GOP Backing Away From Tough Immigration

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

If we find a way to remove the reason for people to cross that border illegally...there will be no reason to spend all that money to prevent people from crossing illegally.

 

 

Exactly, and that goes back to Rex's point earlier about levying massive fines on companies who knowingly hire illegal aliens.

[Texsox]

Materials still require vehicles and/or people.

 

I wish I could find that darn article now, but the amount of money Border Patrol has spent on detection technologies is staggeringly small.

 

And you are right about the North Woods.  I pointed that out too, a while ago, that one can boat across the very long border into MN without anyone ever knowing.  But I sure as heck don't want to see a giant battlement of a wall put up across this county's largest roadless wilderness area (BWCAW and Quetico combine to be over 6 million acres).

 

Vehicles can be bought here and people brought in legally as tourists and students.

 

And I agree with Nuke and Rex, but knowingly is a hard term to prosecute.

[mr_genius]

And I agree with Nuke and Rex, but knowingly is a hard term to prosecute.

 

 

i don't think so

 

set up a system where an employer checks the status of a certain individuals information. aka, have it possible to detect false information, computer checks and so on.

 

i'm not accepting stupidity or ignorance as an excuse for illegal operations.

 

like i've said all along, if illegal immigrants can't get jobs in the US they'll stop coming in illegaly.

Edited April 13, 2006 by mr_genius

[Balta1701]

i don't think so

 

set up a system where an employer checks the status of a certain individuals information.  aka, have it possible to detect false information, computer checks and so on.

 

i'm not accepting stupidity or ignorance as an excuse for illegal operations.

 

like i've said all along, if illegal immigrants can't get jobs in the US they'll stop coming in illegaly.

Such a system already exists, and has been running since 1996. However, it is only voluntary, and thus, only about 5,000 of the nation's 7,000,000 employers actually have made use of it.

 

It will work as a system, even as a voluntary one, only if there is a major government enforcement effort tied to it. In other words, the government can't make deals with the nation's largest employer allowing that employer about a 15 day warning before any inspections for illegal workers take place just because that employer happens to give some nice campaign contributions.

[Texsox]

The system has to be inexpensive for the employer to use. It can't take weeks or even days in most cases. At the low end of the employment process spending hundreds or thousands of dollars per employee, to hire 100 temporary workers, doesn't work.

[mr_genius]

Such a system already exists..........

 

It will work as a system, even as a voluntary one, only if there is a major government enforcement effort tied to it.  In other words, the government can't make deals with the nation's largest employer allowing that employer about a 15 day warning before any inspections for illegal workers take place just because that employer happens to give some nice campaign contributions.

 

sounds good to me. clean the system up and enforce labor laws.

[BigSqwert]

The system has to be inexpensive for the employer to use. It can't take weeks or even days in most cases. At the low end of the employment process spending hundreds or thousands of dollars per employee, to hire 100 temporary workers, doesn't work.

Bingo. Why would a small restaurant spend a s***load of money to find out if their busboy's paperwork is legit. It'll never happen.

[mr_genius]

The system has to be inexpensive for the employer to use. It can't take weeks or even days in most cases. At the low end of the employment process spending hundreds or thousands of dollars per employee, to hire 100 temporary workers, doesn't work.

 

 

It should be inexpensive for employers to use, I agree. A day or maybe week waiting peroid may be something employers will have to be prepared for.

[Texsox]

Bingo.  Why would a small restaurant spend a s***load of money to find out if their busboy's paperwork is legit.  It'll never happen.

 

They would of they faced jail or huge fines, but then they would also have to raise prices and cause other problems.

[mr_genius]

Bingo.  Why would a small restaurant spend a s***load of money to find out if their busboy's paperwork is legit.  It'll never happen.

 

why would it cost a "s***load" of money? It shouldn't and it won't. Running background checks are cheap, running employment information would be fairly easy and inexpensive.

[Texsox]

why would it cost a "s***load" of money?  It shouldn't and it won't.  Running background checks are cheap, running employment information would be fairly easy and inexpensive.

I believe most cynics would say the thought of a government program being easy and inexpensive would be a first.

[mr_genius]

I believe most cynics would say the thought of a government program being easy and inexpensive would be a first.

 

haha, yea the government does botch a lot of the social "programs" it runs.

