To put this in internet slang, anytime I read the comments, I get cancer.
All these comments are in response to Krauthammer saying that Rubio will win the nomination. (LINK) He is probably my first choice, followed by Jeb. I don't think Jeb is as likable, though.
Comment: "[Krauthammer] knows Conservatives do not like Rubio and the liberal Republicans do not like Rubio."
What are you talking about? Rubio is the most liked by pretty much everyone. He has the highest approval rating in all parts of the party. This commenter likes Ted Cruz. Sure, he is the conservative favorite, but a huge portion of Republicans wouldn't vote for him. I would, but I wouldn't like it. According to the Wall Street Journal, he is actually the most acceptable candidate in the party. 75% of Republicans say they could back Rubio, with only 15% saying they would not, the lowest number of all the candidates. So... He is actually the most liked. Followed by Bush at 70% and Walker at 61%. 41% of voters say he is their first or second choice--ahead of both Bush and Walker. Again. So it seems as though extremists and moderates alike are fond of Rubio. So stop saying dumb things. You are empirically wrong. Ted Cruz, if anything, is the one that everyone dislikes. Cruz was actually under 60%. Only Huckabee, Christie, Perry, Carson, and Fiorina score worse. Perry is an old face who has no chance, Carson and Fiorina are unknown, and Christie is marred by dumb scandal allegation which he probably had nothing to do with. So, sorry my friend, but Rubio is the most liked by pretty much everyone.
Comment: "Nope Marco, your RINO horn is sticking out of your forehead like a second nose; same for Romney, Jeb, and Christie."
What?! He was a tea party favorite until he came out in favor of amnesty. Rubio governs as a conservative. His congressional voting record is actually more conservative than the average Republican in 2013-2014. Only two people--Ted Cruz and Rand Paul--who are considered major candidates are more conservative than him. So, assuming this ranking is correct, Rubio is the third most conservative running. And you think he is a "RINO"? lol. I don't think conservatives are dumb--I am one--but you sure are, pal.
SMART Comment: "Other than immigration what the heck are you talking about. Check his votes; they are as conservative as they come."
Tis true. This person has a brain.
DUMB Comment... Again: "Amnesty will fundamentally change America for the worse. So it really doesn't matter about his other votes." Or another, "[amnesty] will lead to more crime, larger government, higher taxes, and a larger welfare population. Amnesty flies in the face of every conservative principle out there."
Conservatives not only need to be pro amnesty to win the latino vote--a voting bloc I am part of--but also realize that they are wrong. I was against amnesty (I am half Puerto Rican, so my family was born with citizenship, so no immigrant bias). Well, I was against it until I was wrong. But I think the second comment gives us more to refute. The first is saying it will harm us in some abstract sense. The second gives us actual criteria. If it does not cause those things, it is not against "every conservative principle out there," and conservatives can finally support amnesty.
(1) More crime: Actually, research has found that amnesty reduces crime. Since illegal immigration is, in and of itself, a crime, I suppose that illegal immigration causes crime; but amnesty would get rid of that semantical loophole. And actual violent crime would decrease if we naturalized foreign workers, Stanford economists have found. Side note: I am taking economics there this summer. The study found that initiatives like Obama's amnesty could lead to 50,000 fewer crimes each year. To put in different terms, if you legalized 1% of a county's population, crime falls 2% per capita. The reason for this is simple. Legal immigrants are more likely to cooperate with the police because they do not fear deportation, and making the police more effective means crime can be combatted. And an effective police force is the strongest deterrent we have. Legal immigrants are also more likely to live with their family. Which matters because family men are less prone to crime. So amnesty has two effects: (1) Reducing the amount of crime immigrants commit because they become "family men", and (2) Reducing the amount of crime through police cooperation. Both of those reduce crime. So the crime argument is refuted.
