|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 24 2016 02:48 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2016 02:46 xDaunt wrote:On February 24 2016 02:44 Nyxisto wrote:On February 24 2016 02:42 xDaunt wrote:
There is no good justification for allowing illegal immigration. It's not humanitarian. It's not good for national security. It's not good for the economy. And it undermines the rule of law. Isn't like half of California's agricultural workforce illlegal atm? I guess people in California like having food on their table? Then bring them in legally and raise the price of food to be commensurate with increased pay (to the extent that it's necessary). Are you really going to argue in favor of indentured servitude? No the work conditions aren't good but it's a fact that they're an important part of the workforce right now, so there is a benefit for the economy and it actually relies on them. So why not legalize their status right now instead of throwing them out first?
If they become legalized, there are more problems. What if they start demanding minimum wage? What if they start demanding benefits? They will have the same rights as us (which they shouldn't).
If we're going to keep them, don't give them citizenship. Make them work and keep the specter of deportation over them. At least until we have intelligent robots that can start harvesting fruits and vegetables more cheaply than illegals. Then maybe deport them (jk!).
|
Ted Cruz’s campaign backers are aligning the Republican presidential candidate with political cause of Nevada’s infamous and recently-jailed rancher Cliven Bundy, harnessing the same anti-government fervor that fueled an armed standoff in neighboring Oregon.
Ahead of Tuesday’s Republican caucuses in Nevada, Cruz has released a new ad promising to fight back against federal control of public lands – a move that addresses the central grievance of Cliven and his sons, Ammon and Ryan Bundy, who led the armed takeover of a national wildlife refuge in Oregon last month.
Although the Texas senator hasn’t publicly supported the Bundy militia, Cruz has emerged as the candidate most closely tied to their ultra-conservative protests against federal land-use restrictions.
Some of the Cruz campaign’s Nevada representatives are painting the candidate as a champion of anti-government activism in the west – even as the Bundy brothers leading that movement face accusations in court of violently conspiring against federal officials and threatening and assaulting law enforcement agents.
The most direct link between Cruz and the Bundys is Nevada assemblywoman Michele Fiore, who is a member of Cruz’s leadership team in the key swing state and the most outspoken elected official defending the armed militia in Oregon.
“Ted Cruz is the only candidate talking about giving lands back to the state where they belong,” said Fiore, who earned national attention this month when she traveled to the Oregon standoff and helped negotiate a resolution. “This is a very, very, very important issue to him.”
Nevada’s “first in the west” Republican caucuses come two weeks after the occupation in Oregon unraveled and federal authorities arrested Cliven Bundy, father of Ammon and Ryan.
Source
|
On February 24 2016 02:46 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2016 02:44 Nyxisto wrote:On February 24 2016 02:42 xDaunt wrote:
There is no good justification for allowing illegal immigration. It's not humanitarian. It's not good for national security. It's not good for the economy. And it undermines the rule of law. Isn't like half of California's agricultural workforce illlegal atm? I guess people in California like having food on their table? Then bring them in legally and raise the price of food to be commensurate with increased pay (to the extent that it's necessary). Are you really going to argue in favor of indentured servitude?
exactly. that's a point people from different aisles should be able to get behind. it would also need kind of an "ordo-capitalist" approach.
the thing that made germany, my home country and many other nations of the EU into economic powerhouses after WW2(yes more complicated, but for the sake of argument).
though with one party sabotaging government from the inside and the other one highly incompetent it could take a while in the US.
// with industry 4.0 and robotics/androids doing the work though, this old idea will look even older. which means new employment/"activities" for people will have to be "invented".
|
On February 24 2016 02:48 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2016 02:34 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 24 2016 02:16 Jibba wrote:On February 24 2016 01:53 ticklishmusic wrote:
not as much as jindal tho
our republican governor is worse than yours
Snyder > Jindal > Kasich Also, a choice quote from one of his previous senior advisors: I would argue that running a state or whatever like a business isn't a bad thing, it's just that these folks were basically shitty businessmen who didn't realize or know that financials =/= fundamentals. It's like share buybacks which are the dumbest thing ever, it creates no value and just artificially pumps up EPS with money that could be spent in actually growing the company. no. the word republic comes from res publica. which is literally "public affairs". a business is a private entity, those are fundamentally different things that mustn't be confused with each other. sure skills needed to run a business or for someone in office are not that far apart actually, though there are different requirements needed in order to achieve certain goals. it basically boils down to shareholder vs. stakeholder. yes some business people will now say - but but jobs are good for everyone - which is true as well - though there are so many factors besides jobs public officials have to take into account when making decisions - reelection for one. and the pure economic approach kinda sucks anyway - flint's a good example no? saving money no matter the cost. as long as people keep their mouths shut everything will be fine. and even if you concede that they did not want to poison the people on purpose - which is very likely - grave negligence should easily be proven.
