cages unnecessarily?

then President Trump has no choice but to declare a national state of emergency
Actually, that might be a strategic solution, whereas the funding for those furloughed and those without pay can resume, and then this will go through the court system, which likely will take many months and maybe even over a year, and then it's likely the courts will say "no!", and then Trump can declare these courts as having "leftist" judges. We've seen this all before. .
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
I notice on RF & in the media that the left opposes business employing illegals.
But they advocate allowing the illegals to remain here.
How on Earth would they contribute to the economy if they cannot work?
Is it by consuming goods & services (provided by taxpayers & charities)?
I do not advocate all illegals remaining here. Only DACA. And if unaccompanied minors below a certain age cannot be safely placed with their families, I am okay with them staying as well.

But, I know many on "the left" with quite an assortment of views. These range from open borders to deport all illegals including dreamers.

The left cannot be painted in such broad strokes as you like. I would assume you might know this already.

Further, to address your question specifically: there could be multiple internally consistent reasons why some people on the left point towards better business regulations in order to address the issue of illegal immigration. Not the least of which is the simple fact that highlighting the lack of impactful consequences for businesses illustrates the political farce that is Trump's wall.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
What makes them refugees? I don't see any major wars going on down in Honduras, Guatemala, and Ecuador.
The drug cartels are pretty much running the show down there, and these are three of the most highly dangerous countries to live in according to U.N. stats.

It's funny how people forget that Mexico offered to take them all in.
Temporarily, although some are going to allowed to stay according to Mexican authorities. Most of them are being held at camps waiting to have their case heard here in the States.

It also makes me wonder why none of these countries are being brought to the table and questioned as to what's going on down there that's causing their people to leave in droves and why they are not doing anything about it.
They have been, and some of the neighboring countries and relief organizations have been trying to help out. Trouble is that they are only a Bandaid on a major wound as the problems are monumental, and we here in that States are partially responsible for this as guess who buys most of these illegal drugs shipped out by the cartels? But, according to the CBP, about 95% come in through legal ports of entry, which is really where our emphasis more needs to be. Also, there are some actions that could help rectify at least some of this in the Northern Triangle, but Trump's "solution" is to pull aid out, which only would make the problem worse.

This is essentially what Trump is doing.

False, as Trump has also been pushing the lowering of quotas for legal applicants from Latin American and some other locations, such as Africa (remember the "sh*t-hole countries". Matter of fact, he spouted a question a while back as to why we aren't bringing in more people who look like "Norwegians". But he's not a racist.:rolleyes:
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Here are some fact,.about Angelina Jolie

her teeth are crooked, face is lopsided, one eye bigger
and higher than the other, (or is it lower). uneven complexion, and one leg is shorter than the other.

These facts add up to what I call "lying with the truth",
and like such facts as are presented in the OP are
calculated to give a false impression.
Are you unable to read and comprehend? I assume everyone already knows the topic upsets you. That's no reason to try to detail the thread. Again, if you can cite any fact that refutes any fact cited in the OP, be sure to provide the source that substantiates it.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
I do not advocate all illegals remaining here. Only DACA. And if unaccompanied minors below a certain age cannot be safely placed with their families, I am okay with them staying as well.

But, I know many on "the left" with quite an assortment of views. These range from open borders to deport all illegals including dreamers.

The left cannot be painted in such broad strokes as you like. I would assume you might know this already.

Further, to address your question specifically: there could be multiple internally consistent reasons why some people on the left point towards better business regulations in order to address the issue of illegal immigration. Not the least of which is the simple fact that highlighting the lack of impactful consequences for businesses illustrates the political farce that is Trump's wall.
Excellent post, imo, and we also should remember that Trump has hired illegal aliens at his places in Florida and New Jersey.
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Actually, that might be a strategic solution, whereas the funding for those furloughed and those without pay can resume, and then this will go through the court system, which likely will take many months and maybe even over a year, and then it's likely the courts will say "no!", and then Trump can declare these courts as having "leftist" judges. We've seen this all before. .
I think it's likely he will not prevail in court with a national emergency declaration. The only statutes available to him, which he must specify in the declaration, require the conscripted funds to go for something to be used by the military or have a military purpose. A border wall just doesn't qualify in either such case.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Are you unable to read and comprehend? I assume everyone already knows the topic upsets you. That's no reason to try to detail the thread. Again, if you can cite any fact that refutes any fact cited in the OP, be sure to provide the source that substantiates it.

