Immigration - Thank-You Cardinal O'Malley

  • Thread starter Thread starter godisgood77
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I get what you are saying, you have your side and I have mine, In some ways not too distant – I think one of the main concerns is trying to predict what is actually going to happen with all the recent immigration negotiations (the wall, DACA, DREAMERS, etc…). Because what is happening now, surely aint workin’. Who knows what the government will decide. I know that I can make an impact on those around me and to those outside of that I offer all my prayers. Maybe part of the answer is for me to venture out further…
BTW- I’m pretty familiar with at risk foster kids------------------------Thank you
 
I can think of several other factors that may have made the change in employment numbers for immigrants higher than the change in the same thing for non-immigrants, but this is the most obvious. I think the way you conduct a study of the effect of immigration on American workers is by looking at periods of time when immigration was high and when immigration was low and seeing how the corresponding employment numbers are affected. When economists do this they conclude there is essentially no effect, positive or negative, on the employment prospects and wages caused by immigration. Here is one such study.
You seem to be deflecting from the obvious answer, that an influx of immigrants is sufficient to meet market demand. They get the benefit over citizens based on wages, why shouldn’t an employer hire the cheapest labor.

From your link, but buried a bit, it gets to a key part of the issue with illegal immigrants.
In regions with large populations of less educated, low-income immigrants, native-born residents bear significant net costs due to immigrants’ use of public services, especially education.
I question the general value of the study for this thread because it focuses on total immigration, and the benefits of legal immigration is not in dispute. We know foreign college students who study here are some of the best and brightest, they are associated with much start up innovation.
 
Last edited:
I know this comment is a by-line at best, but some colleges made the news by announcing their recent efforts to offer more online classes designed specifically for immigrants - I don’t know any of the specifics or program details - but I thought it was a good proactive movement working towards improving the person and situations…Maybe it’s a weak link to foreign student body members?
 
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
I can think of several other factors that may have made the change in employment numbers for immigrants higher than the change in the same thing for non-immigrants, but this is the most obvious. I think the way you conduct a study of the effect of immigration on American workers is by looking at periods of time when immigration was high and when immigration was low and seeing how the corresponding employment numbers are affected. When economists do this they conclude there is essentially no effect, positive or negative, on the employment prospects and wages caused by immigration. Here is one such study.
You seem to be deflecting from the obvious answer, that an influx of immigrants is sufficient to meet market demand. They get the benefit over citizens based on wages, why shouldn’t an employer hire the cheapest labor.
It may seem intuitively obvious to you, but studies are conducted so that we aren’t misled by our intuition. These numbers do not say that the influx of immigrants is sufficient to meet market demands. It just says that 5.3 million (out of 40 million) more immigrants had jobs in 2013 vs 2000. During that same time, the number of natives employed declined by 1.3 million. This is not bad out of 318 million, considering that the period included two recessions - one mediium and one huge. There is no evidence of a connection between these two numbers. We don’t know, for example, if natives would have been more employed if 8 million immigrants had never arrived during that period. We don’t know that because removing the 8 million immigrants would also remove the growth caused by those immigrants acting as consumers and job creators. The study does not say.
From your link, but buried a bit, it gets to a key part of the issue with illegal immigrants.
In regions with large populations of less educated, low-income immigrants, native-born residents bear significant net costs due to immigrants’ use of public services, especially education.
That is true. Having concentrated pockets of new immigrants in small communities is bound to be a hardship on their limited social services, schools, etc. Immigration works best when immigration is more uniformly distributed.
I question the general value of the study for this thread because it focuses on total immigration, and the benefits of legal immigration is not in dispute. We know foreign college students who study here are some of the best and brightest, they are associated with much start up innovation.
OK, let’s look again at what this thread is about. It started with a quote by Cardinal O’Malley about immigration in general. Where was the cardinal speaking about illegal immigration or tolerance of it? I just looked through his whole article and I did not find anything calling for acceptance of illegal immigration.
 
OK, let’s look again at what this thread is about. It started with a quote by Cardinal O’Malley about immigration in general. Where was the cardinal speaking about illegal immigration or tolerance of it? I just looked through his whole article and I did not find anything calling for acceptance of illegal immigration.
Point taken, but for any analysis or discussion to be of any use, it needs to segment immigration. Legal immigration is a very different beast than illegal immigration.

To an earlier comment, we can take in poor and under educated refugees through our refugee program, and settle them across the US. It works well, the people are absorbed without community hardship. The challeng comes from illegal immigration, at much higher numbers than our refugee influx.
 
I see no one is talking about IT. So I’ll take up that discussion. Foreign IT workers mostly come here via the H1-B program. In the beginning this program was initiated as a way to get the truly hard to find expert specialist over here if no American could be found. The program has long since been severely abused as it has transformed into a major method by which corporations simply replace most of their IT staffs with cheaper labor. Read Disney or Southern California Edison for excellent examples of this. Also all of the major tech companies make heavy use of them, starting with Microsoft and including Cisco, Facebook, Google, Amazon and Netflix. All of their CEO’s love this program because it means they can keep the wages down while the benefits of increased productivity flow upward into their pockets.

