It will be interesting to see if the new law in Arizona passes Constitutional muster. If it does, then I have no complaint about the Arizona law. However, I have some serious doubts that it is going to have much of an effect on the illegal alien problem in Arizona.
Personally, I don't see how it could not. They aren't enforcing the law in the traditional sense. They are gathering information and turning them over to the actual enforcement agency. I would also argue that the Federal government has handed out this specific power before, therefore making it available for local agency use. But it will be interesting.
The politicians do not possess the political will to enforce the existing laws because their constituents and major contributors do not want them enforced. Americans, when polled, say we are for more stringent enforcement. Yet we continue to not demand it of their elected leaders, and we reelect leaders who do not introduce legislation to require tougher legislation. We say one thing, but we want another.
We get what we elect.
I agree that we get what we elect. Up until now, though there have been few alternatives with the leaders we are
allowed to elect. In those states, such as Arizona, where there are real differences, it has been done, hence the Arizona law.
We haven't had immigration reform so far. Just fits and starts. Half-assed attempts that were doomed to failure.
And so will every other one in the politicians need to attempt to satisfy everyone. Even if they attempt your proposal, there will be things in the legislation that cause it to be utterly screwed up.
That's not for workers, it is for employers. They have to apply in advance of their needs, they have to prove that no citizens would apply for the jobs if they advertised for them (by advertising for them), and they have to pay minimum wage, provide free food and housing for the workers, and it's only for agricultural workers, not roofers, gardeners, and other contractors. About 30,000 such visas are issued, because employers see them as much more expensive than hiring illegals through shill companies that certify them as legal when they're not, providing a pleasant fiction.
Understood. The fact of the matter is that there is a process to get migrant workers from other countries into the U.S., and not just for agricultural workers. You can argue that it needs to be reformed, but to say that it doesn't exist would be disingenuous.
But, if I read you right, your plan would be to let them in regardless of whether there are jobs for them. Not only that, but they would be allowed to displace U.S. citizens for jobs. Not only that, but be eligible for the same benefits as a U.S. citizen.
As I said in another thread, what would then be the point of being a citizen of the U.S.?
Why do we offshore jobs? Why do we build factories in counties which don't pay competitive wages compared to the USA? Because it lowers the cost of production. Labor has and will remain one of the largest factors in producing goods and services. Some labor can't easily be shipped overseas, such as picking lettuce or roofing houses, so they bring the workers here.
Yes, and increasing the pocket books of CEO's and other managers. You make the assumption that these cost saving go into price savings at the market. I don't think that is the case, at least when it comes to large businesses.
According to your argument, companies take advantage of illegal immigrants and pay them lower wages than are mandated by State and Federal law. This, in turn, causes the consumer price of the product to be lowered.
However, if we have the worker program that you suggest, companies would be forced to pay the State or Federal minimum wage. This in turn, would cause those low prices that you talk about to rise. So, whether they are staffed by U.S. Citizens, or your new legal migrant workers, the consumer price would still rise.
Unless you are suggesting that we pay migrant workers what we now pay illegal immigrants. Either way, your solution has solved nothing.
Do markets adjust themselves? Sure, as long as everyone plays along. But that very supply and demand you speak of causes the demand for illegal workers to remain high - all it takes is one competitor in the area who uses cheap illegal labor, to undercut all his competition. Then the others must follow suit or they cannot compete with his prices. The law of supply and demand also means that in a market where low price is the driving force, the lowest price wins. It is just as you describe but fail to recognize; the lowest price causes others to have to do as the low-price leader does. Either by innovation or by copying. There's not a lot of innovation in roofing houses or picking lettuce these days, so they lower prices by hiring cheaper labor. The illegal kind.
Yes, but if you prevent them from using illegal immigrant workers in the first place, the problem is solved, and the only price issue that will happen is that of supply and demand.
When did we not have illegal immigration to the USA for purposes of finding employment?
Can't rightly say. However, just because we had undocumented labor doesn't mean it was illegal. It all depends on when such laws were written.
However, we also have to ask ourselves what is the historical effect of thie illegal immigrant labor. I contend that it has become much worse in the last few decades then before.
You are demanding the lowest prices - we all do. Demanding the lowest price requires businesses to compete on price rather than quality.
I do not. I demand the lowest price based on the quality of product that I can choose to buy. That is not the same thing. Sometimes I am satisfied with cheap quality, other times not. I want the price to be competitive within the measure of quality that I desire.
