Colbert! Congress!

[Checkmite]

Magic! Also, Colbert is funny!

The jokes of his that I saw from the Congressional hearing testimony were pretty flat.

 

[WildCat]

The proposed bill is a step towards eliminating the category of "illegals" all together.

If you take away the means of abuse, threat of deportation, the labor cannot be extorted to the same degree. Putting everyone in the system, giving everyone access to legal protection, and in the best case, a union, will immediately improve conditions for all workers as such things have done throughout history.

THe only difference between the way migrant workers were treated during the depression and the current crop is the issue of citizenship. Laws were put in place to end that abuse, that immediately improved conditions for workers, now the same laws just need to be extended to a new class.

OK, suppose you "eliminat[e] the category of 'illegals' all together". Now the supply of farm labor increases exponentially, far exceeding growth in farm jobs.

I know of no mechanism where this fact results in upward movement of wages, benefits, and working conditions. For every immigrant demanding to be paid $15/hr, there will be dozens willing to work for minimum wage and no benefits, because it's better than they can do in Mexico, Honduras, etc. Who do you think will be hired?

Do you have any examples from anywhere whereby a great increase in the supply of labor (or widgets, or minerals, or any other commodity) somehow results in higher prices?

You keep ignoring this, the central pillar my entire point rests upon: so long as there is a large supply of immigrant labor available for hire with little or no legal consequences, wages, benefits, and working conditions for farm workers will never improve.

What is Step 2?

Step 1. Increase supply of labor, with no coresponding increase in number of jobs
Step 2. ???
Step 3. Higher wages and benefits, better working conditions!

 

[WildCat]

Oops, forgot about this, bold emphasis mine:

Putting everyone in the system, giving everyone access to legal protection, and in the best case, a union, will immediately improve conditions for all workers as such things have done throughout history.

So tell me, how are things working out for those UFW members? Are they making middle-class wages, with good benefits and safe working conditions?

Because last I heard, the head of the UFW was actually publicizing his unions complete inability to achieve any of those things...

 

[WildCat]

Don't take that tone with me. I worked with these folk. I'm just trying to be honest and realistic; you're trying to score points by being a prick. I don't appreciate it.

I'm taking that tone with you because you advocate policies which can only hurt the very people you claim to have so much empathy for. Maybe you can answer the same question I posed to TraneWreck above?

What is Step 2?

Step 1. Increase supply of labor, with no corresponding increase in number of jobs
Step 2. ???
Step 3. Higher wages and benefits, better working conditions!

 

[OMGturt1es]

I'm taking that tone with you because you advocate policies which can only hurt the very people you claim to have so much empathy for.

What are you talking about? I didn't even advocate any policies. I don't even know what policy I could advocate. I'm pretty sure I even went as far as to write:

I don't have any magic solutions.

Maybe you can answer the same question I posed to TraneWreck above?

I can't offer you any answers. I don't have any. I can offer you data-- which I did-- that seem to indicate that the world isn't as simple as you seem to think. I can try to describe reality-- which I have-- because we need to fully understand reality if we want to fix it.

What is Step 2?

Step 1. Increase supply of labor, with no corresponding increase in number of jobs
Step 2. ???
Step 3. Higher wages and benefits, better working conditions!

I posted data that seem to indicate that our ag market already has a difficult time competing with others. Exports seem to be decreasing. Imports seem to be increasing. These data seem to support general anecdotes that farmers offered from time to time. They seem consistent with the low profits associated with much of ag. If my assessment is accurate, migrant farmer supply ultimately has little control on wages.

And my assessment could be wrong. I'm human. I'm prone to error. I'm well beyond my area of expertise-- if I have any. But given that you don't seem to have a grasp on international ag trade, or the effort required to raise even highly mechanized crops, it seems you're even further beyond your area of expertise. But that's fine. You may still have some insight. So offer it. But don't put words in my mouth. Don't reduce complex problems to simple South Park analogies. It just wastes time.

 

[Augustine]

Because it's the right thing to do.

In your time on these forums, have you ever noticed that “people who have crappy arguments” tend to make “unsupported assertions”?

While it may be enormously reassuring psychologically to tell yourself that your particular position on any issue is “the right thing to do”, it's not particularly persuasive as an argument for your position. In fact, it's condescending, arrogant, and dismissive - especially when people who may share your larger political philosophy happen to disagree with you for very real, and very logical, reasons - as is the case with over 40% of self-identified progressives and liberals.

If you have a rational case to make for amnesty, then make it. However, a majority of Americans disagree with you, and simply telling them "it's the right thing to do" is not a very convincing argument. ("Crappy", perhaps?)

I'd like some citations for those numbers before I assent to the premise.

Pick whatever source you'd like.