The only reason we don’t hear about it more often is because the replaced workers are always forced to sign nondisclosure and non-disparagement agreements in exchange for severance and COBRA benefits. Further, they are often forced to train their replacements. Also as a condition of receiving severance benefits.

When top executives at the major tech corporations often claim there aren’t enough Americans to do the work, what they are really saying is there aren’t enough Americans to do the work at the rate they are willing to pay. It is no coincidence that the Chamber of Commerce and the top CEOs are almost universally in favor of far higher limits than exist today. Because they want the cheap labor.

I am a former IT person. I saw the H1-B replacement workers coming for my job from miles away. Rather than compete with other laid off replaced workers for the fewer remaining jobs for which Americans might get hired, I changed careers to something that is a lot less likely to be outsourced.

Allowing more immigrants both legal and illegal isn’t about cheap labor? People who say that are absolutely full of manure and I don’t want to hear about it. I want limits and I want fewer H1-B’s. I’m willing to deal on DACA, but I gotta have fewer H1-B’s and no more chain migration or lottery visas.
 
Last edited:
Yes, H1B visas have turned into a sham, they don’t try very hard to train and promote when they can hire an immigrant for less, or just oursource it.

The outsource companies also make heavy use of these visas.

I worked abroad in such a capacity, but my company paid me more than they did locals because I did bring skills they couldn’t get locally.
 
But, sneaking across the border without the US knowing is not immigration. At least not the type that the Irish did.
Actually, that is kinda what happened. The thing is there were very few real systems of immigration control until the 1920’s. When the Irish came over here, just walking off the boat and going out and getting a job was perfectly legal. It was common even for native born Americans to not have any papers. There were no quotas on immigration, and you could freely take most jobs without having to present any sort of paperwork without any legal issues.
 
Maybe you should read what you posted, they were legally immigrating per the laws of the day.

Is your logic really that we should be applying the same controls and methods in our modern day?

In early colonial times, it was also common for the courts to send prisoners as immigrants/indentured servants to the US. But they didn’t tolerate the person sneaking back into the homeland, I guess you could say they had lost their citizenship to the mother country.
 
Last edited:
My logic is that pointing out that our ancestors came in legally sometimes just means that the laws were different. I guarantee you most of my ancestors wouldn’t be admitted to the country under current laws - probably most of many of ours. It’s not really an analogous situation, because back then a person who could get the money for passage could come in legally, whereas now the same person almost certainly would be denied entry.

So in the end, I don’t think the fact that our ancestors came here legally (although for us with early colonial ancestors, I suppose that is debatable) under a completely different system really has much bearing at all on the current immigration debate, especially since it concerns people who largely don’t have a legal path.
 
Trump has laid out a very generous immigration offer, and it will likely be denied by the Democrats.


"it calls for a massive increase in border security and a massive decrease in legal immigration by aiming to “protect the nuclear family migration” by only allowing family immigration sponsorships to include spouses or children, rather than extended family members.

In addition to $25 billion in border security, it would appropriate funds to add new enforcement officers, immigration judges and prosecutors - efforts to more quickly deport people who are in the country without legal papers.

The path to citizenship would be provided to DACA recipients via a “10-12 year path” that includes “requirements for work, education and good moral character.”
 
Trump has laid out a very generous immigration offer, and it will likely be denied by the Democrats.
In the end I don’t think it will be denied. Dems are pandering to their hard left, but they too see what most americans want. See the survey in the below thread.
40.png
Why Dems will cave on Wall & Chain migration World News
This in depth survey on immigration is worth reading Broadly it shows what the american public wants: support DACA support a secure border end lottery and chain migration (except immediate family) go merit based reduce total numbers Trump views here are mainstream, it explains why he won in spite of his many personality faults. While Dems may try pander to the extreme wing, in the end they will cave and give what the public wants. The research shows my personal views are also very mainst…
 
I get what you are saying, you have your side and I have mine, In some ways not too distant – I think one of the main concerns is trying to predict what is actually going to happen with all the recent immigration negotiations (the wall, DACA, DREAMERS, etc…). Because what is happening now, surely aint workin’. Who knows what the government will decide. I know that I can make an impact on those around me and to those outside of that I offer all my prayers. Maybe part of the answer is for me to venture out further…

BTW- I’m pretty familiar with at risk foster kids------------------------Thank you
Joe, let’s steps this up from my immediate neighbor to my neighbors across the country. I feel our priority should be to help the poor within our own territory, they are our primary responsibility. I also think getting them employed is the best first step. These numbers are far higher than the unemployment stats show, these people are the long term unemployed. Importing large numbers of low skilled workers from our neighbors is just introducing direct competition for the jobs these people need to get on their feet.