Pure economic approach is fine IF you actually account for everything.
On February 24 2016 02:49 Plansix wrote:
Pretty sure the there is a strong financial reason not to do it. And the rule of law is already undermined by them being here. And once again, deporting 11 million people will be a logistical and PR nightmare. It’s doomed to fail and just make people more angry at the government. I am personally against plans that are doomed to failure.
And it will never happen. That is the reason why it has taken this long. The only reason to attempt it is pure spite and some hollow argument bout “holding up the law” that we failed to enforce for 15-20 years.
The problem is "we" is not one person, people have been trying to get the law enforced for 15-20 years, and they are largely the same ones trying to get it enforced now. Deporting 11 million people would only be a logistical/PR nightmare if they tried to do in a short period of time. Also, if you made hiring someone illegally a bigger offense and more enforced it is Less of a logistical and PR nightmare (you are attacking evil corporations exploiting people and stopping legal immigrants and citizens from getting jobs)
|
On February 24 2016 02:55 Deathstar wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2016 02:48 Nyxisto wrote:On February 24 2016 02:46 xDaunt wrote:On February 24 2016 02:44 Nyxisto wrote:On February 24 2016 02:42 xDaunt wrote:
There is no good justification for allowing illegal immigration. It's not humanitarian. It's not good for national security. It's not good for the economy. And it undermines the rule of law. Isn't like half of California's agricultural workforce illlegal atm? I guess people in California like having food on their table? Then bring them in legally and raise the price of food to be commensurate with increased pay (to the extent that it's necessary). Are you really going to argue in favor of indentured servitude? No the work conditions aren't good but it's a fact that they're an important part of the workforce right now, so there is a benefit for the economy and it actually relies on them. So why not legalize their status right now instead of throwing them out first? If they become legalized, there are more problems. What if they start demanding minimum wage? What if they start demanding benefits? They will have the same rights as us (which they shouldn't). If we're going to keep them, don't give them citizenship. Make them work and keep the specter of deportation over them. At least until we have intelligent robots that can start harvesting fruits and vegetables more cheaply than illegals. Then maybe deport them (jk!).
Pretty sure people on work visa's have the same workers rights as citizens. We have a couple people on work visa's in my office and they don't get less vacation time or get paid less. Unless this is all sarcasm. It is tough to tell.
|
On February 24 2016 02:58 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2016 02:55 Deathstar wrote:On February 24 2016 02:48 Nyxisto wrote:On February 24 2016 02:46 xDaunt wrote:On February 24 2016 02:44 Nyxisto wrote:On February 24 2016 02:42 xDaunt wrote:
There is no good justification for allowing illegal immigration. It's not humanitarian. It's not good for national security. It's not good for the economy. And it undermines the rule of law. Isn't like half of California's agricultural workforce illlegal atm? I guess people in California like having food on their table? Then bring them in legally and raise the price of food to be commensurate with increased pay (to the extent that it's necessary). Are you really going to argue in favor of indentured servitude? No the work conditions aren't good but it's a fact that they're an important part of the workforce right now, so there is a benefit for the economy and it actually relies on them. So why not legalize their status right now instead of throwing them out first? If they become legalized, there are more problems. What if they start demanding minimum wage? What if they start demanding benefits? They will have the same rights as us (which they shouldn't). If we're going to keep them, don't give them citizenship. Make them work and keep the specter of deportation over them. At least until we have intelligent robots that can start harvesting fruits and vegetables more cheaply than illegals. Then maybe deport them (jk!). Pretty sure people on work visa's have the same workers rights as citizens. We have a couple people on work visa's in my office and they don't get less vacation time or get paid less. Unless this is all sarcasm. It is tough to tell.
The illegals aren't on visas. They are off the grid completely.
|
On February 24 2016 02:56 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2016 02:48 Doublemint wrote:On February 24 2016 02:34 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 24 2016 02:16 Jibba wrote:On February 24 2016 01:53 ticklishmusic wrote:
not as much as jindal tho
our republican governor is worse than yours
Snyder > Jindal > Kasich Also, a choice quote from one of his previous senior advisors: I would argue that running a state or whatever like a business isn't a bad thing, it's just that these folks were basically shitty businessmen who didn't realize or know that financials =/= fundamentals. It's like share buybacks which are the dumbest thing ever, it creates no value and just artificially pumps up EPS with money that could be spent in actually growing the company. no. the word republic comes from res publica. which is literally "public affairs". a business is a private entity, those are fundamentally different things that mustn't be confused with each other. sure skills needed to run a business or for someone in office are not that far apart actually, though there are different requirements needed in order to achieve certain goals. it basically boils down to shareholder vs. stakeholder. yes some business people will now say - but but jobs are good for everyone - which is true as well - though there are so many factors besides jobs public officials have to take into account when making decisions - reelection for one. and the pure economic approach kinda sucks anyway - flint's a good example no? saving money no matter the cost. as long as people keep their mouths shut everything will be fine. and even if you concede that they did not want to poison the people on purpose - which is very likely - grave negligence should easily be proven. Pure economic approach is fine IF you actually account for everything.