The topic does not "upset" me. It is one of the
lower rhetorical tricks to call emotionalism so.
Along with the low rhetoric of your first line.

It is hardly a derail to point out that a deliberately
incomplete set of facts is deliberately dishonest.

Not, of course, that you exactly limited yourself
to facts, or failed to give away your agenda.

But the xenophobic and racist bigotry that motivates Trump and his sycophants to squeal for...

 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
There is economic benefit in a hurricane. Look at all
the cleanup and construction jobs.

If one wishes as the illegal immigrant folks do, to
lie with the truth, why then, let us tout the benefits
of hurricanes too. If only we could encourage them
somehow!
Aye, there's a real problem in measuring the
economy simply by the volume of money spent.
This leads to idiocy like belief that war is good.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Aye, there's a real problem in measuring the
economy simply by the volume of money spent.
This leads to idiocy like belief that war is good.

Hence my comments about t he deliberately
deceitful nature of presenting a set of facts
carefully trimmed to meet the needs of the poster's
agenda.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
I think it's likely he will not prevail in court with a national emergency declaration. The only statutes available to him, which he must specify in the declaration, require the conscripted funds to go for something to be used by the military or have a military purpose. A border wall just doesn't qualify in either such case.
I tend to agree, but where my hesitation comes in is with how a judge may look at what's constitutional without considering the application of such a decision as far as does this fail to meet the criteria needed to make such a declaration, so it's possible it could go either way.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
The left cannot be painted in such broad strokes as you like. I would assume you might know this already.
Of course there is diversity.
But the left does exhibit a broad trend of opposing increased border security.
And when some call for eliminating ICE, sanctuary cities, & automatic citizenship
for those who arrived illegally, we don't see objections from others on the left.
It gives an appearance of tacit approval.
Further, to address your question specifically: there could be multiple internally consistent reasons why some people on the left point towards better business regulations in order to address the issue of illegal immigration. Not the least of which is the simple fact that highlighting the lack of impactful consequences for businesses illustrates the political farce that is Trump's wall.
As I've said before, if our goal is to remove incentives for illegal entry,
we shouldn't be opposing solely their being illicitly hired by business.
We must also stop giving out public benefits & sanctuary. And we also
need an agency charged with finding & deporting them.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Matter of fact, he spouted a question a while back as to why we aren't bringing in more people who look like "Norwegians". But he's not a racist.:rolleyes:

Actual quote-
'Why do we want these people from all these ****hole countries here? We should have more people from places like Norway."

Your deliberately falsified version, so as to
make it into something racist:

why we aren't bringing in more people who look like "Norwegians".
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Of course there is diversity.
But the left does exhibit a broad trend of opposing increased border security.
And when some call for eliminating ICE, sanctuary cities, & automatic citizenship
for those who arrived illegally, we don't see objections from others on the left.
It gives an appearance of tacit approval.

As I've said before, if our goal is to remove incentives for illegal entry,
we shouldn't be opposing solely their being illicitly hired by business.
We must also stop giving out public benefits & sanctuary. And we also
need an agency charged with finding & deporting them.

I have given money to people who I knew were
in the country illegally.

It is only decent to do so, if someone is in need.

An acquaintance who lives in southern Az sees
a lot of illegals on her land. She gives them water and
food, if they seem to need it Then calls the police.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I have given money to people who I knew were
in the country illegally.

It is only decent to do so, if someone is in need.

An acquaintance who lives in southern Az sees
a lot of illegals on her land. She gives them water and
food, if they seem to need it Then calls the police.
Aye, it makes sense to not let them die here.
 
Top