The True Cost of Illegal Immigration: In Plain English
-
This seems like a fairly even handed analysis (I'm not an expert, so I can't verify any of this).
-
This seems like a fairly even handed analysis (I'm not an expert, so I can't verify any of this).
It seems fair enough, except, perhaps, for reiterating the base canard that there are jobs that Americans won't do. The truth is that there's NO job an American won't do, if he's paid a legitimate wage to do it. Since most Agribiz corporations (there aren't farmers any more) don't want to pay a legitimate price for stoop labor, they hire illegals who work for less than minimum, work more hours than they are paid for and forget to wash their hands after taking a dump. Ceasar Chavez regarded illegal migrants are the biggest threat there was to the Farmworker's Union. He was right. The union is no longer relevant, Americans (of Hispanic descent) are on the dole, and apples are a little bit cheaper, but the CEOs are far richer.
Jon Information doesn't want to be free. It wants to be sixty-nine cents @ pound.
-
This seems like a fairly even handed analysis (I'm not an expert, so I can't verify any of this).
Edmundisme wrote:
The True Cost of Illegal Immigration: In Plain English
I tried to compile it, but it keeps complaining that it doesn't understand the colon. :(
Ðavid Wulff What kind of music should programmers listen to?
Join the Code Project Last.fm group | dwulff
I'm so gangsta I eat cereal without the milk -
Edmundisme wrote:
The True Cost of Illegal Immigration: In Plain English
I tried to compile it, but it keeps complaining that it doesn't understand the colon. :(
Ðavid Wulff What kind of music should programmers listen to?
Join the Code Project Last.fm group | dwulff
I'm so gangsta I eat cereal without the milkYou're not supposed to understand the colon. At the most, you wipe one end of it. ;P
-- Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
-
This seems like a fairly even handed analysis (I'm not an expert, so I can't verify any of this).
It goes along the lines of what I already suspected. Since it seems I am the only one around here not bashing the illegales I think I need to make my point of view clear in this case (so all you WASPS can bash me better, at least). Here are my beliefs: 1 Any country that doesn't protect his borders doesn't deserve even to be a country. Protecting their borders is the primary reason of countries to exist. Therefore, yes, the US should protect its borders and control the influx of immigrants. But stop being obsessed by nosotros crossing the Rio Grande. Almost 60% of illegales that enter the US come in airports, with regular visitor visas and just stay. All the 6 illegales I personally know did it this way. And controlling these people will be probably harder than making a big fence. Also, in the long run you will probably also need a bigger fence up north. And, boy, that would have to be a really big fence. Moral of this history: controlling the entry will be way much harder than you think. 2 It may help if you control the stay, by constraining people from hiring or hosting the illegales. Maybe, but keep in mind that Canada and Europe have tougher legislation controlling the hiring of illegal immigrants and the problem also exists there. Moral of this other history: the problem is here to stay; you might avoid it of becoming too big but it will always be around. 3 You just can't throw them away, back into Mexico (although the majority doesn't come from there). It is simple like in you can't. Last time I checked there were estimated 10 million illegal immigrants in the US. I don't know if you noticed this obscure detail but 10 million people is just as big as 10 million people. You can't hunt 10 million people and throw them into Mexico. Period. 4 Actually, we Brazilians have some good reasons to want you Americans to be tough on immigration. Illegal Brazilians in US are relatively few. But the most interesting thing you get from Edmundine's link[^] in the first post of this thread. You'll read: Slightly less than half of America’s farm workers are in this country illegally, according to the U.S. Department of Labor. In fact, last year more than a billi
-
It goes along the lines of what I already suspected. Since it seems I am the only one around here not bashing the illegales I think I need to make my point of view clear in this case (so all you WASPS can bash me better, at least). Here are my beliefs: 1 Any country that doesn't protect his borders doesn't deserve even to be a country. Protecting their borders is the primary reason of countries to exist. Therefore, yes, the US should protect its borders and control the influx of immigrants. But stop being obsessed by nosotros crossing the Rio Grande. Almost 60% of illegales that enter the US come in airports, with regular visitor visas and just stay. All the 6 illegales I personally know did it this way. And controlling these people will be probably harder than making a big fence. Also, in the long run you will probably also need a bigger fence up north. And, boy, that would have to be a really big fence. Moral of this history: controlling the entry will be way much harder than you think. 2 It may help if you control the stay, by constraining people from hiring or hosting the illegales. Maybe, but keep in mind that Canada and Europe have tougher legislation controlling the hiring of illegal immigrants and the problem also exists there. Moral of this other history: the problem is here to stay; you might avoid it of becoming too big but it will always be around. 