you should make that if a bit bigger. like the whole page big.
|
On February 24 2016 02:48 Doublemint wrote:
no. the word republic comes from res publica. which is literally "public affairs". a business is a private entity, those are fundamentally different things that mustn't be confused with each other.
sure skills needed to run a business or for someone in office are not that far apart actually, though there are different requirements needed in order to achieve certain goals. it basically boils down to shareholder vs. stakeholder. yes some business people will now say - but but jobs are good for everyone - which is true as well - though there are so many factors besides jobs public officials have to take into account when making decisions - reelection for one.
and the pure economic approach kinda sucks anyway - flint's a good example no? saving money no matter the cost. as long as people keep their mouths shut everything will be fine. and even if you concede that they did not want to poison the people on purpose - which is very likely - grave negligence should easily be proven.
I think you just agreed with me at length  . Principles of good management are generally the same regardless of if an institution is public/ private for profit/non profit. Stakeholders should always be number one, though that's a concept that's fallen to the wayside in a lot of cases. Turns out the Snyder administration had shitty management practices is all. They mixed up financials for fundamentals.
On February 24 2016 02:52 RvB wrote:
Share buybacks do have a use. There's not always enough investment opportunity for companies and via buying back your shares you can return the money to shareholders instead of having it sit idle.
Eh, okay let me rephrase: the way a lot of companies are doing share buybacks now is fucking ludicrous. There are legitimate situations where returning capital to shareholders makes sense because they don't have any good investment opportunities, but many companies do it to improve their ratios and for short term gains. It's an easier way to drive up their financials without addressing the fundamentals where long term investment is hard and you get a nice EPS pop instead. It's very winkwinknudgenudge.
|
On February 24 2016 01:40 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2016 01:37 oneofthem wrote:
he will run to the left of hillary on trade come general and get a bunch of low skill voters Yep. Trump is very well-positioned to steal some traditionally democratic voters.
We'll gladly give them to him considering he'll give us the lion's share of independents and a good number of Republicans who aren't completely braindead on a silver platter.
|
On February 24 2016 02:59 Deathstar wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2016 02:58 Plansix wrote:On February 24 2016 02:55 Deathstar wrote:On February 24 2016 02:48 Nyxisto wrote:On February 24 2016 02:46 xDaunt wrote:On February 24 2016 02:44 Nyxisto wrote:On February 24 2016 02:42 xDaunt wrote:
There is no good justification for allowing illegal immigration. It's not humanitarian. It's not good for national security. It's not good for the economy. And it undermines the rule of law. Isn't like half of California's agricultural workforce illlegal atm? I guess people in California like having food on their table? Then bring them in legally and raise the price of food to be commensurate with increased pay (to the extent that it's necessary). Are you really going to argue in favor of indentured servitude? No the work conditions aren't good but it's a fact that they're an important part of the workforce right now, so there is a benefit for the economy and it actually relies on them. So why not legalize their status right now instead of throwing them out first? If they become legalized, there are more problems. What if they start demanding minimum wage? What if they start demanding benefits? They will have the same rights as us (which they shouldn't). If we're going to keep them, don't give them citizenship. Make them work and keep the specter of deportation over them. At least until we have intelligent robots that can start harvesting fruits and vegetables more cheaply than illegals. Then maybe deport them (jk!). Pretty sure people on work visa's have the same workers rights as citizens. We have a couple people on work visa's in my office and they don't get less vacation time or get paid less. Unless this is all sarcasm. It is tough to tell. The illegals aren't on visas. They are off the grid completely.
Yes, I am aware. But we could just issue them visas. We clearly need the workers.
|
United States42008 Posts
America does not have a functional immigration system to put illegals through. It's like anything else in a market. Piracy predominantly exists because the provider fails to provide people with a legal option that works for them. Speeding generally happens because a lot of speed limits are poorly adjusted to modern car design and technology. Illegal immigration exists because there are people who want cheap foreign labour in the United States and there are people who want to perform that labour.
