Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Immigration Ridiculousness (Page 3)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: Immigration Ridiculousness
Kuato
Member
Member # 6445

 - posted      Profile for Kuato   Email Kuato       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cherrypoptart:


> Make them legal and enforce laws about minimum pay then.

This is a big fallacy.

Once they are legal and the minimum wage laws are enforced for them because they are U.S. citizens, those new citizens will no longer do those jobs at those wages anymore and the companies that hired them as illegals will just find new illegals to do those same jobs at the old low wages with no benefits.

You guys keep skipping the obvious solution. INJECT THE CAPITAL at their wages and call it done. It's not like we can produce crops and FAIL to inject the capital or we will get price index inflation.

Yes, that makes the Mexican immigrants someone's machines but at least they can afford a nice life and hold up their heads and prepare the next generation for other work.

The real fear is that if the Mexicans aren't held down by making them illegal and rights-free, they might have access to education and with that work ethic, not want to pick crops anymore.

Then, I guess we'll have to look for some Hebrews, or somethin'

Posts: 1038 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Kuato, equal pay happens when they are actually recognized by the system.

"I think the point of the debate here is that not all Americans want illegals to fill cheap labor when Americans could do it if paid well. The benefits are largely lopsided and there are more options available than just the standard: let them all stay or be racist."

I don't want illegals to fill cheap labor. I want us to either actually enforce our borders, and legalize the people within them, or just accept that we won't give up the cheap labor and stop making the lives of illegals even worse.

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
edgmatt
Member
Member # 6449

 - posted      Profile for edgmatt   Email edgmatt       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tommy-
I'm not dismissing it, Pyrtolin used it as an example of something that is created by the government not providing things for society. I merely pointed out that crime is not limited to just the poor. I agree with what you typed there, my point is we can not eliminate crime by eliminating poverty.

Oh I don't agree that its the only kind of crime Americans care about....just look at the Madoff scandal and the outrage of the public.

I blame the high minimum wage for part of the reason why illegals are said to "do the jobs that Americans wont do". It's not that they wont do it, they can't do it legally. I am not allowed to hire someone for 3$ an hour. I don't have the reason as to why illegals are more willing to break the law in this case, I can only speculate and state that they already have a tendency to break laws, so one more really doesn't hurt them.

I highly recommend Thomas Sowells "Basic Economics" book. It addresses everything that has been brought up in this thread.

Posts: 1439 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cherrypoptart:
Once they are legal and the minimum wage laws are enforced for them because they are U.S. citizens, those new citizens will no longer do those jobs at those wages anymore and the companies that hired them as illegals will just find new illegals to do those same jobs at the old low wages with no benefits.

That's entirely based on the presumption that there can be "new illegals" If any potential laborer is legal by default there are no illegals to intimidate into accepting illegal pay. Enforce unionization, if need be.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If the fed is going to inject liquidity into anyone, it should be me!

I'll hook myself to the I.V. drip and just take a constant infustion of liquidity, all day, every day.

But seriously, I think you just said the federal government should just print money and then go around to the Home Depot and into the fields wherever illegals hang out and hand them sacks full of cash.

I've always said that you are a much nicer, kinder person than I am and this proves it. You have a good soul and will have a great life because that's how karma works. But I'm not so sure that will work. Of course, it's never been tried that I know of so maybe it would. [Smile]

-------------------------------------------

> But now that I put that down I see the problem, because it would be counterproductive to 'accept' them. If we did that, they might start asserting their rights to equal pay.

It seems like many in power think our best play right now is to keep the status quo. We want them here as illegals to do the job at low pay. Some see political benefit to amnesty, and there is no doubt it could solidify the Democrat base, but there is enough opposition to it that it's not currently political feasible. There's also no way to do it that would be fair to anyone waiting outside the U.S. for permission to enter legally as future citizens.

---------------------------------------

Anyone talking about mass deportations is just charging at windmills.

Illegals are here for jobs. If the jobs dry up, they'll go home.

