You said there would be costs on the host country. Fine, we make the immigrants pay for the costs. If they don't want to pay, they don't get in, simple. How is that a problem? You still make the lives of thousands that much better off.
How do you compensate for the depression in wages for lower-paying jobs, which is a burden that will be imposed on the poorest residents of the host country. They're the ones competing with low-skilled immigrants for job. Essentially, you're proposing lowering the standard of living of the poorest people in the host country, since they'll see their wages go down.
And I am quite skeptical that immigrants working minimum wage (or less) jobs would be able to pay for the costs they impose on the host society.
Right, this is a problem entirely unfaced by countries with actual broad guest worker programs. OH WAIT.
Drop minimum wage protection for guest workers. Issue entry permits conditional on employment, with costs of deportation paid before entry by the employer. Slap a foreigner-only payroll tax on their employment, transfer the revenue generated to your own poor (an American-only negative income tax works great here).
Limit the industries in which foreign workers can work. Limit where they can stay. There's no reason to blindly accept workers to work wherever and compete with precious American souls, aye? If a recession hits, cancel their permits and send them home first to reduce recessionary unemployment. You can limit immigration to semi-professional jobs like trained nurses, allowing you to focus on your own priorities, like healthcare costs.
The US has notorious problems with maintaining its public infrastructure. If you can't afford to pay Americans to fix that highway, and you can't afford to tax Americans to fix that highway, get someone else to do it.
If you're skeptical about their ability to generate tax revenue, slap levies on entry instead. Then it becomes their problem rather than yours.
Make all these conditions known to applicants. There will still be plenty.
It may sound harsh, but immigration policy should serve the interests of the host country. If there are positive effects on other countries, great.
Yes, immigration policy should serve the interests of the host country. I'm not sure why you think it's a zero-sum game.
e: the development economist Dani Rodrik gave a great suggestion for cheaply incentivizing foreign workers not to overstay their visas: deposit a portion of their income in escrow accounts, released only once they are in their home country. You can require a deposit equal to the wage differential in each country, for instance.
Really the things to have to go through to immigrate to the U.S. legally are ridiculous. Yes we can lower the standards to let in more people through the proper channels without drowning ourselves in poor uneducated people who have no chance of bettering their position. Just make it easier for those in the middle class to migrate and eventually they'll bring most of their family across as well and there will already be a network of support for them. That's what happened with half of my family. One aunt came across illegally and left her children behind. She still knows very little english and has trouble supporting herself. The other came over legally, brought her whole family and know she makes more money than my parents who were the ones to bring her over.
Right now the most dangerous job in the U.S. is working in slaughterhouses which not only employ illegals, they advertised to them in Mexico. They can't unionize and so they become indentured, disposable servants who usually develop injuries at some point, get fired and can no longer support themselves.
The only way we can cut down on illegal immigration is by providing it legally and that will also help improve the status of the lower classes since companies can no longer depend on cheap labor and it will help the government since migrants will have to pay taxes.
EDIT: I forgot to mention the U.S. is already making plans in case Mexico collapses under the economic recession and the violence of the drug war so it's a matter that does affect us and should be adressed
EDIT: I forgot to mention the U.S. is already making plans in case Mexico collapses under the economic recession and the violence of the drug war so it's a matter that does affect us and should be adressed
I've heard this muttered before, and it seems convincing. But I haven't seen a formal cite, could you provide one?
To summarize some of my thoughts:
Immigration should let in however many people is required to maintain a stable workforce and population.
Letting more people go from poor countries to rich countries does little to solve the larger issues of overpopulation vs limited resources. Even if everything works out perfectly for the host country all you have now is a larger population of rich people who consume too much.
Letting millions of poor unskilled people work in a richer nation on temporary visas could be made to look like a net positive in terms of the rich countries capital and the poor persons quality of life but that doesn't guarantee that it's a socially responsible plan, when I think about the implications I just cringe. Can these poor unskilled immigrants marry Americans? What do you do when they get pregnant with an American citizen's baby? Is there any way for them to become citizens? What are you going to do about the ghetto's they live in because they can't afford anything better?
Letting more people go from poor countries to rich countries does little to solve the larger issues of overpopulation vs limited resources. Even if everything works out perfectly for the host country all you have now is a larger population of rich people who consume too much.
Letting millions of poor unskilled people work in a richer nation on temporary visas could be made to look like a net positive in terms of the rich countries capital and the poor persons quality of life but that doesn't guarantee that it's a socially responsible plan, when I think about the implications I just cringe. Can these poor unskilled immigrants marry Americans? What do you do when they get pregnant with an American citizen's baby? Is there any way for them to become citizens? What are you going to do about the ghetto's they live in because they can't afford anything better?
Again, being a 2nd or 3rd class citizen still > being a 7th-12th class citizen.
If you let the perfect get in the way of the good, nothing ever gets done and people stay poor because nothing is ever good enough.
EDIT: I forgot to mention the U.S. is already making plans in case Mexico collapses under the economic recession and the violence of the drug war so it's a matter that does affect us and should be adressed
I've heard this muttered before, and it seems convincing. But I haven't seen a formal cite, could you provide one?