They cut costs wherever they can to compete for the lowest price to win our business. Labor is one of the largest expenses there is. I have had not one, not two, but three pay cuts from my employer, while they continue to expand their use of offshore IT workers. Why? They're cheaper, that's why, and our customers demand the lowest price and will choose our competitors to provide it if they have a lower price. I'm not happy about it, but low price requires cost-cutting, and in areas that cannot offshore employment legally, illegal immigration often serves the same purpose. So yes, you're demanding illegal immigrants come here and do the work so your lettuce can be very cheap.
Yes, and ultimately, when the quality of the service goes down beyond what they are willing to accept, they will no longer procure that service or good, forcing the company to change it's policy.
But, I look at shipping jobs oversea as another problem, though not entirely unrelated.
I'm not blaming anyone for anything. It is what it is. We want the benefits of low-paid workers without allowing illegal immigration, and we can't have both, it's not physically possible. So either we take the one or we take the other. I suggest that the real problem here is not illegal immigration, but securing our borders. We can't do that with millions of people streaming across them in search of employment, so I propose to eliminate that as a problem.
But your solution doesn't solve the problem, as I believe I showed above.
Now, I propose racism as a basic reason why many people do not want to do this because it clearly fixes the 'we must control our borders' problem, yet they do not want to hear it. They won't even acknowledge it. They say "we must control our borders" and this will do that, but no, that's not acceptable. So their real problem is apparently *not* that they want to control the borders.
Soooo, unless they agree with your solution as to how to control the border they must have some ulterior motive based on racism. I don't see it.
Press them on the issue, and they begin to spout other reasons instead. Oh, they don't like the fact that illegal aliens cause crime. They don't like the fact that illegal aliens use social services they don't pay for. They don't like the fact that they come here and have 'anchor babies' who are now citizens. They don't like the fact that they refuse to speak English and that the USA is slowly becoming a spanish-speaking nation.
All of which are valid reasons which do not necessarily have anything to do with racism. These things may be true or not, but it does not necessarily mean that these people believe that they are inherently better then Mexicans, just that there are cultural issues that they don't want in their community.
I wouldn't want to import a group of people that believe in the killing of Black people for sport, the rape of women at leisure, or the beating of women when they disrepect their men as part of their culture. That does not mean that I believe they they are inherently "less" than me.
It's like one of my white co-workers has said: "I would rather live in a community of Black conservatives, than a group of white liberals."
Second, many of those claims are overblown hysterical lies which have been refuted time and time again, but which are still circulated via email and posts on discussion forums like this one as if they were true:
Your post refutes the contents of one e-mail. How about these factual statistics.
75% of all outstanding felony warrants in Los Angeles County are for illegal immigrants.
About 90% of hit & runs in my department which are solved were caused by illegal immigrants.
Roughly 75% of all DUI arrests are committed by illegal immigrants.
And though the country may regard the children of illegal immigrants as citizens, we can also argue that the crimes and problems that the problems caused by some of those same children are a result of illegal immigration. If their parents had not come here illegally, then they would not be here to have committed these problems.
So, although your source states that: "The $2.5 billion figure for Medicaid to such households is quoted accurately, but again, much of this was in benefits for U.S.-born children, who are citizens," they would not cost us even that figure if their parents had not come here illegally. So, illegal immigration is still the source of the problem.
Third, and this is the kicker, most of those 'problems' would be removed if the illegal aliens were legal workers. They'd be paying taxes, we would have a clearer understanding of their costs to the nation via social services versus their contributions via labor and taxes, because we could track them. They could buy health insurance and avoid incurring costs to the nation by waiting until near death and then visiting emergency rooms as they do now. They could be required to learn English as a condition of remaining here for an extended period. So what's the problem?
No they would not. And one reason being is how do you force a legal worker to learn English. Hell, we can barely teach our own citizens proper English.
We could, you are correct in pointing out, differentiate their cost versus their contribution. But knowing that doesn't actually solve any problem.
Well, when pressed again, those same people simply dig in their heels and repeat the same old mantra. In other words, they don't want ANY solution that allows immigrant workers here legally. It's not about speaking spanish or using hospital services, it never was.
So that leaves us with the question. If the problem is not the above, then what is it?
I think that its not that they / we don't want
any migrant workers. But, as I already stated, they should be seasonal and go back to their country of origin after the season. Or, they should integrate, which history is showing that they will not do.