"IRCA Legalization Effects: Lawful Permanent Residence and Naturalization through 2001" found that, of the SAW workers who wound up getting naturalized, around 3% of workers stayed in agriculture. Aggregate for agricultural workers including the pre-1982 workers was around 10%. (This was only of workers who were naturalized.)
Princeton's New Immigrant Survey (2003) found that over 70% of "crossers" working in agricultural jobs had left the agricultural field by the time of their LPR interview. Overall, 74% of crossers had changed job fields by the time of their LPR interview. By contrast, legal immigrants stayed in their original jobs over 60% of the time. (Legal immigrants, BTW, are also the ones more likely to be "asked to come here". Illegal immigrants, comedian insights aside, are not "asked to come here", but come of their own volition.)
Maybe you should simply look at Department of Labor statistics for native-born, legal immigrant, and illegal immigrant agricultural workers as a percent of workforce in the years following the passage of ICRA. If all those workers stayed in agricultural jobs, why did the illegal immigrant population continue to grow following its passage?

If you simply take exception to the phrase "virtually all", then propose an alternate phrasing: "most", "a majority", pick your poison.

You're making massive assumptions about how this would play out. Once granted amnesty, they'll all quit their jobs? That would force employers to increase the quality of their compensation in order to keep people employed.

This is why one time amnesty hits don't really do the trick. Employers will just grab workers from a pool that hasn't been given citizenship and start the extortion all over again.

Well, it seems that we agree that the Agjobs bill will be ineffective as currently written. Glad to know that we both oppose it.

Employers do not have to increase the quality of their compensation. Illegals granted amnesty do not quit en masse; they simply move on to the other low-skilled jobs in the U.S. and other illegal immigrants take the jobs previously held by the group that was granted amnesty.

The most important step, before citizenship, is to provide a means for workers in the US, regardless of their status, to challenge poor treatment without the threat of deportation. They're here working, they're paying payroll and sales taxes, they shouldn't be mistreated.

You seem to be operating under the misperception that illegal immigrants are mistreated because they can be threatened with deportation. This is not the case. They are mistreated and exploited because they are poor, uneducated, illiterate even in their native tongue, and have poor English language skills. This will not change, even with open borders and universal unlimited immigration. In fact, it is more likely to get worse, as the influx of poor, uneducated, illiterate, non-English speakers will increase with your proposal. Amnesty is not a magical panacea, and solves nothing. If anything, it increases problems.

These are not real fears. They're fearmongering to terrify people about immigration absent any actual facts.

I don't think you understand the confidentiality clause or what the concerns are. Simply throwing out accusations of "fearmongering" rather than understanding the concerns and seeking to address them or assuage them is insulting. (Not to mention "crappy" as an argument.)

Only if there continues to be an available population with no protection to use.

Just like the components of health care couldn't be split apart because of their interdependence, wages and conditions won't improve as long as there's an available population for exploitation.

The current legal immigration policies are a mess. They're absurd, as anyone who has tried to go through them can attest. They need to be improved. Enforcing failed policies is not a good idea.

As for securing the borders, the only real issue with the border has to do with drugs. None of the violence in Mexico has spilled over into the United States, so border security is just a matter of America's continued horrible drug policies. End the ability to exploit migrant labor and the only problem with the border, that Mexicans coming across receive horrible treatment, is solved.

As mentioned previously, amnesty and open borders do nothing to solve the real causes of exploitation and horrible treatment. They bring across a larger group of exploitable workers: poor, uneducated, illiterate, with poor English-language skills. They ensure poor wages and working conditions for agricultural workers. They depress wages for other low-skilled jobs in the U.S. as these workers move into them. They increase unemployment among U.S. native-born low-skilled workers who have the highest unemployment already.

So current immigration laws are a mess? So the conclusion is we simply give up, and do away with them altogether? (The quickness to surrender, give up and quit in the face of difficulty seems to be a common trait in you.) Unfortunately, recent polls (Quinnipiac, September 2010 National Poll) showed some 50% of Democrats favored stricter enforcement of laws. (68% of the population as a whole) You will need to raise the quality of your arguments if you expect to change any minds.

 

[Augustine]

Perhaps you mean circular argument? If so, you don't understand what a circular argument is.

If you can't even get this concept, why should I take anything you say seriously?

Circular statement:

The rights they are denied are by definition all rights denied to non-United States citizens.

Since you enjoy satire, may I recommend Moliere's Le Malade imaginaire? Your response to my question of what rights illegal immigrants are denied was reminiscent of Argan's response during his "examination".

If you can't elucidate the rights that illegal immigrants are denied, why should I take your assertion that they are denied rights seriously?

 

[Augustine]

Obviously you don't understand the legislative process. See, your poll, which you didn't cite, is about presidential candidates, while it's senators and congressmen who make the laws. That's why they're called the legislative branch.

Citation needed.

