the entire US refugee policy is disgusting. plenty of hatians should be given refugee status, but the US is in bed with their government. refugee status is completely political and has nothing to do with the actual well being of refugees.
Illegal immigration hurts the black community
- Thread starter ☑︎#VoteDemocrat
- Start date
What? Why?
I'm posting FACTS in here:
The US Commission on Civil Rights did a study on this confirming everything i've said here in 2008...
http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1756&context=key_workplace
I personally know black Cubans, they live in the Hispanic neighborhood and have no problem with us.con-fukking-gratulations.
THIS!!!!
This is why more minorities getting stronger economically/politically will hurt blacks in the long run. These minorities cannot be guilted, they will tell you that they were persecuted but they "made it" so why can't you. An alliance is based on what you can bring to the table. If you have nothing of value you will be looked down even by people whom you think have no business looking down on you.
and they do it so willinglyFight for people that will kowtow to white people and further help whites disenfranchise Blacks.
@Broke Wave @hashmander @GinaThatAintNoDamnPuppy! @YeLovesBoston @marcuz @Smashius Clay @TheRealfG @ignorethis @Thomas @Raul @Wheresmypassport @the cac mamba @#SOG_soldier @sicc2def @O.G.B
@Monster @scrilla @BocaRear @Solomon Caine @jwonder @DEAD7 @Moshe. @Yup
USA Commission on Civil Rights Report from 2008:
"The Impact of Illegal Immigration on the Wages and Employment Opportunities of Black Workers: A Briefing Before The United States Commission on Civil Rights Held in Washington, DC"
http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1756&context=key_workplace
The Commission selected balanced panels that included Harry Holzer, professor of public policy at Georgetown University; Gordon H. Hanson, professor of economics at the University of California, San Diego; Julie Hotchkiss, research economist and policy advisor at the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta; Vernon Briggs, professor emeritus of labor economics at Cornell University; Gerald Jaynes, professor of economics and African American Studies at Yale University; Richard Nadler, president of Americas Majority Foundation; Carol Swain, professor of political science and law at Vanderbilt University; and Steven Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, DC.
@Monster @scrilla @BocaRear @Solomon Caine @jwonder @DEAD7 @Moshe. @Yup
USA Commission on Civil Rights Report from 2008:
"The Impact of Illegal Immigration on the Wages and Employment Opportunities of Black Workers: A Briefing Before The United States Commission on Civil Rights Held in Washington, DC"
http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1756&context=key_workplace
The Commission selected balanced panels that included Harry Holzer, professor of public policy at Georgetown University; Gordon H. Hanson, professor of economics at the University of California, San Diego; Julie Hotchkiss, research economist and policy advisor at the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta; Vernon Briggs, professor emeritus of labor economics at Cornell University; Gerald Jaynes, professor of economics and African American Studies at Yale University; Richard Nadler, president of Americas Majority Foundation; Carol Swain, professor of political science and law at Vanderbilt University; and Steven Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, DC.
Just did some reading....we talk about solutions and keeping issues oriented on black concerns instead of putting others needs ahead of our own...so it got me thinking...and lo and behold...I was right.
protestor
Man of the year
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/03/2...h-of-the-job-stealing-immigrant.html?referer=
When I was growing up in the 1980s, I watched my grandfather — my dad’s
stepdad — struggle with his own prejudice. He was a blue-collar World War II veteran who loved his family above all things and was constantly afraid for them. He carried a gun and, like many men of his generation, saw threats in people he didn’t understand: African-Americans, independent women, gays. By the time he died, 10 years ago, he had softened. He stopped using racist and homophobic slurs; he even hugged my gay cousin. But there was one view he wasn’t going to change. He had no time for Hispanics, he told us, and he wasn’t backing down. After all, this wasn’t a matter of bigotry. It was plain economics. These immigrants were stealing jobs from “Americans.”