 

However, the U.S. government is fairly good at running systems such as a computerized employment checks. If congress could get a fair bill passed, it would be comparitively simple to get all this in order. I am very familiar with computer systems such as this, and if they already have something set up (as Balta suggested) it would probably require some tweeking and education of employers of the process, but it should be very inexpensive for employers to run a check on an employees work status.

 

I'm getting the feeling that the some of the posters in this thread will be against anything that would prohibit the use of illegal employment practices. No matter how cheap and easy the new system is there will always be some complaint how it "such a horrible burden". Thankfully, the polls show around 70% of americans would support such policies, therefore politicians will start to come around on things (they don't want to piss people off too much and lose their next re-election campain).

[Cerbaho-WG]

What is your defenition of "short run"?  I believe the last recession ended in 2002 and the economy has been expanding ever since and tax revenue's have also gone up even despite the tax cuts so there goes your stupid argument about "pissing it away". 

 

Being the "socially conscious" lefty that you are you should be outraged that evil corporations exploit migrant labor at a fraction of the minimum wage but I guess in your frenzy to stop immigration reform you guys forgot all about that.

I dont know what it takes to get it through your thick skull that these people are violating the law by being here.  You say try thinking?  You should take your own advice.  Additionally,  I know it really burns your ass but this isin't Soviet Russia and the government has no say so as to where corporations locate their factories or how they run their businesses.  Those jobs are outsourced because the cost of labor is becomming prohibitively high, as an economics major you should know this, and to stay competitive and increase shareholder value companies must seek to lower costs.

 

Oh really? Mind explaining the robust 1.8% growth rate we had for the fourth quarter of 2005? Or how we've had negative savings for the last 11 months?

 

http://www.diamonds.net/news/newsitem.asp?num=14659

 

Now since you probably have no clue about this, savings is GDP - consumption - government spending which is the same as investment. So, S=I, simple enough, yes? So, as Americans save less, we invest less, and thus we retard our future economic growth. Now do you understand how we're pissing it away?

 

Let's go further, and I'm ripping this right from N. Gregory Mankiw's textbook, the same person who was the chairman of President Bush's Council of Economic Advisors:

 

"Thus, one way to raise future productivity is to invest more current resources in the production of capital."

 

"Nonetheless, because capital accumulation affects productivity so clearly and directly, many economists interpret these date as showing that high investment leads to more rapid economic growth."

 

Onto your second point that tax revenues have risen since the tax cuts have been implemented, it's a shame that government spending in a non-recessionary period has vastly overshadowed any revenue that the government has collected (I believe that military expenditures in Iraq weren't even calculated in the FY budget). This is DIRECTLY CORRELATED to my previous point. When countries spend mindlessly, it directly affects society's savings rate. To be more specific, it shifts supply back which raises interest rates (which the Fed can no longer suppress) and limits loanable funds. This is no clearer than the present economic situation, and why Rick Rubin preaches that budgets need to be balanced.

 

Oddly enough, here's the forecast for the Q1 GDP: 1.64%. Pathetic. Care to explain how we're becoming more prosperous, though?

 

Being the "socially conscious" lefty that you are you should be outraged that evil corporations exploit migrant labor at a fraction of the minimum wage but I guess in your frenzy to stop immigration reform you guys forgot all about that.

I dont know what it takes to get it through your thick skull that these people are violating the law by being here.  You say try thinking?  You should take your own advice.  Additionally,  I know it really burns your ass but this isin't Soviet Russia and the government has no say so as to where corporations locate their factories or how they run their businesses.  Those jobs are outsourced because the cost of labor is becomming prohibitively high, as an economics major you should know this, and to stay competitive and increase shareholder value companies must seek to lower costs.

 

Last time I checked, the industrial sector rarely hires illegal immigrants. The agricultural sector sure, but that's much more individual than the industrial sector. As for your quip about how I should know about profit maximization, well no s***. You have to balance profit maximization with actually providing social welfare, though. As the US outsources jobs, mostly manufacturing, workers lose jobs, and in too often the case, end up finding jobs in other sectors that take time to provide training and usually pay less. This is why the median wage of the US is falling, and as more households have less earnings, they can't consume or invest as much as they did before. But of course, you'd have to trade this off with the higher costs of certain domestic products, which is why there's no real consensus on whether outsourcing can positively or negatively affect the economy. I've got a small hunch that says it's negative, though (just look at NAFTA).