Obviously, you don't understand the poll, as I was citing two separate questions intended to show the level of opposition to amnesty, even among self-identified progressives and liberals. (Pulse Opinion Research, 2009, BTW.)

See response to Tranewreck. Provide alternate citations if you disagree or take issue, or provide alternate language. That's what it takes to sit at the adult table.

 

[TraneWreck]

In your time on these forums, have you ever noticed that “people who have crappy arguments” tend to make “unsupported assertions”?

[...]

If you have a rational case to make for amnesty, then make it. However, a majority of Americans disagree with you, and simply telling them "it's the right thing to do" is not a very convincing argument. ("Crappy", perhaps?)

You asked why a politician would take a course of action that wasn't popular with the public. Public opinion is a terrible way to determine substantive issues. They would tell us evolution wasn't true, the Earth isn't warming, Iraq was the best idea ever, then a few years later, Iraq was the worst idea ever...etc.

Here was your question:

"Given this level of opposition within their own base, why would Democrats continue with bills focused towards amnesty?"

You didn't offer a substantive question, so I didn't give substantive reply. Just because something isn't popular doesn't mean it isn't the right thing to do. No matter how unpopular the health care bill was, is, or will be, it's still good that kids can't be denied coverage for preexisting conditions.

Pick whatever source you'd like.

"IRCA Legalization Effects: Lawful Permanent Residence and Naturalization through 2001" found that, of the SAW workers who wound up getting naturalized, around 3% of workers stayed in agriculture. Aggregate for agricultural workers including the pre-1982 workers was around 10%. (This was only of workers who were naturalized.)
Princeton's New Immigrant Survey (2003) found that over 70% of "crossers" working in agricultural jobs had left the agricultural field by the time of their LPR interview. Overall, 74% of crossers had changed job fields by the time of their LPR interview. By contrast, legal immigrants stayed in their original jobs over 60% of the time. (Legal immigrants, BTW, are also the ones more likely to be "asked to come here". Illegal immigrants, comedian insights aside, are not "asked to come here", but come of their own volition.)
Maybe you should simply look at Department of Labor statistics for native-born, legal immigrant, and illegal immigrant agricultural workers as a percent of workforce in the years following the passage of ICRA. If all those workers stayed in agricultural jobs, why did the illegal immigrant population continue to grow following its passage?

About 350,000 SAW workers were given a path to citizenship through the Reagan era amnesty program.

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/us...nnel=b328194d3e88d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCRD

That's out of a total of around 3 million. 1.7 million through general amnesty, and about 1.3 million through special programs for agricultural workers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Reform_and_Control_Act_of_1986

So first of all, that's not a very representative group, even in the subset of agricultural workers.

That being said, even if that statistic remains true throughout the total population, I don't understand why this would be negative. It shows that once legal status is earned, they're able to seek other means of employment. Most people who work at McDonald's in their teens move on to other professions. Should we consider this a problem?


Furthermore, these are largely seasonal workers. They leave their jobs constantly when harvesting or planting ends. It's a massively mobile labor force, so 70% moving on to other things isn't surprising. Even if they're just shuttling between different unskilled labor positions, there's obviously a reason why they're leaving agriculture. They have a choice. Seems fine to me.

The point is to ensure that whoever works those jobs, they're given basic protections. Obviously new people will be moving in, but is not an argument against a better legal structure to secure the rights of those workers.

If you simply take exception to the phrase "virtually all", then propose an alternate phrasing: "most", "a majority", pick your poison.

I didn't "take exception" to anything, I asked you to cite your claim. Only the paranoid would view that as an attack or criticism.

Well, it seems that we agree that the Agjobs bill will be ineffective as currently written. Glad to know that we both oppose it.

Employers do not have to increase the quality of their compensation. Illegals granted amnesty do not quit en masse; they simply move on to the other low-skilled jobs in the U.S. and other illegal immigrants take the jobs previously held by the group that was granted amnesty.

You're arguing that if employers offered better compensation, or just better working conditions, they wouldn't be able to retain those workers? Why do they leave? ***** and giggles?

The AgJobs bill has a lot of very good, very necessary components. Just because it doesn't solve ALL problems doesn't mean it can't solve some.

Unskilled labor positions will always have a great deal of flux, and you've pointed out the primary means by which employers continue to extort more labor for less pay even after amnesty: there's always a new pool of illegal workers. That's why the protections can't move with individuals, they have to be extended to anyone who will end up working in such a position.

That's probably too strong to pass in the current political climate (when the economy goes bad, immigrants become the scape goat), so the AgJobs bill is a mild improvement instead of a cure-all---and even that has no political viability.

You seem to be operating under the misperception that illegal immigrants are mistreated because they can be threatened with deportation. This is not the case. They are mistreated and exploited because they are poor, uneducated, illiterate even in their native tongue, and have poor English language skills. This will not change, even with open borders and universal unlimited immigration. In fact, it is more likely to get worse, as the influx of poor, uneducated, illiterate, non-English speakers will increase with your proposal. Amnesty is not a magical panacea, and solves nothing. If anything, it increases problems.

