| Author |
Message |
    
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 13616
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 - 5:54 pm: | 
|
Back in the 1980's a lot of Japanese were buying prominent American properties such as Rockefeller Center. Americans said it was wrong and we shouldn't let it happen. But the question was, why are we selling?
Now we have people coming here for jobs. Why?
We also have a lot of underemployed people who were born here. Why?
|
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 3402
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 - 6:07 pm: |
|
That's true Tom, but who will do the jobs that no one wants? Do the people who were born here have the opportunity to take these jobs? I think they do.
The immigrants of the 1800s came here without any jobs, mostly just dreams, and there was antipathy toward them. Your question has the ring of those in the white anglo=saxon upper classes who watched as Irish, Jews and Italians came from Europe.
I don't think you can compare the NAFTA refugees from Mexico and Central America to the wealthy Japanese of the 1980s. The comparison is a bit odd.
|
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 13621
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 - 6:13 pm: |
|
Sorry. Terrible wording on my part. I guess I left a step out.
I was not comparing. I was saying that when we say something is "wrong" we should look at the forces at play. Both situations are failures to do that.
When we see trends, we should look at them as streams. You can't just fill a stream with dirt or concrete and expect it to go away. It will find a new path.
|
kenney
Citizen
Username: Kenney
Post Number: 776
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 - 6:17 pm: |
|
The easiest and most direct solution to ease illegal immigration is to raise the minimum wage to about $7 an hour...and since this would up the cost of the big mac to about $4, it would also help with our 'fat' problem. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 13623
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 - 6:20 pm: |
|
kenney, wouldn't that increase illegal immigration, since more employers would be unwilling to pay minimum wage? I'd love to hear an argument that shows that I am wrong! I would like to see a minimum wage much higher than $7/hour.
|
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 3403
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 - 6:32 pm: |
|
Tom: I agree that there are many forces at play, and this is certainly one of those "waves" of immigration this country has experienced over the centuries.
I agree with Lou Dobbs that Mexico and other Central and South American countries have to work on their own labor issues, and quality of life issues and part of this wave is the governments' doing in those countries.
However, if you replace the word "Mexico" with the word "Ireland" 1880, or with the word "Russia" c. 1890, how could those refugees have adjusted to the potato famine, or the pogroms, respectively? The difference now is that our own NAFTA economic policy has contributed to the economic problems and labor problems that encourage the flow across the southern borders. We, the US, are partly to blame for this wave, unlike the waves of the 19th century.
The fact is, these millions of people in the streets are not "immigrants," but refugees from economic devastation. The tourist industry, oil industry, mining and other sources of economic strength below the border are not providing for the millions, nor do they have the excellent, free education that lures them over the border.
kenney: I think that's not a bad idea. Raising the minimum wage here, and encouraging the sweat shop owners who run factories below the border that pay abominable wages to be fined, and forced to pay decent wages and improve working conditions would be sound economic policy.
All this is probably a long way off. The fact is, it looks like global economic and environmental conditions are collapsing. Whether it's a coincidence, a correlation, or a causal relationship, I couldn't say. Perhaps the lack of family planning and resulting overpopulation of the underdeveloped nations might have something to do with this global economic and labor-centered collapse.
It'll be a while digging out of it, and every time the global economy seems to shift for the better, something like a sunami or huge earthquake happens, depressing entire regions at a time.
Who knows if we'll deal intelligently as a species with this calamity. In any case, civility and decency would help. I am very happy to see that Frist and Sensenbrenner have decided to unhinge "illegal" status from "felon" status for these masses of people who have taken to the streets of our towns and cities.
|
kenney
Citizen
Username: Kenney
Post Number: 777
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 - 6:38 pm: |
|
the greater demand you have to fill those positions, the more pressure you will place on the government to inforce the laws of the land. |
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 3404
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 - 6:54 pm: |
|
Right. Without demand, there would not be supply. |
3ringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 168
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 - 7:24 pm: |
|
Nohero,
I'm a little confused. I thought you wanted honest disagreement, but when you get it, you claim that people are trying to limit your ability to state your views.
I'm confused that you are confused. I didn't mean to imply that I felt threatened with censorship. Maybe it came across that way. The person who most limits my ability to state my views is myself. Maybe I should start using those little round faces to show nuance or emphasis in my posts. I hope that clears things up a bit.
