Huh, about the US' employment problem

madmallard wrote: Its like trying to have a discussion on gender relations when you can't agree who's male and female.

Holy E36 M3, now you've done it haven't you?

T.J. wrote: Every action taken by the government for the past ten years seems to have been done as part of an effort to destroy this country. At every turn folks who play by the rules get screwed while those that flaunt them get rewarded.

This is because the rules are typically written to screw the people who follow them. The house always wins.

madmallard wrote: People who come here without following the rules are CRIMINALS. We can't even get people to agree on this simple fact, being a law-breaker makes you a criminal.

I do agree. People who break laws are criminals. People who break the speed limit are criminals. People who jay-walk are criminals. People who park illegally are criminals. People who release a/c gases into the atmosphere are criminals. People who remove or alter emissions devices on a car are criminals. I doubt there is anyone I have ever met who hasn't been "guilty" of some crime. I had to go to court because a car dealer never got me the title to a car I bought. I'm a criminal. No question about it. I broke the law and had to pay a fine. Guilty as charged. Want to kick me out of the country too?

Being here illegally is not the same thing as being a murder. Using divisive "illegal" language doesn't serve any purpose but to dehumanize them. Much easier to say you don't care what happens to a criminal than a human being. I also get tired of people preaching over and over about their illegal activity as if they, themselves, have never broken a law.

Rosa Parks was a criminal. The Founding Fathers were criminals. Nelson Mandella was a criminal. The issue of immigration is complicated. Really complicated. We need to figure out an appropriate solution. Over-simplifying a very complicated issue doesn't get us closer to an answer.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: People who break the speed limit are criminals. People who jay-walk are criminals. People who park illegally are criminals. People who release a/c gases into the atmosphere are criminals. People who remove or alter emissions devices on a car are criminals.

That's actually wholly incorrect (in Canada anyways). Those are not crime's, nor are they "criminal" in nature. Maybe in the states what constitutes crime varies from up North here. Also, last time I checked, positive reinforcement of a behaviour tends to reinforce that behaviour. How that can be good is beyond me.

HiTempguy wrote: That's actually wholly incorrect (in Canada anyways). Those are not crime's, nor are they "criminal" in nature.

(edit) Nevermind. You win the internet. Guess that problem is solved. Congratulations.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: Being here illegally is not the same thing as being a murder. Using divisive "illegal" language doesn't serve any purpose but to dehumanize them. Much easier to say you don't care what happens to a criminal than a human being. I also get tired of people preaching over and over about their illegal activity as if they, themselves, have never broken a law.

There's a lot of preaching in that post, Eddie.

In reply to oldsaw:

Yeah? Maybe. But to be fair, I didn't say I had a problem with preaching. I was more specific.

John 8:7

fast_eddie_72 wrote: I do agree. People who break laws are criminals. People who break the speed limit are criminals. People who jay-walk are criminals. People who park illegally are criminals. People who release a/c gases into the atmosphere are criminals. People who remove or alter emissions devices on a car are criminals. I doubt there is anyone I have ever met who hasn't been "guilty" of some crime. I had to go to court because a car dealer never got me the title to a car I bought. I'm a criminal. No question about it. I broke the law and had to pay a fine. Guilty as charged. Want to kick me out of the country too? Being here illegally is not the same thing as being a murder. Using divisive "illegal" language doesn't serve any purpose but to dehumanize them.

Wrong. I reject any assertion that using -correct- language is somehow inherently devisive. Its an attempt to castrate the other POV without actually having to address anything they care about in the discussion intellectually. Its the equivalent of basically going "LALALALALALALALA."

This isn't a moral judgement (as you insist it to be in order to position the differing POV), its a question of correctly defining the problem.

If you don't correctly define the problem, it becomes impossible to define a solution.

If you don't have the fortitude to call them criminals, law breakers in any sense, you're not equipped to discuss the issue with others. Just complain about it.

It is your own projection, not fact, when you say someone someone who is calling them criminals is specifically trying to de-humanise them.

You don't know me.

You are also, by defacto, diminishing the idea that being a criminal and breaking the law is actually a problem to be merited in this discussion, and elevating the attitude of the person calling them what they are is more of a problem.

Thats probably why you put yourself in an anecdotal example, to somehow shame me for asserting these people are criminals. Guess what? If YOU need to somehow shame ME for calling YOU what you are for having broken the law, then the problem is yours, not mine. Not once did I ever cast aspersions on your charcter, your moral standing, your spirituality, or anything else about you.

I don't know you.