What problem does it increase?

Illegal immigrants will not report poor treatment on the job, or in general, because making themselves known in the legal system will likely lead to deportation. They have to choose between enduring abusive employers or facing threat of being kicked out of the country.

Maybe some problems will persist once that threat is eliminated, but a proposed course of action doesn't need to solve all problems to solve some.

I don't think you understand the confidentiality clause or what the concerns are. Simply throwing out accusations of "fearmongering" rather than understanding the concerns and seeking to address them or assuage them is insulting. (Not to mention "crappy" as an argument.)

You said, "Given national security concerns and illegal immigration concerns, do you see why the confidentiality clause is troubling for many?"

Again, this is fear mongering. The confidentiality clause is tailored to protect workers from enforcement of immigration laws in specific circumstances. I can only imagine what scenario you fear, but this wouldn't forestall criminal investigations or other inquiries necessary to national security. It's simply a means of allowing migrant workers to have access to legal protection without the threat of deportation.

Just like "death panels," it's a phrase that lizard brains will be attracted to so they can thoughtlessly fear a rational bit of legislation. It's not an actual problem.

As mentioned previously, amnesty and open borders do nothing to solve the real causes of exploitation and horrible treatment. They bring across a larger group of exploitable workers: poor, uneducated, illiterate, with poor English-language skills. They ensure poor wages and working conditions for agricultural workers. They depress wages for other low-skilled jobs in the U.S. as these workers move into them. They increase unemployment among U.S. native-born low-skilled workers who have the highest unemployment already.

That's just not true. The policy choices might not solve ALL problems, but they do solve quite a few. You're just using aimless, exaggerated language.

One of the ways in which wages become depressed is that there is no means for an illegal immigrant to challenge that cheap pay. They take it or some other illegal will. Eliminating the means by which labor can be extorted so cheaply will counter that effect.

Right now, what can an illegal do if an employer stiffs them?

So current immigration laws are a mess? So the conclusion is we simply give up, and do away with them altogether? (The quickness to surrender, give up and quit in the face of difficulty seems to be a common trait in you.)

Haha, what? Opposing stricter enforcement of failed policies="giving up?"

Hystrionics.

And what do you mean by "them?" There are an awful lot of immigration laws. Some work, some don't, but the overall system is a mess. It fails miserably for highly skilled, highly educated immigrants, it fails miserably for unskilled, uneducated immigrants.

It's in need of an overhaul. Doubling down on stuff that doesn't work is a terrible idea.

Unfortunately, recent polls (Quinnipiac, September 2010 National Poll) showed some 50% of Democrats favored stricter enforcement of laws. (68% of the population as a whole) You will need to raise the quality of your arguments if you expect to change any minds.

So what? I'm willing to bet that only about 10% of the people who answered that poll even understand what that would entail. Who is going to say, "No, I want our laws to be lax and unenforced?" How many of them can even name a single immigration law?

More Americans think Jesus is coming back before 2050 than think evolution is true:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/darwin-birthday-believe-evolution.aspx

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress...-be-here-soon/whyevolutionistrue-wordpress-4/

Maybe polling Americans isn't the best way to decide whether something is a good idea or not.

 

[TraneWreck]

OK, suppose you "eliminat[e] the category of 'illegals' all together". Now the supply of farm labor increases exponentially, far exceeding growth in farm jobs.

I know of no mechanism where this fact results in upward movement of wages, benefits, and working conditions. For every immigrant demanding to be paid $15/hr, there will be dozens willing to work for minimum wage and no benefits, because it's better than they can do in Mexico, Honduras, etc. Who do you think will be hired?

That's why a great deal of the enforcement needs to be directed at employers.

Do you have any examples from anywhere whereby a great increase in the supply of labor (or widgets, or minerals, or any other commodity) somehow results in higher prices?

There would be no net increase in the amount of laborers, just a change in the laws surrounding their employment.

You keep ignoring this, the central pillar my entire point rests upon: so long as there is a large supply of immigrant labor available for hire with little or no legal consequences, wages, benefits, and working conditions for farm workers will never improve.

Yes, I agree 100%. That's why I would like to see a change in the consequences, wages, benefits, and working conditions. In the least, providing a means to address grievances without the threat of deportation would lead to a great deal more reporting of abuses.

What is Step 2?

Step 1. Increase supply of labor, with no coresponding increase in number of jobs
Step 2. ???
Step 3. Higher wages and benefits, better working conditions!

I still don't understand why you think there will be more laborers. Maybe I don't understand your argument. I suppose there might be some number of Mexicans willing to work on American farms who aren't making the trip over simply because it's illegal, but given the number already coming over, how big of a population can that be?