"The Mexican possibility may seem less likely, but the government, its politicians, police and judicial infrastructure are all under sustained assault and pressure by criminal gangs and drug cartels. How that internal conflict turns out over the next several years will have a major impact on the stability of the Mexican state. Any descent
Advertisement
by Mexico into chaos would demand an American response based on the serious implications for homeland security alone."
The only way we can cut down on illegal immigration is by providing it legally and that will also help improve the status of the lower classes since companies can no longer depend on cheap labor and it will help the government since migrants will have to pay taxes.
How does that help our current situation? Most areas of dense low-skill labor have our highest levels of unemployment, some places as high as 15% (or worse). What possible good would an influx of poor and uneducated unskilled workers, who would depend greatly on social programs, bring to the economy?
I have no issue with our current immigration system in regards to screening process. We don't need to let poor and unskilled workers into the country, period. We've got plenty already, thanks.
Atomika on
0
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
If you think that competition from non-minimum wage workers who enjoy few if any legal protections doesn't destroy the collective bargaining power of organized American labor, then I'm not sure what to say to you. Other than that you're a very silly goose.
I'm all for bringing plenty of people over. What I'm not for (and this is the current situation), is an underclass of workers with few if any legal protections that empowers employers at the cost of labor.
MrMister on
0
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
If you think that competition from non-minimum wage workers who enjoy few if any legal protections doesn't destroy the collective bargaining power of organized American labor, then I'm not sure what to say to you. Other than that you're a very silly goose.
I'm all for bringing plenty of people over. What I'm not for (and this is the current situation), is an underclass of workers with few if any legal protections that empowers employers at the cost of labor.
It does and I don't care. Cry some more into your union dues.
mrt144 on
0
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
edited February 2010
Oh, so your point was that you didn't have a point.
The only way we can cut down on illegal immigration is by providing it legally and that will also help improve the status of the lower classes since companies can no longer depend on cheap labor and it will help the government since migrants will have to pay taxes.
How does that help our current situation? Most areas of dense low-skill labor have our highest levels of unemployment, some places as high as 15% (or worse). What possible good would an influx of poor and uneducated unskilled workers, who would depend greatly on social programs, bring to the economy?
I have no issue with our current immigration system in regards to screening process. We don't need to let poor and unskilled workers into the country, period. We've got plenty already, thanks.
If you think that competition from non-minimum wage workers who enjoy few if any legal protections doesn't destroy the collective bargaining power of organized American labor, then I'm not sure what to say to you. Other than that you're a very silly goose.
I'm all for bringing plenty of people over. What I'm not for (and this is the current situation), is an underclass of workers with few if any legal protections that empowers employers at the cost of labor.
Basically that. And like I mentioned, there's a natural system of immigration among families with members living on both sides of the border. Right now we're keeping a tap on it. I don't think we should bring everyone over right now, but that people who have family members living here who can help support them and get them onto their feet should be allowed to migrate. If we do this we can cut down on illegal immigration and an overabundance of unskilled cheap labor. We'd also need to find ways to keep companies from just going overseas to exploit people in other countries.
Talleyrand on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Basically that. And like I mentioned, there's a natural system of immigration among families with members living on both sides of the border. Right now we're keeping a tap on it. I don't think we should bring everyone over right now, but that people who have family members living here who can help support them and get them onto their feet should be allowed to migrate. If we do this we can cut down on illegal immigration and an overabundance of unskilled cheap labor. We'd also need to find ways to keep companies from just going overseas to exploit people in other countries.
There's a lot of unsupported idealism in this post.
Have a large supply of legal laborers reduces the bargaining power of labor groups almost as much as a large supply of undocumented laborers, as any significant surplus disincentivizes potential workers from collective bargaining. Leverage is lost when scabs are easy to find.
Basically that. And like I mentioned, there's a natural system of immigration among families with members living on both sides of the border. Right now we're keeping a tap on it. I don't think we should bring everyone over right now, but that people who have family members living here who can help support them and get them onto their feet should be allowed to migrate. If we do this we can cut down on illegal immigration and an overabundance of unskilled cheap labor. We'd also need to find ways to keep companies from just going overseas to exploit people in other countries.
There's a lot of unsupported idealism in this post.
Have a large supply of legal laborers reduces the bargaining power of labor groups almost as much as a large supply of undocumented laborers, as any significant surplus disincentivizes potential workers from collective bargaining. Leverage is lost when scabs are easy to find.
Maybe but I have rarely heard good, practical solutions to the problem of a large population of illegals already over here.
I get that, but short of deporting them or continuing to exploit them there's really not much we can do except attempt to bring them to the bargaining table. Unemployment's up and it's going to stay up so I don't see the problem with trying to coerce companies into providing fair wages and privileges to people in this country instead of taking their business across oceans or hustling them in across the border.
The only way we can cut down on illegal immigration is by providing it legally and that will also help improve the status of the lower classes since companies can no longer depend on cheap labor and it will help the government since migrants will have to pay taxes.
How does that help our current situation? Most areas of dense low-skill labor have our highest levels of unemployment, some places as high as 15% (or worse). What possible good would an influx of poor and uneducated unskilled workers, who would depend greatly on social programs, bring to the economy?
I have no issue with our current immigration system in regards to screening process. We don't need to let poor and unskilled workers into the country, period. We've got plenty already, thanks.