Cheers
|
3ringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 169
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 - 7:32 pm: |
|
Southerner,
I thank you for your advice and encouragement. I think I failed to express myself clearly to Nohero, not that I would expect him to agree with me on that.
I don't take any of this personally, but I find it to be interesting and useful even when people don't agree with me.
Cheers |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 13627
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 - 7:44 pm: |
|
I like your thesis, kenney, but I wonder if government has the will or the resources to ensure that everyone is paid legally. Again, I hope I am wrong.
|
3ringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 170
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 - 8:27 pm: |
|
Tom Reingold,
"Open borders" could mean "no borders" so forget that.
Could mean "no borders"? I think it most definitely would. I'm glad to see that you disagree with the WSJ on that one. It's nice to think about the world as it could be or should be, but we have to live in the world as it is. I think that when Congress returns from recess, that there will be a compromise on immigration. It will include some sort of "amnesty", even if it is called by another name. I looked for numbers on the 1986 Reagan amnesty and it seems to vary between 2.7 and 4 million. Now we're looking at 12 million (or more?).
I wonder what the 2026 amnesty will look like.
Every domestic issue we face is impacted by immigration, and not in a positive way. NJ is a high immigration state and the effects of future waves of immigrants will be amplified here.
A trivial example. About 5-6 summers ago, we had a drought in NJ, I think it was Hurricane Floyd that solved it. What have we done since to prepare for another drought? As far as I know, nothing. Will there be another drought in the future? Probably. Will the increase in population due to immigration, legal and illegal, make the impact of that drought more or less severe? NB, I am not saying that immigration causes drought. Well, I guess we're a nation of immigrants and I'm getting thirsty.......
How would you feel about jailing all blacks, even if we could show that it would reduce street crime?
This is as absurd as the WSJ open borders scheme. The fact that I can't persuade you that profiling can be a useful tool for law enforcement doesn't mean that I am wrong. It could mean that your mind is settled on the matter. It could mean that I lack debating skills. If profiling along racial, ethnic or religious lines is useful in preventing crime, I see nothing wrong with it. I don't know a lot of cops, but I'd be curious to get an opinion from someone on the front lines. I have a feeling it might be very different from that of pols and pundits who lead more insular lives than most of us.
Cheers
|
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 904
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 - 8:45 pm: |
|
3ring,
"It's nice to think about the world as it could be or should be, but we have to live in the world as it is".
Great point that will be missed by most of the libs. The looney left wingers on this board don't understand this point of view. Be careful for soon they will label you for making such statements. And also, the left doesn't like this Republican world so all they have is to to dream about what could have or should have been (in their opinion). I'd rather they just move to Paris. All except Reingold. I'd like to keep him around. He keeps me honest and on my toes or heels depending on the discussion. |
Ceidefields
Citizen
Username: Ceidefields
Post Number: 40
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 - 8:58 pm: |
|
Tom:
You asked:
Now we have people coming here for jobs. Why?
We also have a lot of underemployed people who were born here. Why?
I think this really hits the heart of the matter. I'm an immigrant who immigrated legally to the US about nine years ago for the same reasons most immigrants come here - the possibility of living a great life if you work hard enough. What a lot of Americans don't realize or appreciate (to answer your second question), is the extremely high standard of living in America compared to other countries, even Europe. I earn about four times the amount I would have earned if I had stayed in my home country. I also pay all the same taxes as everyone else and feel I'm a contributing member of society.
Poorer immigrants take the approach that it's OK to be here illegally and work for $2 an hour because their children will benefit from the school systems and the opportunity to go to college. People who already live here and are underemployed most likely choose not to take an off the books job for $2/hour.
Right now the H1-B process is in place for people with degrees to find a job and move to the US. It's not a perfect process but I think that the best way forward would be to adapt this process to the much lower paying jobs, jobs that Americans themselves are not willing to work. Then everything would be above board and no one would be committing a crime.
|
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 13628
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 - 11:39 pm: |
|
My argument against profiling: Our morality should define what is right and wrong, not what is expedient. Most things can be decided on a utilitarian argument. A few have to be decided deontologically. There are certain things that we don't do just because we don't do them. It is hurtful and harmful to act on ethnic bigotry, even if it's practical to the population at large. It violates individual rights.