Nor do I know a large mass of illegal immigrants. But I don't have to know them to know they are, by correct definition, criminals. And in conclusion, it becomes impossible to offer any intellegent commentary on the problem without coming to an understanding of correctly defining those problems.

(for example, in your view you put forth; if the fact that they are criminals breaking the law doesn't matter, what good would it do for -me- to suggest the laws could be changed? The current state reflects a fact that there is no respect for rule of law, so why bother campaigning to change it? Especially if criminals breaking the law doesn't matter enough to address, only the attitude of people who call them criminals?)

madmallard wrote: Nor do I know a large mass of illegal immigrants. But I don't have to know them to know they are, by correct definition, criminals.

I'll just take one bit out of that.

I think you missed my point. And, if you look at my post, I said, I agree, they are criminals. Let me say it again. They are criminals.

Now, look at what you wrote. You come about one inch from saying "and that's all I need to know about them". I believe taken as a whole, your argument says exactly that.

But it is a much more complicated issue and they are much more complicated human beings, with lives, families and stories, some horrific. To reduce them to one word- "illegal" - isn't an accurate reflection of reality. And I stand by my belief that the continued repetition of that word is an effort to reduce them to two dimensional characters, because if we were to think of them as actual human beings it would be very, very hard to show our face at church on Sunday after some of the things we say about them.

Yes. They're criminals. And they're human beings deserving of compassion.

Matthew 25:35

I agree with you that you have to correctly define the problem in order to find a solution. If I understand you correctly, you are saying the problem is that they broke a law and that makes the solution very simple. If that's the case, we disagree. I don't think the problem is even remotely that simple.

You give me too much credit for some kind of psychological basis for my argument. There isn't one. I use myself as an example and invite everyone to do the same. Braking a law does not make one devoid of rights or humanity. That's all I'm saying. If it did, we'd all have big problems.

OK, so help me out here.

I'm not looking to dehumanize people, but there is also a cost to soft pedaling it.

There are 2.1 million mostly Democratic Hispanic votes at stake. When you adjust immigration enforcement, encourage passage of things like the DREAM Act, etc. etc there is HUGE political power at stake.

When we use euphemisms like "Undocumented Worker" for people who are illegal aliens (and have REAMS of "documents", mostly forged or fraudulent), we are playing a dishonest PC game that not only fails to recognize their actual status, but makes them more acceptable to the average citizen, which enables things like the DREAM Act, and drives an enormous political stake into the heart of conservative citizens.

Shouldn't we also consider the humanity and the rights of the CITIZENS who are opposed to supporting such political agendas and paying for the costs out of their own pockets?

Illegal alien is a perfectly accurate term.

BTW- not that it matters, but I personally know dozens if not hundreds of people who are struggling as illegal aliens. They are my friends, co-workers, and employees. Not a single one of them I've ever spoken to is ignorant to their illegal status. It is a position they have chosen, because it is better than some of their other options.

SVreX wrote: Illegal alien is a perfectly accurate term.

It is an accurate term. I'll try again.

I'll again use myself as an example, for no other reason than it is possible that I'm the only one. But I suspect not.

I am a speeder. A habitual speeder. I don't get a lot of tickets, because I'm pretty smart about it. I'm a speeder. And speeding is illegal. Right?

It is perfectly accurate to call me an intentional law breaker. Say I have an accident and damage public property of some kind. Maybe I take out a Stop sign. Some Prosecutor may decide to make an example of me. He may describe me as a man who almost every day played havoc with safety and mocked our laws. Or a habitual criminal with aforethought. No doubt, his description would be accurate. An accurate term and an appropriate term =/=.

But that's not even it, really. Some of the examples I gave before are ideal. Rosa Parks was a criminal. She broke the law, intentionally and with complete knowledge that her actions were criminal. Rosa Park's point was that the law was wrong. In the end, the law was changed. Doesn't make her any less of a criminal. But do we talk about her today as "the criminal"?

Our Founding Fathers were not only criminals, they were guilty of treason! They intentionally and boldly elicited treasonous action against the Crown. Not only were they criminals, they were self-admittedly guilty of the crime, punishable by death. Had the Revolution not gone their way, they would be remembered as the treasonous lot that tried to unjustly steal our Royal Highnesses resources! There might even be a monument erected to remind others that they were beheaded for their unlawful and treasonous acts. As it is, we see them as the founders of a new nation. People who we respect because they chose to break the law so that those who followed them could have a better life.

