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 » An immigration proposal that everyone should agree on: (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: An immigration proposal that everyone should agree on:
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And since we won't be able to pay obamacare for all the foreign prison guards we will need to jail us, the guards will have to be illegals. Really neat plan, Seneca.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
DW, you don't often say something stupid, but please put down the egg nog and think this through.
You greatly underestimate my capacity for saying something stupid. [Smile]
quote:
What you propose is to jail all the farmers and then sell their property. Result: agricultural property converted to nonagricultural. America starves.
Depends on who buys the property and if you are right about it being converted. Alternate Result: Legal workers must be used, minimum wages must be paid, prices do go up. Business on the margins who cannot compete without this “unfair advantage” fail. (good riddance) Our government (meaning tax payers or our children) will have to pick up the tab to smooth things out. Government realizes this really sucks! Government comes up with a work visa program that keeps the economy in the sweet spot but at the same time maintains at least a livable, if still pitiful, living wage for the workers in our country.

See, I can be naïve and morally jaded too. [Razz] Maybe I’m wrong, maybe nobody is “getting rich off illegal labor”. Maybe there is no fat to trim or redistribute. Maybe our economy has sacrificed dignity and fairness long ago and it all comes down to lotto of birth and occasional blips of brilliance or political maneuvering, not to mention unethical behavior that goes unpunished to give us shining examples of wealth we can all aspire to but nobody has a real chance at reaching.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
With farmers going bankrupt since they can't afford the labor on the one hand, or being incarcerated on the left hand, just who do you suppose will be lining up to be come the next generation of farmers?

Like Isaiah predicted, we will tear down the farms and build "house to house" and then act all surprised when there is no food in the land.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
With farmers going bankrupt since they can't afford the labor on the one hand, or being incarcerated on the left hand, just who do you suppose will be lining up to be come the next generation of farmers?

Like Isaiah predicted, we will tear down the farms and build "house to house" and then act all surprised when there is no food in the land.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well first, you raise your prices to accommodate compensating employees within the law. This will be across the board. Can’t compete? Well either everyone gets hit the same and everyone’s prices are going up and you CAN compete, or you were already flouting the law in order to take a bite out of the honest farmer’s potential.

Now, when the prices go up we may suddenly realize the “true cost” of food when we pay a legal minimum compensation to the workers is higher than we would want. Then suddenly what was considered an acceptable “living wage” is no longer high enough what then? Do we raise minimum wage further? The cost to the employers is now passed on again? This will be a very bumpy and difficult transition Pete. However trying to put a patch on a broken system is missing the point.

I do not believe for a second that punishing any side of the equation is going to fix something. Punishing one side while fixing a problem however, even if painful, is effective. The employers aren’t going to voluntarily sacrifice an advantage and those who are already struggling are not going to voluntarily step aside. I fully expect the government would have to pour vast amounts of wealth into smoothing this transition and a lot of people would hate that and consider even the early attempts to be a colossal ideological failure.

I don’t trust in a “free market” when it only functions under quasi slavery of the lowest paid workers, be they legal or illegal.

We may be surprised as Isaiah predicted, but we won't starve. We may wake up though.

[ December 20, 2013, 11:41 AM: Message edited by: D.W. ]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
How does farming work in the US? Oh yeah, subsidies...

Farming is already economically not solvent here, we just pretend that it works fine because it's propped up by our tax dollars. And yes, I know not all produce types are covered but most farmers do more than one crop.

So can we drop the economic farming argument?

[ December 20, 2013, 01:18 PM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Love that logic. Farming is not economically solvent, so what does it matter if we **** the system up more and condemn half the country to starvation and the other half to cannibalism.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Even if our government didn't offer further and generous subsidies to close the price gap triggered by increase cost of running a farm the only way this happens is if we legitimately have nobody to work farms. Even if they paid a "fair wage".

Suddenly a farm job pays minimum wage and benefits and over time. Still nobody hires on? Ok, wages go up further. Now is it better than say, working at Starbucks or Walmart? No? Raise the price a little more.