(2) Higher taxes: I actually do not see how this works. The only argument is that it may increase welfare spending and, therefore, cause more taxes. But this can go the other way: more legal immigrants means they will actually pay income taxes rather than avoiding them when they are illegal. So, if anything, legalizing immigration would mean more revenue which could theoretically mean fewer taxes. So you can't automatically assume that immigration reform would increase taxes. We must first analyze the impact of immigration on spending.
(3) Bigger government: Crime decreases, so government won't grow there. I will discuss spending in a bit--but the government won't get bigger there. You may be skeptical of this White House publication, but if their benefits turn out to be true, government would shrink. They say amnesty would lead to economic growth. Economic growth reduces poverty (see, e.g. this study), which would mean smaller government because the government would spend less to help the poor. The report also says it would increase wages and productivity. If wages increase, calls for big government minimum wage increases would disappear. So... This is not true. And if you disagree with the White House, maybe you would be less skeptical of this conservative Manhattan Institute study, which has many of the same results. Or maybe this conservative American Enterprise Institute blog post, or a libertarian CATO study. So conservatives actually agree: amnesty = more economic growth. And more growth = less poverty = less spending = smaller government.
(4) Welfare/spending: This argument is the most important one. If I lose, both (3) and (2) are anti-conservative. But if I show that immigration does not cause this... Well... Both (2) and (3) Are refuted. I will make a few points:
a) Immigration leads to growth. This was already established. I will try to only use conservative sources because, well, I want to convince conservatives. I was convinced by both liberal, conservative, and academic publications. But I think conservatives who read this will be surprised to hear that most conservative think tanks (save the Heritage Foundation, though even they have many amnesty supporters, including Stephan Moore, their Head Economist) support amnesty. According to the CATO study posted above, "Comprehensive immigration reform generates an annual increase in U.S. GDP of at least 0.84 percent. This amounts to $1.5 trillion in additional GDP over 10 years. It also boosts wages for both native-born and newly legalized immigrant workers." Economic growth is important to, well, everyone. And would reduce fiscal burdens that call for more spending. So no, immigration reform would not increase spending.
b) Cost of enforcement: We must all remember that enforcing anti-immigration laws cost money. So, in many ways, anti-immigration laws are the embodiment of big government cronyism. According to this CATO post, responding to the Heritage report on immigration, enforcement costs $18,000 per immigrant. Plus, as CATO notes, the economic distortion from apprehending workers of many companies would harm the economy by raising prices for the consumer and increase costs for the businesses themselves.
c) Welfare use: This is the biggest argument against immigration reform. But it is always overblown. According to another CATO study, immigrants use welfare at much lower rates than native born citizens. Some measures show naturalized (e.g. post amnesty) immigrants use more services than native-born and illegals (illegals usually score the best at avoiding welfare), but these three graphs tell a big story:
Few things: Naturalized citizens use SNAP benefits less, and the amount they use is also substantially lower. Also important is that a citizen whose parents are foreign--second generation immigrants--also use SNAP at a lower rate and cost less money. So this means immigrants use *fewer* SNAP benefits than native citizens. But not only that, their kid use it less often. So they actually *reduce* the welfare burden and will not significantly increase welfare costs. And this is important because, according to the Heritage Foundation, programs like SNAP are the fastest growing welfare programs. So... Immigrants are not significantly evil when it comes to welfare spending. Naturalized citizens still tend to not only use benefits less, but also use less of the benefit when they receive it, and their kids are less likely in the long run to use welfare. So immigrants are not so bad after all.