I really can't figure out why anyone would think we have a need for more unskilled labor in this country. Is anyone claiming that there is an actual shortage of people to work shitty jobs?
If we have labor shortages in certain fields, like nursing, we can talk about guest-worker programs or what have you. But unskilled workers? Come on.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
0
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Maybe but I have rarely heard good, practical solutions to the problem of a large population of illegals already over here.
Well, making it legal to identify them would be a start. As it stands, it's unacceptable or illegal in many places to ask a consumer for identification and proof of citizenship. I'm not suggesting that there should be a restriction in those services being offered, but if citizenship cannot be proved or properly explained, it should at least be reported. Take my job, for instance. I see an overwhelming number of patients daily that speak no English at all and can provide no identification at all; no SSN, no driver's license, nada. Yet all of these people work and drive. If the law requires my place of business to provide a certain level of care regardless of circumstance, why can't we report people who are using a system they're not appropriately paying into?
Another solution is getting rid of the "anchor baby" clause. Most countries don't allow for that to happen, I don't know why we do. It's gaming the system while simultaneously providing it with another dependent.
If we make it illegal to hire undocumented workers (and I do mean illegal, not "illegal only if someone checks up on it) and refuse to reward the abuse of our medical system, you take away most incentives for illegals to come here.
Every kind of labor law (hell, almost any kind of law) is "illegal only if someone checks up on it!"
And hint: illegals are not flocking here to abuse our medical system. They're flocking here for jobs that pay more than the ones at home.
Push and pull factors: saying "you can't come here" and taking away emergency room care isn't going to stop people from coming here - that's minor shit.
Maybe but I have rarely heard good, practical solutions to the problem of a large population of illegals already over here.
Well, making it legal to identify them would be a start. As it stands, it's unacceptable or illegal in many places to ask a consumer for identification and proof of citizenship. I'm not suggesting that there should be a restriction in those services being offered, but if citizenship cannot be proved or properly explained, it should at least be reported. Take my job, for instance. I see an overwhelming number of patients daily that speak no English at all and can provide no identification at all; no SSN, no driver's license, nada. Yet all of these people work and drive. If the law requires my place of business to provide a certain level of care regardless of circumstance, why can't we report people who are using a system they're not appropriately paying into?
Another solution is getting rid of the "anchor baby" clause. Most countries don't allow for that to happen, I don't know why we do. It's gaming the system while simultaneously providing it with another dependent.
If we make it illegal to hire undocumented workers (and I do mean illegal, not "illegal only if someone checks up on it) and refuse to reward the abuse of our medical system, you take away most incentives for illegals to come here.
Should we get rid of the Clause where if you marry an American you get in too? Send your immigrant wife packing, I mean how dare she get in without having to prove she wouldn't be abusing our system.
Mr. Pokeylope on
0
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Should we get rid of the Clause where if you marry an American you get in too? Send your immigrant wife packing, I mean how dare she get in without having to prove she wouldn't be abusing our system.
My immigrant wife was in the country three years before I met her on a student visa. Before she could come over, she had to provide a complete bill of health and proof of financial stability. If she weren't married, she would still be here on a work visa because she's in a field that needs skilled labor.
And guess what, she's still not an American citizen. Not for at least two more years.
For us to extend the legal(and social) protections/benefits of American citizenship to illegal immigrants while Ivy trained aerospace dudes have to fight for it... the idea disturbs me.
Should we get rid of the Clause where if you marry an American you get in too? Send your immigrant wife packing, I mean how dare she get in without having to prove she wouldn't be abusing our system.
My immigrant wife was in the country three years before I met her on a student visa. Before she could come over, she had to provide a complete bill of health and proof of financial stability. If she weren't married, she would still be here on a work visa because she's in a field that needs skilled labor.
And guess what, she's still not an American citizen. Not for at least two more years.
I have no problem with this system.
Except for the "Anchor Baby" Clause you mentioned in your last post and guess what being skilled labor doesn't make the system a cake walk. The process is long and expensive and your wife would be fucked if as in this downturn she was unable to find work. Does your wife worry about being deported if she loses her job? I bet she's praising Jesus for her "Anchor Husband" that made it so much easier for her.
Face it she has advantages that she wouldn't have if she wasn't married to you.
Mr. Pokeylope on
0
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Face it she has advantages that she wouldn't have if she wasn't married to you.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Would I still expect well-qualified, yet unmarried, legal immigrants to be refused access to the US if the economy went to shit and unemployment skyrocketed? Of course.
If you're railing against the unfair advantages her marriage to me brings, all that's ever really bought her is marginal security against deportation. She's still under purview of Homeland Security and on probationary residency. She can be deported for just about any reason until her clearance passes two years from now.
So if your soapbox is there so you can rant against the unfair advantages gained by financially stable skilled laborers who entered this country legally and married American citizens, I wouldn't expect a very large turnout.
Face it she has advantages that she wouldn't have if she wasn't married to you.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Would I still expect well-qualified, yet unmarried, legal immigrants to be refused access to the US if the economy went to shit and unemployment skyrocketed? Of course.
If you're railing against the unfair advantages her marriage to me brings, all that's ever really bought her is marginal security against deportation. She's still under purview of Homeland Security and on probationary residency. She can be deported for just about any reason until her clearance passes two years from now.
