The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

Americans First – Citizenism as a Moral Principle to Regulate Immigration

Yes, of course. A lot of people have Benvolio's artistically-amputated worldview, so orchestras are having a hard time. Many have collapsed, some have tried going off-union, which is BAD, etc. Others thrive though, depends on how smart their management is.
 
Well, yes, but I meant do you know if that's the LSO's practice? And do you know of any other major orchestras that have either dropped unions or abolished long term contracts?
 
No, I am not familiar with the LSO. And I can't name particular ones, I just know it's happened. Luckily, some orchestras that announced bankruptcy and missed concert seasons, have come back in the game.
 
Benvolio said:
Her is one. More to follow.http://www.fairus.org/docs/poverty_rev.pdf
Click to expand...

I come away from that with two thoughts:

1. Penalties against employers hiring illegals have got to increase; I advocate jail time for employers who are found hiring illegals more than once.

2. The data is country-wide; I suspect that there are regional differences,


But the big problem is still government meddling in the economy in ways that have cost jobs rather than enabled creating them.
 
Benvolio said:
You brag about pushing an American out of a job, and not in a field of science and medicine but of noise making. This marginal difference between you and the next guy does not justify pushing him aside. How many classical musicians are out of work? You could give a damn less. Worse, you vote Democat to hurt Americans; more and more immigrants and confiscatory taxes on Americans.
Click to expand...

Noise making? What a derogatory term for one of the pillars that makes up a culture. Music, particularly classical music, is important to our culture and has innumerable positive benefits to the individual who listens to it. It is a universally loved art and exists because individuals like Rolyo devote their careers to preserving or growing the field.

What is particularly disgusting by your most recent responses is that you're offended of Rolyo's existence. You make some wild claim that he's somehow taking an "American" musician's job, then go on an off-topic rant about how he votes is destroying America. You're antagonizing and spiteful in this forum not because of how Rolyo behaves, but you despise him simply because of his ethnic heritage standing on American soil. That makes you a xenophobe, and a racist. When you judge a person for who they are, not by the content of their character, that is prejudice.
 
Just_Believe18 said:
Noise making? What a derogatory term for one of the pillars that makes up a culture. Music, particularly classical music, is important to our culture and has innumerable positive benefits to the individual who listens to it. It is a universally loved art and exists because individuals like Rolyo devote their careers to preserving or growing the field.

What is particularly disgusting by your most recent responses is that you're offended of Rolyo's existence. You make some wild claim that he's somehow taking an "American" musician's job, then go on an off-topic rant about how he votes is destroying America. You're antagonizing and spiteful in this forum not because of how Rolyo behaves, but you despise him simply because of his ethnic heritage standing on American soil. That makes you a xenophobe, and a racist. When you judge a person for who they are, not by the content of their character, that is prejudice.
Click to expand...
Nonsense. He is white, as am i, so there is no racism involved. Nor does it have anything to with his ethnic heritage. This thread explores citizenism as a moral principal governing immigration. It is about Americans being entitled to a preference for American jobs, or not. We don't all agree that Americans should be shoved under the bus to make room for immigrants.
 
Wow, you just made yourself sound even more racist. "He's white like me so there's no racism." You know, you can be white and of a different ethnic heritage. You're judging Rolyo for his ethnic heritage because he is an immigrant from another country. You can't separate the two. You despise immigrants, and have gone on record of how their cultures destroy the American culture with their own.
 
It's not as if there are aren't any actual policies around on immigration reform.
President Obama's plan recently passed in the Senate - though it's unlikely to go any further.
The White House has just issued a report on the economic benefits of reform. Politicians need to pay attention to this, in my view.

The economic benefits:

