The True Cost of Illegal Immigration: In Plain English
-
Oakman wrote:
The truth is that there's NO job an American won't do, if he's paid a legitimate wage to do it
The point is probably that Americans aren't willing to do the job at the given wage. And wasn't that what capitalism is about?
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
My first real C# project | Linkify!|FoldWithUs! | sighistpeterchen wrote:
The point is probably that Americans aren't willing to do the job at the given wage. And wasn't that what capitalism is about?
Well According to Henry Ford, capitalism is about making the best product for the lowest price and paying workers the highest wages, you can. On the other hand there are idiots who think that capitalism is about the few making the most regardless of the impact on society, the environment, or the country. My guess is that you sympathise with them.
Jon Information doesn't want to be free. It wants to be sixty-nine cents @ pound.
-
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:
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. The South needs illegals today to produce lettuce. No illegals means no lettuce, no tomatoes, no oranges. That's where the deal begins to us Brazilians. We can sell you the lettuce, tomatoes and oranges. Get rid of illegales and we'll make the money the farmers make.
Well here's a clue: My uncle grew cotton in the South in the 1950's. He hired American migrants at the going rate and made a nice profit. These days cotton-picking is done by machine. Don't talk to Americans about American history unless you know the facts. Here's another clue: As the cost of oil goes up, Brazil will discover that we are less and less interested in importing anything so I suggest you guys continue to cut down the rain forest, but use it now to grow corn that can be turned into fuel.
Jon Information doesn't want to be free. It wants to be sixty-nine cents @ pound.
-
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 ChestertonDiego Moita wrote:
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.
Or, increase trade barriers with slave-labor countries like yours. Tack on a tax at the border that makes foods imported from south of the border as expensive as those grown here by labor paid a living wage. Then what we'd export would not be jobs, but the concept that people should be paid fairly for their labor. We used trade to force South Africa to deal fairly with its under class; now it's time to do the same with Mexico.
Jon Information doesn't want to be free. It wants to be sixty-nine cents @ pound.
-
peterchen wrote:
The point is probably that Americans aren't willing to do the job at the given wage. And wasn't that what capitalism is about?
Well According to Henry Ford, capitalism is about making the best product for the lowest price and paying workers the highest wages, you can. On the other hand there are idiots who think that capitalism is about the few making the most regardless of the impact on society, the environment, or the country. My guess is that you sympathise with them.
Jon Information doesn't want to be free. It wants to be sixty-nine cents @ pound.
Interesting quote indeed. However, I don't know how this is going to happen if the only acceptable regulation mechanism is money. Problem is, the good guys will always lose against the bad guys, and the bad guys will come out stronger.
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
My first real C# project | Linkify!|FoldWithUs! | sighist -
Interesting quote indeed. However, I don't know how this is going to happen if the only acceptable regulation mechanism is money. Problem is, the good guys will always lose against the bad guys, and the bad guys will come out stronger.
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
My first real C# project | Linkify!|FoldWithUs! | sighistpeterchen wrote:
Problem is, the good guys will always lose against the bad guys,
I think you just re-invented Gresham's Law.
peterchen wrote:
Problem is, the good guys will always lose against the bad guys, and the bad guys will come out stronger.
It is methinks, the proper business of government to insure the safety and well-being of its citizens by making sure that the bad guys don't (always) win. Unfortunately, the U.S. seems to have followed the course of the Republic of Rome in allowing the bad guys to rewrite the election laws until they (regardless of party) are winning the elections.
Jon Information doesn't want to be free. It wants to be sixty-nine cents @ pound.
-
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. The South needs illegals today to produce lettuce. No illegals means no lettuce, no tomatoes, no oranges. That's where the deal begins to us Brazilians. We can sell you the lettuce, tomatoes and oranges. Get rid of illegales and we'll make the money the farmers make.
Well here's a clue: My uncle grew cotton in the South in the 1950's. He hired American migrants at the going rate and made a nice profit. These days cotton-picking is done by machine. Don't talk to Americans about American history unless you know the facts. Here's another clue: As the cost of oil goes up, Brazil will discover that we are less and less interested in importing anything so I suggest you guys continue to cut down the rain forest, but use it now to grow corn that can be turned into fuel.