3 You just can't throw them away, back into Mexico (although the majority doesn't come from there). It is simple like in you can't. Last time I checked there were estimated 10 million illegal immigrants in the US. I don't know if you noticed this obscure detail but 10 million people is just as big as 10 million people. You can't hunt 10 million people and throw them into Mexico. Period. 4 Actually, we Brazilians have some good reasons to want you Americans to be tough on immigration. Illegal Brazilians in US are relatively few. But the most interesting thing you get from Edmundine's link[^] in the first post of this thread. You'll read: Slightly less than half of America’s farm workers are in this country illegally, according to the U.S. Department of Labor. In fact, last year more than a billi
Diego Moita wrote:
Also, in the long run you will probably also need a bigger fence up north.
From the north?
"The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Whoever can supply them with illusions is easily their master; whoever attempts to destroy their illusions is always their victim." -Gustave Le Bon
-
Diego Moita wrote:
Also, in the long run you will probably also need a bigger fence up north.
From the north?
"The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Whoever can supply them with illusions is easily their master; whoever attempts to destroy their illusions is always their victim." -Gustave Le Bon
Along the Canadian border. If illegals can't come in through south they'll come in through North. And I not talking just about latinos. It would be mostly for Asians.
'My country, right or wrong' is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober.'
GK Chesterton -
Along the Canadian border. If illegals can't come in through south they'll come in through North. And I not talking just about latinos. It would be mostly for Asians.
'My country, right or wrong' is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober.'
GK ChestertonDiego Moita wrote:
Along the Canadian border. If illegals can't come in through south they'll come in through North. And I not talking just about latinos. It would be mostly for Asians.
Being Canadian, I would have to disagree with that. Canada allows a considerable amount of legal immigration. I don't think that Mexicans are swimming up the coast only to "invade" the U.S. from the North! And Asians also have to get into Canada first which means paying the price of an airline or boat ticket to Canada BEFORE trying to cross the Canadian-American border. It's not as easy to cross from the North as it is to simply come up from Mexico. Land routes are much easier. There's only a small trickle coming from the North compared to those that come from the U.S. - Mexico border.
"The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Whoever can supply them with illusions is easily their master; whoever attempts to destroy their illusions is always their victim." -Gustave Le Bon
-
It goes along the lines of what I already suspected. Since it seems I am the only one around here not bashing the illegales I think I need to make my point of view clear in this case (so all you WASPS can bash me better, at least). Here are my beliefs: 1 Any country that doesn't protect his borders doesn't deserve even to be a country. Protecting their borders is the primary reason of countries to exist. Therefore, yes, the US should protect its borders and control the influx of immigrants. But stop being obsessed by nosotros crossing the Rio Grande. Almost 60% of illegales that enter the US come in airports, with regular visitor visas and just stay. All the 6 illegales I personally know did it this way. And controlling these people will be probably harder than making a big fence. Also, in the long run you will probably also need a bigger fence up north. And, boy, that would have to be a really big fence. Moral of this history: controlling the entry will be way much harder than you think. 2 It may help if you control the stay, by constraining people from hiring or hosting the illegales. Maybe, but keep in mind that Canada and Europe have tougher legislation controlling the hiring of illegal immigrants and the problem also exists there. Moral of this other history: the problem is here to stay; you might avoid it of becoming too big but it will always be around. 3 You just can't throw them away, back into Mexico (although the majority doesn't come from there). It is simple like in you can't. Last time I checked there were estimated 10 million illegal immigrants in the US. I don't know if you noticed this obscure detail but 10 million people is just as big as 10 million people. You can't hunt 10 million people and throw them into Mexico. Period. 4 Actually, we Brazilians have some good reasons to want you Americans to be tough on immigration. Illegal Brazilians in US are relatively few. But the most interesting thing you get from Edmundine's link[^] in the first post of this thread. You'll read: Slightly less than half of America’s farm workers are in this country illegally, according to the U.S. Department of Labor. In fact, last year more than a billi
Looks like the legal Mexican migrants aren't too happy with this crummy plan either[[^<
Diego Moita wrote:
Without illegals, farming in the US would come close to collapse. It is arithmetically impossible to pay a "decent/fair/acceptable" American wage for cropping lettuces and still be able to sell that lettuce in the supermarket. The South needed slaves to produce cotton back in 1870.
