Skip to main content

Immigration is a defining economic issue of our time

If we stick to economics only, and don't stray into ethical, political or other types of issues -- impossible to do since half the country is brainwashed -- then the argument for or against immigration depends on both the specific economic environment and the point of view of the individuals involved.

The bottom line in economic law: as supply rises, prices come down. This hurts someone. 
From U.S. News and World Report:
A MASSIVE IMMIGRATION study...attempts to break down whether mass influxes of foreign workers ultimately are a net boon or burden for the domestic economy.
The answer: It's complicated.
The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine released a roughly 500-page report that pooled data from more than a dozen individual economists, professors and immigration-minded specialists. (My note: probably got 500 opinions). It says America's immigrant population climbed by more than 70 percent between 1995 and 2014, when it stood at 42.3 million, accounting for roughly 13 percent of America's total population.
The study's findings ultimately suggest immigration is neither 100 percent beneficial nor completely detrimental to the country's economic and financial well-being. And they've helped fuel immigration arguments across the political spectrum.
But what a minute. As usual, are we talking legal or illegal immigration? We don't know, because the media today lumps it all together. If you're against illegal immigration, your a racist. If you're against legal immigration, you're a racist. If you're against immigration, you're a racists. 

But that's left-wing propaganda. The hard, cold message is that illegal immigration is a negative affect on our country and our economy. This might be hard for many Americans to process, but anyone who tells you that immigration doesn’t have any negative effects doesn’t understand how it really works. When the supply of workers goes up, the price that firms have to pay to hire workers goes down. Wage trends over the past half-century suggest that a 10 percent increase in the number of workers with a particular set of skills probably lowers the wage of that group by at least 3 percent. Even after the economy has fully adjusted, those skill groups that received the most immigrants will still offer lower pay relative to those that received fewer immigrants. 

Good for business, I guess. Bad for workers, especially low-skilled workers who need a place to start. 

Here's some of your favorite politicians in the 1990s (before it became popular to support open borders): 

Bill Clinton: 



Barrack Obama 2006 on the border fence“The bill before us will certainly do some good,” Obama said on the Senate floor in October 2006. He praised the legislation, saying it would provide “better fences and better security along our borders” and would “help stem some of the tide of illegal immigration in this country.”

WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED TO OUR COUNTRY? 

And here's my favorite dumb-ass headline for the week, month, year, from the Atlantic (doesn't any right-minded people even read this tripe): 

There Is No Immigration Crisis


My take: Enforce the laws. Don't like them. Change them. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

What happened when a Trump Supporter Challenged Me About the Wall

Vicky Alvear Schecter wrote in Medium | Poltics on Dec. 27, 2018 using her headline above. I thought it was pretty well written -- at least she made an attempt to keep her liberal bias out of it -- regardless of a few illogical fallacies

But she does make an attempt, in an effort to avoid her liberal bias, as she ponders  "...in order not to be accused by bias, I explained that I would only use conservative sources to prove my point."

To me, that's bias to start out with that premise. And I believe her premise is that she is against the wall. That's her stance. But she makes some good points, but some are skewed, even though she attempt to take a "conservative" approach, even by citing some "conservative" sources in her footnotes.

Here's the first problem: if she wanted to avoid bias, why not just stick to the the historical facts as written (when you can find them without bias), and not concern oneself with bias. "I must reject that becau…

Weekly wrap for Nov 9

After Thursday and Friday, it might seem the markets are down, but the weekly numbers tell a different story, with the three major indices up for the week. The Nasdaq, with its tech exposure, had the smallest increase. The tech sector is obviously under recent pressure. 

IndexNov 2Nov 9+/-%S&P 5002,723.062,781.01+ 57.95+ 2.12%Nasdaq7,356.997,406.90+ 49.91+ 0.67%DOW 3025,270.8325,989.30+ 718.47+ 2.84%
Over the last 12 months, the Dow is up 10.77 percent, the SP 500 up 7.6 percent, and the Nasdaq up 9.7 percent.  

The weekly chart of the SPY still indicates a long position in the broader market. (The blue line is the 34-week moving average; the red is the 13-week moving average).

















While the U.S. economy still seems to be just fine from most reports, investors seemed to worry about a couple of things on Thursday and Friday: 1) The Eurozone, 2) trade with China, and 3) the Fed and interest rates. Another topic of interest has been oil. 

First, it seems that the Fed has really not indicated …

U.S. Top Oil Producer, Thanks to Obama

\ You read that right.

The U.S. is now the largest oil producer in the world, according to the EIA, producing some 15 million BOE per day, surpassing Russia and Saudi Arabia. (Remember back when Jimmy Carter said in 1979 the answer to our energy problems was to wear a warmer sweater...but you probably don't. He actually said this on national TV).

The United States is the top oil-producing country in the world, with an average of 14.86 million b/d, which accounts for 15.3% of the world's production. This is down from 15.12 million b/d in 2015, but it was enough to land the United States in the No. 1 spot, which it has held for the past four years running. (Source: Investopedia.)

Guess who takes credit for it? Granted, this increase in production began in 2012, but only because of private industry and the fact that the price of oil was at nearly all-time highs. And it dipped in 2016 because of Obama's anti-oil policies! 

But here he is again


Former President Barack Obama sure l…