Now it costs too much to run a farm? No worries, the government swoops in to save the day. It will be economically painful. Nobody is going to starve though. It would take drought or disease compromising our ability to produce food. Now, during that economic turmoil if cuts to public assistance took place / continued the poor could suffer. It’s not going to be because we don’t have the food. It’s going to be because we don’t have the money to pay for it. The food will be there, the demand will be there. It just takes the will to break out of the current pattern.

This is a true pain in the rump. MUCH much easier to just keep the current state of affairs trudging along and make soothing noises about solving the “immigration problem”… eventually.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If the farmland is converted there will be no food there. And housing never gets converted back into farmland. It's a one way deal. Forests to farms, farms to city, city to detroitscape. It's American entropy and it only goes one way.

We can't eat subsidies and rumors of subsidies. Here's my prediction: DW: before you are old you will see hunger in America.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What makes you so positive that a failed farm, becomes... What? A strip mall or subdivision?

Also, your "Dear Monsanto-Claus" topic is worth remembering. It may not be pretty for the movement towards non GM foods or more humane meat processing but innovation allows us to do a lot with less space. We haven’t even pushed ourselves in that regard because of our abundance in farming resources let alone our wealth to import whatever we want and somehow can’t grow ourselves.

Now if population explodes and somehow we keep creating non agricultural jobs at a pace to keep up with or exceed that supply then sure. We COULD reach a critical mass of too many people and not enough growers.

Alternately construction measures would have to revolutionize to eat up our farmable land at an amazing pace. Nanomachines construction? Vast automated construction bots that run round the clock strip mining locations for raw materials and turning them into steel, glass and concrete urban centers in a handful of years? We have A LOT of rural and non developed area still in the U.S. A good chuck fertile resources as well.

Your gloomy predictions could come to pass but it would hinge on pollution, disease or lack of water. No economic force alone is going to starve us out. The human animal is not yet that helpless that it would choose to die rather than lower itself to manual labor. Even if we were that bad off already, we’d probably solve that little hurdle in my lifetime.

War could do it I suppose. I'm still pretty confident in our national security at present. As soon as food and fresh water rather than energy or other raw materials is the prize worth fighting for the landscape may change. I don't see that happening quickly though.

[ December 20, 2013, 02:07 PM: Message edited by: D.W. ]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Also, your "Dear Monsanto-Claus" topic is worth remembering. It may not be pretty for the movement towards non GM foods or more humane meat processing but innovation allows us to do a lot with less space."

Will humanity survive? Definitely. But during the time of adaptation, I predict hunger.

I'm gloomy because this discussion with Seneca has reminded me just how short-sighted some people can be. Rejecting out of hand a proposal that would stifle illegal immigration, just out of spite and terror that it might benefit a handful of individual illegal immigrants. And let's shut down American farming because it's not economically viable.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I still don't get how you can get someone to be liable for the medical bills and NOT end up also deporting the illegal immigrant and/or penalizing the employer beyond that cost. You would be enforcing a new law and ignoring (or changing) existing laws being broken.

I like putting them on the hook for that health care. Though once uncovered, I would also put them on the hook for back taxes and reasonable back pay.

I'm not sure the gains this proposal offers offsets enough to be worthwhile while willfully ignoring the causes. Feel free to break these other laws (you already do anyway), but THIS law, we aren't gona budge on. We're serious!

Your suggestion may be a good bandaid. It may even be as politically tenable as we are likely to see any time soon. It is deeply flawed though from both a practical and moral stand point in my opinion.

[ December 20, 2013, 02:49 PM: Message edited by: D.W. ]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I like putting them on the hook for that health care. Though once uncovered, I would also put them on the hook for back taxes and reasonable back pay."

Agreed! Back taxes, back social security... with interest.`

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hilarious. America would starve because we would stop importing cheap food? Are you kidding me? So you know what comparative advantage is? The US is not suited anymore for mass agriculture.

As for spite and terror that's a great way to alienate people who simply want the law enforced. You already called me naive and morally jaded and inferred I was racist with your KKK comments, so I guess what's one more in the grand scheme right?

