Handling illegal immigration

[warpus]

Unemployment in the US is under 4%.

I've read that in the U.S. people who are unemployed but are not looking for work are not counted in these numbers. If true then the real unemployment rate is much higher.

 

[luiz]

Mostly because of harsh protectionist measures which prevent immigrants from working and thus force them to either turn to crime or government handouts.

No, it's just the result of dirt poor people with tons of kids and wives that don't work arriving in a country that gives you plenty of cash for being dirt poor, having tons of kids and not working. And that will also fully pick-up the Healthcare and education costs of you and your entire family if you can't pay for it.

Note that other immigrant waves in the past, and even some in the present, were certainly a net benefit to society. Others are a huge net drag.

 

[Akka]

I've read that in the U.S. people who are unemployed but are not looking for work are not counted in these numbers. If true then the real unemployment rate is much higher.

Same thing in UK, where you're not "unemployed" if you work 0-hour contracts.
Guess which country has a very low unemployment rate ?

 

[Bugfatty300]

There was also the Iroquois confederacy, which is frequently cited in this context.

However, it's not like any Europeans were actually immigrating and joining these societies. That's where the comparison breaks down.

Well, the English kind of did albeit for a very brief time, so I think the early origins of the USA and Canada is sort comparable.

The first fledgling English settlements in America existed purely at the whim of local native.authorities, even stepping in with humanitarian aide to keep the poor bastards from starving to death. They certainly didn't plop down wherever they wanted. The Powhatan even considered resettling Jamestown into their heartland and incorporating them into their confederacy. Plymouth, at first, was especially beholden to the local tribe. The original America' "thanksgiving dinner" was the diseased emaciated pilgrims showing gratitude to the Indians for giving them food and a place to live. People tend to forget that the pilgrims were stateless desperate refugees too...

(I don't know as much about them but early French fur traders also cooperated with native powers and seemed to integrate quite well into indigenous life and politics. And yeah the conquistadors were a whole different ballgame entirely.

And of obviously this cooperation vanished overnight as soon as soon as English trade and support kicked in. At this point the comparison with modern immigration breaks down. The English negotiated their way into America while believing themselves and their God to be superior in everyway to these "heathen savages" and that the tide would turn as soon as they built up a few regiments and artillery...and the rest is history.

BTW Haudenosaunee is what the Iroquois call themselves. (I can't pronounce it at all but I sure as hell remember how to spell it.)

 

[Oerdin]

I've read that in the U.S. people who are unemployed but are not looking for work are not counted in these numbers. If true then the real unemployment rate is much higher.

This is true. This number is also counted as there are multiple officially tracked ways to calculate unemployment but politicians routinely quote the worst way as it deliberately under counts the unemployed and thus makes them look better. The media is mostly lazy and filled with not very technically savvy people. The few that do know the details long ago were told it is bad for ratings to bother explaining such details.

 

[Peuri]

This is true. This number is also counted as there are multiple officially tracked ways to calculate unemployment but politicians routinely quote the worst way as it deliberately under counts the unemployed and thus makes them look better. The media is mostly lazy and filled with not very technically savvy people. The few that do know the do know the details long ago were told it is bad for ratings to both explaining such details.

Another example why capitalism and information spreading don't go well together.

 

[Oerdin]

Another example why capitalism and information spreading don't go well together.

They go well if you regulate them. Say "As a requirement to keeping your broadcast license you must have X hours of prime time educational programming on the following issues..." then you revoke the broadcast license from any who fail to fulfill their regulatory requirements.

Sadly, in America our political system has become more corrupted than ever so now politicians only care about doing the bidding of the donor class.

 

[Azem.Ocram]

I've read that in the U.S. people who are unemployed but are not looking for work are not counted in these numbers. If true then the real unemployment rate is much higher.

Real unemployment is still lower than natural unemployment, which means we have an inflationary gap. Adding more workers will decrease the rate of inflation and bolster the economy of the USA.

 

[civvver]

So it's not truly 4%, but it's still much lower than 2009 when the reported number was ~10%, and when people were on unemployment so long they finally got kicked off and still didn't have jobs and were dropped. A lot of people have exited the workforce and not gone back but I believe there are plenty of opportunities for those who want them and many employers are struggling to fill positions. Small businesses to large ones, it's not just our corporate overlords.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

They go well if you regulate them. Say "As a requirement to keeping your broadcast license you must have X hours of prime time educational programming on the following issues..." then you revoke the broadcast license from any who fail to fulfill their regulatory requirements.

Sadly, in America our political system has become more corrupted than ever so now politicians only care about doing the bidding of the donor class.

Then suddenly, anything not fitting the government narrative is "inaccurate/not educational". The incentive stating 4% unemployment rate won't go away, but now broadcast companies that say something else get their licenses revoked.

It's fundamentally equivalent to the present model, unsurprisingly given who is in each others' pockets all the time. Why make it official when you can do it unofficially and at least give off the appearance of being more fair?

 

[Oerdin]

Real unemployment is still lower than natural unemployment, which means we have an inflationary gap. Adding more workers will decrease the rate of inflation and bolster the economy of the USA.