There are also benefits to immigration when it comes to social security. Immigrants come here at the beginning of their working lives. Social Security, whether you like it or not, is a ponzi scheme. It *only* functions when there are more workers than receivers. In the long term it will probably collapse because each worker ends up breaking even (benefits cancel out how much they pay in), but they can cause it to last longer. I read an AEI piece saying it couldn't save social security--it probably can't--but it will make it last longer. It increases the amount in the working pool which means for people receiving benefits (or who will reap the benefits soon), it will benefit those people. More immigrants won't "save" our crisis, but it is impossible to deny that they will have some positive impacts. But this one study by NBER did find that immigration would increase the longevity of social security. So social security, like most ponzi schemes, may be doomed to fail; but immigration is not to blame, and will probably make it last a lot longer than it otherwise would. So, in this respect, immigration reduces the fiscal impacts of a social security collapse as well.
d) Immigrants are entrepreneurs: According to Bloomberg News, research indicates that immigrants are more likely to be entrepreneurs. A study by the Small Business Administration also finds that immigrants are more likely to start a small business than non-immigrants. Why does this matter? Small businesses--and being an entrepreneur--means you create employment. When you create something, like a corporation, you benefit everyone. You give people products that they want. If you make a small business you also employ people--99.7% of employers are small businesses. Almost half of our workforce is employed at a small business, and small businesses are much more likely to be innovators with 16 times more patents per employee, according to Inc Magazine. As immigrants prop up small businesses, the backbone of our economy, they create jobs and higher wages. This means fewer people are poor. The economy grows. People are better off. And the fewer people who are poor and want help from the government, the smaller the government is, not the bigger.
e) Immigrants increase wages: I probably sound annoying, but more jobs, growth, and higher wages all led to a smaller government. Immigrants increase wages not only through more productivity, growth, or entrepreneurship, but also in a more indirect manner. Demand. Say they increase the supply of labor--which they do. A basic model would show wages fall all else being equal. But immigrants change everything. By definition nothing is equal. They increase demand at the same time they increase the labor supply. With their new jobs (which they didn't "steal," but I will give them that as a hypothetical) they get higher wages. And if they are naturalized their wages increase. A lot. So the increased demand for goods causes growth. And the economic growth they cause--which I have spammed above but also spam here--means new jobs for those displaced. And the productivity gains they produce mean higher wages.
So, conservatives, Rubio is not a moderate. And amnesty is not against everything conservatives stand for. It is actually *exactly* what conservatives should stand for. And for a party preaching liberty, it seems unfair to prevent people the freedom of movement. I hope I did my job.
All these comments are in response to Krauthammer saying that Rubio will win the nomination. (LINK) He is probably my first choice, followed by Jeb. I don't think Jeb is as likable, though.
Comment: "[Krauthammer] knows Conservatives do not like Rubio and the liberal Republicans do not like Rubio."
What are you talking about? Rubio is the most liked by pretty much everyone. He has the highest approval rating in all parts of the party. This commenter likes Ted Cruz. Sure, he is the conservative favorite, but a huge portion of Republicans wouldn't vote for him. I would, but I wouldn't like it. According to the Wall Street Journal, he is actually the most acceptable candidate in the party. 75% of Republicans say they could back Rubio, with only 15% saying they would not, the lowest number of all the candidates. So... He is actually the most liked. Followed by Bush at 70% and Walker at 61%. 41% of voters say he is their first or second choice--ahead of both Bush and Walker. Again. So it seems as though extremists and moderates alike are fond of Rubio. So stop saying dumb things. You are empirically wrong. Ted Cruz, if anything, is the one that everyone dislikes. Cruz was actually under 60%. Only Huckabee, Christie, Perry, Carson, and Fiorina score worse. Perry is an old face who has no chance, Carson and Fiorina are unknown, and Christie is marred by dumb scandal allegation which he probably had nothing to do with. So, sorry my friend, but Rubio is the most liked by pretty much everyone.
Comment: "Nope Marco, your RINO horn is sticking out of your forehead like a second nose; same for Romney, Jeb, and Christie."
What?! He was a tea party favorite until he came out in favor of amnesty. Rubio governs as a conservative. His congressional voting record is actually more conservative than the average Republican in 2013-2014. Only two people--Ted Cruz and Rand Paul--who are considered major candidates are more conservative than him. So, assuming this ranking is correct, Rubio is the third most conservative running. And you think he is a "RINO"? lol. I don't think conservatives are dumb--I am one--but you sure are, pal.
