- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Scott Bessent just summed up the migration crisis for America
Posted on 7/6/25 at 4:37 pm to Wednesday
Posted on 7/6/25 at 4:37 pm to Wednesday
Wednesday
You have posted very eloquently on this and it is refreshing to read.
sfp is just an obnoxious idiot carping over and over
It is tiresome to have to tread through his bloviations
You have posted very eloquently on this and it is refreshing to read.
sfp is just an obnoxious idiot carping over and over
It is tiresome to have to tread through his bloviations
This post was edited on 7/6/25 at 4:38 pm
0
Posted on 7/6/25 at 4:39 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:If we had a workable program for work visas they wouldn't be illegals. They would be legal migrants here on work visas.
If we had a workable program for work visas for illegals
So the question you should have asked the Chamber of Commerce long ago is "why don't we have a workable program for work visas?" The answer is the labor's cheaper if it's kept in hiding, and the illegal wives, daughters and girlfriends feel more obligated to do "favors" under those circumstances, and less able to report to the authorities when the "favors" escalate to "obligations."
But it's a lovely system for the traffickers and the Chamber of Commerce GOP'ers
Posted on 7/6/25 at 4:40 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:GOOD!
Trump is literally pivoting to propose this right now, starting with ag and hospitality.
Posted on 7/6/25 at 4:42 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
GOOD!
I agree
A lot of hardliners (including a TON of posters on this board) are either going to have to declare hypocrisy (by now supporting illegals) or will be enraged (because Trump is supporting illegals).
Posted on 7/6/25 at 4:56 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Yes. Less government (via lax enforcement) led to better market efficiencies and lower wages, which benefited our economy and Americans at large.
Explain how importing a shite ton of lower than market wage workers that were also supported by the government displacing American low wage workers, who became more dependent on government support improved the efficiency of the economy and Americans at large.
quote:
It's going to redistribute money from investment (which leads to new products. companies, and economic growth) into higher salaries for lower-level workers who will not contribute to the factors that create economic growth.
You didn't dust off your text book.
Posted on 7/6/25 at 4:58 pm to David_DJS
quote:
that were also supported by the government displacing American low wage workers,
Explain what act government did to accomplish this
quote:
who became more dependent on government support
Is this it?
Posted on 7/6/25 at 5:00 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:SFP, "inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon." Tariffs do not qualify as "a monetary phenomenon."
We will see when tariffs are fully implemented.
FULL STOP.
-----
Tariffs, by themselves, are not inflationary now.
Tariffs, by themselves, were not inflationary in the past.
Tariffs, by themselves, will never be inflationary in the future.
To bring that point home, once implemented, tariffs AND corporate taxes (which fall under the same umbrella) are not only not inflationary; they are deflationary.
Posted on 7/6/25 at 5:02 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
because Trump is supporting illegals
Posted on 7/6/25 at 5:08 pm to NC_Tigah
A lot of the MAGA/AF movement is anti-illegal. It's an in/out group thing.
Are we cool with allowing illegals in the farming and hotel/leisure sectors to stay?
I stopped. There are multiple threads on this new policy, and many more from the past when he would offer up other solutions.
Are we cool with allowing illegals in the farming and hotel/leisure sectors to stay?
quote:
No. I want every single one gone. Along with a total halt to all legal immigration.
quote:
NO, but let them be the last to leave.
quote:
Absolutely the correct answer.
Otherwise, why not allow construction workers stay, then grounds-keeping.
Next thing you know, Nancy Pelosi's house staff is spared.
quote:
I am not.
This is how everyone should view the situation. There may be one or 5 million illegal aliens doing jobs that we want for the benefit of the country to allow in to work. The number is not relevant to the question.
The US gov't has allowed these people in and actually encouraged them to come. The businesses have not been prosecuted when they hired these people. So the govt has been fine with it and condoned it.
Every single illegal immigrant should be deported. Period.
quote:
Nope…. They can go back and we can come up with a migrant worker program they can apply for…
Screw the excuses for letting any of them stay…
quote:
No.
quote:
No.
I stopped. There are multiple threads on this new policy, and many more from the past when he would offer up other solutions.
Posted on 7/6/25 at 5:16 pm to SlowFlowPro
It's not that hard to understand, SFP.
The lower rung on the wage scale is more dependent on gov't assistance than the run above it, and it works that way up the ladder until you transition to producers.
So when you import 10 million workers willing to work for less than that lowest rung above, it's not like the millions they displace are exported somewhere. They remain on gov't dole, but now to a greater extent.
What gov't act enabled this? The act of not enforcing the border and deciding it (the government) was better off by having more bodies dependent on it.
For the economy as a whole, net net illegal immigration is a drag, not a booster. This would be different only if the labor was imported into a market at full employment and efficiency, and we ain't close to that.
The lower rung on the wage scale is more dependent on gov't assistance than the run above it, and it works that way up the ladder until you transition to producers.
So when you import 10 million workers willing to work for less than that lowest rung above, it's not like the millions they displace are exported somewhere. They remain on gov't dole, but now to a greater extent.