/a>] Wrong. they'd be forced to automate in order to be competitive, just like the very cotton farmers you mentioned (the South still grows a lot of cotton -without slaves). Cheap illegal labor is just helping maintain an artificially low price and preventing progress. Legal migration in sufficient numbers to do the harvesting will drive costs up because big agri-business will be forced to abide by minimum wage and tax laws, making the table fairer to smaller farmers at the same time.
-
Looks like the legal Mexican migrants aren't too happy with this crummy plan either[[^<
Diego Moita wrote:
Without illegals, farming in the US would come close to collapse. It is arithmetically impossible to pay a "decent/fair/acceptable" American wage for cropping lettuces and still be able to sell that lettuce in the supermarket. The South needed slaves to produce cotton back in 1870.
/a>] Wrong. they'd be forced to automate in order to be competitive, just like the very cotton farmers you mentioned (the South still grows a lot of cotton -without slaves). Cheap illegal labor is just helping maintain an artificially low price and preventing progress. Legal migration in sufficient numbers to do the harvesting will drive costs up because big agri-business will be forced to abide by minimum wage and tax laws, making the table fairer to smaller farmers at the same time.
It is like yelling into a monsoon.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
Diego Moita wrote:
Along the Canadian border. If illegals can't come in through south they'll come in through North. And I not talking just about latinos. It would be mostly for Asians.
Being Canadian, I would have to disagree with that. Canada allows a considerable amount of legal immigration. I don't think that Mexicans are swimming up the coast only to "invade" the U.S. from the North! And Asians also have to get into Canada first which means paying the price of an airline or boat ticket to Canada BEFORE trying to cross the Canadian-American border. It's not as easy to cross from the North as it is to simply come up from Mexico. Land routes are much easier. There's only a small trickle coming from the North compared to those that come from the U.S. - Mexico border.
"The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Whoever can supply them with illusions is easily their master; whoever attempts to destroy their illusions is always their victim." -Gustave Le Bon
73Zeppelin wrote:
Canada allows a considerable amount of legal immigration. I don't think that Mexicans are swimming up the coast only to "invade" the U.S. from the North!
As Jack The Ripper would say: "Let's take this into parts." Canada, US, Europe, Japan and Australia need and receive lots of legal immigrants. The problem in Europe, US and to a lesser scale Canada is illegal immigrants. Earlier this year Harper sent a bunch of illegal Portuguese immigrants back home, remember? If you're still in doubt take a look in Toronto's area construction industry. Illegal immigration is a smaller problem but exists in Canada too. I also can't imagine Mexicans swimming up North to go South. They have an easier path, after all. But close the US southern border and wait for transportation to become a little easier and you'll see lots of Asians arriving to BC. The Mediterranean doesn't stop Africans and mid-Easterners into Europe. The Caribbean doesn't stop Cubans and Dominicans into Florida. This shows that sea is not as easy as land but it is not an obstacle and is getting easier. What really makes Canada have comparatively fewer illegal immigrants is that they don't have support of already established communities and the Canadian laws for hiring are more restrictive (your Social Security Number is mandatory for almost everything).
'My country, right or wrong' is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober.'
GK Chesterton -
Looks like the legal Mexican migrants aren't too happy with this crummy plan either[[^<
Diego Moita wrote:
Without illegals, farming in the US would come close to collapse. It is arithmetically impossible to pay a "decent/fair/acceptable" American wage for cropping lettuces and still be able to sell that lettuce in the supermarket. The South needed slaves to produce cotton back in 1870.