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Oh really? Mind explaining the robust 1.8% growth rate we had for the fourth quarter of 2005?  Or how we've had negative savings for the last 11 months?

 

http://www.diamonds.net/news/newsitem.asp?num=14659

 

Now since you probably have no clue about this, savings is GDP - consumption - government spending which is the same as investment. So, S=I, simple enough, yes? So, as Americans save less, we invest less, and thus we retard our future economic growth. Now do you understand how we're pissing it away?

 

Let's go further, and I'm ripping this right from N. Gregory Mankiw's textbook, the same person who was the chairman of President Bush's Council of Economic Advisors:

 

"Thus, one way to raise future productivity is to invest more current resources in the production of capital."

 

"Nonetheless, because capital accumulation affects productivity so clearly and directly, many economists interpret these date as showing that high investment leads to more rapid economic growth."

 

Onto your second point that tax revenues have risen since the tax cuts have been implemented, it's a shame that government spending in a non-recessionary period has vastly overshadowed any revenue that the government has collected (I believe that military expenditures in Iraq weren't even calculated in the FY budget). This is DIRECTLY CORRELATED to my previous point. When countries spend mindlessly, it directly affects society's savings rate. To be more specific, it shifts supply back which raises interest rates (which the Fed can no longer suppress) and limits loanable funds. This is no clearer than the present economic situation, and why Rick Rubin preaches that budgets need to be balanced.

 

Oddly enough, here's the forecast for the Q1 GDP: 1.64%. Pathetic. Care to explain how we're becoming more prosperous, though?

Last time I checked, the industrial sector rarely hires illegal immigrants. The agricultural sector sure, but that's much more individual than the industrial sector. As for your quip about how I should know about profit maximization, well no s***. You have to balance profit maximization with actually providing social welfare, though. As the US outsources jobs, mostly manufacturing, workers lose jobs, and in too often the case, end up finding jobs in other sectors that take time to provide training and usually pay less. This is why the median wage of the US is falling, and as more households have less earnings, they can't consume or invest as much as they did before. But of course, you'd have to trade this off with the higher costs of certain domestic products, which is why there's no real consensus on whether outsourcing can positively or negatively affect the economy. I've got a small hunch that says it's negative, though (just look at NAFTA).

 

 

Mr Economics major do you even know what the f*** you're reading?!?!?!?! Mr. Mankiw's spot on with his assessment but he's talking about capital investment in business not the individual and their savings rate. In fact the fact that the consumer is spending so much is a big reason why the economy is still growing while we wait for the next cycle of business capital investment to begin.

 

LOL!

 

Wanna laugh some more? If wages are falling as you suggest then why has personal income risen in all but 5 months since the summer of 2003? Its probably been on the rise for longer than that but I couldnt find the stats.

 

http://www.bea.gov/briefrm/dpi.htm

 

Or how about average hourly earnings? They've risen every month but a couple during Bush's presidency.

 

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutp...t_view=net_1mth

 

But I thought household earnings were falling?! OOPS Try again Mr Economics major.

 

As for GDP growth, consensus estimates for 1st quarter GDP Growth are between 4-5%. Once again those "pro business hacks" on CNBC. The 1.8% growth rate last quarter was pretty much dismissed as a blip.

 

Secondly, rising interest rates dont have nearly as much to do with the federal spending as they do with the Fed's desire to rein in economic growth and prevent inflation. When you hear Ben Bernanke mention federal spending as a major reason why the fed funds rate goes up you let me know. I wont hold my breath. But you probably think he's little more than a "pro-business hack" anyhow.

 

I also find it funny that you think businesses should be responsible for social welfare. As an economics major you of all people should know that companies are responsible to one group of people .......the shareholders..... outsourcing jobs not only drives their costs down but keeps the cost of finished goods in America low and by extension, inflation.

 

You want American workers to make TV sets and the like and make 20 bucks an hour doing so then be prepared to pay 3-4 times more for your stuff then. You do that and you'll forget about the plight of the factory worker and start complaining about how much everything costs all of a sudden.

 

I don't know where you are studying economics or how far along you are but you should probably study harder.

Edited April 14, 2006 by NUKE_CLEVELAND

[Cerbaho-WG]

Mr Economics major do you even know what the f*** you're reading?!?!?!?!  Mr. Mankiw's spot on with his assessment but he's talking about capital investment in business not the individual and their savings rate.  In fact the fact that the consumer is spending so much is a big reason why the economy is still growing while we wait for the next cycle of business capital investment to begin. 