What gov't act enabled this? The act of not enforcing the border and deciding it (the government) was better off by having more bodies dependent on it.
For the economy as a whole, net net illegal immigration is a drag, not a booster. This would be different only if the labor was imported into a market at full employment and efficiency, and we ain't close to that.
Posted on 7/6/25 at 5:21 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Tariffs, by themselves, are not inflationary now.
Tariffs, by themselves, were not inflationary in the past.
Tariffs, by themselves, will never be inflationary in the future.
100% correct per the economic definition of inflation.
But it's also 100% correct that a tariff can easily result in consumers paying higher prices for some products and having less disposable income as a result. Maybe the consumer will be ok with this outcome because it's not technically "inflation", but I doubt it.
This post was edited on 7/6/25 at 5:48 pm
Posted on 7/6/25 at 5:23 pm to David_DJS
quote:
So when you import 10 million workers willing to work for less than that lowest rung above, it's not like the millions they displace are exported somewhere.
I think the assumption you're making is the illegals displaced these workers.
Societal and economic change displaced them. They basically checked out in large numbers when they lost their highly inefficient (lucrative in their eyes) factory/union jobs.
How do I show this? There are tons of jobs paying more than the median wage for illegals out there, some can lead to actual careers (especially in the skilled trades, which are desperate for workers). We still have a huge demand for this labor and are begging these people to take the jobs (via crazy-high wages in some cases)...and they refuse.
How would removing illegals change THAT scenario, as these companies/trades are literally begging for workers when we have illegals?
The larger issue is that this started a few birthing cycles ago, and these areas have devolved into your pathological LCM scenarios. When that happens, the drugs and criminal records do inhibit many from these opportunities. Removing illegals isn't going to fix that, either.
Just how much higher are these wages going to have to get to entice these people to take these jobs, when they can get better, higher-paying jobs today?
Posted on 7/6/25 at 5:25 pm to Flats
quote:
But it's also 100% correct that a tariff can easily result in consumers paying higher prices for come products and having less disposable income as a result. Maybe the consumer will be ok with this outcome because it's not technically "inflation", but I doubt it.
Correct. It's applying the academic definition of "inflation" to a comment about higher (inflated) costs/wages.
If people want we can agree to use a synonym to not offend the academics. How about escalatory? Enlarging? Puffy? Bulky?
Posted on 7/6/25 at 7:50 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Explain what act government did to accomplish this
You got to be kidding right…..right?
Posted on 7/6/25 at 8:08 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
A lot of the MAGA/AF movement is anti-illegal.
the relevant question is "Is a lot of the MAGA/AF movement is anti-legal?"
Posted on 7/6/25 at 8:14 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
only to respond to someone else
you poor thing
Posted on 7/6/25 at 10:27 pm to RohanGonzales
quote:
quote:SlowFlowPro another stupid take
It never ends.
Posted on 7/7/25 at 6:09 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I think the assumption you're making is the illegals displaced these workers.
quote:
In June 2025, American-born employment reached a record high, while foreign-born employment experienced a decline. Specifically, American-born employment saw a significant increase of 830,000, exceeding the pre-pandemic high, while foreign-born employment dropped by 348,000, marking the third consecutive month of decline. This shift is notable, especially considering that the overall June jobs report showed a solid increase in new jobs
This post was edited on 7/7/25 at 6:26 am
Posted on 7/7/25 at 6:12 am to Flats
quote:
But it's also 100% correct that a tariff can easily result in consumers paying higher prices for some products and having less disposable income as a result. Maybe the consumer will be ok with this outcome because it's not technically "inflation", but I doubt it.
Please provide any example of a product used daily that will increade in price from evil tariffs that would make ppl unhappy
Posted on 7/7/25 at 6:29 am to UncleFestersLegs
It's, as if, you ignored everything else I posed to show a correlation (at best) with cherry-picked data without full context (and then edited it )
That is the mark of an honest response
From what I can find, the previous highest native-born US employment occurred in....July 2023, as the border was being flooded under Biden.
Native-born employment has been tracking up outside of the Covid era (for obvious reasons)
St Louis Fed
The fact that it's continuing to trend up under Trump is expected, just as we expected crime to trend down under Trump to continue another post-Covid spike.
If your assertion was correct, native-born employment would have cratered under Biden's immigration policies. Update: they did the opposite.
Foreign-born employment was pretty static over the Biden admin, after the Covid era.
St Louis Fed, again.
) That is the mark of an honest response
From what I can find, the previous highest native-born US employment occurred in....July 2023, as the border was being flooded under Biden.
Native-born employment has been tracking up outside of the Covid era (for obvious reasons)
St Louis Fed
The fact that it's continuing to trend up under Trump is expected, just as we expected crime to trend down under Trump to continue another post-Covid spike.
If your assertion was correct, native-born employment would have cratered under Biden's immigration policies. Update: they did the opposite.
Foreign-born employment was pretty static over the Biden admin, after the Covid era.
St Louis Fed, again.
Page 8 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News