Colbert! Congress!

[Dorian Gray]

Are you sitting at the adult table throwing that tantrum?

Courts have consistently held that illegal immigrants have the right to due process, right of habeas corpus, and first amendment rights. Since you are wearing your big boy pants, maybe you can take a deep breath and tell me what rights they are denied that are unique to them as illegal immigrants?
(Bearing in mind of course that the original claim was that they "had no rights", which has already been proven demonstrably false.)

The rights they are denied are by definition all rights denied to non-United States citizens. That the three you named had to be determined in court is a good indication that even those three have "consistently" been questioned.

 

[Dorian Gray]

It would have been impressive if Colbert had seriously engaged on this issue, but he would lose his "clown" defense. You see the same thing with Stewart: when he tries to be serious, he gets schooled, and it's "clown nose off, clown nose on" to cover for the fact that he has a political opinion but cannot legitimately engage in a discussion. It's rhetorical sniping from the cover of comedy, and it has its place, but it fails as serious thought.

You're completely wrong about Jon Stewart. He destroys opponents in real time like Tucker Carlson or Jim Cramer and there are numerous examples of this. Here's but one, an interview of him on C-SPAN:

Your mistake is assuming you have to be serious to say serious things.

 

[Dorian Gray]

A couple pages ago, his appearance was a farce, mocking the ridiculousness of Congress asking him to appear - until you realized the political implications, and then you start singing a different tune.
"Bringing them into the light and facilitating the process of exchanged honest labor for honest wages is not a worthless ideal, despite your histrionics." Strawman. Bring these issues into the light with a credible witness, an intelligent discussion, not hiding behind a comedian in character spouting inanities. This may qualify as reasoned discourse in the home of a viewer of the "Two Coreys" such as yourself, but it is insulting to the supposed gravity of the issue.

Please cite what Colbert said that was inane. Please also explain how the purpose of his visit was not gotten across. Again you make the mistake of thinking you must be serious to discuss serious issues.

I think this is a fair question at this point: Do you even understand how satire works?

 

[Augustine]

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

A moronic circular statement. Enumerate which rights illegal immigrants are denied. Enumerate the rights which legal holders of H-2A visas have. List what rights they are denied which you think they should be afforded. I thought you sat at the adult table?

 

[Augustine]

Please cite what Colbert said that was inane. Please also explain how the purpose of his visit was not gotten across. Again you make the mistake of thinking you must be serious to discuss serious issues.

I think this is a fair question at this point: Do you even understand how satire works?

One example of inane:

“Maybe the easier answer is just to have scientists develop vegetables that pick themselves. The genetic engineers over at Fruit of the Loom have made great strides in human-fruit hybrids.”

Clearly the purpose of his visit was not gotten across, as Tranewreck did not even know there was a related bill to his visit. No action was taken. No progress made. Failure in anything other than stunt.

 

[TraneWreck]

One example of inane:


Clearly the purpose of his visit was not gotten across, as Tranewreck did not even know there was a related bill to his visit. No action was taken. No progress made. Failure in anything other than stunt.

Edited by LashL: 

Edited for civility.

And amusingly, you say things like this:

"Let me ask again: What insight does working one day on a farm with illegal immigrants provide to the issues at hand?"

Such a statement can only be made by someone who COMPLETELY fails to understand why Colbert was there and what point he was making. No one, at any point, anywhere, including Colbert himself, claimed that he was an expert, much less an expert based on that day.

This was a pure fabrication born of your inchoate, poorly considered rage.

Now you're posing incomprehensible questions, instead of making arguments, then twisting the responses and making snotty, petty posts about nothing in particular.

Edited by LashL: 

Edited for civility.

 

[godofpie]

(Also, to Mr. Wackylaugh: Psst... you are about to be overtaken by the intimidating Mr. Rolleyes... If I were you, I'd just watch your damned step. His understated sense of irony, his bitingly repugnant smile dripping with sarcasm... Get your resume together, sir.)

I think I just peed a little.
Feel free to join us on the mall in DC on October 30th.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=185874

 

[Augustine]

Let's revisit this "incomprehensible test", shall we?

This immediately preceded the test:

Do you know what potential legislation they're debating? Colbert was right on point.

Given Tranewreck's question, I then produced the following "incomprehensible test":

What is the number of the House Bill that this hearing was related to, and when will it be voted on?

Hmmm. Seems pretty straightforward. Seems like two direct questions. What is the number of the bill, when will the vote be? Tranewreck then stammers out the following response to this "incomprehensible test":

Potential.

The hearing had several goals:

Publicize the issue.
Debunk the notion that illegals are "taking American's jobs."
Support a migrant worker program that gives temporary legal status.

And so on.