SMART Comment: "Other than immigration what the heck are you talking about. Check his votes; they are as conservative as they come."
Tis true. This person has a brain.
DUMB Comment... Again: "Amnesty will fundamentally change America for the worse. So it really doesn't matter about his other votes." Or another, "[amnesty] will lead to more crime, larger government, higher taxes, and a larger welfare population. Amnesty flies in the face of every conservative principle out there."
Conservatives not only need to be pro amnesty to win the latino vote--a voting bloc I am part of--but also realize that they are wrong. I was against amnesty (I am half Puerto Rican, so my family was born with citizenship, so no immigrant bias). Well, I was against it until I was wrong. But I think the second comment gives us more to refute. The first is saying it will harm us in some abstract sense. The second gives us actual criteria. If it does not cause those things, it is not against "every conservative principle out there," and conservatives can finally support amnesty.
(1) More crime: Actually, research has found that amnesty reduces crime. Since illegal immigration is, in and of itself, a crime, I suppose that illegal immigration causes crime; but amnesty would get rid of that semantical loophole. And actual violent crime would decrease if we naturalized foreign workers, Stanford economists have found. Side note: I am taking economics there this summer. The study found that initiatives like Obama's amnesty could lead to 50,000 fewer crimes each year. To put in different terms, if you legalized 1% of a county's population, crime falls 2% per capita. The reason for this is simple. Legal immigrants are more likely to cooperate with the police because they do not fear deportation, and making the police more effective means crime can be combatted. And an effective police force is the strongest deterrent we have. Legal immigrants are also more likely to live with their family. Which matters because family men are less prone to crime. So amnesty has two effects: (1) Reducing the amount of crime immigrants commit because they become "family men", and (2) Reducing the amount of crime through police cooperation. Both of those reduce crime. So the crime argument is refuted.
(2) Higher taxes: I actually do not see how this works. The only argument is that it may increase welfare spending and, therefore, cause more taxes. But this can go the other way: more legal immigrants means they will actually pay income taxes rather than avoiding them when they are illegal. So, if anything, legalizing immigration would mean more revenue which could theoretically mean fewer taxes. So you can't automatically assume that immigration reform would increase taxes. We must first analyze the impact of immigration on spending.
(3) Bigger government: Crime decreases, so government won't grow there. I will discuss spending in a bit--but the government won't get bigger there. You may be skeptical of this White House publication, but if their benefits turn out to be true, government would shrink. They say amnesty would lead to economic growth. Economic growth reduces poverty (see, e.g. this study), which would mean smaller government because the government would spend less to help the poor. The report also says it would increase wages and productivity. If wages increase, calls for big government minimum wage increases would disappear. So... This is not true. And if you disagree with the White House, maybe you would be less skeptical of this conservative Manhattan Institute study, which has many of the same results. Or maybe this conservative American Enterprise Institute blog post, or a libertarian CATO study. So conservatives actually agree: amnesty = more economic growth. And more growth = less poverty = less spending = smaller government.
(4) Welfare/spending: This argument is the most important one. If I lose, both (3) and (2) are anti-conservative. But if I show that immigration does not cause this... Well... Both (2) and (3) Are refuted. I will make a few points:
a) Immigration leads to growth. This was already established. I will try to only use conservative sources because, well, I want to convince conservatives. I was convinced by both liberal, conservative, and academic publications. But I think conservatives who read this will be surprised to hear that most conservative think tanks (save the Heritage Foundation, though even they have many amnesty supporters, including Stephan Moore, their Head Economist) support amnesty. According to the CATO study posted above, "Comprehensive immigration reform generates an annual increase in U.S. GDP of at least 0.84 percent. This amounts to $1.5 trillion in additional GDP over 10 years. It also boosts wages for both native-born and newly legalized immigrant workers." Economic growth is important to, well, everyone. And would reduce fiscal burdens that call for more spending. So no, immigration reform would not increase spending.