By the way, if Americans did those jobs, even if they were paid more, the money would be recirculated back into our economy, a better liquidity infusion than having billions sent home to Mexico, or where ever, which will probably continue to happen even after amnesty.

As I always say, look at Japan. They don't have the massive illegal immigrations into these industries like farming, maintenance, construction, cleaning, landscaping, and whatnot. The jobs still get done. They just have to pay more.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Oh I don't agree that its the only kind of crime Americans care about....just look at the Madoff scandal and the outrage of the public. "

You think the outrage over Madoff and his fellow white collar criminals is at all, even remotely closing in on being somewhat proportional to the outrage regarding poor blacks dealing crack? If Americans cared about other kinds of crime, we would enforce it. We don't.

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
edgmatt
Member
Member # 6449

 - posted      Profile for edgmatt   Email edgmatt       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The real fear is that if the Mexicans aren't held down by making them illegal and rights-free, they might have access to education and with that work ethic, not want to pick crops anymore.
At the risk of engaging you in an argument:

-We don't make them illegal, they make themselves illegal by breaking a law.

-We don't take any rights from them, they don't have those rights because they are not U.S. citizens, and their own country has not recognized some basic human rights.

-They already have access to U.S. education.

-I assume your saying they have a strong work ethic...so it follows then that they would continue to "pick crops" and earn money, not stop.

Posts: 1439 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"It seems like many in power think our best play right now is to keep the status quo. We want them here as illegals to do the job at low pay. Some see political benefit to amnesty, and there is no doubt it could solidify the Democrat base, but there is enough opposition to it that it's not currently political feasible. There's also no way to do it that would be fair to anyone waiting outside the U.S. for permission to enter legally as future citizens."

Regardless of your position on amnesty, it makes sense to put securing the borders ahead of everything else regarding illegal immigration policy. If we don't bother securing the border, we are effecting (deliberately or accidentally) asking for illegal immigration. If we're asking for it, I don't think we should be punishing it.


"By the way, if Americans did those jobs, even if they were paid more, the money would be recirculated back into our economy, a better liquidity infusion than having billions sent home to Mexico, or where ever, which will probably continue to happen even after amnesty."

Yup [Smile] , as long as we secure the border

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
edgmatt
Member
Member # 6449

 - posted      Profile for edgmatt   Email edgmatt       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If Americans cared about other kinds of crime, we would enforce it. We don't.
We would enforce what? I didn't follow...

Its reasonable for a group of people to care more about crimes that affect people who are similar to that group than not. You originally said that America ONLY cares for crimes involving poverty. It may be that America cares MORE for such, but it is wrong to say that it is the only.

Posts: 1439 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by edgmatt:
Pyrtolin, going back a bit to what you said:

quote:
No person should be forced to go with out shelter, basic nutrition and health, and the education needed to find productive employment. Failing to provide those basics across the board excludes people from the labor market and thus ensures an ongoing economic drain from an impoverished class, as well as the resultant criminal activity.
Who is "forcing" anyone to go without shelter? There is a big difference between not providing shelter for someone and forcing them to not be sheltered. To suggest that the government, or any body of people, is deliberately forcing someone else to live on the streets is simply wrong.

Not to mention how many "homeless" are that way by a conscious decision, as compared to the choice working or not working ( just being lazy ). [URL=read this]http://www.heelpress.com/revisions/show/66[/URL]

I realize that there are people who don't have a home, or access to food or care from various events in their lives, probably out of their control. But to say they are forced to be this way by a ruling entity is not only misleading, its just patently false.

The vast majority of the homeless we have are there because we cannot keep the mentally ill in hospitals against their will. I'd fully support changing that such that only those who are both capable of supporting themselves and continue to do so are allowed free discharge.

I was referring to economic force, not political or personal force in my statement. Someone without the money to afford proper nutrition, health care, or education is economically forced to do without them. These lacks actively inhibit their ability to acquire the resources to obtain them and thus induce the downward spiral of poverty.

quote:

We do provide basic care for anyone who walks into a hospital, illegal or not. I think its very positive thing that our country can do such a thing, and most of us are willing to provide for it.