If we calculated unemployment the way Norway does we would currently be at 8% to 8.5% unemployment. So, no. A better way would be to find a way to get the labor participation rate up such as exempting income to a higher amount foe people on SSI or SSDI or various assistance programs.

 

[innonimatu]

The Haudenosaunee confederacy had a sophisticated representative government centuries before the advent of the English parliament. Arguably better example of a modern state than what the Europeans had when North American colonization began.

We know that because...? I mean, centuries before the english parliament would be centuries before the first europeans arrived there, unless you regard Parliament as having come into being only after the Cromwell episode (which would be technically incorrect). So we're talking 1300s. And they didn't have writing in North America, and oral traditions just cannot be reliable over hundreds of years. So how can anyone claim that such a confederacy with such-and-such political processes existed back then?
Sorry, it does not pass my smell test. But if there is evidence I will be interested in learning about it!

 

[Arwon]

I've read that in the U.S. people who are unemployed but are not looking for work are not counted in these numbers. If true then the real unemployment rate is much higher.

This is the case everywhere. Unemployment has a standard definition used by national statistical agencies across the world.

That definition is people who are in the labour force but don't have a job. To be in the labour force means to be either looking for work or working.

 

[Azem.Ocram]

If we calculated unemployment the way Norway does we would currently be at 8% to 8.5% unemployment. So, no. A better way would be to find a way to get the labor participation rate up such as exempting income to a higher amount foe people on SSI or SSDI or various assistance programs.

I recently wrote a paper for a university Economics class (in which I earned an A) on real unemployment vs natural unemployment. Immigration and tax hikes are the best short term solutions to what the US economy is currently experiencing. However, automation will eventually raise the natural unemployment rate.

 

[Arwon]

If we calculated unemployment the way Norway does we would currently be at 8% to 8.5% unemployment. So, no. A better way would be to find a way to get the labor participation rate up such as exempting income to a higher amount foe people on SSI or SSDI or various assistance programs.

Norway statistics office uses the ILO definitions of labour force participation and unemployment just like the United States.

https://www.ssb.no/en/akumnd

Concepts and definitions are in accordance with recommendations given by the International Labour Organization (ILO) and EU/Eurostat.

U-3 from US statistics is the internationally comparable ILO measure.

 

[Ferocitus]

I'd like America to win...

You can only win by setting an example, that USA means business and that it's
in this race for the long haul.
Work harder, longer, take fewer holidays, crush organized labour, and stuff wads
of US dollars into the folds of your death shroud when you are buried, ftw.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

At this point the comparison with modern immigration breaks down. The English negotiated their way into America while believing themselves and their God to be superior in everyway to these "heathen savages" and that the tide would turn as soon as they built up a few regiments and artillery...and the rest is history.

I'm sure some would argue that that's actually precisely where the comparison with modern immigrations doesn't break down

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I'm sure some would argue that that's actually precisely where the comparison with modern immigrations doesn't break down

Depends on who you're considering when migrating. Some think like that, some don't.

Western hemisphere is unique in the colonial period in the extent to which disease devastated the population so badly. If Inca had "not disease", Spain's not doing crap there. If Inca had something on its side akin to Malaria in Africa, history is completely different.

Leadership in Mexico wasn't nearly so uniform so a "Britain takes India" kind of move from Spain might still have worked there.

Population distribution may well cause strife/law changes/etc for better or worse, but it's hard to picture anything like a new disease suddenly blasting every nation in a hemisphere at once alongside a migrant population that's immune to it being relevant to the modern world. That'd be some extreme form of biological/disease warfare, not something you'd get just from a policy change.

 

[Modder_Mode]

I don't understand why you can't have all of the things you want and strict and well thought out immigration regulation.

I'm an immigrant myself, and it took us a long time to finally settle here in Canada and eventually become citizens. We had to jump through a lot of hoops to make it happen. Immigration regulations in Canada are more strict than in the U.S. I believe.. and it seems to work as a system. Canada is not overwhelmed with immigrants and the rate at which we accept them is reasonable. Some people think it's too much, some think it's not enough, but for the most part legal immigration is working out well for us here. Most complaints regarding immigration related issues here in Canada are related to all the people crossing the border illegally.

Every country has a limited set of resources and a limited number of people it can theoretically accept each year as immigrants. It would be amazing if we had unlimited resources, but we don't, so there's of course going to be practical limits as to how many people can be accepted. As such it makes perfect sense to figure out the regulations that work for your country and stick to them.

Maybe your disagreement is with the word "strict"? I'm not saying that this should imply that we only let in 5 people a year. It just means, make sure that the people being admitted are the people we want. We can only let in so many people a year, so we have no choice but to prioritize who gets let in and who doesn't. This implies strict immigration regulations, so that the whole system can function smoothly and the country doesn't end up in a position where we're taking on too many immigrants, or too little... or taking on too many immigrants who just can't figure out how to integrate into our society. It's why we mostly take on well educated legal immigrants here, as far as i know anyway. This is an investment in the future of this country, you need a solid plan for that, and you need to be strict about enforcement.

You know, I've read this entire thread up to the current post and your post is the only rational, well thought out and articulate post so far, so thank you.
It's good to see there's an actual adult posting in this thread.