 

[Augustine]

You didn't offer a substantive question, so I didn't give substantive reply. Just because something isn't popular doesn't mean it isn't the right thing to do.

Do you have a substantive reply to justify amnesty? Do you have a substantive reply as to why amnesty is the "right thing to do" or is it simply an unsupported assertion. Just because you feel something is the "right thing to do" doesn't mean that it is.

About 350,000 SAW workers were given a path to citizenship through the Reagan era amnesty program.

That's out of a total of around 3 million. 1.7 million through general amnesty, and about 1.3 million through special programs for agricultural workers.

So first of all, that's not a very representative group, even in the subset of agricultural workers.

You are mixing your terms. 350,000 was the Group I SAWs. 1.3 million was all the SAWs. The 1.7 million was the "pre-1982" group. The 1.3 million SAWs plus some subset of the pre-1982 group are the agricultural workers granted amnesty under IRCA.

That being said, even if that statistic remains true throughout the total population, I don't understand why this would be negative. It shows that once legal status is earned, they're able to seek other means of employment. Most people who work at McDonald's in their teens move on to other professions. Should we consider this a problem?

Don't be dense. People who work in McDonald's as teens move on because they have more education to occupy higher skilled jobs. They are not simply displacing other low-skill workers from other low-skill professions. I don't understand why you think bringing in more low-skill workers in will make things better when unemployment for low-skill workers is already the highest for any group. Nor have you addressed how to resolve this, other than to somehow think wages magically rise.

The point is to ensure that whoever works those jobs, they're given basic protections. Obviously new people will be moving in, but is not an argument against a better legal structure to secure the rights of those workers.

What rights do illegal immigrants not have as workers that legal immigrants have? You are aware that their rights are already secured, right?

I didn't "take exception" to anything, I asked you to cite your claim.

Ok, so you don't take exception to the claim, then you "assent to the premise"? May we conclude that my "premise" may be taken as "given that"?

You're arguing that if employers offered better compensation, or just better working conditions, they wouldn't be able to retain those workers? Why do they leave? ***** and giggles?

Don't be fatuous. There is not a labor shortage, there is a labor surplus. Employers don't need to retain those workers; there are more poor and low-skilled workers willing to take their jobs. The workers leave because they are willing to work for less than other low-skilled workers in other low-skill jobs. This trend simply displaces the low-skill workers who are not willing (or can't) work for the wages the other group can. This group will tend to be native-born, poor, uneducated, low-skilled workers.

What problem does it increase?

Illegal immigrants will not report poor treatment on the job, or in general, because making themselves known in the legal system will likely lead to deportation. They have to choose between enduring abusive employers or facing threat of being kicked out of the country.

Maybe some problems will persist once that threat is eliminated, but a proposed course of action doesn't need to solve all problems to solve some.

You are increasing your labor supply. You are increasing it with the lowest-wage laborers. You are increasing it with the poorest, least educated, least-skilled, least literate, and least English-speaking population. You don't see how all your problems of "exploitation" just got worse? Like I said, you operate under the misperception that illegal immigrants are mistreated because they are able to be threatened with deportation. This is not the case. They are exploited because of all the other qualities which I have repeated several times.

Again, this is fear mongering. The confidentiality clause is tailored to protect workers from enforcement of immigration laws in specific circumstances. I can only imagine what scenario you fear, but this wouldn't forestall criminal investigations or other inquiries necessary to national security. It's simply a means of allowing migrant workers to have access to legal protection without the threat of deportation.

Wrong. The confidentiality clause prohibits the use of any information provided in the course of the application for anything other than evaluating the application. It cannot be shared with other agencies. You do not understand the confidentiality clause as proposed.

That's just not true. The policy choices might not solve ALL problems, but they do solve quite a few. You're just using aimless, exaggerated language.

One of the ways in which wages become depressed is that there is no means for an illegal immigrant to challenge that cheap pay. They take it or some other illegal will. Eliminating the means by which labor can be extorted so cheaply will counter that effect.

What is aimless and exaggerated about the following:

As mentioned previously, amnesty and open borders do nothing to solve the real causes of exploitation and horrible treatment. They bring across a larger group of exploitable workers: poor, uneducated, illiterate, with poor English-language skills. They ensure poor wages and working conditions for agricultural workers. They depress wages for other low-skilled jobs in the U.S. as these workers move into them. They increase unemployment among U.S. native-born low-skilled workers who have the highest unemployment already.

You do realize that you have provided nothing to counter the point that their labor will continue to be cheap because they are poor, uneducated, low-skilled, illiterate, and have poor English-language skills, right? What magical mechanism provides higher wages? Nothing.

You also realize that under current law and federal policy, illegal immigrants can file complaints against their employers without fear of deportation? You knew that right?

Opposing stricter enforcement of failed policies="giving up?"