/a>] Wrong. they'd be forced to automate in order to be competitive, just like the very cotton farmers you mentioned (the South still grows a lot of cotton -without slaves). Cheap illegal labor is just helping maintain an artificially low price and preventing progress. Legal migration in sufficient numbers to do the harvesting will drive costs up because big agri-business will be forced to abide by minimum wage and tax laws, making the table fairer to smaller farmers at the same time.
Rob Graham wrote:
Looks like the legal Mexican migrants aren't too happy with this crummy plan
Fair enough. It's impossible to please everyone in politics.
Rob Graham wrote:
Wrong. they'd be forced to automate in order to be competitive, just like the very cotton farmers you mentioned (the South still grows a lot of cotton -without slaves).
Wrong, wrong, wrong. After the Civil War and emancipation the economic situation of black workers changed very little. They worked in return of a small part of profits. It was only in 1950's with the so called green-revolution in agriculture that mechanization really changed the whole thing. Check the most obvious source.[^]. Will Americans wait several decades for the same thing to happen again? Don't think so.
Rob Graham wrote:
Legal migration in sufficient numbers to do the harvesting will drive costs up because big agri-business will be forced to abide by minimum wage and tax laws, making the table fairer to smaller farmers at the same time.
Yeah, sure... If this, if that, if then maybe perhaps,... Again I refer to the link Edmundine's provided[^]: "Another rarely discussed consideration is the fact that illegal immigrants often fill jobs that would otherwise be outsourced. For example, without immigrants filling the ranks of the U.S. garment industry, Americans would undoubtedly be importing even more clothing and textiles from countries like China, further widening the already chasmal trade deficit." Putting it simply: you either import cheap workers or export jobs. For my country this would be a very good deal, actually.
'My country, right or wrong' is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober.'
GK Chesterton -
It is like yelling into a monsoon.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
It is like yelling into a monsoon.
Nice metaphor. But what are you yelling? Arguments?
'My country, right or wrong' is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober.'
GK Chesterton -
Rob Graham wrote:
Looks like the legal Mexican migrants aren't too happy with this crummy plan
Fair enough. It's impossible to please everyone in politics.
Rob Graham wrote:
Wrong. they'd be forced to automate in order to be competitive, just like the very cotton farmers you mentioned (the South still grows a lot of cotton -without slaves).
Wrong, wrong, wrong. After the Civil War and emancipation the economic situation of black workers changed very little. They worked in return of a small part of profits. It was only in 1950's with the so called green-revolution in agriculture that mechanization really changed the whole thing. Check the most obvious source.[^]. Will Americans wait several decades for the same thing to happen again? Don't think so.
Rob Graham wrote:
Legal migration in sufficient numbers to do the harvesting will drive costs up because big agri-business will be forced to abide by minimum wage and tax laws, making the table fairer to smaller farmers at the same time.
Yeah, sure... If this, if that, if then maybe perhaps,... Again I refer to the link Edmundine's provided[^]: "Another rarely discussed consideration is the fact that illegal immigrants often fill jobs that would otherwise be outsourced. For example, without immigrants filling the ranks of the U.S. garment industry, Americans would undoubtedly be importing even more clothing and textiles from countries like China, further widening the already chasmal trade deficit." Putting it simply: you either import cheap workers or export jobs. For my country this would be a very good deal, actually.
'My country, right or wrong' is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober.'
GK ChestertonIt is easy to tell that your knowledge of US history was acquired from leftist propaganda.
Diego Moita wrote:
After the Civil War and emancipation the economic situation of black workers changed very little.