 
I read your posting and the article…How do you think that employing these people is the first and best step; are there more pressing matters with these people?.. I hate stats, but don’t dispute that they are indicative of deteriorating situations that pervade our country. However, in regards to job competition, I agree with the USCCB in which they provided a section on solidarity:
Code:
                                         Solidarity
Our culture is tempted to turn inward, becoming indifferent and sometimes isolationist in the face of international responsibilities. Catholic social teaching proclaims that we are our brothers’ and sisters’ keepers, wherever they live. We are one human family, whatever our national, racial, ethnic, economic, and ideological differences. Learning to practice the virtue of solidarity means learning that “loving our neighbor” has global dimensions in an interdependent world. This virtue is described by John Paul II as “a firm and persevering determination to commit oneself to the common good; that is to say to the good of all and of each individual, because we are all really responsible for all” ( Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, no. 38).

I think the problems need to be delved into deeper. I wonder if some more of the immigration process can’t be moved away from the governments and into the private or non-profit sectors?
 
Your quote is very vague, open to interpretation. I don’t think my words are in conflict with our Govt international responsibilities. Such responsibilities are to:
  • provide disaster relief when Mexico has an earthquate
  • Provide aid when Thailand is devastated by a Tsunami
  • Provide food aid when Africa is experiencing a famine
  • Provide protection, shelter and food to refugees from war and civil unrest
  • Provide govt to govt aid where we can help improve governance
  • Share knowledge in general that will help the health and welfare of people in other countries.
Now at the personal level, you can help the ‘neighbors’ that need help in your community. You can also help people in distant communities by donating to Catholic Charities that have solid records. I see this as a personal responsibility, not a tax funded obligation. I also see it as a secondary responsibility, behind your obligation to first help the suffering of your immediate neighbors.

How do you interpret their instruction differently?

Do you think they want you to prioritize ‘saving’ the poor in African and Latin America over helping your neighbor struggling or living homeless in your city/county? Obviously we can’t do it all, we have to have a focus. Saying we must succeed at both is guaranteed failure.

I think your immediate neighbor fits with our prime responsibility under subsidiarity. Likewise, poor citizens in the US are the responsibility of US institutions and should be their prime focus (international exceptions covered above).
 
Last edited:
Regarding jobs, are you in disagreement that decent paying jobs are the best medicine to deal with poverty of US Citizens?

This blog makes the argument better than I can.
How to Fight Poverty Through Full Employment - Talk Poverty
One of the most effective ways to combat poverty among current and future generations is to maintain a full employment economy. The point should be straightforward: when the labor market is strong, or “tight,” it offers increased employment opportunities for those at the bottom. Disadvantaged workers are not only more likely to find employment in a tight labor market, they are also in a better position to secure higher wages as employers are forced to compete for labor. This can allow millions of workers the opportunity to raise themselves and their families out of poverty.

We got a chance to see this story in practice in the boom of the late 1990s, when the unemployment rate fell to its lowest levels in almost three decades, settling at a year-round average of four percent in 2000, the peak year of the boom. In this period, wages rose rapidly at all points along the income distribution, with workers at the bottom of the ladder actually achieving the largest gains.

The same principle would apply today, with the gains of a tight labor market going disproportionately to the most disadvantaged. The unemployment rate for African-Americans is typically two to two-and-a-half times that of whites. This means if we can lower the unemployment rate for whites by one percentage point, it is likely that the unemployment rate for African-Americans will fall by two percentage points. For African-American teens, the ratio hovers near six to one, meaning that a one percentage point drop in the white unemployment rate is likely to be associated with a six percentage point drop in the unemployment rate for African-American teens.
Think carefully, is your strategy sacrificing African American teens so that you can feel good about helping illegal migrants?

Since Mexico is a fully functioning democracy, with wide church presence, aren’t they primarily responsible for their citizens, not the US Govt? Do you think the Church in Mexico is not functionally capable?

Where there isn’t a functional local Govt, I do see we can play a role as their northern neighbor, but the role is to support them, not abdicate them of their responsibility.
 
Last edited:
I read somewhere that the 1.8 million is now down to 800,000. I think it premature to consider Trump some sort of humanitarian. After his last bait and switch on an immigration bill, I will not believe any thing he says, only his actions. Compassion is not his M.O.
 
Last edited:
I think it’s premature to assume anything.
Wait for the final bill and then judge POTUS/Congress on their actions.

800k number reflects all the people in DACA
 
I can think of several other factors that may have made the change in employment numbers for immigrants higher than the change in the same thing for non-immigrants, but this is the most obvious. I think the way you conduct a study of the effect of immigration on American workers is by looking at periods of time when immigration was high and when immigration was low and seeing how the corresponding employment numbers are affected. When economists do this they conclude there is essentially no effect, positive or negative, on the employment prospects and wages caused by immigration. Here is one such study.
OK, Penn Wharton is a serious source on the question of economics, but this study addresses something fundamentally different than the issue I was discussing. I had spoken of the impact of immigration (and especially illegal immigration) on primarily manual laborers. In that category, US citizens have experienced significant declines even as immigrant participation has exploded. The study you cite is about a different class of immigrant.

"Immigrants are at the forefront of innovation and ingenuity in the United States, accounting for a disproportionately high share of patent filings, science and technology graduates, and senior positions at top venture capital-funded firms. "

I think few people are concerned with immigrants who come here with these credentials.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top