And saddling them with unpayable debts in the process.

quote:
I do not, however, believe it is the role of the government to provide the things you listed because it will "exclude them from the labor market". I do not believe it is the role of any government to force people to be a part of any market. I believe it is up to the individual to provide these things for themselves as much as possible.


Who said anything about forcing them to take part? If, given the opportunity, they choose not to take part, that's their choice. But economic pressures should not be allowed to force them out- they should be able to meaningfully make that choice.

quote:
It is IMPOSSIBLE to eliminate poverty and crime completely. If the bottom 1% of the U.S. made $35,000 a year, that would be "poverty" simply because it was the lowest 1%. The only way to eliminate it would be if every single person in the world made the exact same amount of money.
That's absurd. Are you saying that people have to starve for the system to work? That people have to be marginalized? Poverty isn't about relative wealth. It's about access to capital. People without sufficient access to capital to be full players in the system are impoverished within that system. People who cannot afford their own basic needs by definition do not have access to capital to invest in any enterprise, be it their own or that of others. They're not full players in the system.

Again, not saying that they should be forced to invest, but for the market to function properly everyone needs to be free to make that choice, and that means eliminating baseline externalities.

quote:

Crime is not limited to only the poor. ( I don't feel it necessary to provide examples of this. )

Of course not- that's a needlessly pedantic clarification. Most base level crime- property theft, vandalism, gang violence, etc... is strongly linked to poverty (Or do you think it some bizarre coincidence that the most dangerous parts of a city are the most impoverished?)

quote:
Evidence of history has shown that when the government tries to help this, even with pure intentions and not political gain, it does a less efficient job than what individuals and a free society can do on their own. In short, the government providing these things directly to an individual has proven more to ensure "an ongoing economic drain from an impoverished class, as well as the resultant criminal activity" then when the society is free to take care of most ( and I stress most ) of these issues on its own.
Evidence over thousands of yeas of human history has shown just the opposite- that without the control of a collectively representative government, unregulated conditions allow a few select individuals to monopolize power and resources and declare themselves nobility and tyrants. That's the defining theme of most of the history of civilization.

Evidence has also shown that, in the past two centuries, reallocating resources has done more in that short span of time to alleviate poverty than in the rest of history combined. As you even allude to above, in the US we've loosened its grip considerably, having almost eliminated homelessness, but we haven't done quite as well as the Scandinavian countries have because we've been reluctant to commit as fully to what it takes to establish a proper baseline.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by potemkyn:
Hundreds of thousands of people are waiting in line to enter the states which is why I don't see it as helpful to simply let 22 million cut in line. If the Federal government loses control of immigration, then it will shortly lose control of the country.

Eliminate the line, and there will be no cutting. The line only exists because we set arbitrary quotas, not because of any difficulty in doing the processing.

Eliminate the quotas. Let anyone who wants to be legal present identify themselves to INS and have a quick background check done, then hand them a work visa and let them go on their way. While they're waiting remind them of outstanding reward offers for information on true illegals- criminals and people flagged for terrorism (after establishing said awards)- as well as protections and compensation for reporting illegal labor practices and use to help flush such out rather than forcing them to support them.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
edgmatt
Member
Member # 6449

 - posted      Profile for edgmatt   Email edgmatt       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pyrtolin-

I think we are arguing semantics instead of the concept. I'm saying that it is impossible to eliminate "poverty" because the people who are considered in that group will be the poorest in the country. There will ALWAYS be a "poorest". If 90% of the country makes 100K/year, and the other 10% makes 95k/ year....the 95k group will be the "poorest". That would not be "poor" by our standards today, but it would be the "poorest" group. Thats all I'm saying.