We don't yet know how this page in history will be written. But this story, like any other, has two sides. Just as every insurgent is a freedom fighter, so too is every illegal alien a crusader. I don't know what will ultimately happen, but it seems likely, because of support from left and right, and due to practical concerns, that there will be some sort of immigration reform that will recast these people as something other than what they are today. Only time will tell.

But to paint it as a black and white issue is just plain old flat wrong. Period. I'm not in favor of opening the boarders to anyone who wants in. But I also don't demonize people in terrible conditions and do what you or I would likely do under the same circumstances.

Oh! And as for "2.1 million mostly Democratic Hispanic votes"- well sure. If they vote, they're citizens, right? What are you suggesting? That their view isn't valid? If they're citizens, they became such through some legal means. So they now have a say in our democracy. If a politician listens to the voices of 2.1 million of his constituents, is he somehow doing something wrong?

Huge political power at stake? You bet. America is changing. None of us may like what it becomes. But it is what it is, and there's no putting that Jeanie back in the bottle. Bush exploited it with a lot of rhetoric about abortion (they're mostly Catholic, too) and support of immigration reform. Obama did the same. Look how Obama won in western states that hadn't been blue in a long while. Yeah, there's political power at stake, to be sure. And hard-lined "put em all on a bus" rhetoric isn't going to get you a lot of votes in a lot of districts.

If I get caught speeding I get punished. If an illegal gets caught they get rewarded.

ThePhranc wrote: If I get caught speeding I get punished. If an illegal gets caught they get rewarded.

If that were true they would be lining up outside ICE to turn themselves in.

In reply to fast_eddie_72:

It is true. Just look at the states that give illegals in state tuition. That is a reward for criminality. The state knows they are illegal and rewards them.

So your canard is moot.

In reply to ThePhranc:

Depends on how you look at it. Madmallard was making the case that if the law says something is so, then it's just so. And that's it. You point out that many states have laws that provide benefits to illegal immigrants. That certainly suggests that a good number of people believe actions that are illegal by Federal law should be condoned at the state level. I think that inconsistency is the basis for calls for comprehensive immigration reform.

There are some who believe that no, or very few, foreign born people should be allowed to immigrate to the United States. But I don't think that's a majority. It wasn't too many generations ago that my family got on a boat in Ireland and set off to the United States. I think a lot of Americans think about their own past and wonder what an appropriate policy should be. I think most decide it falls somewhere short of shutting the door entirely.

But, no, my “canard” – well, isn’t a canard at all. Something on the order of 400,000 people a year are deported from the United States each year. They certainly aren’t being rewarded. In almost all cases they have gotten into some kind of trouble that results in their deportation.

I think historically the U.S. position has been confusing. We allow people to come into the country illegally because they serve a beneficial roll for many industries. I guess the most commonly cited examples are field workers in California and workers in meat packing plants. I don’t think this is driven by the presence of illegal immigrants, but rather by industry that has difficulty hiring for hard jobs with low wages.

Here in Colorado, there was a raid a few years ago at a meat packing facility. They deported a load of illegal workers. Several years later, with a pretty serious unemployment problem, they are still having difficulty filling those jobs.

Look at it from the other side of the border for a minute. You’re poor, you have a family and you can’t feed them well. There is rampant drug crime and violence in your town and you see little, if any, legal opportunity. Yet just across the border, there are companies that will pay you to work. Yes, you know it’s illegal, but you also know people who have gone over and are now able to send money back to their family. You even know some who became American Citizens. So, what would you do?

I know what I would do, no question. Back to the point about identifying the problem: why does this status quo exist and how do we want to address it? If we decide that we no longer want immigrants coming over to do tough jobs for low wages, then maybe we should focus on the employers. If the jobs weren’t available then no one would come over here to get them. But, we need to be prepared for the consequences of that decision. Without cheap labor, prices will rise. In some cases, maybe a lot.

An alternative would be to formalize the relationship that has existed for decades. Allow industry to apply for a number of jobs to be filled with non-citizen workers (they would no longer be “illegal” in this case, so I’m not using that word). These so-called guest workers would do the jobs traditionally done by illegal labor. Typically, these sorts of proposals include some provision for these workers to become citizens, eventually, if they stay out of trouble.

To be clear, I could argue either side. I think wage stagnation, especially for lower paid workers, is a serious problem and part of the economic problem we’re facing right now. Forcing industry to raise wages to a point that citizen workers would take these jobs (maybe even Union workers) would provide a lot of jobs for Americans. Yes, some food items would cost more. But there would also be more opportunities to earn money.