Hystrionics.

What proof do you have that the policies have failed? Because they weren't enforced?

Do you mean histrionics? What immigration laws do you propose to keep?

It's in need of an overhaul. Doubling down on stuff that doesn't work is a terrible idea.

Agreed. Amnesty didn't work before, why would it work now?

Maybe polling Americans isn't the best way to decide whether something is a good idea or not.

If the American public disagrees with something even after the case has been made for it, why is it still a "good idea"? Who defines "good idea"? Tranewreck?

 

[WildCat]

What are you talking about? I didn't even advocate any policies. I don't even know what policy I could advocate. I'm pretty sure I even went as far as to write:

This thread was about Colbert using farm workers as a reason for relaxing immigration policy. I assumed you were agreeing with him.

I can't offer you any answers. I don't have any. I can offer you data-- which I did-- that seem to indicate that the world isn't as simple as you seem to think. I can try to describe reality-- which I have-- because we need to fully understand reality if we want to fix it.

I posted data that seem to indicate that our ag market already has a difficult time competing with others. Exports seem to be decreasing. Imports seem to be increasing. These data seem to support general anecdotes that farmers offered from time to time. They seem consistent with the low profits associated with much of ag. If my assessment is accurate, migrant farmer supply ultimately has little control on wages.

I don't see how your data supports your conclusion that "migrant farmer supply ultimately has little control on wages" (assuming that by "control" you really mean "influence"). If so, it would be the first free market item ever where supply and demand has no influence on price.

And my assessment could be wrong. I'm human. I'm prone to error. I'm well beyond my area of expertise-- if I have any. But given that you don't seem to have a grasp on international ag trade, or the effort required to raise even highly mechanized crops, it seems you're even further beyond your area of expertise. But that's fine. You may still have some insight. So offer it. But don't put words in my mouth. Don't reduce complex problems to simple South Park analogies. It just wastes time.

I understand all those things, I'm just having difficulty seeing why your using them in a discussion about farm labor and immigration policy? It appears you're arguing that we have to keep a permanent underclass of impoverished farm workers in order to grow fruits and vegetables. I coudn't disagree more.

 

[Augustine]

The AgJobs bill has a lot of very good, very necessary components. Just because it doesn't solve ALL problems doesn't mean it can't solve some.

What components of the AgJobs bill are the good ones? Which components of the AgJobs bill are the necessary ones? Which problems does the AgJobs bill solve?

 

[WildCat]

That's why a great deal of the enforcement needs to be directed at employers.

Enforcement of what? In your scenario, if I'm not mistaken, anyone who wanted to come to the US to work would be allowed to do so. Otherwise, how do you "eliminate the category of illegal altogether"?

There would be no net increase in the amount of laborers, just a change in the laws surrounding their employment.

Still not following you. Once again, what did you mean by "eliminate the category of illegal altogether"?

Yes, I agree 100%. That's why I would like to see a change in the consequences, wages, benefits, and working conditions. In the least, providing a means to address grievances without the threat of deportation would lead to a great deal more reporting of abuses.

How does that work? They're not obligated to pay more than minimum wage, and also minimum standards on working conditions. IIRC, minimum wage for migrant workers is even lower than regular minimum wage (to pay for the "housing" I suppose). Most of them would have nothing to complain about from a legal standpoint. I have no doubt there's some employers who break the rules (beyond the one about hiring illegal workers), but I doubt they're more than a small percentage.

I still don't understand why you think there will be more laborers. Maybe I don't understand your argument. I suppose there might be some number of Mexicans willing to work on American farms who aren't making the trip over simply because it's illegal, but given the number already coming over, how big of a population can that be?

Once again, what did you mean by "eliminate the category of illegal altogether"? Because to me it sounded like open borders, anyone who wants to work here can. And there would ba a lot more coming if they could just walk across the border, rather than pay a coyote $1,500 to lead them on a long walk through the desert they may or may not survive.

 

[TraneWreck]

Do you have a substantive reply to justify amnesty? Do you have a substantive reply as to why amnesty is the "right thing to do" or is it simply an unsupported assertion. Just because you feel something is the "right thing to do" doesn't mean that it is.

Again, you asked why someone would support a law despite a lack of popularity. I answered that question. You then shifted into a different argument.

Don't be dense. People who work in McDonald's as teens move on because they have more education to occupy higher skilled jobs. They are not simply displacing other low-skill workers from other low-skill professions. I don't understand why you think bringing in more low-skill workers in will make things better when unemployment for low-skill workers is already the highest for any group. Nor have you addressed how to resolve this, other than to somehow think wages magically rise.

Which is why I specifically addressed people moving between different unskilled employment poitions.

The workers are coming whether or not this program exists. The goal of the program is to provide legal protection for those that do come.

What rights do illegal immigrants not have as workers that legal immigrants have? You are aware that their rights are already secured, right?

