Mexican government = hypocrites.

[southsider2k5]

As I've been saying for weeks and just a couple posts ago,

 

US - highly skilled workforce, low unemployment, no desire for manual labor.

Mexico - unskilled workforce, high unemployment, strong desire to improve life for themselves and their children

 

Mexicans help themselves by finding work. They use this helping hand to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and create a better life for themselves and their children. With legal status, which comes after a careful screening and time in this country, they do not have to remain a permanent underclass. Wow, and it benefits both countries. Immigration levels are set by US employment needs. After systems are in place, illegals receive a lifetime ban, first time is a quick trip home, second time involves jail, third strike and welcome to a federal prison. Employers are heavily fined for employing undocumented workers or employing workers off the books.

 

The world is now 24/7. Kids aren't mowing the local office complex, they aren't bussing tables at noon, and they aren't picking crops from Florida to Maine.

 

You think the agriculture industry can supports itself on high school kids? Or some high school kids walks up to Allstate Insurance and asks if he can mow the lawn? These aren't part time jobs. Immigrants have been taking these jobs for many decades. Remember Reagan and amnesty? We are just now waking up and seeing what is going on. Nice high school memories, but they aren't accurate of the total job market. I'm for traditional American values, like any good conservative. Not the liberal new fangled, Americans can do these jobs, solution you propose

 

So your solution is millions of high school kids start taking these jobs? I belive mine is better for America.

 

Does it really benefit the US long term though? My answer would be probably not.

 

#1 this is another form of coroporate welfare. The mantra goes something like "the illegals are working jobs American's don't want to work", while leaving out the economic trueism "at an artificially low wage" Of course no one wants to pick fruit for $3 an hour, but would they do it for $7 an hour? Would they do it for minimum wage plus health insurance? Take construction, which is another huge field of work for illegals. Typically someone will need a project done, so they take the pick up down to the gathering spot, pick how many people they need for the job, and take them back to the job site. Also they typically pay much less than their appropriate union group would allow their workers to be paid, and with no benefits, as we are talking about cash under the table labor, which is just dropped back off when the job is done. In the process they circumvent pretty much 230 years of American labor history in the process. People died to get 40 hour work weeks, minimum wage, safe workplaces etc, and all it takes is a virtual slave class that you are basically endorsing to emerge to make all of that worthless. I am not much of a fan of unions, but they have a purpose.

 

As for the not wanting our kids to work certian jobs, I say too bad. Who wanted to be a garbage man when they were little? Who wanted to work in the sewers? I would venture to guess pretty much no one... but guess what, these industries were forced to pay high wages to attract people to otherwise undesirable positions of employment. It is economic fact that if no one wants to work a certian job, its because the wage is too low for what is being asked. If the wages are made to conform to real supply and demand eventually there will be American fruit pickers, housecleaners, and day laborers.

 

#2 our social services in the US are spread thin enough, does anyone really think the Social Security system for example, could take on another 12 million people? Could the government (ie you and me) afford health insurance for another 12 million people, who most likely have minimal to no health care prior to their arrival here, simply judging by if they were well taken care of they wouldn't have needed to risk their lives to get to the US in the first place. If the literacy rate you mentioned of 60% is true, we aren't talking about wage earns who are going to pay more into the system than they take out anyway.

 

#3 As citizens, don't think for a second we are looking at the status quo for these employees. They will be able to demand better working conditions, fair wages, in addition to social services, and that all costs money. The only alternative to that is to continue the porus border program of importing just ever cheaper labor, which to be honest looks like it will probably happen anyway, as I have yet to be convinced that any suggestions are either tough enough, or will be properly enforced.

[Soxy]

Now, pray tell, where in the world did the American citizens get the idea that they were entitled to this or entitled to that? Where did this entitlement mentality come from? I wonder .... hmmmm.

From being wealthy and knowing that there will always be a lower class to do your dirty work?

[Texsox]

Reader's Digest Version:

 

#1 paragraph 1, Agree 100%

#1 paragraph 2, Disagree. This is not the American dream of better lives for our children. It condems our education system and with our low unemployment rate, pulling people from more desirable careers would cause more immigration of those jobs or outsourcing overseas. Remember, our unemployment rate is very low.

#2 Doesn't matter who is working those jobs, the benefits will remain the same. So why don't we raise everyone's minimum wage so they can contribute in taxes? Let's do it now. We have many millions more than just these workers. No matter the literacy rate, fruit pickers, unless we raise minimum wage, will never generate a positive tax flow to the government. That is the cost of living in a first world country.