On the other hand, a guest worker program would remove the conflicting legal issues of the status quo and keep wages and prices low. It would also be in keeping with the spirit of American immigration. Come here, work hard, stay out of trouble and you can work your way to citizenship.

Sorry, that got long winded. Just spouting a bunch of ideas.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: Oh! And as for "2.1 million mostly Democratic Hispanic votes"- well sure. If they vote, they're citizens, right? What are you suggesting? That their view isn't valid? If they're citizens, they became such through some legal means. So they now have a say in our democracy. If a politician listens to the voices of 2.1 million of his constituents, is he somehow doing something wrong?

I did a bad job explaining that one.

I'm all for citizens having representation- no argument.

The 2.1 million is not the estimated number of illegals that might become citizens (and therefore deserve representation). The estimated number of illegals is more like 13 million.

There are 48.4 million Hispanics citizens in the US according to the census. Plus an additional 4 million in Puerto Rico.

The 2.1 million is the estimated number of votes that could be swayed for a political party maintaining a pro-immigration reform posture assuming no one became new citizens. In other words, existing voters who feel strongly about the issue, or fraudulent votes presented by the opportunity.

So, if I was a man of great wealth and power with a huge agenda (someone like perhaps, George Soros), it would be very expedient for me to advocate debates like this (perhaps in a newspaper I might own, or encouraging debate on forums like GRM). Encouraging the debate and the pro-reform posture could mean 2.1 million votes for my cause. Why not?

2.1 million votes is plenty enough to turn most modern elections.

Rosa Parks was a citizen of the United States without fair representation. The founding fathers were citizens protected under the crown without fair representation.

You example is irrelevant, unless you are advocating Mexicans petition the Mexican government.

Double post

You know what Eddie, I'm trying to find your point, but I can't seem to? If you are for allowing illegals in, I'm curious as to how you possibly justify it?

Surely you don't think there is a net benefit to allowing millions of working poor into a country with employment issues already?

What is there to gain by allowing the illegals in? If it is simply so liberals feel all warm and fuzzy about helping the downtrodden, they need not look any further than in their respective cities for peoPle to help.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: ...so too is every illegal alien a crusader

That is a ridiculous stretch. Pathetic, and insulting to real crusaders.

I have worked with hundreds of illegals over the years. I have never met a single one who I could say was a crusader seeking to advance the interests and opportunities of the US.

They have made a choice. The choice is that they have a better life as illegals than they do living in the country in which they are citizens. They know it. They are OK with it. And they understand the consequences.

They just want to work hard and be paid for their work. They have no interest at all in being a "crusader"

I am working with a friend today who now has his permanent resident card, but spent the last 20 years as an illegal alien. I asked him if he had a problem with the phrase "illegal alien", or if it ever made him feel bad. He looked perplexed, and asked, "Why? I was."

That is pretty much what I have heard from Hispanics for 25 years. They don't buy into all this PC crap. They are looking to take advantage of the situation while they can, and do the best they can for their families for the time being. If the situation changes, they understand, and will change accordingly.

Political correctness (as it pertains to the immigration issue) is just another form of white guilt. It disregards the actual opinions of the people effected, and is used for political gain. Nothing more.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: An alternative would be to formalize the relationship that has existed for decades. Allow industry to apply for a number of jobs to be filled with non-citizen workers (they would no longer be “illegal” in this case, so I’m not using that word). These so-called guest workers would do the jobs traditionally done by illegal labor. Typically, these sorts of proposals include some provision for these workers to become citizens, eventually, if they stay out of trouble.

This is not all that far from what exists in some other, higher-paid industries. The TN-1 visa is designed to make it easy to bring in a professional from another NAFTA country as long as they meet certain criteria, and it's tied to the actual job. It's good for a year and can be renewed indefinitely. Someone who comes in on a TN-1 is a resident alien and gets to pay taxes but not vote.

While a TN-1 doesn't necessarily make it any easier to work towards citizenship (time in the US as a resident alien doesn't count for much), it is a start and a decent way to make things work.

In reply to fast_eddie_72:

The issue isn't subjective so it really doesn't matter "how you look at it". Crime is rewarded.

HiTempguy wrote: You know what Eddie, I'm trying to find your point, but I can't seem to? If you are for allowing illegals in, I'm curious as to how you possibly justify it?

No, that's not what I'm in favor of at all. If it were up to me we would adopt a system much like I outlined above. We would allow industry to apply for a given number of resident non-citizen guest workers to fill jobs. There would have to be some rules in place to define how this would work and that would get complicated. But basically, it would allow them to legally fill many of the jobs they fill today.