Jon Information doesn't want to be free. It wants to be sixty-nine cents @ pound.
Oakman wrote:
Here's another clue: As the cost of oil goes up, Brazil will discover that we are less and less interested in importing anything so I suggest you guys continue to cut down the rain forest, but use it now to grow corn that can be turned into fuel.
Actually Brazil has a nice bio-fuel system and are way ahead of us in this regard. You also might want to research some before spewing forth. Clickety 1[^] Clickety 2[^] Clickety 3[^] Clickety 4[^]
This statement was never false.
-
Oakman wrote:
Here's another clue: As the cost of oil goes up, Brazil will discover that we are less and less interested in importing anything so I suggest you guys continue to cut down the rain forest, but use it now to grow corn that can be turned into fuel.
Actually Brazil has a nice bio-fuel system and are way ahead of us in this regard. You also might want to research some before spewing forth. Clickety 1[^] Clickety 2[^] Clickety 3[^] Clickety 4[^]
This statement was never false.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
Actually Brazil has a nice bio-fuel system and are way ahead of us in this regard. You also might want to research some before spewing forth.
I suppose you might infer from what I wrote that I was unaware of Brazil's attempt in developing biofuels. However, I neither said it, nor implied it, and your inference was incorrect. In the future, you might attempt to verify your assumptions before announcing them to the world.
Jon Information doesn't want to be free. It wants to be sixty-nine cents @ pound.
-
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
Actually Brazil has a nice bio-fuel system and are way ahead of us in this regard. You also might want to research some before spewing forth.
I suppose you might infer from what I wrote that I was unaware of Brazil's attempt in developing biofuels. However, I neither said it, nor implied it, and your inference was incorrect. In the future, you might attempt to verify your assumptions before announcing them to the world.
Jon Information doesn't want to be free. It wants to be sixty-nine cents @ pound.
Oakman wrote:
I suppose you might infer from what I wrote that I was unaware of Brazil's attempt in developing biofuels. However, I neither said it, nor implied it, and your inference was incorrect. In the future, you might attempt to verify your assumptions before announcing them to the world.
Here is what you said:
Oakman wrote:
Here's another clue: As the cost of oil goes up, Brazil will discover that we are less and less interested in importing anything so I suggest you guys continue to cut down the rain forest, but use it now to grow corn that can be turned into fuel.
So, why would Brazil care if we import less oil? Then you mention growing corn for fuel. Corn isn't as efficient as what they are growing for fuel so to suggest that they grow corn does imply you don't know what you're talking about. And I could give a shit about announcing assumptions. There wasn't much to assume in this case anyway. And they aren't attempting to develop biofuels, they are leading the pack. So blow some more smoke up my ass oakman.
This statement was never false.
-
Oakman wrote:
I suppose you might infer from what I wrote that I was unaware of Brazil's attempt in developing biofuels. However, I neither said it, nor implied it, and your inference was incorrect. In the future, you might attempt to verify your assumptions before announcing them to the world.
Here is what you said:
Oakman wrote:
Here's another clue: As the cost of oil goes up, Brazil will discover that we are less and less interested in importing anything so I suggest you guys continue to cut down the rain forest, but use it now to grow corn that can be turned into fuel.
So, why would Brazil care if we import less oil? Then you mention growing corn for fuel. Corn isn't as efficient as what they are growing for fuel so to suggest that they grow corn does imply you don't know what you're talking about. And I could give a shit about announcing assumptions. There wasn't much to assume in this case anyway. And they aren't attempting to develop biofuels, they are leading the pack. So blow some more smoke up my ass oakman.
This statement was never false.
You know, I could go through your post and point out the erroneous assumptions, false attributions and the overall tone better suited to other venues, but then I'd be wasting my time, wouldn't I? After all the wise man who argues with a fool is in danger of being mistaken for being another fool.
Jon Information doesn't want to be free. It wants to be sixty-nine cents @ pound.
-
You know, I could go through your post and point out the erroneous assumptions, false attributions and the overall tone better suited to other venues, but then I'd be wasting my time, wouldn't I? After all the wise man who argues with a fool is in danger of being mistaken for being another fool.
Jon Information doesn't want to be free. It wants to be sixty-nine cents @ pound.
Yep. Smells like smoke.
This statement was never false.