Sending them back is like trying to stop the tide flooding a sandcastle using a bucket. The forces causing the problem are stronger than the means used to counter them.
|
On February 24 2016 02:58 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2016 02:55 Deathstar wrote:On February 24 2016 02:48 Nyxisto wrote:On February 24 2016 02:46 xDaunt wrote:On February 24 2016 02:44 Nyxisto wrote:On February 24 2016 02:42 xDaunt wrote:
There is no good justification for allowing illegal immigration. It's not humanitarian. It's not good for national security. It's not good for the economy. And it undermines the rule of law. Isn't like half of California's agricultural workforce illlegal atm? I guess people in California like having food on their table? Then bring them in legally and raise the price of food to be commensurate with increased pay (to the extent that it's necessary). Are you really going to argue in favor of indentured servitude? No the work conditions aren't good but it's a fact that they're an important part of the workforce right now, so there is a benefit for the economy and it actually relies on them. So why not legalize their status right now instead of throwing them out first? If they become legalized, there are more problems. What if they start demanding minimum wage? What if they start demanding benefits? They will have the same rights as us (which they shouldn't). If we're going to keep them, don't give them citizenship. Make them work and keep the specter of deportation over them. At least until we have intelligent robots that can start harvesting fruits and vegetables more cheaply than illegals. Then maybe deport them (jk!). Pretty sure people on work visa's have the same workers rights as citizens. We have a couple people on work visa's in my office and they don't get less vacation time or get paid less. Unless this is all sarcasm. It is tough to tell.
People with work visas are already legalized. They won't be deported until/unless their visa runs out.
The debate is over people who don't have visas...
You don't have to pay them minimum wage, because it is illegal to pay them any wage.
You don't have to give them any benefits, because it is illegal for them to be working for you.
If they get injured, they can't file a worker's comp claim because it was illegal for them to work for you in the first place.
Basically they are potentially sweatshop conditions inside the US, *keeping jobs here  *
If you are worried about the economic repurcussions of enforcing immigration laws, then you should repeal all workplace safety, minimum wage laws (and probably the 13th amendment just to be sure).
Or just repeal all immigration laws and let everyone come in totally legally (of course then the food in California might cost more and we would outsource the sweatshop jobs back to Mexico)
On February 24 2016 03:14 KwarK wrote:
America does not have a functional immigration system to put illegals through. It's like anything else in a market. Piracy predominantly exists because the provider fails to provide people with a legal option that works for them. Speeding generally happens because a lot of speed limits are poorly adjusted to modern car design and technology. Illegal immigration exists because there are people who want cheap foreign labour in the United States and there are people who want to perform that labour.
Sending them back is like trying to stop the tide flooding a sandcastle using a bucket. The forces causing the problem are stronger than the means used to counter them.
The problem with that generic argument is it applies to ALL laws (there are people who want to murder others, there are people who want slaves and people who want to sell them, there are people who want to torture children for fun, some people would like to watch the world burn)
However, when looked at specifically, you also look at the harm done. If it is worthless to try and enforce illegal immigration laws, you should also toss out minimum wage, etc. laws (you could make an argument for that...sweatshops will be somewhere, why not have them here..in the US, paying our taxes)
The immigration system might not let in 'enough' immigrants or let them in easily enough, or let enough of the right ones in. But that would be an argument for changing the law rather than ignoring lawbreakers.
If you are going to legalize the 11 million, then you should legalize anyone else who walks in and keeps out of trouble for say 10 years.
|
On February 24 2016 03:12 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2016 02:59 Deathstar wrote:On February 24 2016 02:58 Plansix wrote:On February 24 2016 02:55 Deathstar wrote:On February 24 2016 02:48 Nyxisto wrote:On February 24 2016 02:46 xDaunt wrote:On February 24 2016 02:44 Nyxisto wrote:On February 24 2016 02:42 xDaunt wrote:
There is no good justification for allowing illegal immigration. It's not humanitarian. It's not good for national security. It's not good for the economy. And it undermines the rule of law. Isn't like half of California's agricultural workforce illlegal atm? I guess people in California like having food on their table? Then bring them in legally and raise the price of food to be commensurate with increased pay (to the extent that it's necessary). Are you really going to argue in favor of indentured servitude? No the work conditions aren't good but it's a fact that they're an important part of the workforce right now, so there is a benefit for the economy and it actually relies on them. So why not legalize their status right now instead of throwing them out first? If they become legalized, there are more problems. What if they start demanding minimum wage? What if they start demanding benefits? They will have the same rights as us (which they shouldn't). If we're going to keep them, don't give them citizenship. Make them work and keep the specter of deportation over them. At least until we have intelligent robots that can start harvesting fruits and vegetables more cheaply than illegals. Then maybe deport them (jk!). Pretty sure people on work visa's have the same workers rights as citizens. We have a couple people on work visa's in my office and they don't get less vacation time or get paid less. Unless this is all sarcasm. It is tough to tell. The illegals aren't on visas. They are off the grid completely. Yes, I am aware. But we could just issue them visas. We clearly need the workers.