 

Wanna laugh some more?  If wages are falling as you suggest then why has personal income risen in all but 5 months since the summer of 2003?  Its probably been on the rise for longer than that but I couldnt find the stats.

 

http://www.bea.gov/briefrm/dpi.htm

 

Or how about average hourly earnings?  They've risen every month but a couple during Bush's presidency. 

 

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutp...t_view=net_1mth

 

But I thought household earnings were falling?!  OOPS  Try again Mr Economics major.

 

As for GDP growth, consensus estimates for 1st quarter GDP Growth are between  4-5%.  Once again those "pro business hacks" on CNBC.  The 1.8% growth rate last quarter was pretty much dismissed as a blip.

 

Secondly,  rising interest rates dont have nearly as much to do with the federal spending as they do with the Fed's desire to rein in economic growth and prevent inflation.  When you hear Ben Bernanke mention federal spending as a major reason why the fed funds rate goes up you let me know.  I wont hold my breath.  But you probably think he's little more than a "pro-business hack" anyhow.

 

I also find it funny that you think businesses should be responsible for social welfare.  As an economics major you of all people should know that companies are responsible to one group of people .......the shareholders.....  outsourcing jobs not only drives their costs down but keeps the cost of finished goods in America low and by extension, inflation. 

 

You want American workers to make TV sets and the like and make 20 bucks an hour doing so then be prepared to pay 3-4 times more for your stuff then.  You do that and you'll forget about the plight of the factory worker and start complaining about how much everything costs all of a sudden. 

 

I don't know where you are studying economics or how far along you are but you should probably study harder.

 

You do understand that capital, even in Mankiw's example is represented in unbelievably broad terms? There are many facets to capital accumulation and spending, and it's not limited to merely "real" goods.

 

The problem with your interpretation of investment is that you're thinking strictly in a microeconomic sense. if I was arguing in strictly micro terms, I wouldn't even be arguing with you. But the matter of fact is that we're talking economy wide, in a macro sense. And while you say that I'm talking about personal savings, you misinterpreted me yet again. National savings, which was what I was quoting encompasses both private savings, savings from households, and public savings, the balance of the government. So to say that the savings rate has nothing to do with the interest rate, aggregate demand or GDP is flat out ignorant.

 

As for your next two links, look up the median values, never use averages. Come on, you should know better than that. The reason why you should avoid mode wages is because it doesn't take in to account the growing wealth disparity. If you're making 20 bucks, I'm making 10 bucks, and someone else is making 3 bucks, the mode is 11. Say that money is redistributed and you're making 30 bucks, me two and someone else one, you have the same mean. While this is obviously an extreme example, many labor thinktanks (most notably the EPI) have shown this is the case. I'll dig up a link tomorrow, it is 2:30 AM here.

 

I just took a gander over to CNN Money and did read that there is some projected GDP growth of 5%, but I'll have to check why my source was projecting a paltry 1.6%. I think that the estimates come out 4/28. TD Bank says 3%, but I wouldn't be surprised to see somewhere within the 3-4% range. I'd really surprised if it was 1-2% again.

 

The Fed alone doesn't peg the interest rate, and neither does fiscal policy. The Fed can manipulate the interest rate much easier than fiscal policy, but they just can't keep it at an arbitrairily low rate. I've seen a good amount of reports that interest rates are going to have to be forced up in May because of fiscal policy.

 

As for companies looking out for social welfare, look into what other countries write into their laws. I know for example that Germany's Bürgergesetzbuch states that while the main goal of a company is to maximize profit, it also has to account for other variables like environment, labor laws, etc. Remember that in the US, companies are actually considered people due to the 14th Amendment, which is a huge joke.

 

As for the ad hominem, I would expect nothing else from you, NUKE. If you want to have an intelligent discussion, shoot, but otherwise, keep getting your information from TV (you know they won't lie, ever. Ever ever.).

[Texsox]

Being the "socially conscious" lefty that you are you should be outraged that evil corporations exploit migrant labor at a fraction of the minimum wage but I guess in your frenzy to stop immigration reform you guys forgot all about that.