 

#3 Conditions would need to improve far better when second and longer generation Americans are working these jobs. Which is why my plan to tie immigration to jobs makes the most sense. A willing work force is better. How long will you stay at a job for the money? Most everyone here who has the opportunity (sorry Nuke) has made a job change in the past couple years, or come close. Why? For working conditions, and other job satisfaction issues, not always money. We should improve the working conditions, which by the way, are already much better than in previous generations. I am proud of your Ceasar Chavez like position. Again, controlled, legal immigration is the answer. Not raising wages until our children will take the jobs or a pourous border.

 

Further fod for thought.

 

This is about the least desirable jobs in America and the people to work them. Physical labor is hard work, very demanding. No parent wants their child to grow up to pick oranges, mow lawns, or process chickens. This is especially true if the children have been educated in US schools. For many decades, especailly since WW2, immigrants have done this work as a toe hold into America. The dream is their children stand on their shoulders and make a better life for themselves. During that time our economy has become the largest in the world.

 

Our unemployment rate is very low, controlled, legal immigration just makes sense. Trying to entice people to work these jobs, just doesn't make sense. Why pound a square peg in a round hole? Why tell Americans that after 12 years of a US education, you should be picking fruit? Have you abandoned the American education system? Are you telling parents to abondon the thought of a better life for their kids? Should we hear a parent say I know I am an accountant son, but you will just have to pick fruit? Is that what America will become? What about the American dream of a better life for our children? Why replace a willing workforce with one that has to be enticed?

 

Someone would be working those jobs. The government benefits would be paid to whomever was working those jobs. Of course if we pay people above the poverty line, that would be a mute point, but the GOP is against any hikes in minimum wage.

 

No, the problem is this; we allowed uncontrolled immigration. Controlled immigration, tied to jobs, is the best path for America. It is best for our economy, it is best for our close ally.

[EvilMonkey]

No parent wants their child to grow up to pick oranges, mow lawns, or process chickens.

 

Why tell Americans that after 12 years of a US education, you should be picking fruit? Have you abandoned the American education system? Are you telling parents to abondon the thought of a better life for their kids? Should we hear a parent say I know I am an accountant son, but you will just have to pick fruit? Is that what America will become? What about the American dream of a better life for our children? Why replace a willing workforce with one that has to be enticed?

TEx, you seem to be forgetting the sizeable American population that didn't finish high school and has no marketable skills other than hard labor. At least according to Newsweek, dropouts are an epedemic, growing each year. No matter how much the parents of those kids wants their children to be doctors or accountants, it isn't gonna happen. Why should they not at least be happy that their kids are working, and not being a burden on society? America will be a better place when the people who have no skills stop being too 'proud' or 'spoiled' to pick fruit, wash dishes or process chickens.

[southsider2k5]

Reader's Digest Version:

 

#1 paragraph 1, Agree 100%

#1 paragraph 2, Disagree. This is not the American dream of better lives for our children. It condems our education system and with our low unemployment rate, pulling people from more desirable careers would cause more immigration of those jobs or outsourcing overseas. Remember, our unemployment rate is very low.

#2 Doesn't matter who is working those jobs, the benefits will remain the same. So why don't we raise everyone's minimum wage so they can contribute in taxes? Let's do it now. We have many millions more than just these workers. No matter the literacy rate, fruit pickers, unless we raise minimum wage, will never generate a positive tax flow to the government. That is the cost of living in a first world country.

 

#3 Conditions would need to improve far better when second and longer generation Americans are working these jobs. Which is why my plan to tie immigration to jobs makes the most sense. A willing work force is better. How long will you stay at a job for the money? Most everyone here who has the opportunity (sorry Nuke) has made a job change in the past couple years, or come close. Why? For working conditions, and other job satisfaction issues, not always money. We should improve the working conditions, which by the way, are already much better than in previous generations. I am proud of your Ceasar Chavez like position. Again, controlled, legal immigration is the answer. Not raising wages until our children will take the jobs or a pourous border.

 

Further fod for thought.

 

This is about the least desirable jobs in America and the people to work them. Physical labor is hard work, very demanding. No parent wants their child to grow up to pick oranges, mow lawns, or process chickens. This is especially true if the children have been educated in US schools. For many decades, especailly since WW2, immigrants have done this work as a toe hold into America. The dream is their children stand on their shoulders and make a better life for themselves. During that time our economy has become the largest in the world.

