Trump’s immigration policy will bring back inflation?

Immigration experts and economists say that Trump’s immigration policy will increase inflation.

NY Times: Trump Said Democrats Will Take Away Your Hamburgers. He’s the One Who Might. https://archive.ph/556SR

Trump has promised an immigration crackdown if reelected. That could backfire on the economy. https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/14/busin...obs/index.html

We used to have too much money supply and pandemic related supply problems. The next problem will be a Trump inspired labor shortage in our food supply chain and construction industry.

When will people realize that we need immigrants to help power our economy. Our best hope is amnesty for illegal immigrants that have been in the US over the long haul. Something similar to the compromise that occurred under Reagan in 1987. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigr...ol_Act_of_1986 Originally Posted by txdot-guy

If a Trump Administration were actually able to deport 11 million illegal immigrants overnight, yes it would have a negative effect on inflation. I don't think they'd actually be able to do that though. His proposed tariffs would be a bigger inflation risk.

The solutions IMHO are enforcing the immigration laws, not letting cases drag on for years, and issuing a lot more temporary visas for foreign workers. I'd much prefer enforcing the law and temporary visas instead of what I think is your preferred solution, a series of amnesties now and in the future.

There's a lot of work that Americans don't want to do. There's a podcast on the Economist this week with an economist at George Mason University that highlights that. He points out that American kids are encouraged to go to college, not take jobs in construction. And as a result there's a shortage of construction workers. He says the majority of us benefit from the foreigners who work here, and I'm inclined to agree with him. Meatpacking jobs from your first link are another good illustration. The foreigners certainly benefit. They're making maybe 5X what they'd make in their home countries.

Especially when the unemployment rate is hovering around 4%, foreign workers make sense.

P.S. I just boosted two of your threads to three stars. Agree or disagree, they're good topics.

If a Trump Administration were actually able to deport 11 million illegal immigrants overnight, yes it would have a negative effect on inflation. I don't think they'd actually be able to do that though. His proposed tariffs would be a bigger inflation risk. Originally Posted by Tiny

I agree that the chances that they will deport that many people in the first year is unlikely. However I do think that the chilling effect on employment will be greater than most people realize. Just the fact that the government will be raiding businesses and the police will be actively looking for illegal immigrants will keep people from working, going to school, paying taxes and other actions that legally protected people take for granted.

The solutions IMHO are enforcing the immigration laws, not letting cases drag on for years, and issuing a lot more temporary visas for foreign workers. I'd much prefer enforcing the law and temporary visas instead of what I think is your preferred solution, a series of amnesties now and in the future. Originally Posted by Tiny

I also agree. I’m not looking to start a new amnesty program in perpetuity. But the number of immigrants that have been working and living in the U.S. for more than a decade now should be granted the ability to gain citizenship if they can meet a minimum standard. However the number of eligible people who are allowed visas should both increase as well as be more equitably assigned.

Currently, no group of permanent immigrants (family-based and employment-based combined) from a single country can exceed seven percent of the total number of people immigrating to the United States in a single fiscal year.

https://www.americanimmigrationcounc...n-system-works

This artificial limit keeps immigrants who qualify for a visa in the queue for years waiting in their home countries until their place in line comes up. This means that if you wanted to immigrate from Mexico you would likely wait much longer than if you wanted to immigrate from Tuvalu.

There's a lot of work that Americans don't want to do. There's a podcast on the Economist this week with an economist at George Mason University that highlights that. He points out that American kids are encouraged to go to college, not take jobs in construction. And as a result there's a shortage of construction workers. He says the majority of us benefit from the foreigners who work here, and I'm inclined to agree with him. Meatpacking jobs from your first link are another good illustration. The foreigners certainly benefit. They're making maybe 5X what they'd make in their home countries.

Especially when the unemployment rate is hovering around 4%, foreign workers make sense.

P.S. I just boosted two of your threads to three stars. Agree or disagree, they're good topics. Originally Posted by Tiny

By the way, tariffs are equivalent to sales taxes. A more regressive tax would be harder to find.

https://taxfoundation.org/taxedu/glo...pital%20income.

The distributional effects of a tariff (the economic burden it places on households across income levels) tend to be regressive, burdening lower-income households more than higher-income households. Tariffs ultimately fall on the factors of production and reduce taxpayer labor and capital income. This occurs either by raising prices or reducing wage and capital income.

The distributional effects of a tariff (the economic burden it places on households across income levels) tend to be regressive, burdening lower-income households more than higher-income households. Tariffs ultimately fall on the factors of production and reduce taxpayer labor and capital income. This occurs either by raising prices or reducing wage and capital income. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

I generally agree. I'd add that tariffs and barriers on trade prevent countries from using their comparative advantages, and that makes us all poorer. Let the Chinese make textiles and steel while we make airplanes, movies and the like. Everyone's better off.