Room for Debate: Do Immigrants Take Jobs From American-Born Workers?JAN. 6, 2015
I’ve been thinking about my grandfather lately, because there are signs that 2015 could bring about the beginning of a truce — or at least a reconfiguration — in the politics of immigration. Several of the potential Republican presidential candidates, most notably Jeb Bush, have expressed pro-immigration views. Even self-identified Tea Party Republicans respond three to two in favor of a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. Every other group — Republicans in general, independents and especially Democrats — is largely pro-immigrant. According to Pew, roughly as many people (18 percent of Americans) believed in 2010 that President Obama was a Muslim as believe today that undocumented immigrants should be expelled from the United States. Of course, that 18 percent can make a lot of noise. But for everyone else, immigration seems to be going the way of same-sex marriage, marijuana and the mohawk — it’s something that a handful of people freak out about but that the rest of us have long since come to accept.
President Obama on Tuesday. Some advocates said this week that they saw a paradox in the president’s policy. Obama’s Immigration Plan Could Shield Five MillionNOV. 19, 2014
A building site last month in Dallas. Construction is concentrated in Texas and three more states.Job Growth for Hispanics Is Outpacing Other GroupsMARCH 8, 2015
On Money: In Greenbacks We TrustFEB. 27, 2015
Scratch the surface, though, and you’ll pretty quickly find that many Americans are closer to my grandfather’s way of seeing things than they might find comfortable acknowledging. I am referring not to the racial animus but to the faulty economic logic. We generally support immigration when the immigrants are different from us. People in the middle and upper-middle classes don’t mind poorly educated, low-skilled immigrants entering the country. Nor do we mind highly educated professionals coming in — unless, that is, we are in the same profession ourselves. More broadly, those of us advocating an immigration overhaul are basically calling for official recognition of the status quo, through offering legal status to some of the roughly 11.2 million undocumented workers who aren’t going away. Few of us are calling for the thing that basic economic analysis shows would benefit nearly all of us: radically open borders.
And yet the economic benefits of immigration may be the most settled fact in economics. A recent University of Chicago poll of leading economists could not find a single one who rejected the proposition. (There is one notable economist who wasn’t polled: George Borjas of Harvard, who believes that his fellow economists underestimate the cost of immigration for low-skilled natives. Borjas’s work is often misused by anti-immigration activists, in much the same way a complicated climate-science result is often invoked as “proof” that global warming is a myth.) Rationally speaking, we should take in far more immigrants than we currently do.
So why don’t we open up? The chief logical mistake we make is something called the Lump of Labor Fallacy: the erroneous notion that there is only so much work to be done and that no one can get a job without taking one from someone else. It’s an understandable assumption. After all, with other types of market transactions, when the supply goes up, the price falls. If there were suddenly a whole lot more oranges, we’d expect the price of oranges to fall or the number of oranges that went uneaten to surge.
But immigrants aren’t oranges. It might seem intuitive that when there is an increase in the supply of workers, the ones who were here already will make less money or lose their jobs. Immigrants don’t just increase the supply of labor, though; they simultaneously increase demand for it, using the wages they earn to rent apartments, eat food, get haircuts, buy cellphones. That means there are more jobs building apartments, selling food, giving haircuts and dispatching the trucks that move those phones. Immigrants increase the size of the overall population, which means they increase the size of the economy. Logically, if immigrants were “stealing” jobs, so would every young person leaving school and entering the job market; countries should become poorer as they get larger. In reality, of course, the opposite happens.
Most anti-immigration arguments I hear are variations on the Lump of Labor Fallacy. That immigrant has a job. If he didn’t have that job, somebody else, somebody born here, would have it. This argument is wrong, or at least wildly oversimplified. But it feels so correct, so logical. And it’s not just people like my grandfather making that argument. Our government policy is rooted in it.