But then they'll have to be paid at least minimum wage. Which will defeat the purpose of illegal labor.
|
Marc Short, the Koch brothers’ top political adviser in Washington and a trusted member of their inner circle for five years, is making a surprise move to the Marco Rubio campaign as a senior adviser as the Republican establishment ramps up efforts to stop Donald Trump.
Short — president of Freedom Partners, the Kochs’ umbrella political organization — will join the campaign in about a week and brings deep connections to the donor and grass-roots worlds.
“Marc has been running the most sophisticated political operation for the last few cycles, and really knows the mood of the electorate," said Scott Reed, senior political strategist at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. "This is a big sign of consolidation by the party.”
Charles and David Koch have not endorsed in the presidential race and are unlikely to while there are still multiple viable candidates running against Trump, according to GOP sources. Top backers in the brothers' network include supporters of Rubio and Sen. Ted Cruz. Any decision to get involved in the nomination race would likely come only if it narrowed to Trump and one of those senators, the sources said.
Source
|
On February 24 2016 03:19 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2016 02:58 Plansix wrote:On February 24 2016 02:55 Deathstar wrote:On February 24 2016 02:48 Nyxisto wrote:On February 24 2016 02:46 xDaunt wrote:On February 24 2016 02:44 Nyxisto wrote:On February 24 2016 02:42 xDaunt wrote:
There is no good justification for allowing illegal immigration. It's not humanitarian. It's not good for national security. It's not good for the economy. And it undermines the rule of law. Isn't like half of California's agricultural workforce illlegal atm? I guess people in California like having food on their table? Then bring them in legally and raise the price of food to be commensurate with increased pay (to the extent that it's necessary). Are you really going to argue in favor of indentured servitude? No the work conditions aren't good but it's a fact that they're an important part of the workforce right now, so there is a benefit for the economy and it actually relies on them. So why not legalize their status right now instead of throwing them out first? If they become legalized, there are more problems. What if they start demanding minimum wage? What if they start demanding benefits? They will have the same rights as us (which they shouldn't). If we're going to keep them, don't give them citizenship. Make them work and keep the specter of deportation over them. At least until we have intelligent robots that can start harvesting fruits and vegetables more cheaply than illegals. Then maybe deport them (jk!). Pretty sure people on work visa's have the same workers rights as citizens. We have a couple people on work visa's in my office and they don't get less vacation time or get paid less. Unless this is all sarcasm. It is tough to tell. People with work visas are already legalized. They won't be deported until/unless their visa runs out. The debate is over people who don't have visas... You don't have to pay them minimum wage, because it is illegal to pay them any wage. You don't have to give them any benefits, because it is illegal for them to be working for you. If they get injured, they can't file a worker's comp claim because it was illegal for them to work for you in the first place. Basically they are potentially sweatshop conditions inside the US, *keeping jobs here * If you are worried about the economic repurcussions of enforcing immigration laws, then you should repeal all workplace safety, minimum wage laws (and probably the 13th amendment just to be sure). Or just repeal all immigration laws and let everyone come in totally legally (of course then the food in California might cost more and we would outsource the sweatshop jobs back to Mexico)
You seem to be unaware of the comically low number of work visas we hand out and their costs.
http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/how-united-states-immigration-system-works-fact-sheet
Currently we only offer 5000 per year for unskilled labor. Nation wide. That is it. And they cost a lot to get, often more than an someone seeking to do unskilled labor can afford. The system fails to meet demand at both ends. And we don't have the ability to stop that demand from turning into illegal immigration. There is no legal immigration into the US that meets the demand of what the US needs.
|
As a sign that the establishment is consolidating behind Rubio, that's notable. He might boost Rubio's numbers a bit if he's really as big a deal as he's being made out to be, but I'm skeptical that this one dude can magically turn Rubio into a Trump-crushing force.