Sometimes, doing the right thing is more "expensive" or troublesome. I'm sure you tell your kids stuff like that.
|
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 3410
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 6:57 am: |
|
In the case of the current immigration issue, it's not only less hurtful to have a plan for a path to citizenship for those here undocumented, it's also less expensive, because they will be paying a fine, and will ultimately become taxpayers. They pay sales taxes now when they buy in US stores, and they save their employers money by working for low wages (unfair, but certainly practical for the employer.) In essence, giving these workers a seven-year, or whatever, set of expectations to arrive at citizenship is NOT amnesty. It's a PLAN, and it bridges the "illegal" to "legal" gap fairly in light of what current legal immigrants have had to endure.
Incidentally, you do recall that our grandparents' generation did not have quite the lengthy process the current generation of adult immigrants have.
|
The Notorious S.L.K.
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1213
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 8:11 am: |
|
tulip-
when are you moving out of your house so you can gleefully give it to a ill, ahem, "undocumented worker?"
-SLK |
Alleygater
Citizen
Username: Alleygater
Post Number: 1715
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 11:25 am: |
|
Quote:I'd rather they just move to Paris. All except Reingold.
Southerner, I'd like to send all the conservatives to Texas so they can continue to inbreed. I'll take a pain au chocolat over sh*t on a shingle any day.
I'm sorry Tom, unfortunately you won't be able to enjoy France, you're going to have to stay here and keep Southerner on his toes. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 905
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 11:35 am: |
|
Alley,
I was kidding (it was a play on all the libs who vow to move every election cycle if their candidate doesn't win). I need to keep you guys around, otherwise, how would us unproductive hicks continue to get free federal money? We need your tax dollars so I'm willing to keep you here. I also enjoy your posts of desperation and those are often worth more than free money!
Now please carry on with the usual Bush bashing. The board has been slow the last few days, and I have no interest in the global warming discussions. I'd rather just go to the beach, which I will next weekend. |
3ringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 172
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 12:42 pm: |
|
Tom Reingold,
Your argument aginst profiling on deontological rather than utilitarian grounds is a strong one and I respect it. In fact, a few years ago, it would have just about convinced me. Now, I'm not so sure. I agree that there are universal moral norms, but I think their application can vary with circumstances. This is more akin to a pre-modern casuistic approach, as found in the Talmud and Mediaeval writings, rather than the one-size-fits-all ethic
of modernism. The ethical approach of Enlightenment liberalism, in its left and right varieties, is abstract, rationalistic, and universalistic. But life is more complicated than that. To bring this back to profiling, it might not be necessary to profile every member of a group at all times, it might be appropriate under certain circumstances. This approach seems more flexible, to me at least, than the either/or school of thought.
You're right that it is important to do the right thing even if it is difficult. I actually don't have any kids, but if I did, that's what I'd be telling them.
Cheers
|
MichaelaM
Citizen
Username: Mayquene
Post Number: 155
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Monday, April 17, 2006 - 9:59 pm: |
|
If we want to reduce the demand for undocumented workers, raising the minimum wage is a start. But people who hire illegal workers won't exactly be motivated to pay it. Perhaps separate agencies monitoring worker conditions and legality would be a start. I know that on face value it seems to encourage illegal workers, but it could help both legal and illegal ones by improving their working conditions and help legal workers by raising wages, at least slightly. The separation would function much like the current reluctance of local police to get involved in immigration enforcement, less they be unable to get people to report crime or participate in an investigation for fear of being deported.
Of course, there would be some problems with this. A true separation of the agencies could be politically difficult.
I also agree that a more critical look at trade deals is in order. When we have liberal trade with countries whose standards for and enforcement of workers rights is poor, we effectively undermine our own employment laws. We should demand steady improvement of employment conditions to ease trade restrictions. And, yes, it will inflate the cost of good here, but restrictions here already do that. Somehow, we're willing to pay $1 instead of 75 cents for a Big Mac for the comfort that the person making your meal gets paid a minimum wage. Why do labor abuses fail to anger us when they aren't on our soil?
Then again, the Bush adminstration does seem pretty intent on reducing labor protections domestically -- why else would the federal wage be $5.15 an hour? |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page