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So if we did that, would the disincentivization be worth the further intimidation and abuses this would cause in order to avoid such penalties? I can already envision an increased number of “horrific stories” about employers with their own, “on staff unlicensed medical provider” setting bones or handing out black market pharmaceuticals to illegals who don’t know what they are entitled to. Or threatened with deportation if they were to ever go to a hospital or clinic. Maybe it would. I could be wrong but my opinion is pretty damn low of those who willfully flout laws already and exploit workers because even our legally mandated minimum standards are “too high” for them.
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Also, I am not a heartless jerk. I have great sympathy for the people of Mexico. And let's be honest, the vast majority of illegal immigrants are from Mexico. By tolerating illegal immigration we are prolonging the suffering of Mexico. How? Simple. Illegal immigration acts as pressure release valve for Mexico's problems that prevents them from building up sufficient pressure to fix their country. Imagine if all illegal immigration was stopped, imagine how fast Mexico would either reform or revolt. When our founding fathers were oppressed by the British did they run and hide in the western wilderness? No. They stood and fought. It's time for Mexico and Latin America to take charge of its future. Stop holding them back.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
Hilarious. America would starve because we would stop importing cheap food? Are you kidding me?

because we would "stop importing cheap food?" Is that your actual reading comprehension of what I said? Are you kidding me?

You said throw the farmers in jail and sell their farms.

I responded if we follow your foolish recommendation, that American farm-land will end up being converted for nonagricultural use, resulting in a food shortage.

How did you mangle that into "stop importing cheap food?"

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Because unless we stopped importing cheap food there would be no food shortage even if all major American farms stopped producing........
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
Also, I am not a heartless jerk. I have great sympathy for the people of Mexico. And let's be honest, the vast majority of illegal immigrants are from Mexico. By tolerating illegal immigration we are prolonging the suffering of Mexico. How? Simple. Illegal immigration acts as pressure release valve for Mexico's problems that prevents them from building up sufficient pressure to fix their country. Imagine if all illegal immigration was stopped, imagine how fast Mexico would either reform or revolt.

I agree wholeheartedly. That's exactly why I want to stop illegal immigration by turning illegal immigrant workers against their American employers. I honestly do not understand your objecting on the basis that a handful of illegal immigrants would benefit. If a few illegals benefit but illegal immigration itself comes to a crashing halt, I would think you would consider that a net good.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Not to be a pest but, how does THIS suggestion get enforced when everything leading up to it is not?
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't think it would come to a halt. The only way to stop it is a dual approach of making life unbearable here both for them and anyone who helps them so that they stop wanting to come. Jail and deportation seems to fill that bill better than anything else so far.

I look forward to a future where Mexico is a strong, independent neighbor and is proud of itself and its accomplishments. When they can truly consider us their equal.

[ December 20, 2013, 03:30 PM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
That's a dumb idea and even though it's a hardship on the employers it somewhat legitimizes the criminals who are here.

Instead, I propose sending every employer who has illegal aliens on staff goes to jail for 20 years, no parole or early release.

This is a laughably inane suggestion. As in the other thread, you're proposing a "solution" that will cost *you* a lot of money. How much do you think it costs the state to house and feed a prisoner for 20 years? Methinks you'll be spending even more to build more prisons while you're at it.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
But it would be a short term cost. It honestly wouldn't take that many "examples" to slam the doors shut on employment opportunities for illegals.

Also you'd just have to announce you ARE going to do so starting on X date. The number wouldn't be that high at all. Just a few to prove it was a serious law.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yeah because after the first set of employers the others will just keep doing it right?

[Roll Eyes]

Edit: DW beat me to the obvious punch.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Again, pls show me an example of any major illegal activity that threat of incarceration has EVER stopped in America. I asked before, and no answer, so I think you're whistling Dixie.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
By that logic we shouldn't jail thieves or violent criminals.

I think our incarceration rate is partly why crime has dropped over the years, though it would drop a lot more if we stopped releasing chronic re-offenders.

[ December 20, 2013, 03:45 PM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
By that logic we shouldn't jail thieves or violent criminals.

I don't think you grasp my argument enough to make a "by that logic" remark.

We jail a thief or a violent criminal in order to stop that person from committing more crimes. Most of us are not under the psychotic delusion that by jailing today's thieves that we will be stopping all theft forever. Prison serves to stem recidivism, but it does Nada for actual deterrence.