|
On February 24 2016 03:30 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2016 03:19 Krikkitone wrote:On February 24 2016 02:58 Plansix wrote:On February 24 2016 02:55 Deathstar wrote:On February 24 2016 02:48 Nyxisto wrote:On February 24 2016 02:46 xDaunt wrote:On February 24 2016 02:44 Nyxisto wrote:On February 24 2016 02:42 xDaunt wrote:
There is no good justification for allowing illegal immigration. It's not humanitarian. It's not good for national security. It's not good for the economy. And it undermines the rule of law. Isn't like half of California's agricultural workforce illlegal atm? I guess people in California like having food on their table? Then bring them in legally and raise the price of food to be commensurate with increased pay (to the extent that it's necessary). Are you really going to argue in favor of indentured servitude? No the work conditions aren't good but it's a fact that they're an important part of the workforce right now, so there is a benefit for the economy and it actually relies on them. So why not legalize their status right now instead of throwing them out first? If they become legalized, there are more problems. What if they start demanding minimum wage? What if they start demanding benefits? They will have the same rights as us (which they shouldn't). If we're going to keep them, don't give them citizenship. Make them work and keep the specter of deportation over them. At least until we have intelligent robots that can start harvesting fruits and vegetables more cheaply than illegals. Then maybe deport them (jk!). Pretty sure people on work visa's have the same workers rights as citizens. We have a couple people on work visa's in my office and they don't get less vacation time or get paid less. Unless this is all sarcasm. It is tough to tell. People with work visas are already legalized. They won't be deported until/unless their visa runs out. The debate is over people who don't have visas... You don't have to pay them minimum wage, because it is illegal to pay them any wage. You don't have to give them any benefits, because it is illegal for them to be working for you. If they get injured, they can't file a worker's comp claim because it was illegal for them to work for you in the first place. Basically they are potentially sweatshop conditions inside the US, *keeping jobs here * If you are worried about the economic repurcussions of enforcing immigration laws, then you should repeal all workplace safety, minimum wage laws (and probably the 13th amendment just to be sure). Or just repeal all immigration laws and let everyone come in totally legally (of course then the food in California might cost more and we would outsource the sweatshop jobs back to Mexico) You seem to be unaware of the comically low number of work visas we hand out and their costs. http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/how-united-states-immigration-system-works-fact-sheetCurrently we only offer 5000 per year for unskilled labor. Nation wide. That is it. And they cost a lot to get, often more than an someone seeking to do unskilled labor can afford. The system fails to meet demand at both ends. And we don't have the ability to stop that demand from turning into illegal immigration. There is no legal immigration into the US that meets the demand of what the US needs.
That figure is for permanent employment-based immigration.
|
United States42008 Posts
On February 24 2016 03:19 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2016 02:58 Plansix wrote:On February 24 2016 02:55 Deathstar wrote:On February 24 2016 02:48 Nyxisto wrote:On February 24 2016 02:46 xDaunt wrote:On February 24 2016 02:44 Nyxisto wrote:On February 24 2016 02:42 xDaunt wrote:
There is no good justification for allowing illegal immigration. It's not humanitarian. It's not good for national security. It's not good for the economy. And it undermines the rule of law. Isn't like half of California's agricultural workforce illlegal atm? I guess people in California like having food on their table? Then bring them in legally and raise the price of food to be commensurate with increased pay (to the extent that it's necessary). Are you really going to argue in favor of indentured servitude? No the work conditions aren't good but it's a fact that they're an important part of the workforce right now, so there is a benefit for the economy and it actually relies on them. So why not legalize their status right now instead of throwing them out first? If they become legalized, there are more problems. What if they start demanding minimum wage? What if they start demanding benefits? They will have the same rights as us (which they shouldn't). If we're going to keep them, don't give them citizenship. Make them work and keep the specter of deportation over them. At least until we have intelligent robots that can start harvesting fruits and vegetables more cheaply than illegals. Then maybe deport them (jk!). Pretty sure people on work visa's have the same workers rights as citizens. We have a couple people on work visa's in my office and they don't get less vacation time or get paid less. Unless this is all sarcasm. It is tough to tell. People with work visas are already legalized. They won't be deported until/unless their visa runs out. The debate is over people who don't have visas... You don't have to pay them minimum wage, because it is illegal to pay them any wage. You don't have to give them any benefits, because it is illegal for them to be working for you. If they get injured, they can't file a worker's comp claim because it was illegal for them to work for you in the first place. Basically they are potentially sweatshop conditions inside the US, *keeping jobs here * If you are worried about the economic repurcussions of enforcing immigration laws, then you should repeal all workplace safety, minimum wage laws (and probably the 13th amendment just to be sure). Or just repeal all immigration laws and let everyone come in totally legally (of course then the food in California might cost more and we would outsource the sweatshop jobs back to Mexico) Show nested quote +On February 24 2016 03:14 KwarK wrote:
America does not have a functional immigration system to put illegals through. It's like anything else in a market. Piracy predominantly exists because the provider fails to provide people with a legal option that works for them. Speeding generally happens because a lot of speed limits are poorly adjusted to modern car design and technology. Illegal immigration exists because there are people who want cheap foreign labour in the United States and there are people who want to perform that labour.