So if your soapbox is there so you can rant against the unfair advantages gained by financially stable skilled laborers who entered this country legally and married American citizens, I wouldn't expect a very large turnout.
To me, you just seem like a hypocrite in decrying the "Anchor Baby" clause at the same time your wife is making use of the "Anchor Husband" clause. Your whole point is that in this case your wife is not taking advantage of the situation. Not that an "Anchor Husband" couldn't be abused in the same way that an "Anchor Baby" could.
Pretend just for a moment that your not an American citizen and your over here on a work visa and everything else in your life is the same. You and your wife hard working skilled laborers, putting in your time until you become citizens or permit residents. What happens if you have a child? What is your child's status? That's why we have the "Anchor Baby" clause, because even though it can be abused we aren't going to deport peoples babies or create some permit non-citizen underclass.
Mr. Pokeylope on
0
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
To me, you just seem like a hypocrite in decrying the "Anchor Baby" clause at the same time your wife is making use of the "Anchor Husband" clause. But I get it you got yours fuck everyone else.
First off, wipe off the froth, guy. Calm down.
Second, if you're trying to equate the marriage of a legally-residing alien (which does not result in instant citizenship) to the granting automatic citizenship of a baby born to illegally residing parents, you have completely derailed. There's nothing at all to connect those two argument, and you're being a silly goose. That's like saying that people should be allowed to steal food because people who pay for it also eat food. It literally makes no sense whatsoever. So framing it as hypocritical stance is both intellectually dishonest and personally offensive.
Care to explain why only being able to speak Spanish is a factor in health care cost? Why bring it up if your only worried about the expense that illegals bring?
Again, you're making up arguments that were never presented. I merely stated the patients' inability to speak English to iterate that the difference between Tejanos and illegal immigrants further from the border.
To say that not having to worry about having a job and having the freedom to move to any job she wants is a marginal advantage I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.
Again, bullshit. You keep making shit up. No where did I ever say she had these freedoms.
I have no problem with lengthy debate, but I refuse to answer for things unsaid or uninsinuated. Please tailor your rebuttals to the argument at hand, or stop requesting my reply.
Atomika on
0
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Pretend just for a moment that your not an American citizen and your over here on a work visa and everything else in your life is the same. You and your wife hard working skilled laborers, putting in your time until you become citizens or permit residents. What happens if you have a child? What is your child's status? That's why we have the "Anchor Baby" clause, because even though it can be abused we aren't going to deport peoples babies or create some permit non-citizen underclass.
Again, you're making up arguments that are not being had. The original statement was in response to stemming the tide of illegal immigration. Nowhere in there did anyone suggest expatriating or deporting the children of legal resident aliens.
What is wrong with you?
Atomika on
0
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
Have a large supply of legal laborers reduces the bargaining power of labor groups almost as much as a large supply of undocumented laborers, as any significant surplus disincentivizes potential workers from collective bargaining. Leverage is lost when scabs are easy to find.
Legal laborers can join unions and can't work illegal schedules for illegal pay and benefits. There is a clear difference.
Citizenship on birth prevents us from developing a permanent underclass, and it's a great idea. It was initially instituted to prevent black people from being denied rights in perpetuity, but it applies just as well to migrant workers now.
MrMister on
0
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Like I said last page, does immigration really solve anything?
There are more poor people than rich people.
many poor nations, total population of a billion
one rich nation (say the USA) population of 300 million
30 million people are allowed to immigrate to the richer nation.
The poor nations still have high birth rates and no economic opportunity, and they will quickly reach a billion strong again.
the rich nation continues to be rich and consume lots of resources, now with a slightly high population.
We are back at square one.
We let people immigrate from poor nations to rich nations already to offset our low birth rates and I don't see poverty ending, I don't see how letting in a bunch more solves the problem.
And like I said last page, the host government's immigration policy will always be to maintain a stable work force, allowing in whatever workers it determines to be required and deporting or naturalizing illegals as is see's fit. There is no obligation for immigration policies to be consistent, fair, or to the benefit of poor people in other nations.
Citizenship on birth prevents us from developing a permanent underclass.
That would only happen if the accompanying eventual deportation didn't occur. Which it would.
There can't be an "underclass" if there's no opportunity to support that class.
To get rid of anchor babies, you'd have to amend the Constitution. It's arguable whether the 14th Amendment was meant to extend beyond former slaves, but it's wording easily encompasses anchor babies.
That being said, we should have no problem deporting the illegal parents in such a situation. It would be up to them whether they want to take their child with them, or leave him in the US with a guardian.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
Maybe but I have rarely heard good, practical solutions to the problem of a large population of illegals already over here.
Well, making it legal to identify them would be a start. As it stands, it's unacceptable or illegal in many places to ask a consumer for identification and proof of citizenship. I'm not suggesting that there should be a restriction in those services being offered, but if citizenship cannot be proved or properly explained, it should at least be reported. Take my job, for instance. I see an overwhelming number of patients daily that speak no English at all and can provide no identification at all; no SSN, no driver's license, nada. Yet all of these people work and drive. If the law requires my place of business to provide a certain level of care regardless of circumstance, why can't we report people who are using a system they're not appropriately paying into?
Are you talking about the "illegal immigrants don't pay taxes" myth? Because that's a myth. If you're working for a legal employer, even if you do so under a fake name and SS number, you pay taxes.