I stressed the word "most" because I do believe that the government is necessary for the exact reason you described. But we're not talking about tyranny etc, we're talking about the government providing the things that you mentioned: shelter, basic nutrition and health, and the education needed to find productive employment. And history HAS shown that these things tend to be MORE available ( not available to ALL instantly, just MORE available ) when there is a more free society and less government intervention. ( to a point. I am not advocating Anarchy )
I do not think you can point to the reallocation of resources as the source of the lessening in poverty around the world. If this were true, why would China start letting free market ideas be but into effect in some parts of the country, the result being millions upon millions being raised out of poverty? [URL=Read this.]http://econ.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTDEC/EXTRESEARCH/0,,contentMDK:20634060~pagePK:64165401~piPK:64165026~theSitePK:469382,00.html[/URL]

quote:
Arguably, there were some important but relatively easy gains to be had by simply undoing failed policies, notably by de-collectivizing agriculture
With so many factors involved in the last 200 years, the incredible leaps we have had in technology, the elimination of fascist dictators, and the re-allocation of goods through donations, not to mention the hundreds of other things that have had an effect; I don't see it as reasonable to point to simply one item on that list and say "thats the reason".
Posts: 1439 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
edgmatt
Member
Member # 6449

 - posted      Profile for edgmatt   Email edgmatt       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Eliminate the line, and there will be no cutting. The line only exists because we set arbitrary quotas, not because of any difficulty in doing the processing
There are millions of people trying to get in the country. Millions. How can you eliminate the line? There are only 24 hours in the day, not all of which are used to get people in. How many people can possibly be processed in one day? Its not "arbitrary" quotas creating the line, its the fact that we don't have the capability to process the vast amount of applicants faster than they are applying.

Do you know all the reasons why there are quotas or are you just assuming they are arbitrary?

Posts: 1439 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by potemkyn:
Hundreds of thousands of people are waiting in line to enter the states which is why I don't see it as helpful to simply let 22 million cut in line. If the Federal government loses control of immigration, then it will shortly lose control of the country.

Eliminate the line, and there will be no cutting. The line only exists because we set arbitrary quotas, not because of any difficulty in doing the processing.

Eliminate the quotas. Let anyone who wants to be legal present identify themselves to INS and have a quick background check done, then hand them a work visa and let them go on their way. While they're waiting remind them of outstanding reward offers for information on true illegals- criminals and people flagged for terrorism (after establishing said awards)- as well as protections and compensation for reporting illegal labor practices and use to help flush such out rather than forcing them to support them.

Blink blink. I keep thinking that I'm being unfair to you, and you keeping saying crap like this. It's EASY? Are you barking mad? Because criminals and terrorists post their resumes on help wanted web sites? "Achmed: Skills, bombing and mass murder. Seeking job including rape." SURE. It's a snap!
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by edgmatt:
quote:
If Americans cared about other kinds of crime, we would enforce it. We don't.
We would enforce what? I didn't follow...

Its reasonable for a group of people to care more about crimes that affect people who are similar to that group than not. You originally said that America ONLY cares for crimes involving poverty. It may be that America cares MORE for such, but it is wrong to say that it is the only.

? Other kinds of crimes, the kinds not committed by the poor. The fact that you don't even know what I'm talking about pretty much sums up my point (assuming you're from/living in America).
Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by flydye45:
Blink blink. I keep thinking that I'm being unfair to you, and you keeping saying crap like this. It's EASY? Are you barking mad? Because criminals and terrorists post their resumes on help wanted web sites? "Achmed: Skills, bombing and mass murder. Seeking job including rape." SURE. It's a snap!

If law enforcement isn't tied up harassing people that aren't dangerous, they can go after the ones that are. Furthermore, those communities which provided cover for the criminals to hide would have no need to fear legal attention so would assist rather than complicate efforts to keep up with them.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
That's absurd. Are you saying that people have to starve for the system to work? That people have to be marginalized? Poverty isn't about relative wealth. It's about access to capital. People without sufficient access to capital to be full players in the system are impoverished within that system . People who cannot afford their own basic needs by definition do not have access to capital to invest in any enterprise, be it their own or that of others. They're not full players in the system.
Sorry, it does sound like you are saying that poverty is relative. A "poor" person in the United States may be considered average or even rich in another country.
Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by edgmatt:
There are millions of people trying to get in the country. Millions. How can you eliminate the line?