I dont know what it takes to get it through your thick skull that these people are violating the law by being here.  You say try thinking?  You should take your own advice.  Additionally,  I know it really burns your ass but this isin't Soviet Russia and the government has no say so as to where corporations locate their factories or how they run their businesses.  Those jobs are outsourced because the cost of labor is becomming prohibitively high, as an economics major you should know this, and to stay competitive and increase shareholder value companies must seek to lower costs.

 

First off, I am outraged and think anyone caught paying workers off the books, at any price, and should be punished harshly. No matter who the worker is. There are plenty of legal residents who are being paid cash, and not paying taxes on the money. This abuse is wrong.

 

Most of the illegals you speak about are being paid above the minimum wage, at prevailing wages for that job and location. That is supply and demand at work. They have false documentation which employers believe (some praying) shows they are permitted to work here. So get it through your thick skull that this isn't always about $2 per hour labor.

 

As far as breaking the laws, it depends on how serious you take this law. Speeding, being drunk in public, (even at a bar), are examples of laws that get ignored every day. On a moral basis, if you are starving in your own country and can find work and feed your family, isn't there a hgher moral value for the individual? Illegal immigrants, if you set aside the fact they are breaking the law just by beig here, are far more likely to be victims of crimes, and not report them, than commit a crime. They live in fear of being discovered and deported. They are taken advantage of all the time by landlords, shop keepers, employers, etc. Look at what they risk to grab a small piece of the American dream. Too bad people born here can't grab that same spirit. I've never met an illegal that thought he was entitled to anyting. I have met some residents that have.

 

As far as outsourcing Nuke, since you are in an industry that hasn't seen outsourcing except to torture individuals, perhaps you can't understand the frustration involved when the factories move overseas. Once the US discovers we can hire soldiers from other countries, who are willing to die for the US for cheaper wages, then you will see outsourcing in a different light.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

As far as breaking the laws, it depends on how serious you take this law. Speeding, being drunk in public, (even at a bar), are examples of laws that get ignored every day. On a moral basis, if you are starving in your own country and can find work and feed your family, isn't there a hgher moral value for the individual? Illegal immigrants, if you set aside the fact they are breaking the law just by beig here, are far more likely to be victims of crimes, and not report them, than commit a crime. They live in fear of being discovered and deported. They are taken advantage of all the time by landlords, shop keepers, employers, etc. Look at what they risk to grab a small piece of the American dream. Too bad people born here can't grab that same spirit. I've never met an illegal that thought he was entitled to anyting. I have met some residents that have.

 

 

Your argument that illegals are exploited plays right into my hands. If they were here legally and had documentation then they would have some legal recourse when they are the victim of a crime or taken advantage of by whoever is unscrupulous enough to do that. That's what a guest worker program would accomplish. Also I totally agree that that more Americans should display the motivation that they do. As a whole Americans are fat, lazy, stupid, and complacent. None of which are good traits to have. If immigrants want to come here and outhustle native born people and get ahead then thats fantastic but only as long as they show respect for our laws and go through proper channels.

 

As far as outsourcing Nuke, since you are in an industry that hasn't seen outsourcing except to torture individuals, perhaps you can't understand the frustration involved when the factories move overseas. Once the US discovers we can hire soldiers from other countries, who are willing to die for the US for cheaper wages, then you will see outsourcing in a different light.

 

 

Its like I told Cerb. The outsourcing situation is a question of having our cake and eating it too. If you want cheap goods then they have to be made with cheap labor or otherwise it is unprofitable for businesses to make them. If you want Americans to make certain goods then you have to pay them American wages and benefits. As a result the cost of finished goods would skyrocket and people would lose interest in the plight of the factory worker in a big hurry.

 

Fact is that our economy is changing from a manufacturing based economy to a service and technology based economy. Those who are capable of adapting and changing with it will be successful and those who can't will fall behind. Its the nature of the beast and it's been that way since our inception.

 

Bush and his advisors got trashed in the media when they said outsourcing could be a good thing but it takes someone with an understanding of how business works to see through the demagougary (sp) and make sense of the argument.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

You do understand that capital, even in Mankiw's example is represented in unbelievably broad terms? There are many facets to capital accumulation and spending, and it's not limited to merely "real" goods.

