New Study Shows that Immigrants Don't Steal Jobs from American Citizens

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Just heard on CNBC that there are 6 Million Jobs going begging out there. That's 6 Million!

The clamp down on immigration is causing a serious problem with unfilled jobs; the industries MOST affected are Home Building/Construction Industry and Farm Labor, and of course IT jobs. I don't quite understand the IT/Tech Jobs problem.......apparently Silicone Valley has been campaigning for years for a serious increase in the number of H-1B visas issued annually. Other studies, (and no, I'm not going to try to provide links, these are stories in general publication everywhere), indicate that there's a serious mismatch between the degree programs offered at the Universities and the Jobs that Industry and Companies need filled.

But wait.......it gets really worse! Not only are College Students getting degrees in the wrong fields, (there's only so many jobs for Race Relations degrees and multicultural basket weaving), the kids are graduating without even the most basic of skills needed for a job that requires a college degree.........working at Enterprise Rent-a-Car.
See: www.washingtonpost.com... .3dd69582b127

Even so, Enterprise, like many employers, still finds today’s college graduates severely lacking in some basic skills, particularly problem solving, decision making, and the ability to prioritize tasks. “This is a generation that has been ‘syllabused’ through their lives,” Artim said, referring to the outline of a class students receive at the beginning of a college course. “Decisions were made for them, so we’re less likely to find someone who can pull the trigger and make a decision.”

In a pair of surveys by the Association of American Colleges & Universities, would-be graduates said college armed them with the skills needed for the job market. But employers disagreed. On a range of nearly 20 skills, employers consistently rated students much lower than they judged themselves. While 57 percent of students said they were creative and innovative, for example, just 25 percent of employers agreed.

There's a chart there I can't seem to copy into my comment, but......its' really a stunner.
For example, on the survey when asked how well the candidate thought they were good at communications skills, 65% of the students ranked themselves high on that metric while employers stated that only 27% of the applicants were good at communications skills. On "Awareness/Experience of diverse cultures in the US"; Applicants: 48%; Employers a dismal 21%!

Yea, if US businesses are going to be able to continue to make money doing business in the US, the Immigration pipeline needs to be opened up big time! Starting NOW; otherwise...............China/India....there they go! And lets face it, the biggest reason for being IN the US is to make money!

originally posted by: Wayfarer
Regarding your claim that there are 11-17 million illegals in the country (and practically nobody breaking/prosecuted for the bizarre laws I linked earlier) once again illustrates that you can't make an absolute assertion then imply that there is some subjective quantification upon which it begins to apply - this effectively negates the absolutism you espoused earlier. Is the law absolute (and worthy of being enforced regardless of the amount of people purported to be subject to it), or are there laws that by virtue of the relevancy/applicability to a substantial enough group/public opinion deserve to be selectively enforced?

Why would someone push for increased enforcement of a law that isn't being violated, though? I'm sure somewhere there are written guidelines that call for every toilet to have a "DO NOT DRINK FROM TOILET BOWL" plaque on them, yet we never see these plaque and nobody is crying for them to be installed because nobody in their right mind drinks from toilets. We address problems such as lax enforcement when lax enforcement arises, not when no law is being broken and thus, no increased scrutiny in enforcement is needed.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

FYI, I live in Texas and have seen several articles about the fact that this has become a really big issue in the San Antonio school districts and the Educrats have started addressing it by offering more vocational training and teaming up with area Employers to provide OJT that translates to credits to apply toward graduation. I believe they're started doing that in the Houston area school districts as well.

You know Texas as well as I do and the biggest problem we have are shortages of skilled workers in the oil patch, home construction, plumbing, electrical.........general Construction and heavy equipment operation. Hopefully Texas High Schools will get the message loud and clear!

a reply to: burdman30ott6

In my previous reply to you I linked a bunch of cases of violation of 27 U.S.C. §207, §205(e) & 27 C.F.R. §4.39(a)(9) - which make it a federal crime to sell wine with a brand name including the word "zombie." So the law is in fact being violated, and your query as to why we need to ignore a law that nobody is violating is not applicable in this case.