The line isn't for processing- those millions are processed then a select few are admitted. H1B visas for 2009, for example, filled completely by October 2008. Everyone else was turned away. Not because processing took so long- it's trivial to do the basic checks- but because we have hard caps on how man we admit at any given time that have nothing to do with processing and everything to do with simply trying to enforce limits on immigration.

~50K H1Bs are given out each year. If you're looking to hire the 50001st person, you're out of luck, even if you have someone standing by and ready to go.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
quote:
That's absurd. Are you saying that people have to starve for the system to work? That people have to be marginalized? Poverty isn't about relative wealth. It's about access to capital. People without sufficient access to capital to be full players in the system are impoverished within that system . People who cannot afford their own basic needs by definition do not have access to capital to invest in any enterprise, be it their own or that of others. They're not full players in the system.
Sorry, it does sound like you are saying that poverty is relative. A "poor" person in the United States may be considered average or even rich in another country.
No I'm not. Poverty is a complete lack of access to capital to invest, not just less than what others have. I'm contending just the opposite, in fact- that it's possible to ensure that the poor people in a system are not impoverished- that while they have less, their basic needs are met and they have the access to capital and thus the opportunity to change their status if they apply it well.

Being poor is not the same as being impoverished. The former is a relative term to the rest of the participants in an economy, the latter is an absolute condition that prevents one from fully participating and traps one at the bottom of the economic ladder.

The cost of living does vary from place to place, so the cost of those basic essentials does as well, so the line is relative to the specific economy, yes, but not, as was in context, the economic percentile that a person falls within. You'll have the poorest 20% or eve 1% no matter where you go; that's by definition of comparative terms. There is nothing, however, that requires that even the bottom .1% be forced to trapped by poverty, that they must absolutely make less than it costs to survive and enrich themselves.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
IrishTD
Member
Member # 2216

 - posted      Profile for IrishTD   Email IrishTD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And things like this is why the immigration problem won't go away (Linky)

quote:
SOUTH BEND — Janco Composites Inc., a Mishawaka plant raided by federal immigration agents in March 2007, and its president were placed on probation Thursday for hiring illegal workers to benefit themselves.

The sentencing hearing in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Indiana followed a plea hearing in February in which Janco and its president, Douglas Jaques, admitted to hiring illegal workers and signed a plea agreement with a binding sentence.

Judge Robert L. Miller Jr. accepted their guilty pleas Thursday and formally sentenced both parties. Jaques represented Janco in court.

Janco, which makes fiberglass tubing, was placed on probation for five years and fined $210,000. It will have to make an immediate payment of $42,000 and monthly payments of $7,000 with interest thereafter.

While on probation, Janco also will have to adopt a compliance program to meet hiring guidelines.

Jaques was placed on probation for one year and fined $30,000, which he will have to pay immediately. While he's on probation, his travel will be restricted to Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin and Michigan, the judge said.

The plant's raid in 2007 led to the arrests of 36 undocumented workers.

quote:
Janco had received "No Match" letters in 2000 and 2001 from the federal government, alerting the company that its employees' Social Security numbers did not match their names. But the company looked the other way, according to a federal investigation.

When rumors surfaced in February 2007 that immigration agents were in town, Janco supervisors allowed Mexican employees to switch to the evening shift to avoid a raid during the daytime, according to the same investigation.


Posts: 825 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kuato
Member
Member # 6445

 - posted      Profile for Kuato   Email Kuato       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TommySama:
Kuato, equal pay happens when they are actually recognized by the system.

Not necessarily. Let them be recognized, protected, welcomed and employed and since the employers can't/won't pay them, allow the fed reserve to use them as an injection point for liquidity.

It is equal pay TO them but not equal pay FROM the employers, and their standard of living will be vastly improved and "picking crops" will be a reasonable thing for your father and mother to do because everyone needs to eat and this is a valuable and honorable service and their children can hold their heads up.

Posts: 1038 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1