 

The problem with your interpretation of investment is that you're thinking strictly in a microeconomic sense. if I was arguing in strictly micro terms, I wouldn't even be arguing with you. But the matter of fact is that we're talking economy wide, in a macro sense. And while you say that I'm talking about personal savings, you misinterpreted me yet again. National savings, which was what I was quoting encompasses both private savings, savings from households, and public savings, the balance of the government. So to say that the savings rate has nothing to do with the interest rate, aggregate demand or GDP is flat out ignorant.

 

 

Your quote from Mr. Mankiw talked about investment's relation to productivity not GDP. Fact is that businesses cap-ex spending is one of the very few things that affect worker productivity. If you want to talk about GDP then obviously national savings is a factor.

 

 

As for your next two links, look up the median values, never use averages. Come on, you should know better than that. The reason why you should avoid mode wages is because it doesn't take in to account the growing wealth disparity. If you're making 20 bucks, I'm making 10 bucks, and someone else is making 3 bucks, the mode is 11. Say that money is redistributed and you're making 30 bucks, me two and someone else one, you have the same mean. While this is obviously an extreme example, many labor thinktanks (most notably the EPI) have shown this is the case. I'll dig up a link tomorrow, it is 2:30 AM here.

 

 

You bring up a good point about distribution within those averages but as you indicated you're going to have extremes on both ends ( the GM worker making 60 dollars an hour to press a button and the register jockey making $5.15 ) that skewer the average. Since the highest paying hourly jobs ( think the GM worker and his counterparts ) are the ones being outsourced, the mean will come down slightly. What ends up happening is that these folks take a job somewhere else making say 20 an hour, which is still above the national average. Additionally more jobs are being created in industries such as construction ( which pays pretty well especially for tradsemen ). So in summary what happens, in an expanding economy you get 2 jobs paying above the national average being filled for every one GM type job being lost. This is the best way I can explain how the mean falls while the average still rises.

 

 

I just took a gander over to CNN Money and did read that there is some projected GDP growth of 5%, but I'll have to check why my source was projecting a paltry 1.6%. I think that the estimates come out 4/28. TD Bank says 3%, but I wouldn't be surprised to see somewhere within the 3-4% range. I'd really surprised if it was 1-2% again.

 

The Fed alone doesn't peg the interest rate, and neither does fiscal policy. The Fed can manipulate the interest rate much easier than fiscal policy, but they just can't keep it at an arbitrairily low rate. I've seen a good amount of reports that interest rates are going to have to be forced up in May because of fiscal policy.

 

As for companies looking out for social welfare, look into what other countries write into their laws. I know for example that Germany's Bürgergesetzbuch states that while the main goal of a company is to maximize profit, it also has to account for other variables like environment, labor laws, etc. Remember that in the US, companies are actually considered people due to the 14th Amendment, which is a huge joke.

 

As for the ad hominem, I would expect nothing else from you, NUKE. If you want to have an intelligent discussion, shoot, but otherwise, keep getting your information from TV (you know they won't lie, ever. Ever ever.).

 

 

The fed, as you indicated, has the most control over interest rates. Fiscal policy does play a role in where interest rates go but all Greenspan and now Bernanke talk about in not only their speeches, but the Fed minutes as well, is inflationary pressures brought on by an expanding economy. That is the key driver of interest rates.

 

BTW. Before you quip about me getting everything I know from CNBC, know that Im starting my last year of a Bachelors in Business Administration. So while I do glean a lot of info from people who have forgotten more about economics in 5 minutes then both of us put together would ever know, I do have a pretty good deal of formal training in this area.

[SleepyWhiteSox]

Your argument that illegals are exploited plays right into my hands.  If they were here legally and had documentation then they would have some legal recourse when they are the victim of a crime or taken advantage of by whoever is unscrupulous enough to do that.  That's what a guest worker program would accomplish.

 

Agreed, but such an efficient guest worker program does not exist, which is why they're coming in here illegally. The current legal avenue is an f-in' joke. That's up to the government to implement instead of shoving all of the blame onto these mostly harmless people.

[Cerbaho-WG]

BTW.  Before you quip about me getting everything I know from CNBC,  know that Im starting my last year of a Bachelors in Business Administration.  So while I do glean a lot of info from people who have forgotten more about economics in 5 minutes then both of us put together would ever know, I do have a pretty good deal of formal training in this area.

 

See, I knew we could be civil!

 

As for what college I go to (if you're interested), I go to IU Bloomington.