Violation is occurring, just not on the scale you referenced. Are laws then to be enforced based on a subjectively determined qualitative value (in this case the amount of violations)? If so, what is that number and how/why did you arrive at it, and why is your previous absolute assertion now subject to modification?

originally posted by: Wayfarer
I look forward to your post on Zombie wine and the atrocious influx of illegality its brought to America (and more specifically that wretched hive of scum and villainy heretofore referred to as California).

The actual US code:
www.law.cornell.edu...

(9) Any word in the brand name or class and type designation which is the name of a distilled spirits product or which simulates, imitates, or created the impression that the wine so labeled is, or is similar to, any product customarily made with a distilled spirits base. Examples of such words are: “Manhattan,” “Martini,” and “Daquiri” in a class and type designation or brand name of a wine cocktail; “Cuba Libre,” “Zombie,” and “Collins” in a class and type designation or brand name of a wine specialty or wine highball; “creme,” “cream,” “de,” or “of” when used in conjunction with “menthe,” “mint,” or “cacao” in a class and type designation or a brand name of a mint or chocolate flavored wine specialty.

I'm not a wine drinker, but the law seems to specify "wine specialty" or "wine highball" which are flavored/mixed wine coolers or wine mixed with carbonated flavored soda (if my limited understanding of wines is correct). That would make selling a standard wine with "Zombie" in the brand name perfectly legal.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

I believe you are misunderstanding it. It is saying that any wine that attempts to 'masquerade' as a distilled spirit drink like a 'manhattan', or a wine cocktail, such as 'cuba libre' and 'zombie' is in violation of the law.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Unless and until the law is changed, it must be enforced. That's the social contract.

The law is just a piece of paper with text on it. I'd rather obey the spirit of the law instead and I don't feel like punishing people that want to live here just because they happened to have been born on some part of the planet that isn't within our arbitrary borders and didn't come here the EXACT way we wanted them to. But then again I feel the same way towards drug laws. I happen to not care for authority that I have deemed to be nonsensical.

Explain to me why i should be able to move into your house and you should just accept it. I have no legal right, but when i interpret the spirit of the law to favor me, then it's cool right?

originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: burdman30ott6

I believe you are misunderstanding it. It is saying that any wine that attempts to 'masquerade' as a distilled spirit drink like a 'manhattan', or a wine cocktail, such as 'cuba libre' and 'zombie' is in violation of the law.

Are these examples you provided attempting to masquerade as these?

originally posted by: Woodcarver
Explain to me why i should be able to move into your house and you should just accept it.

I believe in the spirit of fairness you posit where you've pulled that example from. Was it from an actual epidemic of illegal alien activity (a mass 'squatting' type event perhaps), or rather a fevered imagination driven by fear?

I should hope not the latter because its rather disingenuous to ask the question when its been loaded with absurd hyperbole.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

By the letter of the law yes, though ironically what I believe you're getting at (and which I also agree with) is that by the 'spirit of the law' they are not.

So, again, as a staunch supporter of the 'letter of the law' this should qualify as something you feel should be railed against and prosecuted (not to imply you actually bear any feelings towards the wine specifically, rather to the ideal of following the letter of the law).

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Woodcarver
Explain to me why i should be able to move into your house and you should just accept it.

I believe in the spirit of fairness you posit where you've pulled that example from. Was it from an actual epidemic of illegal alien activity (a mass 'squatting' type event perhaps), or rather a fevered imagination driven by fear?

I should hope not the latter because its rather disingenuous to ask the question when its been loaded with absurd hyperbole.

You didn't read the part when i quoted what Krazyshot said?

a reply to: Woodcarver

Oh indeed I did. It didn't mention anything about freely letting illegal immigrants take control of our homes. Did you mean to quote a different bit of text from him and the section above was in error?

originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: burdman30ott6

By the letter of the law yes, though ironically what I believe you're getting at (and which I also agree with) is that by the 'spirit of the law' they are not.