It changed very little for every one in the south, white or black. My father's own family were migrant farm workers and share croppers in Texas and Oklahoma in the 20's and 30's as were a very large percentage of other whites. The need for Mexican farm workers may or may not be critical, but if it is, it could be easily solved by a system of guest labor where the farmers are responsible for getting the workers back and forth from the border. You bring 'em in, you take 'em back. Curretnly wheat harvestors (who live in the Dakotas) do something very similar in reverse every year with combines and other heavy equipment on the great plains. They drive south to Texas, and move northward as the wheat harvest ripens (these people are primarily Germans who migrated here,legally, in the 1890s) Very few Americans have any problem at all with a well regulated system of labor from latin America to supply labor where none can be had from our own population. And frankly, I feel having hard working Latinos available puts a little fire under many of our own underclasses that are currenly non-motivated. But the numbers that are being discusssed are just too large to be absorbed without radically altering our society. Especially coming in with an attitude that is simply going to swell the ranks of the far left elements of our political system. We will become a one party, socialistic, form of government. Not to mention the strains putting that many low income people into our welfare, and social security, system will cause. (Although, causeing it to collapse entirely might well be a good thing)
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
It is like yelling into a monsoon.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Yup. And to someone hearing about it third hand at best. Amazing arrogance that they actually believe they understand our problem better than we do.
-
It is easy to tell that your knowledge of US history was acquired from leftist propaganda.
Diego Moita wrote:
After the Civil War and emancipation the economic situation of black workers changed very little.
It changed very little for every one in the south, white or black. My father's own family were migrant farm workers and share croppers in Texas and Oklahoma in the 20's and 30's as were a very large percentage of other whites. The need for Mexican farm workers may or may not be critical, but if it is, it could be easily solved by a system of guest labor where the farmers are responsible for getting the workers back and forth from the border. You bring 'em in, you take 'em back. Curretnly wheat harvestors (who live in the Dakotas) do something very similar in reverse every year with combines and other heavy equipment on the great plains. They drive south to Texas, and move northward as the wheat harvest ripens (these people are primarily Germans who migrated here,legally, in the 1890s) Very few Americans have any problem at all with a well regulated system of labor from latin America to supply labor where none can be had from our own population. And frankly, I feel having hard working Latinos available puts a little fire under many of our own underclasses that are currenly non-motivated. But the numbers that are being discusssed are just too large to be absorbed without radically altering our society. Especially coming in with an attitude that is simply going to swell the ranks of the far left elements of our political system. We will become a one party, socialistic, form of government. Not to mention the strains putting that many low income people into our welfare, and social security, system will cause. (Although, causeing it to collapse entirely might well be a good thing)
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
The need for Mexican farm workers may or may not be critical, but if it is, it could be easily solved by a system of guest labor where the farmers are responsible for getting the workers back and forth from the border. You bring 'em in, you take 'em back.
There is something important missing in our debate. After the green-revolution in the 1950's and 1960's there are 2 distinct kinds of agriculture. In one side you have capital-intensive agriculture (e.g.:wheat, soy, corn, cotton, sugar cane, barley). Seeding, caring, cropping and handling is done with big machines. In the other side you have labor intensive agriculture (lettuce, tomatoes, strawberries, peppers, broccoli, most fruits). For them, most of work has to be manual. Yes I know there are lots in the middle, like coffee and potatoes, but let's make it simpler please. It is relatively easy to migrate lots of machines. It is not easy to migrate lots of workers. A combine can harvest the same as hundreds of workers and requires far less maintenance and care. That's why your system works. I've declared my suggestion here many times before: remove farm subsidies and trade barriers and outsource the second kind of farming into the 3rd world. Part of your illegal immigrants would remain at their countries to do the work there.
'My country, right or wrong' is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober.'
GK Chesterton -
Yup. And to someone hearing about it third hand at best. Amazing arrogance that they actually believe they understand our problem better than we do.
Rob Graham wrote:
Amazing arrogance that they actually believe they understand our problem better than we do.
Yes, I'm being arrogant. And I don't have any problem with that.
'My country, right or wrong' is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober.'
GK Chesterton -
It is easy to tell that your knowledge of US history was acquired from leftist propaganda.
Diego Moita wrote:
After the Civil War and emancipation the economic situation of black workers changed very little.