The single greatest bit of evidence disproving the Lump of Labor idea comes from research about the Mariel boatlift, a mass migration in 1980 that brought more than 125,000 Cubans to the United States. According to David Card, an economist at the University of California, Berkeley, roughly 45,000 of them were of working age and moved to Miami; in four months, the city’s labor supply increased by 7 percent. Card found that for people already working in Miami, this sudden influx had no measurable impact on wages or employment. His paper was the most important of a series of revolutionary studies that transformed how economists think about immigration. Before, standard economic models held that immigrants cause long-term benefits, but at the cost of short-term pain in the form of lower wages and greater unemployment for natives. But most economists now believe that Card’s findings were correct: Immigrants bring long-term benefits at no measurable short-term cost. (Borjas, that lone dissenting voice, agrees about the long-term benefits, but he argues that other economists fail to see painful short-term costs, especially for the poor.)
Economists have shifted to studying how nations so quickly adjust to new arrivals. The leading scholar on this today is Giovanni Peri of the University of California, Davis, who has shown that immigrants tend to complement — rather than compete against — the existing work force. Take a construction site: Typically, Peri has found, immigrants with limited education perform many support tasks (moving heavy things, pouring cement, sweeping, painting), while citizens with more education focus on skilled work like carpentry, plumbing and electrical installation, as well as customer relations. The skilled native is able to focus on the most valuable tasks, while the immigrants help bring the price down for the overall project (it costs a lot to pay a highly trained carpenter to sweep up a work site). Peri argues, with strong evidence, that there are more native-born skilled craftspeople working today, not fewer, because of all those undocumented construction workers. A similar dynamic is at play on Wall Street. Many technical-support tasks are dominated by recent immigrants, while sales, marketing, advising and trading, which require cultural and linguistic fluency, are typically the domain of the native-born. (Whether Wall Street’s technical wizards have, on balance, helped or hurt the economy is a question for another day.)
This paradox of immigration is bound up with the paradox of economic growth itself. Growth has acquired a bad reputation of late among some, especially on the left, who associate the term with environmental destruction and rising inequality. But growth through immigration is growth with remarkably little downside. Whenever an immigrant enters the United States, the world becomes a bit richer. For all our faults, the United States is still far better developed economically than most nations, certainly the ones that most of our immigrants have left. Our legal system and our financial and physical infrastructure are also far superior to most (as surprising as that might sometimes seem to us). So when people leave developing economies and set foot on American soil, they typically become more productive, in economic terms. They earn more money, achieve a higher standard of living and add more economic value to the world than they would have if they stayed home. If largely open borders were to replace our expensive and restrictive lottery system, it’s likely that many of these immigrants would travel back and forth between the United States and their native countries, counteracting the potential brain drain by sharing knowledge and investment capital. Environmentally, immigration tends to be less damaging than other forms of growth, because it doesn’t add to the number of people on earth and often shifts people to more environmentally friendly jurisdictions.
To me, immigration is the greatest example of our faulty thinking, a shortsightedness that hurts others while simultaneously hurting ourselveselfs
When I was growing up in the 1980s, I watched my grandfather — my dad’s
stepdad — struggle with his own prejudice. He was a blue-collar World War II veteran who loved his family above all things and was constantly afraid for them. He carried a gun and, like many men of his generation, saw threats in people he didn’t understand: African-Americans, independent women, gays. By the time he died, 10 years ago, he had softened. He stopped using racist and homophobic slurs; he even hugged my gay cousin. But there was one view he wasn’t going to change. He had no time for Hispanics, he told us, and he wasn’t backing down. After all, this wasn’t a matter of bigotry. It was plain economics. These immigrants were stealing jobs from “Americans.”
Room for Debate: Do Immigrants Take Jobs From American-Born Workers?JAN. 6, 2015
I’ve been thinking about my grandfather lately, because there are signs that 2015 could bring about the beginning of a truce — or at least a reconfiguration — in the politics of immigration. Several of the potential Republican presidential candidates, most notably Jeb Bush, have expressed pro-immigration views. Even self-identified Tea Party Republicans respond three to two in favor of a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. Every other group — Republicans in general, independents and especially Democrats — is largely pro-immigrant. According to Pew, roughly as many people (18 percent of Americans) believed in 2010 that President Obama was a Muslim as believe today that undocumented immigrants should be expelled from the United States. Of course, that 18 percent can make a lot of noise. But for everyone else, immigration seems to be going the way of same-sex marriage, marijuana and the mohawk — it’s something that a handful of people freak out about but that the rest of us have long since come to accept.