I. Strengthens the overall economy and grows U.S. GDP: Independent studies affirm that commonsense immigration reform will increase economic growth. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that enacting the Senate immigration reform bill will increase real GDP relative to current law projections by 3.3 percent in 2023 and 5.4 percent in 2033 – an increase of roughly $700 billion in 2023 and $1.4 trillion in 2033 in today’s dollars. A larger labor force; higher productivity and investment; and stronger technology, tourism, hospitality, agriculture, and housing industries are just some of the key ways that immigration reform strengthens the U.S. economy.
II. Fosters innovation and encourages more job creation and job growth in the U.S.: Evidence shows that immigrants are highly entrepreneurial. Immigration reform would streamline the process for highly-skilled and highly-educated workers to come to the U.S. and build businesses that create jobs for Americans. In addition, it encourages companies to locate, invest, and expand here in the U.S. Under the recently passed Senate legislation, entrepreneurial immigrants would be eligible for newly created temporary and permanent visas if they demonstrate that they have ideas that attract U.S. investment or revenue and establish businesses that create jobs.
III. Increases the productivity of workers and adds new protections for American workers: According to CBO and other independent studies, immigration reform will ultimately increase overall U.S. productivity, resulting in higher GDP and higher wages. Part of this gain in productivity comes from immigrants’ creating new inventions and companies, as well as from improvements in U.S. production processes. Bringing undocumented workers out of the shadows and into the legal economy also helps put a stop to practices that undercut wages and worsen working conditions for American workers. This bill also has provisions to protect U.S. workers and ensure that new worksite enforcement and border security measures deter future illegal immigration.
IV. Decreases budget deficits, balances out an aging population, and strengthens Social Security: The CBO found that the enacting Senate immigration reform bill will reduce the federal budget deficit by nearly $850 billion over the next 20 years. In addition, the independent Chief Actuary of the Social Security Administration (SSA) has found that immigration reform will improve the long-term financial standing of Social Security by adding younger workers to the U.S. workforce. The SSA Actuary estimates that the Senate’s immigration reform bill will add nearly $300 billion to the Social Security Trust Fund over the next decade and would improve Social Security’s finances over the long run, extending Social Security solvency by two years.
Click to expand...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/07/10/economic-benefits-fixing-our-broken-immigration-system
 
Just_Believe18 said:
Wow, you just made yourself sound even more racist. "He's white like me so there's no racism." You know, you can be white and of a different ethnic heritage. You're judging Rolyo for his ethnic heritage because he is an immigrant from another country. You can't separate the two. You despise immigrants, and have gone on record of how their cultures destroy the American culture with their own.
Click to expand...
I do not despise immigrants. I object to the effects of immigration on Americans.
 
Benvolio said:
Her[e] is one. More to follow.http://www.fairus.org/docs/poverty_rev.pdf
Click to expand...

I’ve spent some time looking at the publication by FAIR. It appears to me that the author(s) are propagating “talking points” without providing an honest assessment of the associated data or including recognition of how their conclusions conflict with most legitimate studies. As is customary for FAIR, they cite external sources, but they cherry-pick specific data points to illustrate their preconceived intentions.

Of course, this isn’t the first time I’ve encountered FAIR …




But let’s look at some of their findings related in the link you provided.

In 2009, less than 6 percent of legal immigrants were admitted because they possessed skills deemed essential to the U.S. economy.
Click to expand...

I suppose this statement is included as evidence to prove that the vast majority of immigrants to the US lack essential skills. What the document fails to mention is that the H-1B visa has a statutory cap of 65,000.

65,000 ÷ 1,130,818 = 5.75%​



Studies that find minimal or no negative effects on native workers from low-skill immigration are based upon flawed assumptions and skewed economic models, not upon observations of actual labor market conditions.
Click to expand...

Flawed assumptions, eh?


n unskilled groups like construction, machine operators, drivers, and farming, foreign-born workers consistently earned at least 10 percent less than their peers.
Click to expand...

The above statement is based on a report published by the Fiscal Policy Institute and fails to incorporate the essential premise of that report, which is:

Undocumented workers are in a particularly difficult position in the U.S. labor market, often victimized by employer exploitation and hurt by weak enforcement of labor laws that are intended to cover all workers, regardless of immigration status.
Click to expand...
Or, this statement in the report’s introduction:

We fully support a comprehensive solution to our broken and outdated immigration system. Millions of undocumented men and women who are already part of our communities must be brought out of the shadows and given protection under the law.
Click to expand...

In 2010, Raúl Hinojosa-Ojeda of the Center for American Progress estimated that unskilled workers would on average make about $400 more per year if the illegal immigrant population were reduced by 4 million, or approximately one-third.
Click to expand...

Looking at the actual report reveals that the estimate is based upon a mass deportation scenario:

Mass deportation reduces U.S. GDP by 1.46 percent. This amounts to $2.6 trillion in cumulative lost GDP over 10 years, not including the actual cost of deportation. Wages would rise for less-skilled native-born workers, but would diminish for higher-skilled natives, and would lead to widespread job loss.
Click to expand...

In Georgia, where the illegal immigrant share of the labor force went from about 4 percent to 7 percent from 2000 to 2007, a study by the Federal Reserve found that the illegal labor caused a 2.5 percent wage drop overall and an 11 percent drop in construction wages over the period.
Click to expand...

As a Georgia employer, I have participated in that state’s Wage Survey and note that its methodology involves only random sampling of employers with less than 250 employees, which includes most construction companies. (See page 270)

Establishments in all size classes were selected for the survey and all firms having 250 or more employees were included.
Click to expand...
Wages for small employers may differ from those for larger employers. No distinction has been made for union and non-union employees. Finally, the minimum publication criteria which have been met by the given wage figures do not necessarily imply statistical accuracy.
Click to expand...