Here again you're proven wrong by your own examples.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It depends on the profit margin of a legal operation and an illegal operation which risks jail time. I’m out of my element here. I don’t know what an individual employer could expect to pocket for the risk. Obviously we see corporate embezzlement and other shady practices even with high penalties if they are caught.

I like to assume criminals are not ALL stupid. Some of them are making calculated risks. Is this a worthwhile risk? I don’t see it as such but I don’t know the amount of money that’s at stake for those in direct risk of doing the time.

quote:
Prison serves to stem recidivism, but it does Nada for actual deterrence.
This part of your statement I very much disagree with. It may not do enough but I'm not out stealing anything because it's not worth getting locked up. Oh and I'm a good boy who wouldn't dream of victimizing anyone for my own gains.

[ December 20, 2013, 03:57 PM: Message edited by: D.W. ]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If people can't abide by our laws then why should they be free? I know a lot of employers, including farmers, who obey the law.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
It depends on the profit margin of a legal operation and an illegal operation which risks jail time. I’m out of my element here. I don’t know what an individual employer could expect to pocket for the risk. Obviously we see corporate embezzlement and other shady practices even with high penalties if they are caught.

I like to assume criminals are not ALL stupid. Some of them are making calculated risks. Is this a worthwhile risk? I don’t see it as such but I don’t know the amount of money that’s at stake for those in direct risk of doing the time.

quote:
Prison serves to stem recidivism, but it does Nada for actual deterrence.
This part of your statement I very much disagree with. It may not do enough but I'm not out stealing anything because it's not worth getting locked up. Oh and I'm a good boy who wouldn't dream of victimizing anyone for my own gains.
I may have overstated it at NADA, but surely you agree that it hasn't stopped theft to the extent that Seneca claims to want to stop illegal immigration.

quote:
Seneca: If people can't abide by our laws then why should they be free?
Irrelevant. Whether they "should" be free has nothing to do whether incarcerating them will stop illegal immigration, which is what you originally claimed. I believe that either you or G3 refer to this as moving the goal post.

Seneca: To stop illegal immigration I want Salma Hayek to take her top off!

Pete: That won't stop illegal immigration.

Seneca: well I want to see Salma Hayek topless.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
If people can't abide by our laws then why should they be free? I know a lot of employers, including farmers, who obey the law.

That's a pretty sweeping generalization. Prison for violation of any law?
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
msquared
Member
Member # 113

 - posted      Profile for msquared   Email msquared   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I agree with Pete's last Seneca statement. [Wink]

msquared

Posts: 4002 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hi Msquared! Long time no see.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If you start an MLM in Georgia, you must provide a notice to all your workers about certain laws about MLMs in Georgia. The law specifies that this notice must have a cover sheet with certain information on it and NOTHING else appearing. The violation of this law is a GROSS MISDEMEANOR.

Therefore spilling coffee on the cover-sheet of an MLM notice, is a gross misdemeanor, and, per Seneca, the spiller does not deserve to be free. [Big Grin]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
P Crowley
New Member
Member # 6845

 - posted      Profile for P Crowley   Email P Crowley       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I have an interesting perspective on this, partly from having lived in Arizona for a while and partly just from being a non-farm employer. I don't know all that much about the economics of farm employment, but as far as most non-farm employment is concerned, illegal immigration has created a huge distortion in the labor market.

Today in 2013 the prices at most Wendy's are right about where they were in 1985, nearly 30 years ago. The basic reason for this isn't that food costs haven't changed but that their labor costs haven't changed. Why? Because unlike when I was a teenager, most fast-food workers are illegals and their lack of wage parity has greatly distorted the market. I am pretty sure the same price comparisons can be made across all fast-food restaurants.

For an employer the verification process in non-E-Verify states is a joke. You are required by Federal law to have the new employee present some documentation supposedly proving their right to work in the US. The employer does not send this information anywhere and is strictly prohibited from judging the validity of the presented documents. This means you can be presented with a crayon-drawn "DIVERS LICENSE" and it must be accepted.

The situation gets a little better in Arizona and other E-Verify states, but not much. Most restaurant workers in Phoenix are illegals and most restaurants are caught up in periodic raids. After a short pause they are right back with some different faces. There is no penalty that is severe enough to prevent them from employing illegals.