President Obama on Tuesday. Some advocates said this week that they saw a paradox in the president’s policy. Obama’s Immigration Plan Could Shield Five MillionNOV. 19, 2014
A building site last month in Dallas. Construction is concentrated in Texas and three more states.Job Growth for Hispanics Is Outpacing Other GroupsMARCH 8, 2015
On Money: In Greenbacks We TrustFEB. 27, 2015
Scratch the surface, though, and you’ll pretty quickly find that many Americans are closer to my grandfather’s way of seeing things than they might find comfortable acknowledging. I am referring not to the racial animus but to the faulty economic logic. We generally support immigration when the immigrants are different from us. People in the middle and upper-middle classes don’t mind poorly educated, low-skilled immigrants entering the country. Nor do we mind highly educated professionals coming in — unless, that is, we are in the same profession ourselves. More broadly, those of us advocating an immigration overhaul are basically calling for official recognition of the status quo, through offering legal status to some of the roughly 11.2 million undocumented workers who aren’t going away. Few of us are calling for the thing that basic economic analysis shows would benefit nearly all of us: radically open borders.
And yet the economic benefits of immigration may be the most settled fact in economics. A recent University of Chicago poll of leading economists could not find a single one who rejected the proposition. (There is one notable economist who wasn’t polled: George Borjas of Harvard, who believes that his fellow economists underestimate the cost of immigration for low-skilled natives. Borjas’s work is often misused by anti-immigration activists, in much the same way a complicated climate-science result is often invoked as “proof” that global warming is a myth.) Rationally speaking, we should take in far more immigrants than we currently do.
So why don’t we open up? The chief logical mistake we make is something called the Lump of Labor Fallacy: the erroneous notion that there is only so much work to be done and that no one can get a job without taking one from someone else. It’s an understandable assumption. After all, with other types of market transactions, when the supply goes up, the price falls. If there were suddenly a whole lot more oranges, we’d expect the price of oranges to fall or the number of oranges that went uneaten to surge.
But immigrants aren’t oranges. It might seem intuitive that when there is an increase in the supply of workers, the ones who were here already will make less money or lose their jobs. Immigrants don’t just increase the supply of labor, though; they simultaneously increase demand for it, using the wages they earn to rent apartments, eat food, get haircuts, buy cellphones. That means there are more jobs building apartments, selling food, giving haircuts and dispatching the trucks that move those phones. Immigrants increase the size of the overall population, which means they increase the size of the economy. Logically, if immigrants were “stealing” jobs, so would every young person leaving school and entering the job market; countries should become poorer as they get larger. In reality, of course, the opposite happens.
Most anti-immigration arguments I hear are variations on the Lump of Labor Fallacy. That immigrant has a job. If he didn’t have that job, somebody else, somebody born here, would have it. This argument is wrong, or at least wildly oversimplified. But it feels so correct, so logical. And it’s not just people like my grandfather making that argument. Our government policy is rooted in it.
The single greatest bit of evidence disproving the Lump of Labor idea comes from research about the Mariel boatlift, a mass migration in 1980 that brought more than 125,000 Cubans to the United States. According to David Card, an economist at the University of California, Berkeley, roughly 45,000 of them were of working age and moved to Miami; in four months, the city’s labor supply increased by 7 percent. Card found that for people already working in Miami, this sudden influx had no measurable impact on wages or employment. His paper was the most important of a series of revolutionary studies that transformed how economists think about immigration. Before, standard economic models held that immigrants cause long-term benefits, but at the cost of short-term pain in the form of lower wages and greater unemployment for natives. But most economists now believe that Card’s findings were correct: Immigrants bring long-term benefits at no measurable short-term cost. (Borjas, that lone dissenting voice, agrees about the long-term benefits, but he argues that other economists fail to see painful short-term costs, especially for the poor.)