b) Cost of enforcement: We must all remember that enforcing anti-immigration laws cost money. So, in many ways, anti-immigration laws are the embodiment of big government cronyism. According to this CATO post, responding to the Heritage report on immigration, enforcement costs $18,000 per immigrant. Plus, as CATO notes, the economic distortion from apprehending workers of many companies would harm the economy by raising prices for the consumer and increase costs for the businesses themselves.
c) Welfare use: This is the biggest argument against immigration reform. But it is always overblown. According to another CATO study, immigrants use welfare at much lower rates than native born citizens. Some measures show naturalized (e.g. post amnesty) immigrants use more services than native-born and illegals (illegals usually score the best at avoiding welfare), but these three graphs tell a big story:
Few things: Naturalized citizens use SNAP benefits less, and the amount they use is also substantially lower. Also important is that a citizen whose parents are foreign--second generation immigrants--also use SNAP at a lower rate and cost less money. So this means immigrants use *fewer* SNAP benefits than native citizens. But not only that, their kid use it less often. So they actually *reduce* the welfare burden and will not significantly increase welfare costs. And this is important because, according to the Heritage Foundation, programs like SNAP are the fastest growing welfare programs. So... Immigrants are not significantly evil when it comes to welfare spending. Naturalized citizens still tend to not only use benefits less, but also use less of the benefit when they receive it, and their kids are less likely in the long run to use welfare. So immigrants are not so bad after all.
There are also benefits to immigration when it comes to social security. Immigrants come here at the beginning of their working lives. Social Security, whether you like it or not, is a ponzi scheme. It *only* functions when there are more workers than receivers. In the long term it will probably collapse because each worker ends up breaking even (benefits cancel out how much they pay in), but they can cause it to last longer. I read an AEI piece saying it couldn't save social security--it probably can't--but it will make it last longer. It increases the amount in the working pool which means for people receiving benefits (or who will reap the benefits soon), it will benefit those people. More immigrants won't "save" our crisis, but it is impossible to deny that they will have some positive impacts. But this one study by NBER did find that immigration would increase the longevity of social security. So social security, like most ponzi schemes, may be doomed to fail; but immigration is not to blame, and will probably make it last a lot longer than it otherwise would. So, in this respect, immigration reduces the fiscal impacts of a social security collapse as well.
d) Immigrants are entrepreneurs: According to Bloomberg News, research indicates that immigrants are more likely to be entrepreneurs. A study by the Small Business Administration also finds that immigrants are more likely to start a small business than non-immigrants. Why does this matter? Small businesses--and being an entrepreneur--means you create employment. When you create something, like a corporation, you benefit everyone. You give people products that they want. If you make a small business you also employ people--99.7% of employers are small businesses. Almost half of our workforce is employed at a small business, and small businesses are much more likely to be innovators with 16 times more patents per employee, according to Inc Magazine. As immigrants prop up small businesses, the backbone of our economy, they create jobs and higher wages. This means fewer people are poor. The economy grows. People are better off. And the fewer people who are poor and want help from the government, the smaller the government is, not the bigger.
e) Immigrants increase wages: I probably sound annoying, but more jobs, growth, and higher wages all led to a smaller government. Immigrants increase wages not only through more productivity, growth, or entrepreneurship, but also in a more indirect manner. Demand. Say they increase the supply of labor--which they do. A basic model would show wages fall all else being equal. But immigrants change everything. By definition nothing is equal. They increase demand at the same time they increase the labor supply. With their new jobs (which they didn't "steal," but I will give them that as a hypothetical) they get higher wages. And if they are naturalized their wages increase. A lot. So the increased demand for goods causes growth. And the economic growth they cause--which I have spammed above but also spam here--means new jobs for those displaced. And the productivity gains they produce mean higher wages.
So, conservatives, Rubio is not a moderate. And amnesty is not against everything conservatives stand for. It is actually *exactly* what conservatives should stand for. And for a party preaching liberty, it seems unfair to prevent people the freedom of movement. I hope I did my job.
No comments:
Post a Comment