 

Here's the econ department's website: http://www.indiana.edu/~econweb

 

I'm looking forward to having my mind blown apart by Georg von Fusternberg, a former chief for the IMF, for International Trade when I return from Germany in 07.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

See, I knew we could be civil! 

 

As for what college I go to (if you're interested), I go to IU Bloomington.

 

Here's the econ department's website: http://www.indiana.edu/~econweb

 

I'm looking forward to having my mind blown apart by Georg von Fusternberg, a former chief for the IMF, for International Trade when I return from Germany in 07.

 

 

lol

 

 

I went to UIC for 2 years before I went into the Army, since then Ive been going through U of Phoenix to work on the rest when my schedule allows me to.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Agreed, but such an efficient guest worker program does not exist, which is why they're coming in here illegally.  The current legal avenue is an f-in' joke.  That's up to the government to implement instead of shoving all of the blame onto these mostly harmless people.

 

 

Well the government is making a pretty good effort to get something in place so these people can work out in the open instead of being forced to hide. Just a matter now of hammering out the details.

[Texsox]

YAKIMA, Wash. — The United Farm Workers of America and one of the nation's largest labor recruiters have reached an unprecedented agreement to improve wages, benefits and working conditions for guest workers brought to the United States for farm work.

 

The agreement follows months of heated UFW criticism of the company, Los Angeles-based Global Horizons, over working conditions and wages for guest workers. Global Horizons is one of the nation's largest labor recruiters, bringing foreign workers to the United States under the federal H-2A guest-worker program.

 

The program allows a labor contractor to bring in foreign workers if it can prove workers can't be found locally.

 

"This is the first national agreement that we're aware of that's ever dealt with H-2A workers or guest workers in this country," Arturo Rodriguez, UFW president, said Tuesday in a telephone interview from Seattle, where the union and Global Horizons formally announced the pact.

 

"To be able to have the opportunity to provide these workers representation, we're just very excited about that," Rodriguez said.

 

Under the agreement, workers will receive a 2 percent pay raise over the federally mandated Adverse Effect Wage Rate, the minimum wage rates employers must pay under the H2-A program. The rates are established by states and are generally higher than the state and federal minimum wage. In Washington state, that rate is $9.01 per hour.

 

Wow, $9 per hour and they still have to find workers outside the US.

[southsider2k5]

In honor of today being tax day, I would like to take this opportunity to declare that I don't feel like paying taxes anymore. Yup, I'm 32, and I think I have paid into the system long enough. I'm done. Also I think that whole paying for health care thing, yeah, the government should take care of that too. Plus there are a couple of other laws that I am pretty much just sick of following... I don't think I am going to bother with those either. And in conclusion, I am waiting for my reward from all of you taxpayers for doing so...

 

Is this really what it has come down to? This whole debate is maddening. We are literally punishing people who behave legally in this country to pacify basically one race in our society. The government is ready to punish all poor people, taxpayers, and legal immigrants immensely. Don't like the USA immigration laws? Don't feel like doing the paperwork, or waiting through deadlines? Come here illegally, eventually there will be enough of you that you will get made legal again.

 

We made this same mistake 20 years ago in 1986. We rewarded 3 million plus people for breaking our laws, under the guise that this would fix the problem. Well guess what, 20 years later we are looking at 12 million people, and the "solutions" they are looking at this time still don't hold any water, and it doesn't take a genius to figure out that we are going to run into the exact same problem again in time.

 

Also I have yet to see one single politician tell me exactly how the country can afford this. We keep getting told that if we actually enforce our laws (silly thought) that wages would explode and jobs wouldn't get done. What I have yet to see anyone discuss is the fact that there is no way around the fact that this is going to cost the country more money in the long run. I know that it hasn't been said yet, but if the tax payers of the USA are broke into 5 groups based on their incomes, the bottom two brackets actually have a negative tax rate. Because of deductions, credits, and things like the earned income credit, they actually don't pay any money in taxes, in fact they make a net and gross profit off our progressive income tax system. I'm not even saying that they just get back everything they pay in during a year, they earn money. We keep getting told the people who would be ushered in as citizen through the guest worker program are by and large the working poor of the US. For the most part at least the anectoal evidence presented in the press shows that the vast overwealming majority of the new potential citizens are going to fall solidly into the lowest quartile of income earners, meaning we are not going to be adding to the income tax roles, by and large we are going to be subtracting from it!