Why are they here? Because in rural Mexico wages are very low. Roughly I understand a worker might get the equivalent to $2 a day. If they come here and work for cash under the table they can make $4-5 a hour easily. This is $32-40 a day which is 16 to 20 times what they can make in Mexico. Yes, the cost of living is somewhat higher but these people are willing to live in a house with 10-15 other people so they can send every penny back to their starving family in Mexico or other Central American countries.

This should explain why people routinely walk past signs in the Arizona desert that say clearly in Spanish "If you continue, you will die." Various groups have artfully placed human and animal skeletons near these signs hoping for increased effect. All of these efforts have been fruitless. The people will come here no matter what as long as there are jobs which pay them as much as 20 times what they can make in Mexico.

The only answer for employers is a fine of such staggering proportions that it reverses the economic incentive to use illegal labor. Something like $10 a day per illegal worker would do it. You are never going to get prison time for employers, but it would be possible to reverse the economics with a simple fine that went straight to the state where the violation occurred.

Posts: 1 | Registered: Jul 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete it's obvious I wasn't talking about breaking the law once, but a lifetime decision to ignore our laws.

PCrowley, welcome to Ornery, you are RIGHT, however, if you discount jail time as impractical yet think a law imposing significant fines will pass through our corrupted legislatures, then I'd say you are wrong.


It's good to hear from someone in a border state who can relate what life is really like on the front lines of this war. I hope you stick around.

[ December 20, 2013, 05:51 PM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Welcome, P Crowley, and outstanding first post.
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Welcome Crowley. Thank you for an informed, well-thought-out, and articulate first post.

quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
Pete it's obvious I wasn't talking about breaking the law once, but a lifetime decision to ignore our laws.

Thank you for clarifying. It never occurred to me that's what you meant. So to clarify, you think someone should have to refuse to comply with Obamacare for several years before they get imprisoned for 20 years without parole? [Razz]

I'm mystified as to why you agree when Crowley says that stopping illegal immigration will require stiff and consistent economic penalties, but disagree when I say the same thing. Nevada may not be the "front line" on imigration, but we are the front line for the war from the Mexican cartels, which I respectfully submit poses a greater threat than Manuel Labor y familia.

[ December 20, 2013, 07:55 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Thank you for clarifying. It never occurred to me that's what you meant. So to clarify, you think someone should have to refuse to comply with Obamacare for several years before they get imprisoned for 20 years without parole? [Razz]
Since the law seems to be changing every few weeks and might keep doing that forever, it seems impossible to me that anyone could be against it for a lifetime as it would eventually change to something they'd coincidentally be complying with. [Razz]

quote:
I'm mystified as to why you agree when Crowley says that stopping illegal immigration will require stiff and consistent economic penalties, but disagree when I say the same thing. Nevada may not be the "front line" on imigration, but we are the front line for the war from the Mexican cartels, which I respectfully submit poses a greater threat than Manuel Labor y familia.
Re-read what I wrote. What I said was that he was right, it would be nice if we could impose stiff penalties on these employers, but that he was wrong to believe that those penalties would be any more likely than the jail time he thinks ISN'T likely. Do you think either of those is likely with our current corrupt government that loves illegal immigration for many reasons? (business, future dem voter base, etc.)
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  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 
Mexico's cartel problems are almost completely a result of our drug laws. It's already effectively in a state of civil war- adding a popular revolution to overthrow the government to the mix would be little different that simply formally crowning the crime syndicates as the new government.

Legal and jurisdictional lines have plenty of uses that have nothing to do with enforcing quota based migration systems that have more basis in racism than any actual practical utility, and instead let anyone who can pass a simple background and health check have residency so long as they can find employment. Make the workers legal, with all associated protections and they won't be able to be extorted into pushing down wages.

If you want to favor citizens for employment, then add bang to the buck for employing them, then pad on the citizen side. Take healthcare costs out of the farmer's hands, give people who work on farms and the farms themselves credits equal to whatever percent of the nominal pay that's offered until employment reaches desired rates. No need for regulation, just direct correction of the market dysfunction that arises from the existence of densely packed cities with no significant agricultural output, never mind one that's even remotely proportional to their population.

[ December 20, 2013, 11:44 PM: Message edited by: Pyrtolin ]

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  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