Sending them back is like trying to stop the tide flooding a sandcastle using a bucket. The forces causing the problem are stronger than the means used to counter them. The problem with that generic argument is it applies to ALL laws (there are people who want to murder others, there are people who want slaves and people who want to sell them, there are people who want to torture children for fun, some people would like to watch the world burn) However, when looked at specifically, you also look at the harm done. If it is worthless to try and enforce illegal immigration laws, you should also toss out minimum wage, etc. laws (you could make an argument for that...sweatshops will be somewhere, why not have them here..in the US, paying our taxes) The immigration system might not let in 'enough' immigrants or let them in easily enough, or let enough of the right ones in. But that would be an argument for changing the law rather than ignoring lawbreakers. If you are going to legalize the 11 million, then you should legalize anyone else who walks in and keeps out of trouble for say 10 years.
Absolutely it's necessary to look at the harm done. I wasn't advocating legalizing murder just because people want to murder others. But the pressure that pushes people to cross the border illegally could be reduced by a workable alternative. The current visa system is dysfunctional to the point that you spend a year waiting for an immigration interview only to find out that because they're so backlogged they're just going to approve you without interviewing you and move on (what happened to me). If there was political will behind it the entire thing could be automated pretty easily to instantly spit you out a visa for a $10 application fee assuming you did your homework before attempting an online form.
I'm coming up with this on the fly but have a doctors in other countries who are registered with the US embassy and allowed to perform visa medicals (this already exists). You get an appointment with one, they enter your results into the system and it updates the INS computer with you and your confirmation number. Exact same deal with police records/military records, you send a form to the police saying "please upload my record to the computer" and they send you one back with your confirmation number. Military if applicable, same situation. Citizenship of your home nation, same deal, you tell them to share your passport number, photo and so forth with the computer. You then go to the website and it asks you a series of questions which you answer and which verify your eligibility and so forth. If eligible it asks for the confirmation numbers and so forth, checks them against the stuff you already had sent to their database and then gives you a printable visa with a scannable part which can be scanned on the border. It then records that you exist, have been given this visa and will be entering the United States.
You go to the border, show them the visa, they scan it and your records pop up. They then fingerprint/dna you on the border and update the record to add your biometrics, the address at which you'll be staying and that you're now in the United States.
Right now it takes over a year and a colossal amount of money to get in. It shouldn't. There is no reason beyond shitty bureaucracy creating an artificial barrier to entry.
|
On February 24 2016 03:37 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2016 03:30 Plansix wrote:On February 24 2016 03:19 Krikkitone wrote:On February 24 2016 02:58 Plansix wrote:On February 24 2016 02:55 Deathstar wrote:On February 24 2016 02:48 Nyxisto wrote:On February 24 2016 02:46 xDaunt wrote:On February 24 2016 02:44 Nyxisto wrote:On February 24 2016 02:42 xDaunt wrote:
There is no good justification for allowing illegal immigration. It's not humanitarian. It's not good for national security. It's not good for the economy. And it undermines the rule of law. Isn't like half of California's agricultural workforce illlegal atm? I guess people in California like having food on their table? Then bring them in legally and raise the price of food to be commensurate with increased pay (to the extent that it's necessary). Are you really going to argue in favor of indentured servitude? No the work conditions aren't good but it's a fact that they're an important part of the workforce right now, so there is a benefit for the economy and it actually relies on them. So why not legalize their status right now instead of throwing them out first? If they become legalized, there are more problems. What if they start demanding minimum wage? What if they start demanding benefits? They will have the same rights as us (which they shouldn't). If we're going to keep them, don't give them citizenship. Make them work and keep the specter of deportation over them. At least until we have intelligent robots that can start harvesting fruits and vegetables more cheaply than illegals. Then maybe deport them (jk!). Pretty sure people on work visa's have the same workers rights as citizens. We have a couple people on work visa's in my office and they don't get less vacation time or get paid less. Unless this is all sarcasm. It is tough to tell. People with work visas are already legalized. They won't be deported until/unless their visa runs out. The debate is over people who don't have visas... You don't have to pay them minimum wage, because it is illegal to pay them any wage. You don't have to give them any benefits, because it is illegal for them to be working for you. If they get injured, they can't file a worker's comp claim because it was illegal for them to work for you in the first place. Basically they are potentially sweatshop conditions inside the US, *keeping jobs here * If you are worried about the economic repurcussions of enforcing immigration laws, then you should repeal all workplace safety, minimum wage laws (and probably the 13th amendment just to be sure). Or just repeal all immigration laws and let everyone come in totally legally (of course then the food in California might cost more and we would outsource the sweatshop jobs back to Mexico) You seem to be unaware of the comically low number of work visas we hand out and their costs. http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/how-united-states-immigration-system-works-fact-sheetCurrently we only offer 5000 per year for unskilled labor. Nation wide. That is it. And they cost a lot to get, often more than an someone seeking to do unskilled labor can afford. The system fails to meet demand at both ends. And we don't have the ability to stop that demand from turning into illegal immigration. There is no legal immigration into the US that meets the demand of what the US needs. That figure is for permanent employment-based immigration.