 

Also with the US looking at millions upon millions of more working poor people to add to the country, how are we going to maintain our social welfare systems for the people who currently depend on them? There is also immencely clear common sense that saids it would be the lowest income earners who depend on things like welfare, WIC, medicare, medicade, social security, and other US government programs. So what happens to these programs when we add potentially 10 million or more people to them?

 

Quick recap, all of the sudden we have the room to have less tax money paid into the system, plus majorly expand our entitlement programs for 12 million new citizens?

 

What happened to all of the budget hawks on this subject? The same people who remind us seemingly daily about the mounting budget deficits and debt have been eeririly silent while we are looking at the biggest addition to the USAs entitlement programs in the history of the country? Most of all, why aren't the working poor of the United States being told that their very well being could be in danger because they will now have to either share their benefits with millions of more people, or without incredible budgetary increases (ie the demon deficit spending) face the potential collapse of these programs? I have seen numerous articles about the legal workers at Wal-Mart's plight because they are forced to use these programs, what is going to be said for the workers who by and large make even less than those WMT workers, and have even less benefits by and large than these poor people do now?

 

Also one more thing I haven't seen discussed to any extent yet. We keep getting told about the wage inflation that would occur if we sent back all of these workers who are willing to do the jobs that no one else will do, and doing it for less than minimum wage. When we make those very workers, citizens, they aren't going to be making less than minimum wage anymore are they? They now would have the legal standing to turn in all of those employers who are illegally subverting the US's and OSHA employment laws, so how is it exactly that we are going to avoid large wage inflation in key sectors such as food production? The answer is we are not. Only one side of the story is getting told in the media, and on here to some extent. Folks we are looking at significant wage inflation in one form or another in any sector where the prevailing wage is less than the current legal US minimum, if any action is taking place other than the status quo. There is no chance that legal citizens will pick fruit for $2 an hour today, what makes anyone believe that newly minted citizens will continue to be used illegally, when they would have the legal recourse to actually fight that wage, instead of knowing that fighting their wages would most likely earn them a ticket back to their place or origin? The answer is there is zero chance of that happening. Why is only the one side of the story being told there as well?

 

In conclusion, as usual I am disappointed in at best the laziness of the media, if not the outright one sided reporting being done on this issue. There is such a major lack of information, and as usual I am disappointed by the way this has been portrayed by our politicians as well. As usual the budget hawks are missing the boat, because there is nothing being said by them about the legitimate concerns here. Also not being said is that there has been no movement to fix they key part of the problem, and that is the fact that there are no penalites for being in the US illegally, in fact there are incentives. There is gainful employment to be found, social programs to be utilized in some states, and if you wait long enough eventually the years of illegal behavior are rewarded with citizenship.

 

Do you want to end illegal immigration today? One provision would do it. Fine companies who hire illegal labor $50,000 per illegal hire, and give some one the resources to enforce the new law. I guarentee you that the incentives to hire illegal workers under the table would quickly disappear with those kinds of finds looming overhead. We don't need bigger walls, or amensty programs, or guest worker programs, we need to remove the incentives for being in the US illegally, the biggest of which is gainful employment. If the US were to ACTUALLY address that one issue, the rest of the issues surrounding this, would quickly disappear. but as usual, the big picture of this issue is totally being missed, and I have no doubt my kid child will be wonder WTF we were doing in 1986 and 2006 by repeatly missing the boat here.

[NorthSideSox72]

SS2K5-

 

I just want to say that I agree with most of your post, and that you are not alone in your feelings on this. All the points you made were made, individually, by someone else somewhere on this board. I share many of your frustrations.

 

I would point out that there is a negative economic toll for sending trespassers back to their native countries - especially at first. But the positives that would come from an immigration policy which protects all citiziens and LEGAL aliens, including a guest worker program that would allow those jobs to be refilled at still-low wages, would far outweigh those negatives.

 

I'll end by saying that, in agreement with the theme of your post, I am tired of people here referring to illegal crossers as "immigrants". Immigrant connotates people who followed an immigration process (even a broken one) to enter this country, much like many of our ancestors have (of whom we should be proud). People who enter this country illegally are TRESPASSERS, not immigrants. They deserve no quarter and should receive none. We'll take the huddled masses, but we'll take them in some semblence of order, to protect the people already here.