Economists have shifted to studying how nations so quickly adjust to new arrivals. The leading scholar on this today is Giovanni Peri of the University of California, Davis, who has shown that immigrants tend to complement — rather than compete against — the existing work force. Take a construction site: Typically, Peri has found, immigrants with limited education perform many support tasks (moving heavy things, pouring cement, sweeping, painting), while citizens with more education focus on skilled work like carpentry, plumbing and electrical installation, as well as customer relations. The skilled native is able to focus on the most valuable tasks, while the immigrants help bring the price down for the overall project (it costs a lot to pay a highly trained carpenter to sweep up a work site). Peri argues, with strong evidence, that there are more native-born skilled craftspeople working today, not fewer, because of all those undocumented construction workers. A similar dynamic is at play on Wall Street. Many technical-support tasks are dominated by recent immigrants, while sales, marketing, advising and trading, which require cultural and linguistic fluency, are typically the domain of the native-born. (Whether Wall Street’s technical wizards have, on balance, helped or hurt the economy is a question for another day.)
This paradox of immigration is bound up with the paradox of economic growth itself. Growth has acquired a bad reputation of late among some, especially on the left, who associate the term with environmental destruction and rising inequality. But growth through immigration is growth with remarkably little downside. Whenever an immigrant enters the United States, the world becomes a bit richer. For all our faults, the United States is still far better developed economically than most nations, certainly the ones that most of our immigrants have left. Our legal system and our financial and physical infrastructure are also far superior to most (as surprising as that might sometimes seem to us). So when people leave developing economies and set foot on American soil, they typically become more productive, in economic terms. They earn more money, achieve a higher standard of living and add more economic value to the world than they would have if they stayed home. If largely open borders were to replace our expensive and restrictive lottery system, it’s likely that many of these immigrants would travel back and forth between the United States and their native countries, counteracting the potential brain drain by sharing knowledge and investment capital. Environmentally, immigration tends to be less damaging than other forms of growth, because it doesn’t add to the number of people on earth and often shifts people to more environmentally friendly jurisdictions.
To me, immigration is the greatest example of our faulty thinking, a shortsightedness that hurts others while simultaneously hurting ourselveselfs
Claude Anderson going in
Dr. Claud Anderson - The Problem with Immigration, Integration and Civil Rights
Dr. Claud Anderson - The Problem with Immigration, Integration and Civil Rights
whats any of this got to do with illegals?
The Amerikkkan Idol
The Amerikkkan Nightmare
Jesus, Napoleon givin' y'all that work in this thread. It's about time, his obsessiveness is good for something.
Now, you know damn well there isn't a sizable percentage of Black folks being denied jobs in Silicon Valley because of legal immigrants. If anything privileged CACs and Asians who grew up here are more likely to be feeling that pressure.We're feeling it in blue collar jobs, where the majority of people work.
Good job trying to change the subject though.
good thing thats not me. Enjoy that football your father left on your 8th birthday.
Maybe he'll come back to finish that game of catch, one day
That's some straight up CAC, Republican logic.
The only jobs that matter are brain surgeon jobs?
Working class people have a right to jobs, regardless of how menial you think they are.
Our parents, grand parents, and great grandparents paid taxes and built this country for US, not for someone else who's never paid tax in their lives to come over here and compete against their grandchildren for jobs.
Same money being used on jordans and jewelry.
Most of us are just trying to survive and you're talking about Air Jordans and jewelry as if we're all materialistic dikks. Have you been hanging out with Bill Cosby?And they all have shytted on Black folks and made life harder for us.
To this day, the Irish, Italians, and Polish predominate construction fields because they were allowed to when we weren't even able to get on a job site.
