The New Election Interference Strategy

[bpj]

Yeah, Im sure much of that is true, no doubt.

I'd have some sort of exemption program for people who have jobs and are supporting themselves/their families.

But if you get in trouble with the law, or are drawing welfare, it's time for you to head back home.

[bpj]

A timely article came out in the NY Times today. According to them, Trumps plan of getting rid of illegals could have the effect of... *drumroll*... causing employers to raise wages to attract employees.

Of course, they frame it that it would lead to higher costs of goods, but that would be the result of raising wages regardless.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/27/brie ... Position=2

[gil]

In 2005 there were 10.5 million estimated illegal immigrants in the US.

In 2010 there were 11.2 million

In 2016 there were 10.7 million.

In 2021 there were 11.5 million, as you said.

Avg rent in 2005: $604

Avg rent in 2010: $841

Avg rent in 2016: $949

Avg rent in 2021: $1,191

Avg rent in 2023: $1,180.

Illegals in the US and rising rent costs don't seem to correlate. Rent got very expensive in 2021 and has stayed about the same for the last 3 years despite the rising population of illegal immigrants.

"Average rent prices have increased 8.85% per year since 1980, consistently outpacing wage inflation by a significant margin; 2021 was an exceptionally volatile year for the market, which appears to continue in 2022." But then rents dropped a little bit in 2023 despite increases in illegal immigrant population.

This is a great discussion, thanks. I find myself typically advocating for strong borders, but the fact is that "illegal immigration" has become a bogeyman for things it doesn't cause. My thoughts:

I doubt that illegal immigration has anything to do with housing prices in Ballard, but it might in lower-priced cities like Ontario Oregon or Waterloo Iowa (basic supply and demand for lower cost housing: without immigration - legal or not - there would be a lot more empty housing units in those places).

If some large tech companies are using perfectly legal immigration to fill positions at lower costs, that DOES push out equally-qualified American citizens who expect higher salaries.

We have entire industries dominated by workers from south of the border. Whether they are legal or not (which is hard to tell without knowing the individuals, this is a fact). The roofing crew down the street. The people in the meat packing plant. I don't know if they are "displacing" America workers, but the system has provided us (consumers) cheaper food, cheaper home repairs, etc.

About 15 years ago, the United Farm Workers launched what at the time I thought was a publicity stunt called "Take Our Jobs." It's had legs, and I've grown to see the point: Anyone who things that immigrant farm workers are taking jobs away from "real Americans" should come down to the farm and get a job. I don't think there was much interest, to say the least.

Agreed. Picking fruit in 100 degree weather isn't something Americans in rural cities are exactly lining up to do.

You know who will be pissed if illegal immigrants are deported? All the farmers who enjoy paying cheap labor. All the hotel chains that enjoy paying cheap labor. All the small restaurant business that enjoy paying cheap labor. And so on...

The question for me will always be, how can the government entice business owners to pay their employees winning wages?

I'm not sure when becoming a business owner went from starting a business to help yourself and your community live comfortably to people needing to own 1% of the US economy by themselves and doing everything in their power to make sure they can pay their employees the bare minimum they can get away with.

I wonder a lot about this too. I think lots of SMALL business owners still care about customers, employees, and communities. But bigger businesses have shareholders who are invested through their 401(k) plans, and institutional investors, etc. Now the "owners" are not connected to employees or customers. So the performance of the stock is paramount.

The other thing is that technology is increasingly enabling businesses getting larger and into more and more activities. Classic positive economies of scale and economies of scope.

Resulting in? Great growth for the economy as a whole, but the gains mostly going to those on the upper tail of the wealth and income distributions.

[Mel Bradford]

14th Amendment cases ENDED:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/suprem ... rcna132291

1 down 4 or 5 more to go.

[gil]

14th Amendment cases ENDED:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/suprem ... rcna132291

1 down 4 or 5 more to go.

Good on this one. I'm glad it was 9-0. I'm not sure the others will be as obvious.

[D-train]

14th Amendment cases ENDED:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/suprem ... rcna132291

1 down 4 or 5 more to go.

Good on this one. I'm glad it was 9-0. I'm not sure the others will be as obvious.

I give credit to the Liberal Judges. We had a non partisan SCOTUS decision which is great news.

[gil]

14th Amendment cases ENDED:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/suprem ... rcna132291

1 down 4 or 5 more to go.

Good on this one. I'm glad it was 9-0. I'm not sure the others will be as obvious.

I give credit to the Liberal Judges. We had a non partisan SCOTUS decision which is great news.

Yeah, but the case (and all the 14th amendment, section 3 cases) are pretty blatant reaches. I think it would be a REALLY bad look for any of the 3 liberals to argue to remove this candidate from the ballots, given the facts and the history of the amendment.

[bpj]

Keep your heads up, you'll totally get him next time you lib retards.

[D-train]

Sure but this point there are libs that would argue there is life on the Sun if it was a way to keep Trump out of office which they say will end democracy.

This is so delusional and ironic but really demonstrates perfectly the anti Trump libs. This person actually believes what they are saying and is likely oblivious to the fact that they now have to let the voters decide to save a democracy instead of the preferred method which is to use anti democratic tactics to "save" democracy.

Griswold later registered "disappointment" with the decision in an interview with NBC's Katy Tur on MSNBC. "I do believe that states should be able under our Constitution to bar oath-breaking insurrectionists,” Griswold told Katy. “And ultimately, this decision leaves open or leaves open the door for Congress to act to pass authorizing legislation. But we know that Congress is a nearly non-functioning body, so ultimately, it will be up to the American voters to save our democracy in November.”

[maoling]

Now I hope they disqualify that lying ho prosecutor from Fulton County and also throw out the document case from that staged raid in Florida.