Also tariffs discourage manufacturers from improving productivity. If the American company gets 2X for its product as what the Vietnamese manufacturer makes because of tariffs and trade barriers, the American company may get fat and lazy and unable to compete in export markets, while the Vietnamese company becomes world class.

Tiny,
Vance has floated a soft target of 1 million deportations in year 1. I think even that is lofty for year 1.

Regarding your question in the other thread I don't know that what you asked me for is necessarily on point in this convo. Trying to figure out the right bent to keep it on topic and framed correctly because it can veer off very quickly.

Tiny,
Take your guest worker idea and mix it with 2012 Romney's self-deportation idea and 2012 Ginrich's amnesty.

With the twist of a path to citizenship for those who join the military, serve for X years and are honorably discharged.

The skin in the game? You must self-deport and apply abroad to the new categories and in exchange for ending the active violation it won't be held against you on the application.

One time deal, for those who are currently in the U.S. as of X date and register at a local USCIS office.

Usual bells and whistles regarding eligibility, clean criminal record, taxes, etc

Tiny,
Take your guest worker idea and mix it with 2012 Romney's self-deportation idea and 2012 Ginrich's amnesty.

With the twist of a path to citizenship for those who join the military, serve for X years and are honorably discharged.

The skin in the game? You must self-deport and apply abroad to the new categories and in exchange for ending the active violation it won't be held against you on the application.

One time deal, for those who are currently in the U.S. as of X date and register at a local USCIS office.

Usual bells and whistles regarding eligibility, clean criminal record, taxes, etc Originally Posted by HDGristle

This sounds like an excellent idea. The only way this works however is if immigration quotas are changed.

This sounds like an excellent idea. The only way this works however is if immigration quotas are changed. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

Agreed. And 20% of it's mine!

Trying to figure out the right bent to keep it on topic and framed correctly because it can veer off very quickly. Originally Posted by HDGristle

I believe we're OK. The Gingrich/Romney/Gristle immigration policy won't bring back inflation.

When I'm Chase Oliver's Chief of Staff, I'll recommend Lusty Lad for Treasury Secretary, Texas Contrarian for Chairman of the Fed, and you for head of the Department of Homeland Security!

[QUOTE=Unique_Carpenter;1063579 909]

tx-dot,
Trump is not proposing to stop "immigration". He's only wanting to stop illegal immigration.
Please get your definitions correct.

Took about two seconds to find who doesn’t understand Trump’s position - https://apnews.com/article/trump-imm...f96f3e36021cf5

+1 sir..

Immigration experts and economists say that Trump’s immigration policy will increase inflation.

NY Times: Trump Said Democrats Will Take Away Your Hamburgers. He’s the One Who Might. https://archive.ph/556SR

Trump has promised an immigration crackdown if reelected. That could backfire on the economy. https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/14/busin...obs/index.html

We used to have too much money supply and pandemic related supply problems. The next problem will be a Trump inspired labor shortage in our food supply chain and construction industry.

When will people realize that we need immigrants to help power our economy. Our best hope is amnesty for illegal immigrants that have been in the US over the long haul. Something similar to the compromise that occurred under Reagan in 1987. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigr...ol_Act_of_1986 Originally Posted by txdot-guy

+1"sir..

What part of there are laws about immigration that the Dims simply ignore is not understood? Easy fix, Congress passes appropriate laws. I'm sure that Congress has economists on call that can figure out Lucas' question.

tx-dot,
Trump is not proposing to stop "immigration". He's only wanting to stop illegal immigration.
Please get your definitions correct.

Lucas,
You are correct. But intentionally skipping around existing law(s) is not the way to do it.

My old outfit made great use of EB-3 and EB-5 immigration visas and still do. Their 2nd day on the job the folks were introduced to an immigration atty to plan out how to end up with a green card, and, later on, citizenship. A long term permanent job for an immigrant, with health benefits, even if not paid that well, is a huge thing for these folks. I've gone to a few citizenship ceremonies and not a dry eye for any of our staff.

Jumping across the border with zero paperwork and no sponsor is not the way to do it. Originally Posted by Unique_Carpenter

[QUOTE=yeahsurewhatev;106359853 6]

tx-dot,
Trump is not proposing to stop "immigration". He's only wanting to stop illegal immigration.
Please get your definitions correct.

Took about two seconds to find who doesn’t understand Trump’s position - https://apnews.com/article/trump-imm...f96f3e36021cf5 Originally Posted by Unique_Carpenter

During Trump's time as POTUS he lowered the number of refugees legally allowed into the U.S. each year from over 100,000 to 15,000 in 2021, decreasing the number each year in office.

Yes, Trump supports legal immigration as long as those coming to the country are educated, speak English, have specific job skills, and are white.

Thankfully Biden restored the refugee number back to 100,000.

Thankfully Biden restored the refugee number back to 100,000. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

First, he increased it to 62,500. Then later to 125,000.

In reality, they haven't hit the cap, yet.