So, again, as a staunch supporter of the 'letter of the law' this should qualify as something you feel should be railed against and prosecuted (not to imply you actually bear any feelings towards the wine specifically, rather to the ideal of following the letter of the law).

DIsagree. By the letter of the law, there are specific classifications of wine and spirits which this law pertains to. If the Zombie Zins in question aren't in that classification, then by the letter of the law, they're perfectly legal. I appreciate your attempt here and your tenacity, but you've failed to demonstrate whatever it was you were hoping to trap me into.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Well I don't believe thats accurate. If you will allow me to demonstrate:

The portions of the law above that you included earlier (thanks for that):

" Any word in the brand name or class and type designation which is the name of a distilled spirits product or which simulates, imitates, or created the impression that the wine so labeled is, or is similar to, any product customarily made with a distilled spirits base. Examples of such words are: “Manhattan,” “Martini,” and “Daquiri” in a class and type designation or brand name of a wine cocktail; “Cuba Libre,” “Zombie,” and “Collins” in a class and type designation or brand name of a wine specialty or wine highball; “creme,” “cream,” “de,” or “of” when used in conjunction with “menthe,” “mint,” or “cacao” in a class and type designation or a brand name of a mint or chocolate flavored wine specialty."

The bolded portions clearly spell out that to be in violation of this law the wine need only contain the word 'zombie' in the name. The rest of the language acts as exception derivatives (notice 'or' is used rather than 'and') that further clarify rather than reduce the scope of the aforementioned bolded portions.

Lastly, I'm not trying to 'trap' you into anything. In fact, I suspect you and I share a lot closer opinion on the subject than our discussion herein would let on. Rather I'm trying to explain why I (and some others in this thread) believe the 'spirit of the law' has real validity and weight to bear on the illegal immigrant discussion, and I felt it was best to do it through discourse with someone who most of the posters in the thread already related to and who would provide a worthwhile discussion and eventual elucidating conclusion that would benefit everyone's' preconceived notions and views on the subject.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: pavil
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It's called have the economy actually grow above the anemic rates of the Early Days after the "Great Recession" To extrapolate that to "illegals don't effect things" is a mighty long stretch. What would unemployment and wages be without even half of the illegal workforce?

The recession ended awhile ago. Obama pulled us out of that during his Presidency.

.
Uh....yeah. go take a look at those GDPs. A real recovery would have done much better numbers. Any Economist would tell you most of the time the Obama numbers have been below average.

You know, there is a reason that people who live in Washington, DC call the Washington Post the 'Compost'. You get bettr news from the 'National Enquirer'...

It doesn't matter, what matters is the law. Change the law, bring needed people in legally. Hire only legally.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Who's against legal immigration?

The left mix legal and illegal up all the time.

they're the real bigots.

a reply to: worldstarcountry

Sorry I missed this earlier...my point was that there was no way the study was valid if it backed up his remarks in the OP. I tried to explain the logic of why it wouldn't be a very accurate representation.

It wasn't really meant to say hey look they don't pay taxes...everyone pays them in some way or another, however considering that income tax would be like 15-25% of their yearly income...that's much more than the smaller taxes you get hit with for things like you gave examples of. Either way though I am not a fan of the income tax in the first place. I think it is an unconstitutional tax to start with and wish one day we would rise up and throw that yoke off of us. That is a topic for another thread though.

In the end my entire point and argument had nothing to do with taxes being paid or illegal immigration being good or bad. My point was just that the study was flawed and not an accurate representation because employers won't out themselves, the illegals aren't going to out themselves, and the SS Office won't alert you to any funny business anyway for you to know...and how honest do you really think they are about how much that occurs. I bet it doesn't even get reported half the time. To me for those reasons alone I have enough reason to doubt any study into what the OP purported his to be about. Later we found out that it was more a case of misrepresentation of the study which made a whole lot more sense.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Who's against legal immigration?

That's just it NO ONE IS! you can't conflate ILLEGAL and LEGAL. Typical straw man argument.