Yep, Temp work visas for unskilled labor top out at 33,000 or 66,000 per year depending if it is farm work or not. Nation wide. Comically low. That wouldn't even cover the labor needs of my very tiny state. The system is a joke. Of course, no one will fix it until we agree to deport all the illegal immigrants first and then we can think about upping the caps.
|
On February 24 2016 03:30 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2016 03:19 Krikkitone wrote:On February 24 2016 02:58 Plansix wrote:On February 24 2016 02:55 Deathstar wrote:On February 24 2016 02:48 Nyxisto wrote:On February 24 2016 02:46 xDaunt wrote:On February 24 2016 02:44 Nyxisto wrote:On February 24 2016 02:42 xDaunt wrote:
There is no good justification for allowing illegal immigration. It's not humanitarian. It's not good for national security. It's not good for the economy. And it undermines the rule of law. Isn't like half of California's agricultural workforce illlegal atm? I guess people in California like having food on their table? Then bring them in legally and raise the price of food to be commensurate with increased pay (to the extent that it's necessary). Are you really going to argue in favor of indentured servitude? No the work conditions aren't good but it's a fact that they're an important part of the workforce right now, so there is a benefit for the economy and it actually relies on them. So why not legalize their status right now instead of throwing them out first? If they become legalized, there are more problems. What if they start demanding minimum wage? What if they start demanding benefits? They will have the same rights as us (which they shouldn't). If we're going to keep them, don't give them citizenship. Make them work and keep the specter of deportation over them. At least until we have intelligent robots that can start harvesting fruits and vegetables more cheaply than illegals. Then maybe deport them (jk!). Pretty sure people on work visa's have the same workers rights as citizens. We have a couple people on work visa's in my office and they don't get less vacation time or get paid less. Unless this is all sarcasm. It is tough to tell. People with work visas are already legalized. They won't be deported until/unless their visa runs out. The debate is over people who don't have visas... You don't have to pay them minimum wage, because it is illegal to pay them any wage. You don't have to give them any benefits, because it is illegal for them to be working for you. If they get injured, they can't file a worker's comp claim because it was illegal for them to work for you in the first place. Basically they are potentially sweatshop conditions inside the US, *keeping jobs here * If you are worried about the economic repurcussions of enforcing immigration laws, then you should repeal all workplace safety, minimum wage laws (and probably the 13th amendment just to be sure). Or just repeal all immigration laws and let everyone come in totally legally (of course then the food in California might cost more and we would outsource the sweatshop jobs back to Mexico) You seem to be unaware of the comically low number of work visas we hand out and their costs. http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/how-united-states-immigration-system-works-fact-sheetCurrently we only offer 5000 per year for unskilled labor. Nation wide. That is it. And they cost a lot to get, often more than an someone seeking to do unskilled labor can afford. The system fails to meet demand at both ends. And we don't have the ability to stop that demand from turning into illegal immigration. There is no legal immigration into the US that meets the demand of what the US needs.
Who says the US "needs" unskilled labor?
The US has probably a good 100 million people capable of unskilled labor.
There are people who would like some unskilled labor done for them, if so then they need to pay the rate that will get someone legally here to do it. If they don't want it that much then they don't "need" it.
Now the issue is a large number people are willing to pay enough for unskilled labor to get it illegally, but not enough to pay to get it legally.
You can make it cheaper to get it legally (lower minimum wage, legalize slavery)
OR make it harder to get illegally (bigger penalties, greater chance of being caught with more enforcement)
And that depends on Why it was made illegal/hard to get legally in the first place. If there is enough damage caused by the illegal activity itself (rather than the enforcement) then you increase the illegal cost.
If the US truly needs more unskilled labor then increase that 5,000 to 50 million. But that doesn't mean that the 11 million already here should get a better chance at those 50 million slots because they broke the law.
---agree with Kwark on shitty bureaucracy though. (of course often there are good reasons, combined with many bad ones, for the shitty bureaucracy) but Ideally anyone should be able to go to a website and see what they would need (in terms of skills, luck at hitting the limit for their skill level, and criminal record) to either work temporarily or immigrate permanently, and have that rapidly confirmed or denied.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