In fact, because many of them do have taxes deducted from their paycheck, but are much less likely to file a tax return, many may even pay more tax proportionally than you or I do— while receiving virtually nada in social services.
To answer your question, it's because "regardless of circumstance" means regardless of circumstance. If you start reporting undocumented patients, they're not going to all either go home or get green cards; they're just going to stop going to the emergency room. Then we are going to get people dying on the streets instead.
It is my personal belief that that would not be an improvement.
If you think that competition from non-minimum wage workers who enjoy few if any legal protections doesn't destroy the collective bargaining power of organized American labor, then I'm not sure what to say to you. Other than that you're a very silly goose.
I'm all for bringing plenty of people over. What I'm not for (and this is the current situation), is an underclass of workers with few if any legal protections that empowers employers at the cost of labor.
Labor is not homogeneous and you can have cheap cleaners and nurses without competing down American-dominated industry wages.
Unless you think America will benefit by paying through the nose for those services.
Also, your false sympathy for a hypothetical underclass is disgusting when you're cheerfully ignoring them brown peoples once they go back over that invisible line.
Citizenship on birth prevents us from developing a permanent underclass.
That would only happen if the accompanying eventual deportation didn't occur. Which it would.
There can't be an "underclass" if there's no opportunity to support that class.
To get rid of anchor babies, you'd have to amend the Constitution. It's arguable whether the 14th Amendment was meant to extend beyond former slaves, but it's wording easily encompasses anchor babies.
That being said, we should have no problem deporting the illegal parents in such a situation. It would be up to them whether they want to take their child with them, or leave him in the US with a guardian.
I don't really think the 14th Amendment's intent there is that debatable. Sure, they probably didn't consider anchor babies but nativist/anti-immigration sentiment was really high in the years before the Civil War and the 14th Amendment's application to immigrants was surely a part of the backlash from that position. Lincoln strongly supported immigrant rights, and between that leadership and the number of immigrants (especially Irish with the famine) who fought for the Union. The debate included "We're not going to give rights to dirty brown people who come over are we?" (paraphrased, starts top of right-most column). It actually even more vitriolic than modern debate.... they talk of man-eaters from Borneo taking over California. And in the end they go, "Yeah even the children of man-eaters get rights." Its actually an interesting debate and mirrors, if a bit extremely at times, the modern debate. The exception is that in this debate, they seem to be less speachifying and more debating (if long windedly). Answering fearmongering about a Gypsy invasion of Pennsylvania, a Senator even pulls the [strike]9/11[/strike] Civil War card ("the only invasion I remember... and Pennsylvania didn't demand exclusive rights to expel that invasion.")
Labor is not homogeneous and you can have cheap cleaners and nurses without competing down American-dominated industry wages.
Unless you think America will benefit by paying through the nose for those services.
I was specifically talking about American labor, and yes, American labor will benefit from labor standards being enforced. Our lords of capital, on the other hand, will reap large rewards from cheap as shit, vulnerable and undocumented immigrant populations.
Also, your false sympathy for a hypothetical underclass is disgusting when you're cheerfully ignoring them brown peoples once they go back over that invisible line.
Don't be a silly goose. You have no idea what I think about immigration or foreign policy--other than that I'd rather not keep a slave class on hand, as you are so cheerfully interested in doing. In reality, I think immigration should be much easier, so that people can come over and work within the framework of the law.
Yes, and your grand plan for staving off those costs you were shrieking about is? If you don't think those costs were so significant, why were you complaining about them to begin with?
And my whole point was rigorous and wide-ranging documentation and management - some might say intrusive, but otherwise abuse will be plentiful.
Yes, of course it will be cheap. It would sure be nice if someone paid more for labor. And I'd like a pony too.
In the meanwhile, we can at least limit the "vulnerable and undocumented" part.
I think ronya & co did a decent job explaining how they want more legal immigrants, not illegal immigrants.
They would make a second class of immigrants who do not qualify to immigrate here under the existing policies.
These immigrants would still be legal, have rights, receive the exact same pay from employers as existing workers, join unions, etc.
Their income however would have 2 extra taxes on it that regular workers don't have to deal with. One would be a straight up tax, the other would put money into a savings account that they would only get once they left the country, because the idea is to get able-bodied adults to work for us for cheap and then send them home when we no longer need them or they start getting old.
I agree with your sentiment MrMister that this would lower the overall labour wages, but I don't think the effect would be dramatic unless the influx of labourers was massive.
I also pointed out earlier that if these workers are paid low wages to begin with (unskilled labour) and then are taxed heavily they will be reduced to living in ghettos and there will be social reprecussions, also see pantsB's post above -their children would be citizens via the 14th amendment.
And while immigration is already doing what it can to fill labour shortages like nurses and doctors, I agree that some skilled workers and people in general have to face a lot more red tape than I think is in the best interest of America (or Canada) but I think our governments have at least acknowledged that immigration policy is an area where we have room for improvement.
And the last point I keep harping on is that letting a few million people immigrate here and there isn't going to be enough to solve the population vs limited resources problem anyways. I'm not happy that people are suffering in far away places, I just don't think bringing a slightly larger trickle of them over as immigrants would be enough to make a difference for the world population of impoverished people.