It changed very little for every one in the south, white or black. My father's own family were migrant farm workers and share croppers in Texas and Oklahoma in the 20's and 30's as were a very large percentage of other whites. The need for Mexican farm workers may or may not be critical, but if it is, it could be easily solved by a system of guest labor where the farmers are responsible for getting the workers back and forth from the border. You bring 'em in, you take 'em back. Curretnly wheat harvestors (who live in the Dakotas) do something very similar in reverse every year with combines and other heavy equipment on the great plains. They drive south to Texas, and move northward as the wheat harvest ripens (these people are primarily Germans who migrated here,legally, in the 1890s) Very few Americans have any problem at all with a well regulated system of labor from latin America to supply labor where none can be had from our own population. And frankly, I feel having hard working Latinos available puts a little fire under many of our own underclasses that are currenly non-motivated. But the numbers that are being discusssed are just too large to be absorbed without radically altering our society. Especially coming in with an attitude that is simply going to swell the ranks of the far left elements of our political system. We will become a one party, socialistic, form of government. Not to mention the strains putting that many low income people into our welfare, and social security, system will cause. (Although, causeing it to collapse entirely might well be a good thing)
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
But the numbers that are being discusssed are just too large to be absorbed without radically altering our society. Especially coming in with an attitude that is simply going to swell the ranks of the far left elements of our political system. We will become a one party, socialistic, form of government.
you can't even be on the correct side of an argument without making it sound bad. What a loser. For those of us that really don't want this measure passed, please PLEASE don't argue on our side.
led mike
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
But the numbers that are being discusssed are just too large to be absorbed without radically altering our society. Especially coming in with an attitude that is simply going to swell the ranks of the far left elements of our political system. We will become a one party, socialistic, form of government.
you can't even be on the correct side of an argument without making it sound bad. What a loser. For those of us that really don't want this measure passed, please PLEASE don't argue on our side.
led mike
led mike wrote:
For those of us that really don't want this measure passed, please PLEASE don't argue on our side.
That would be kind of difficult since I don't even know what 'your side' is. You seem to be opposed to it, but given the sentiments you usually post, it would seem to be something you would generally favor. At least I can articulate why I think its bad. I realize any opinion that incorporates the least modicrum of pride and social concern from a white westerner (especially an American) for their culture is pure evil to you, but I think I'll keep right on doing it anyway. We are going to become something more hispanic than anglo, I think that is bad, and I intend to say so. Its called 'free speech'.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
The need for Mexican farm workers may or may not be critical, but if it is, it could be easily solved by a system of guest labor where the farmers are responsible for getting the workers back and forth from the border. You bring 'em in, you take 'em back.
There is something important missing in our debate. After the green-revolution in the 1950's and 1960's there are 2 distinct kinds of agriculture. In one side you have capital-intensive agriculture (e.g.:wheat, soy, corn, cotton, sugar cane, barley). Seeding, caring, cropping and handling is done with big machines. In the other side you have labor intensive agriculture (lettuce, tomatoes, strawberries, peppers, broccoli, most fruits). For them, most of work has to be manual. Yes I know there are lots in the middle, like coffee and potatoes, but let's make it simpler please. It is relatively easy to migrate lots of machines. It is not easy to migrate lots of workers. A combine can harvest the same as hundreds of workers and requires far less maintenance and care. That's why your system works. I've declared my suggestion here many times before: remove farm subsidies and trade barriers and outsource the second kind of farming into the 3rd world. Part of your illegal immigrants would remain at their countries to do the work there.
'My country, right or wrong' is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober.'
GK ChestertonI don't think it would be at all complex to bus farm workers northward to follow the harvest, and back southwards when finished. Hell, an enterprising entreprenuer could probably make a fortune doing it. There is actually quite a bit of labor that goes along for the wheat harvets, and buses seem to work just fine for them.
Diego Moita wrote:
remove farm subsidies and trade barriers and outsource the second kind of farming into the 3rd world. Part of your illegal immigrants would remain at their countries to do the work there.
I certainly agree that thre should be an immediate international abandonmnet of farm subsidies. Its a bad deal all the way around. Not all "truck farm" operatons can be outsourced though. Certainly it is possible these days to truck and ship many parishables over long international routes, but typically the closer to home they are grown, the better the quality.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about