I note that the Working Paper shares a conclusion pointed out by Dr. Holzer (See link in my earlier post above).

Furthermore, the inflow of undocumented workers does more to displace earlier hired undocumented workers than it does to displace documented workers.
Click to expand...

This is certainly not a comprehensive critique of the FAIR document you linked, but I see lots of reasons to doubt its sincerity. I would prefer that you provide links to more academic-style research results that are not tainted by an obvious predisposition of outcome.
 
opinterph said:
I’ve spent some time looking at the publication by FAIR. It appears to me that the author(s) are propagating “talking points” without providing an honest assessment of the associated data or including recognition of how their conclusions conflict with most legitimate studies. As is customary for FAIR, they cite external sources, but they cherry-pick specific data points to illustrate their preconceived intentions.

Of course, this isn’t the first time I’ve encountered FAIR …




But let’s look at some of their findings related in the link you provided.



I suppose this statement is included as evidence to prove that the vast majority of immigrants to the US lack essential skills. What the document fails to mention is that the H-1B visa has a statutory cap of 65,000.

65,000 ÷ 1,130,818 = 5.75%​





Flawed assumptions, eh?


​
The above statement is based on a report published by the Fiscal Policy Institute and fails to incorporate the essential premise of that report, which is:

​
Or, this statement in the report’s introduction:

​



Looking at the actual report reveals that the estimate is based upon a mass deportation scenario:

​



As a Georgia employer, I have participated in that state’s Wage Survey and note that its methodology involves only random sampling of employers with less than 250 employees, which includes most construction companies. (See page 270)


​

I note that the Working Paper shares a conclusion pointed out by Dr. Holzer (See link in my earlier post above).

​

This is certainly not a comprehensive critique of the FAIR document you linked, but I see lots of reasons to doubt its sincerity. I would prefer that you provide links to more academic-style research results that are not tainted by an obvious predisposition of outcome.
Click to expand...

I think your own bias is clearly showing. As I have often pointed out, I seldom cite sources because liberals here always dismiss them as right wing. You regard academic sources as unbiased and "legitimate" but Universities seldom hire Republicans or conservatives in social studies areas. Academic studies are invariably liberal studies for the purpose of supporting the liberal agenda. Note that Fiscal Policy study uses the euphemism "undocumented" workers. Actually, it is illegal for the workers to come into the country and illegal for them to be hired. Having failed to mention this, then the academics fully recognize that illegals work for less, but conclude that the solution is to give them the full protection of the labor laws. Indeed, as you say, the essential premise is that illegals are victimized and we need enforcement of the labor laws. But if the law were enforced, the illegals could not legally be hired. Moreover, the law does not do more than require minimum wage. So the report concedes that immigrants work for less, and compete with Americans. but thinks the solution is to give them the full protection of the labor laws, making it fully legal for employers to hire illegals. Their liberal bias is that they are more concerned about the "exploitation" of the illegals than they are about the effect on American workers.
The liberal sources fail to mention that it is the large number and WILLINGNESS of immigrants, legal and illegal, to work for less in competition with Americans which pulls down wages. Construction workers and equipment drivers are probably already making more than minimum wage, so entitling them to minimum would not have that much effect.
If we make it legal for employers to hire illegals, and give them the full protection of the labor laws, obviously we give them an incentive to step over the border in greater numbers.
We are often told that we need our large immigration because they bring important education and high skills to the US. When it is pointed out only 6% have essential skills, you seem to think it is an answer to point to the H-1B limitation. You miss the important point that massive immigration cannot be justified by the argument of essential skills.
I doubt if there is such a thing as an immigration study without an bias. Common sense should tell us that we have far too many poor and unemployed in the US and continuously importing millions of additional poor and unemployed will not solve that problem.
 
Find a peer-reviewed paper in an academic publishment. An economics journal or something objective.

I didn't bother to read your whole spew, but there are actually betters reason why there are less conservatives in universities. Liberal-minded people are often more open and inquisitive. Conservative-minded people are less so, and it's unlikely that a university would hire somebody who is closed off or outright rejects new experiences. It's also incredibly unlikely that a university would even ask about politics in the interviews and subsequent reviews. Academia is a progressive and liberal branch of society, being primarily interested in learning. Conservative-minded people are often less-inclined (but they do exist in universities--if you haven't found any, you haven't looked hard enough).
 
@ benvolio:

Translation: "unbiased research doesn't corroborate what I want it to, so I don't go for it." You can accuse opinterph of being biased all you want, but his criticisms are objective, not subjective, and his personal opinion clearly doesn't influence them. Your sources aren't dismissed because they are conservative. They are dismissed because they are obviously biased and use either false and unsubstantiated data, or faulty thought processes.

The reason of course being that immigration is NOT harmful for America, so an objective study would never show that it is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top