Dman on
0
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
Yes, and your grand plan for staving off those costs you were shrieking about is? If you don't think those costs were so significant, why were you complaining about them to begin with?
Posts
Right, this is a problem entirely unfaced by countries with actual broad guest worker programs. OH WAIT.
Drop minimum wage protection for guest workers. Issue entry permits conditional on employment, with costs of deportation paid before entry by the employer. Slap a foreigner-only payroll tax on their employment, transfer the revenue generated to your own poor (an American-only negative income tax works great here).
Limit the industries in which foreign workers can work. Limit where they can stay. There's no reason to blindly accept workers to work wherever and compete with precious American souls, aye? If a recession hits, cancel their permits and send them home first to reduce recessionary unemployment. You can limit immigration to semi-professional jobs like trained nurses, allowing you to focus on your own priorities, like healthcare costs.
The US has notorious problems with maintaining its public infrastructure. If you can't afford to pay Americans to fix that highway, and you can't afford to tax Americans to fix that highway, get someone else to do it.
If you're skeptical about their ability to generate tax revenue, slap levies on entry instead. Then it becomes their problem rather than yours.
Make all these conditions known to applicants. There will still be plenty.
Yes, immigration policy should serve the interests of the host country. I'm not sure why you think it's a zero-sum game.
e: the development economist Dani Rodrik gave a great suggestion for cheaply incentivizing foreign workers not to overstay their visas: deposit a portion of their income in escrow accounts, released only once they are in their home country. You can require a deposit equal to the wage differential in each country, for instance.
Really the things to have to go through to immigrate to the U.S. legally are ridiculous. Yes we can lower the standards to let in more people through the proper channels without drowning ourselves in poor uneducated people who have no chance of bettering their position. Just make it easier for those in the middle class to migrate and eventually they'll bring most of their family across as well and there will already be a network of support for them. That's what happened with half of my family. One aunt came across illegally and left her children behind. She still knows very little english and has trouble supporting herself. The other came over legally, brought her whole family and know she makes more money than my parents who were the ones to bring her over.
Right now the most dangerous job in the U.S. is working in slaughterhouses which not only employ illegals, they advertised to them in Mexico. They can't unionize and so they become indentured, disposable servants who usually develop injuries at some point, get fired and can no longer support themselves.
The only way we can cut down on illegal immigration is by providing it legally and that will also help improve the status of the lower classes since companies can no longer depend on cheap labor and it will help the government since migrants will have to pay taxes.
EDIT: I forgot to mention the U.S. is already making plans in case Mexico collapses under the economic recession and the violence of the drug war so it's a matter that does affect us and should be adressed
I've heard this muttered before, and it seems convincing. But I haven't seen a formal cite, could you provide one?
Immigration should let in however many people is required to maintain a stable workforce and population.
Letting more people go from poor countries to rich countries does little to solve the larger issues of overpopulation vs limited resources. Even if everything works out perfectly for the host country all you have now is a larger population of rich people who consume too much.
Letting millions of poor unskilled people work in a richer nation on temporary visas could be made to look like a net positive in terms of the rich countries capital and the poor persons quality of life but that doesn't guarantee that it's a socially responsible plan, when I think about the implications I just cringe. Can these poor unskilled immigrants marry Americans? What do you do when they get pregnant with an American citizen's baby? Is there any way for them to become citizens? What are you going to do about the ghetto's they live in because they can't afford anything better?
Again, being a 2nd or 3rd class citizen still > being a 7th-12th class citizen.
If you let the perfect get in the way of the good, nothing ever gets done and people stay poor because nothing is ever good enough.
Change often can and should be incremental.
http://www.elpasotimes.com/ci_11447730
It's not a big paper but it's where I get most of my info on the violence happening on the border.
This is also pretty interesting.
Ah yes, the "destroy the remnants of American labor" plan.
All hail the forces of capital!
Why isn't American labor working shitty jobs for minimum wage already?
Edit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLni3wbndls
How does that help our current situation? Most areas of dense low-skill labor have our highest levels of unemployment, some places as high as 15% (or worse). What possible good would an influx of poor and uneducated unskilled workers, who would depend greatly on social programs, bring to the economy?
I have no issue with our current immigration system in regards to screening process. We don't need to let poor and unskilled workers into the country, period. We've got plenty already, thanks.
Ha. Ha.
If you think that competition from non-minimum wage workers who enjoy few if any legal protections doesn't destroy the collective bargaining power of organized American labor, then I'm not sure what to say to you. Other than that you're a very silly goose.
I'm all for bringing plenty of people over. What I'm not for (and this is the current situation), is an underclass of workers with few if any legal protections that empowers employers at the cost of labor.
It does and I don't care. Cry some more into your union dues.
Carry on then.
Well first off,
Basically that. And like I mentioned, there's a natural system of immigration among families with members living on both sides of the border. Right now we're keeping a tap on it. I don't think we should bring everyone over right now, but that people who have family members living here who can help support them and get them onto their feet should be allowed to migrate. If we do this we can cut down on illegal immigration and an overabundance of unskilled cheap labor. We'd also need to find ways to keep companies from just going overseas to exploit people in other countries.
There's a lot of unsupported idealism in this post.
Have a large supply of legal laborers reduces the bargaining power of labor groups almost as much as a large supply of undocumented laborers, as any significant surplus disincentivizes potential workers from collective bargaining. Leverage is lost when scabs are easy to find.