The right to challenge breach of contract or any violation of employment laws in the court system. Technically someone can't be deported for so doing, but they don't get a lifetime of immunity. They have now announced to our system that they're illegal, meaning that any time they get a speeding ticket or otherwise interact with our bureaucracy, their status is known. This is a MASSIVE disincentive to ever challenge mistreatment, which is why it happens so infrequently.

And once again, just because the law says something on the books, that doesn't mean it works that way in reality. African Americans won the right to vote in 1865. It took a century for them to actually be able to vote in the South.

Illegal immigrants do not have similar employment rights to legal Americans and they're afraid to enforce the rights they do have through the courts.

Ok, so you don't take exception to the claim, then you "assent to the premise"? May we conclude that my "premise" may be taken as "given that"?

Sure, the vast majority of agricultural workers don't spend their whole lives in that profession.

Don't be fatuous. There is not a labor shortage, there is a labor surplus. Employers don't need to retain those workers; there are more poor and low-skilled workers willing to take their jobs. The workers leave because they are willing to work for less than other low-skilled workers in other low-skill jobs. This trend simply displaces the low-skill workers who are not willing (or can't) work for the wages the other group can. This group will tend to be native-born, poor, uneducated, low-skilled workers.

Where did I say there was a shortage?

If someone is working for crappy wages in a bad situation and they leave for a different position, unless that move is compelled, there's clearly something about the new position that they prefer.

As for the standards, one way to ensure that native workers cannot be undercut like that is to enforce labor standards for all workers. Employers have a strong icentive to use illegal labor because they can pay them almost nothing and generally yank them around without fear of being reported. Eliminate the ability to extort labor hours and native workers may look more attractive.

You are increasing your labor supply. You are increasing it with the lowest-wage laborers. You are increasing it with the poorest, least educated, least-skilled, least literate, and least English-speaking population. You don't see how all your problems of "exploitation" just got worse? Like I said, you operate under the misperception that illegal immigrants are mistreated because they are able to be threatened with deportation. This is not the case. They are exploited because of all the other qualities which I have repeated several times.

There are already millions of illegal workers over here. Providing a means for those workers to move into the system doesn't radically alter the number of workers, it alters the condition of their employment.

Wrong. The confidentiality clause prohibits the use of any information provided in the course of the application for anything other than evaluating the application. It cannot be shared with other agencies. You do not understand the confidentiality clause as proposed.

You said nothing there. What information would you be looking for? A criminal record already makes people ineligible for the program, so absent that, what do you think will be discovered through a job application that would affect national security?

Additionally, if someone's name does come up pursuant to a criminal investigation, that procedure is separate from the employment application and won't be bound by the same constraints.

This is a means by which currently illegal workers can be brought into the system. If an application will result in deportation, why would any of them enroll?

What is aimless and exaggerated about the following:

"amnesty and open borders do nothing to solve the real causes of exploitation and horrible treatment"

The bolded part.

You do realize that you have provided nothing to counter the point that their labor will continue to be cheap because they are poor, uneducated, low-skilled, illiterate, and have poor English-language skills, right? What magical mechanism provides higher wages? Nothing.

Wages are only one aspect of improving conditions. You're battling a straw man here. Obviously migrant agriculture jobs are not going to be high paying. It's a matter of ending abuse and affording enough wages and benefits to provide a minimum standard of living.

You also realize that under current law and federal policy, illegal immigrants can file complaints against their employers without fear of deportation? You knew that right?

I guess African Americans had no trouble voting in Alabama in 1922. Facilities were also of equal quality for whites and blacks because that's what the law said.

Man, why did I waste all that time in law school? Who knew it was that easy?

What proof do you have that the policies have failed? Because they weren't enforced?

What are the goals of immigration policy? Keep illegals out? How's that going?

Provide a reasonable process for someone to become a citizen? Ask anyone who's gone through that lately to tell you how well that works.

I don't know which specific policies you're talking about, so it's hard for me to comment.

Agreed. Amnesty didn't work before, why would it work now?

Alone? Probably wouldn't.

If the American public disagrees with something even after the case has been made for it, why is it still a "good idea"? Who defines "good idea"? Tranewreck?

Reality.

Look, maybe you're adopting this position ad hoc, but there's no possible way you actually believe that.

The case has been made for evolution, why do fewer than 2 out of 5 Americans think its right?

Public opinion is mercurial and rarely based on solid factual reasoning. We live in a represenative republic, not a direct democracy, and things that were initially very unpopular often become hugely popular once people have seen them work (social security and medicaid, for example).

Should we all just agree global warming is a myth and do nothing about it because of poll numbers?

 

[INRM]

What is most interesting about this video is the reaction to Congress around 5:05 to 5:20 in response to Stephen Colbert telling them that he trusts that they will work together in the best interests of the American public. The fact that they exploded into laughter is sort of an admission that they do not operate in the best interest of the American public.