This would be accompanied by provisions to crack down on non-legal immigration and employment. With a non-ambiguous legal method in place, there would be no need to tolerate the vague and conflicting status quo.

How do I justify it? As I said, there are jobs that citizens are currently reluctant to take at the wages they pay. Industries have filled these jobs with illegal labor for decades. I would less enthusiastically support a change in law to eliminate this. It would come with higher prices for American consumers, but it would also drive wages up which I think is good. I could get behind that solution, but prefer some sort of guest worker program.

HiTempguy wrote: Surely you don't think there is a net benefit to allowing millions of working poor into a country with employment issues already?

I absolutely do. Unemployment issues? I cited it earlier (and I’m beginning to repeat the same answers, so probably getting close to dropping out of this discussion) but there is a Swift meat packing plant here in Colorado that can’t fill all its jobs. They deported a large number of illegal Mexican workers a few years ago. Now most of their applicants are Muslims who can’t find work anywhere else. There’s a lot of labor problems with the Muslims wanting Swift to accommodate their religious customs. They want different holidays off, breaks for prayer, etc. Plenty of jobs available, but they’re being forced to make all kinds of accommodations to try to fill them. It’s just an example of how difficult it is to fill some of the jobs traditionally filled by immigrant labor.

So, is there a benefit to accommodating the need for that kind of labor? Sure there is. We have lower prices at the Supermarket because they are hiring people for low wages. It allows American companies to operate competitively. The alternative would be to raise wages. But understand, if that isn’t accompanies by increased import taxes, American companies will fail when their prices are undercut. Want proof? When’s the last time you saw a WalMart go out of business? People are buying products made in Mexico or China that used to be made in America. Americans vote over and over again for lowest possible prices, no matter what. Try to find electronics made in America. There are very, very few because Americans refuse to pay the higher cost for more expensive American labor.

Americans have said that there is a benefit to inexpensive products. Allowing cheap, non-citizen labor might at least help American owned companies survive in some industries.

HiTempguy wrote: What is there to gain by allowing the illegals in? If it is simply so liberals feel all warm and fuzzy about helping the downtrodden, they need not look any further than in their respective cities for peoPle to help.

It has nothing to do with feeling warm and fuzzy. The current system is broken. We can all agree to that. But the hard line “keep them out” or “put them on a bus” positions don’t take into account the reality of the situation or why it developed in the first place. We have traditionally allowed a fair number of immigrant workers in the country to fill certain jobs. The way we have done this isn’t very clear or organized. I agree it should be made better. But if you’re waiting for a bill to pass Congress that will bar all immigration that is currently illegal and strictly enforce those laws, you will have a long wait. It would cause some significant economic hardship. And when some of those companies go belly up, it’s not just the illegal labor that will feel the pain.

Sure, those companies pay those workers. And a lot of that money goes out of the country. But they also sell a lot of goods and make a profit. That money stays here in the U.S. and feeds our economy.

ThePhranc wrote: In reply to fast_eddie_72: The issue isn't subjective so it really doesn't matter "how you look at it". Crime is rewarded.

I'll give this a shot, but I'm in a little over my head. I may be off on particulars here or there, but you'll get the idea, I hope.

This isn't really as black and white as that. Read up a little on immigration law. The way our laws stand now, the result of being here without legal documentation is you live with no legal status. In other words, you can't vote, receive Social Security, etc. Illegal immigrants are subject to deportation at any time. But the law does not spell out mandatory deportation. It is very ambiguous. If you keep your head down and don't get in any trouble, you probably won't be deported.

What a lot of hard-liners want is a law that will require these people to be deported. That would be a change from the status-quo. The U.S. has historically had a pretty open immigration policy, probably just as a result of our history. There is explicit accommodation for illegal workers in the United States. For instance, the law requires illegal workers to pay income tax, and yes, a lot of them do. Think about the history of our country. People wondered across boarders all the time, especially in the south west. The presence of non-citizens in the U.S. wasn’t an issue in those days. No one cared. And so far, no comprehensive law addressing their presence here has been passed.

Our immigration law is the way it is because of how it evolved over time. Early on, you were a citizen if you were a white, land owning male. This citizenship allowed you to be part of the democratic process. As an example, slaves, of course, were not citizens. But no one wanted them deported. So, no, it isn’t the black and white issue you seem to think it is. That’s part of the history of how we got where we are and that is exactly why so many people want some sort of comprehensive immigration reform.