Maybe but I have rarely heard good, practical solutions to the problem of a large population of illegals already over here.
I get that, but short of deporting them or continuing to exploit them there's really not much we can do except attempt to bring them to the bargaining table. Unemployment's up and it's going to stay up so I don't see the problem with trying to coerce companies into providing fair wages and privileges to people in this country instead of taking their business across oceans or hustling them in across the border.
If we have labor shortages in certain fields, like nursing, we can talk about guest-worker programs or what have you. But unskilled workers? Come on.
Rigorous Scholarship
Well, making it legal to identify them would be a start. As it stands, it's unacceptable or illegal in many places to ask a consumer for identification and proof of citizenship. I'm not suggesting that there should be a restriction in those services being offered, but if citizenship cannot be proved or properly explained, it should at least be reported. Take my job, for instance. I see an overwhelming number of patients daily that speak no English at all and can provide no identification at all; no SSN, no driver's license, nada. Yet all of these people work and drive. If the law requires my place of business to provide a certain level of care regardless of circumstance, why can't we report people who are using a system they're not appropriately paying into?
Another solution is getting rid of the "anchor baby" clause. Most countries don't allow for that to happen, I don't know why we do. It's gaming the system while simultaneously providing it with another dependent.
If we make it illegal to hire undocumented workers (and I do mean illegal, not "illegal only if someone checks up on it) and refuse to reward the abuse of our medical system, you take away most incentives for illegals to come here.
And hint: illegals are not flocking here to abuse our medical system. They're flocking here for jobs that pay more than the ones at home.
Push and pull factors: saying "you can't come here" and taking away emergency room care isn't going to stop people from coming here - that's minor shit.
Should we get rid of the Clause where if you marry an American you get in too? Send your immigrant wife packing, I mean how dare she get in without having to prove she wouldn't be abusing our system.
My immigrant wife was in the country three years before I met her on a student visa. Before she could come over, she had to provide a complete bill of health and proof of financial stability. If she weren't married, she would still be here on a work visa because she's in a field that needs skilled labor.
And guess what, she's still not an American citizen. Not for at least two more years.
I have no problem with this system.
Except for the "Anchor Baby" Clause you mentioned in your last post and guess what being skilled labor doesn't make the system a cake walk. The process is long and expensive and your wife would be fucked if as in this downturn she was unable to find work. Does your wife worry about being deported if she loses her job? I bet she's praising Jesus for her "Anchor Husband" that made it so much easier for her.
Face it she has advantages that she wouldn't have if she wasn't married to you.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Would I still expect well-qualified, yet unmarried, legal immigrants to be refused access to the US if the economy went to shit and unemployment skyrocketed? Of course.
If you're railing against the unfair advantages her marriage to me brings, all that's ever really bought her is marginal security against deportation. She's still under purview of Homeland Security and on probationary residency. She can be deported for just about any reason until her clearance passes two years from now.
So if your soapbox is there so you can rant against the unfair advantages gained by financially stable skilled laborers who entered this country legally and married American citizens, I wouldn't expect a very large turnout.
To me, you just seem like a hypocrite in decrying the "Anchor Baby" clause at the same time your wife is making use of the "Anchor Husband" clause. Your whole point is that in this case your wife is not taking advantage of the situation. Not that an "Anchor Husband" couldn't be abused in the same way that an "Anchor Baby" could.
Pretend just for a moment that your not an American citizen and your over here on a work visa and everything else in your life is the same. You and your wife hard working skilled laborers, putting in your time until you become citizens or permit residents. What happens if you have a child? What is your child's status? That's why we have the "Anchor Baby" clause, because even though it can be abused we aren't going to deport peoples babies or create some permit non-citizen underclass.
First off, wipe off the froth, guy. Calm down.
Second, if you're trying to equate the marriage of a legally-residing alien (which does not result in instant citizenship) to the granting automatic citizenship of a baby born to illegally residing parents, you have completely derailed. There's nothing at all to connect those two argument, and you're being a silly goose. That's like saying that people should be allowed to steal food because people who pay for it also eat food. It literally makes no sense whatsoever. So framing it as hypocritical stance is both intellectually dishonest and personally offensive.
Again, you're making up arguments that were never presented. I merely stated the patients' inability to speak English to iterate that the difference between Tejanos and illegal immigrants further from the border.
Again, bullshit. You keep making shit up. No where did I ever say she had these freedoms.
I have no problem with lengthy debate, but I refuse to answer for things unsaid or uninsinuated. Please tailor your rebuttals to the argument at hand, or stop requesting my reply.
Again, you're making up arguments that are not being had. The original statement was in response to stemming the tide of illegal immigration. Nowhere in there did anyone suggest expatriating or deporting the children of legal resident aliens.
What is wrong with you?
Legal laborers can join unions and can't work illegal schedules for illegal pay and benefits. There is a clear difference.
Citizenship on birth prevents us from developing a permanent underclass, and it's a great idea. It was initially instituted to prevent black people from being denied rights in perpetuity, but it applies just as well to migrant workers now.
That would only happen if the accompanying eventual deportation didn't occur. Which it would.
There can't be an "underclass" if there's no opportunity to support that class.