 

[OMGturt1es]

This thread was about Colbert using farm workers as a reason for relaxing immigration policy. I assumed you were agreeing with him.

I don't support any proposed solutions because I either don't understand the problem well enough to understand how the solutions would work, or because the solutions won't work.

I don't see how your data supports your conclusion that "migrant farmer supply ultimately has little control on wages" (assuming that by "control" you really mean "influence"). If so, it would be the first free market item ever where supply and demand has no influence on price.

The impact of worker supply is not infinite. Competition creates a ceiling. Suppose Mexico can provide olives for $1.00 a jar. If our price greatly exceeds $1.00 a jar, consumers will not purchase our olives. We will lose. The price at which we lose is our ceiling. Our total costs need to be under that ceiling.

Exports are decreasing. Imports are increasing. With current costs, we are losing. It appears to me that we're pretty close to our ceiling. It appears our markets have little ability to absorb increased costs. Migrant workers are neither a solution for nor cause of our current problems; they're a symptom. If the market were healthy, we wouldn't need migrant workers.

I understand all those things, I'm just having difficulty seeing why your using them in a discussion about farm labor and immigration policy? It appears you're arguing that we have to keep a permanent underclass of impoverished farm workers in order to grow fruits and vegetables. I coudn't disagree more.

Ok, let's try this again. I HAVE NO SOLUTIONS. Stop putting words in my mouth. It's incredibly disrespectful and it's a waste of my time. And yours.

My understanding is that working conditions cannot increase significantly because profits are insufficient. I worked in my family's orchards. We did all our work ourselves to save costs. We could not afford migrant labor. The profit margins were unbelievably thin-- and we farmed on fantastic land that provided us with nice crops. This experience was not unique. Smaller farms are commonly nearly unsustainable.

I worked on larger farms. I was paid slightly above minimum wage. These farmers owned far more land, so they earned more profit. But the margins were still paper thin, so they could not afford a great deal more cost. Every additional acre of land requires an additional acre's worth of manual labor.

 

[bit_pattern]

He does much better when using a teleprompter...

 

[FSM]

Thanks everyone, for such an interesting discussion. I have been reading this thread and have learned many things that I hadn't thought about or realized before The Colbert.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_the_colbert_question

 

[WildCat]

I don't support any proposed solutions because I either don't understand the problem well enough to understand how the solutions would work, or because the solutions won't work.

So why are you posting in this thread?

The impact of worker supply is not infinite. Competition creates a ceiling. Suppose Mexico can provide olives for $1.00 a jar. If our price greatly exceeds $1.00 a jar, consumers will not purchase our olives. We will lose. The price at which we lose is our ceiling. Our total costs need to be under that ceiling.

Then maybe Mexico should produce jars of olives, and US farmers should produce something else. Consumers get lower prices which leaves more money to spend elsewhere in the economy, taxpayers don't have to support hundreds of thousands of poor farm laborers with housing assistance, welfare payments, food stamps, and health care.

What's the problem?

Exports are decreasing. Imports are increasing. With current costs, we are losing. It appears to me that we're pretty close to our ceiling. It appears our markets have little ability to absorb increased costs. Migrant workers are neither a solution for nor cause of our current problems; they're a symptom. If the market were healthy, we wouldn't need migrant workers.

Here you go again, saying we need to have a permanent impoverished underclass doing dangerous work for minimum wage and no benefits.

I thought you cared about these people?

Ok, let's try this again. I HAVE NO SOLUTIONS. Stop putting words in my mouth. It's incredibly disrespectful and it's a waste of my time. And yours.

Are you denying your words have direct implications?

My understanding is that working conditions cannot increase significantly because profits are insufficient. I worked in my family's orchards. We did all our work ourselves to save costs. We could not afford migrant labor. The profit margins were unbelievably thin-- and we farmed on fantastic land that provided us with nice crops. This experience was not unique. Smaller farms are commonly nearly unsustainable.

That's odd. My girlfriends mother grew up on a family farm in southwest Minnesota. Her uncle and cousins are still farmers. They're doing very well. So well they bought a John Deere dealership. Some are semi-retired now, but still make money leasing their land to other farmers.

Maybe your family just aren't as good at farming as other farmers? I'm not trying to offend you, but some businesses fail and some succeed, for a wide variety of reasons. Farming is no different than any other business.

I worked on larger farms. I was paid slightly above minimum wage. These farmers owned far more land, so they earned more profit. But the margins were still paper thin, so they could not afford a great deal more cost. Every additional acre of land requires an additional acre's worth of manual labor.

Psssst... everyone's boss in a small business says their margins are razor thin. Sometimes it's actually true.

But this sounds a lot like slave owners who said no way no how could you grow cotton and tobacco without slaves.