 

Our unemployment rate is very low, controlled, legal immigration just makes sense. Trying to entice people to work these jobs, just doesn't make sense. Why pound a square peg in a round hole? Why tell Americans that after 12 years of a US education, you should be picking fruit? Have you abandoned the American education system? Are you telling parents to abondon the thought of a better life for their kids? Should we hear a parent say I know I am an accountant son, but you will just have to pick fruit? Is that what America will become? What about the American dream of a better life for our children? Why replace a willing workforce with one that has to be enticed?

 

Someone would be working those jobs. The government benefits would be paid to whomever was working those jobs. Of course if we pay people above the poverty line, that would be a mute point, but the GOP is against any hikes in minimum wage.

 

No, the problem is this; we allowed uncontrolled immigration. Controlled immigration, tied to jobs, is the best path for America. It is best for our economy, it is best for our close ally.

 

Remember, the US still has its own share of high school dropouts. We aren't talking about taking college graduates and putting them into day labor. There are those who are underemployed and would be willing to trade up to higher paying jobs. There are plenty of people working at Wal-Mart for $7 an hour, who might consider manuel labor if it paid $15 an hour, but can't since people are working illegally for $5. Its not just an "UN"employment thing, there is also the "under"employment aspect of things. People get past working in certian professions when the pay is right. Taking someones job doesn't necesarily mean that person is unemployed instead of having that particular job. Remember the employment rate consists of anyone who has worked at least one hour in the previous week, and doesn't include the underemployed, those who don't want to be working where they are, and the chroncially unemployed (ie longer than 6 months).

 

You are also reading too far into my writings. I am still not advocating any change in the minimum wage. I am advocating that the system determine what is a fair wage for an occupation.

[Texsox]

TEx, you seem to be forgetting the sizeable American population that didn't finish high school and has no marketable skills other than hard labor. At least according to Newsweek, dropouts are an epedemic, growing each year. No matter how much the parents of those kids wants their children to be doctors or accountants, it isn't gonna happen. Why should they not at least be happy that their kids are working, and not being a burden on society? America will be a better place when the people who have no skills stop being too 'proud' or 'spoiled' to pick fruit, wash dishes or process chickens.

 

Excellent points, both you and SS.

 

But I believe they are working, based on our unemployment numbers. There will never be 0% unemployment, you have people between jobs, incapable of working, etc. It is my belief we are employing them, plus immigrants. And immigrants are working at all levels of our economy. We are just talking about manual labor here, why are we also importing so many professionals as well? Wouldn't we be better served if we focused on why we need to import so many Doctors, computer programmers, etc.?

 

As far as underemployment, since these are the most undesirable of jobs, wouldn't placing existing citizens into these jobs increase the underemployment numbers?

 

Do y'all believe there are enough workers to support our growing economy and, if not, at what end of the skill rainbow should we be using immigrants? With historically low unemployment and increasing unemployment, I believe we should be focusing Americans on higher skill and more desirable jobs and allowing immigrants to fill those less desirable jobs as an entre into this country. Not coming over as highly paid machinists, health care workers, and other professionals.

 

We have placed systems for professionals H1B Visa's etc. Why not place a system for lower skilled labor?

 

If unemplyment was hovering in the double digits, I would have a much different opinion. I see an economy that is growing jobs faster than we can make babies to fill those jobs. When that happens allow immigration to push everyone up.

[YASNY]

From being wealthy and knowing that there will always be a lower class to do your dirty work?

 

Of course. That must be it.

[Texsox]

Of course. That must be it.

 

I'm guessing you have an alternate theory, please share? I think you are angling different than what I was thinking. Are you talking about entitled to free speech, warrents before search and seizure, police protection, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, perhaps an education, a better life for your children, a free press, an honest government, the right to guns, etc? Perhaps entitled to not starve on the streets, to have some help with room and board?

 

One thing I remember from a long time ago, we could have an America that the least amongst us pay for. Poor roads, fewer police, intermittent water, missing road signs, etc. Or we could live in the America that some cannot contribute their full share. Somewhere down the line, we chose an America that the poorest could not afford. If we divided up equally the cost of running our government, the poorest couldn't afford it and the wealthiest would have even greater wealth. So do you want to live in a Five Star Country, or what the poor could provide?

[mr_genius]

He should be on the side of respecting both side's needs, and respecting the laws of that nation.

 

 

haha

 

so now you think the laws of the nation should be respected? changed your mind, huh.

[Texsox]

haha

 

so now you think the laws of the nation should be respected? changed your mind, huh.

 

And I think our laws should benefit us, which would be a controlled immigration policy.

[mr_genius]

And I think our laws should benefit us, which would be a controlled immigration policy.

 

 

texsox, you're such an idiot.