I would look to the experience of European countries like Germany, where there are sixth and seventh generation Turkish workers who aren't citizens.
So you're saying we should grant people citizenship despite their illegal status because they're persistent about breaking the law?
Interesting idea.
Like I said last page, does immigration really solve anything?
There are more poor people than rich people.
many poor nations, total population of a billion
one rich nation (say the USA) population of 300 million
30 million people are allowed to immigrate to the richer nation.
The poor nations still have high birth rates and no economic opportunity, and they will quickly reach a billion strong again.
the rich nation continues to be rich and consume lots of resources, now with a slightly high population.
We are back at square one.
We let people immigrate from poor nations to rich nations already to offset our low birth rates and I don't see poverty ending, I don't see how letting in a bunch more solves the problem.
And like I said last page, the host government's immigration policy will always be to maintain a stable work force, allowing in whatever workers it determines to be required and deporting or naturalizing illegals as is see's fit. There is no obligation for immigration policies to be consistent, fair, or to the benefit of poor people in other nations.
That being said, we should have no problem deporting the illegal parents in such a situation. It would be up to them whether they want to take their child with them, or leave him in the US with a guardian.
Rigorous Scholarship
Are you talking about the "illegal immigrants don't pay taxes" myth? Because that's a myth. If you're working for a legal employer, even if you do so under a fake name and SS number, you pay taxes.
In fact, because many of them do have taxes deducted from their paycheck, but are much less likely to file a tax return, many may even pay more tax proportionally than you or I do— while receiving virtually nada in social services.
To answer your question, it's because "regardless of circumstance" means regardless of circumstance. If you start reporting undocumented patients, they're not going to all either go home or get green cards; they're just going to stop going to the emergency room. Then we are going to get people dying on the streets instead.
It is my personal belief that that would not be an improvement.
Labor is not homogeneous and you can have cheap cleaners and nurses without competing down American-dominated industry wages.
Unless you think America will benefit by paying through the nose for those services.
Also, your false sympathy for a hypothetical underclass is disgusting when you're cheerfully ignoring them brown peoples once they go back over that invisible line.
I don't really think the 14th Amendment's intent there is that debatable. Sure, they probably didn't consider anchor babies but nativist/anti-immigration sentiment was really high in the years before the Civil War and the 14th Amendment's application to immigrants was surely a part of the backlash from that position. Lincoln strongly supported immigrant rights, and between that leadership and the number of immigrants (especially Irish with the famine) who fought for the Union. The debate included "We're not going to give rights to dirty brown people who come over are we?" (paraphrased, starts top of right-most column). It actually even more vitriolic than modern debate.... they talk of man-eaters from Borneo taking over California. And in the end they go, "Yeah even the children of man-eaters get rights." Its actually an interesting debate and mirrors, if a bit extremely at times, the modern debate. The exception is that in this debate, they seem to be less speachifying and more debating (if long windedly). Answering fearmongering about a Gypsy invasion of Pennsylvania, a Senator even pulls the [strike]9/11[/strike] Civil War card ("the only invasion I remember... and Pennsylvania didn't demand exclusive rights to expel that invasion.")
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
I was specifically talking about American labor, and yes, American labor will benefit from labor standards being enforced. Our lords of capital, on the other hand, will reap large rewards from cheap as shit, vulnerable and undocumented immigrant populations.
Don't be a silly goose. You have no idea what I think about immigration or foreign policy--other than that I'd rather not keep a slave class on hand, as you are so cheerfully interested in doing. In reality, I think immigration should be much easier, so that people can come over and work within the framework of the law.
And my whole point was rigorous and wide-ranging documentation and management - some might say intrusive, but otherwise abuse will be plentiful.
Yes, of course it will be cheap. It would sure be nice if someone paid more for labor. And I'd like a pony too.
In the meanwhile, we can at least limit the "vulnerable and undocumented" part.
They would make a second class of immigrants who do not qualify to immigrate here under the existing policies.
These immigrants would still be legal, have rights, receive the exact same pay from employers as existing workers, join unions, etc.
Their income however would have 2 extra taxes on it that regular workers don't have to deal with. One would be a straight up tax, the other would put money into a savings account that they would only get once they left the country, because the idea is to get able-bodied adults to work for us for cheap and then send them home when we no longer need them or they start getting old.
I agree with your sentiment MrMister that this would lower the overall labour wages, but I don't think the effect would be dramatic unless the influx of labourers was massive.
I also pointed out earlier that if these workers are paid low wages to begin with (unskilled labour) and then are taxed heavily they will be reduced to living in ghettos and there will be social reprecussions, also see pantsB's post above -their children would be citizens via the 14th amendment.
And while immigration is already doing what it can to fill labour shortages like nurses and doctors, I agree that some skilled workers and people in general have to face a lot more red tape than I think is in the best interest of America (or Canada) but I think our governments have at least acknowledged that immigration policy is an area where we have room for improvement.
And the last point I keep harping on is that letting a few million people immigrate here and there isn't going to be enough to solve the population vs limited resources problem anyways. I'm not happy that people are suffering in far away places, I just don't think bringing a slightly larger trickle of them over as immigrants would be enough to make a difference for the world population of impoverished people.
Not factually accurate! I was objecting to the following:
This is a recipe for sad face.
I don't even know what you're talking about.