The Italians and Irish also make up a sizable percentage of the police who are regularly whooping our asses and shooting up Black folks.
Look at how awful Boston has been to Black people for the past 100 years. How did that happen? When they were trying to desegregate the schools, who do you think were the main ones out there telling us "****** go home"?
Every mass immigration pattern has hurt Black people the most. Look it up.
Their children grow up to own business and don't hire us.
That's a bullshyt argument. This is a society. Even bad jobs are supposed to be for the citizens of the society. Just ask Japan, China, or hell, ask Mexico about that when they're deporting El Salvadorians and Guatamalans who are looking for a better life.Who says anything about denying. They are illegal competition for us in the blue collar labor force. They suppress wages and occupy jobs that should be for American citizens.
Also, their children grow up benefiting from American schools and hospitals, then grow up, go to college, and hire other Mexicans over Blacks.
This script is repeating.
This is what the Irish did.
This is what Italians did,.
This is what Jews did.
.jpg)
So, your answer is to make sure that even less working class Blacks can get jobs thta allow them ANY chance of making a living by allowing illegal immigration to sprial out of control.
You think Matthew in accounting is worried about Jose taking his job?
Our enemy is the lack of social mobility and the anti-intellucalism that is pushed in the community.
Matthew lives in a community with good schools and jobs, and will go to college and make alliances with his parents' friends' children and always have a job.
Because dumb ass c00ns have been brainwashed into think that whatever is good for Democrats is good for us.
These dudes are dumb enough to believe that White liberals will always come to save us and have our best interests in mind and it's the "big bad Republicans" who are against illegal immigration, therefore it must be good for us.
Tell Mexico that it's physically impossible to stop immigration.
Tell Japan that it's physically imopssible to stop immigration
Blackout
just your usual nerdy brotha
nikka plz
Ive seen people do this shyt in real life lol.
Except that Mexicans have been here longer than Italians, Jews and Irish. You can't stop Mexican immigration . Go to bed.
It's about time, his obsessiveness is good for something.
We're feeling it in blue collar jobs, where the majority of people work.
Good job trying to change the subject though.
That's some straight up CAC, Republican logic.
The only jobs that matter are brain surgeon jobs?
Working class people have a right to jobs, regardless of how menial you think they are.
Our parents, grand parents, and great grandparents paid taxes and built this country for US, not for someone else who's never paid tax in their lives to come over here and compete against their grandchildren for jobs.
And they all have shytted on Black folks and made life harder for us.
To this day, the Irish, Italians, and Polish predominate construction fields because they were allowed to when we weren't even able to get on a job site.
The Italians and Irish also make up a sizable percentage of the police who are regularly whooping our asses and shooting up Black folks.
Look at how awful Boston has been to Black people for the past 100 years. How did that happen? When they were trying to desegregate the schools, who do you think were the main ones out there telling us "****** go home"?
Every mass immigration pattern has hurt Black people the most. Look it up.
Their children grow up to own business and don't hire us.
Who says anything about denying. They are illegal competition for us in the blue collar labor force. They suppress wages and occupy jobs that should be for American citizens.
Also, their children grow up benefiting from American schools and hospitals, then grow up, go to college, and hire other Mexicans over Blacks.
This script is repeating.
This is what the Irish did.
This is what Italians did,.
This is what Jews did.
So, your answer is to make sure that even less working class Blacks can get jobs thta allow them ANY chance of making a living by allowing illegal immigration to sprial out of control.
Matthew lives in a community with good schools and jobs, and will go to college and make alliances with his parents' friends' children and always have a job.
Because dumb ass c00ns have been brainwashed into think that whatever is good for Democrats is good for us.
These dudes are dumb enough to believe that White liberals will always come to save us and have our best interests in mind and it's the "big bad Republicans" who are against illegal immigration, therefore it must be good for us.
Tell Mexico that it's physically impossible to stop immigration.
Tell Japan that it's physically imopssible to stop immigration