Notice no mention of the bill number, 2414, or even the AgJobs Bill, or even any recognition that there was an actual bill associated with the hearing. But he knew it all along , and I'm just twisting his response when I point to it as an example of how Colbert's "publicizing this issue" perhaps did not publicize it effectively. Particularly given Tranewreck's ignorance of the bill in question.

 

[TraneWreck]

Let's revisit this "incomprehensible test", shall we?

This immediately preceded the test:


Given Tranewreck's question, I then produced the following "incomprehensible test":


Hmmm. Seems pretty straightforward. Seems like two direct questions. What is the number of the bill, when will the vote be? Tranewreck then stammers out the following response to this "incomprehensible test":



Notice no mention of the bill number, 2414, or even the AgJobs Bill, or even any recognition that there was an actual bill associated with the hearing. But he knew it all along , and I'm just twisting his response when I point to it as an example of how Colbert's "publicizing this issue" perhaps did not publicize it effectively. Particularly given Tranewreck's ignorance of the bill in question.

Please. The bill hasn't even made it out of committee. It would have to be modified to even get to the floor, then amendments would be made. THus, it's a potential bill. It stalled in its current form.

My statement was 100% accurate. You somehow think that people unwilling to play little quiz games with you aren't in possession of the requisite knowledge. Spend some time on these boards, you'll notice that people who ask stupid questions to make it appear that they know something others don't are also the people who have really crappy arguments.

The particular bill isn't what needed the pub. As I said, it would have been drastically modified even if the dems weren't wimps and took it up. The CAUSE is why Colbert was there, and he was successful in publicizing it. He was also funny, a characteristic as foreign to you as intelligence and decency.

You're whining about technicalities, when you said the dumbest thing on this thread so far (I'm confident you can top it):

"Let me ask again: What insight does working one day on a farm with illegal immigrants provide to the issues at hand?"

 

[Augustine]

Did either of you read the letters I linked to a few posts back?

I read the letters. I did not see any mention of anyone asking the letter writers to come to this country. In fact, it seemed that all of them came to this country of their own volition, not at any imaginary "request". Were any of the letters intended to be funny like Colbert? I couldn't tell. Other than that, the fact that individual illegal immigrants feel that granting them amnesty will improve their particular individual situation is hardly surprising or revelatory.

 

[Augustine]

My statement was 100% accurate. You somehow think that people unwilling to play little quiz games with you aren't in possession of the requisite knowledge. Spend some time on these boards, you'll notice that people who ask stupid questions to make it appear that they know something others don't are also the people who have really crappy arguments.

Don't choke on your inchoate rage there. What step of admitting you didn't know are you on?

 

[TraneWreck]

Don't choke on your inchoate rage there. What step of admitting you didn't know are you on?

Can you do anything other than regurgitate other people's statements?

Sure, I had no idea what number the bill was. It didn't matter. I read the content, I understand the legislative process, I watched the hearings.

You knew a number and nothing else and proceeded to say many, many silly things. Then you became rude and insulting when several people pointed out how silly your statements were.

It's all recorded here.

 

[Augustine]

Since you understand the legislative process, perhaps you can answer the following questions:

Recent polling shows that over 40% of self-identified progressives and liberals oppose amnesty. Over 40% would be less likely to support a Presidential candidate who favored amnesty. Given this level of opposition within their own base, why would Democrats continue with bills focused towards amnesty?

Given that virtually all of the agricultural laborers who were granted amnesty in 1986 left the agricultural sector, why would you expect results to be different this time around? Where do you expect these over 1 million low-skilled workers to go to, and how does this affect the present 14-15 million unemployed American citizens? What level of illegal immigrant labor population do you expect to see within one to three years if the AgJobs bill were enacted, and on what basis do you make those assumptions?

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

Do you see how the blue card program can actually disincentivize employers from hiring blue card laborers?

Why not start by enforcing legal immigration policies, securing the border, streamlining the H-2A visa process, and improving the wages and conditions for farm workers first, then see what our labor requirement is and manage our immigration based on that?

 

[theprestige]

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

You lost me. How does this bill step towards eliminating the possibility of "illegal" immigration (from which the category of "illegal immigrant" arises). Further, why would making all entry into a country legal by default be a good thing?

 

[TraneWreck]

Since you understand the legislative process, perhaps you can answer the following questions:

Recent polling shows that over 40% of self-identified progressives and liberals oppose amnesty. Over 40% would be less likely to support a Presidential candidate who favored amnesty. Given this level of opposition within their own base, why would Democrats continue with bills focused towards amnesty?

Because it's the right thing to do.

Given that virtually all of the agricultural laborers who were granted amnesty in 1986 left the agricultural sector, why would you expect results to be different this time around? Where do you expect these over 1 million low-skilled workers to go to, and how does this affect the present 14-15 million unemployed American citizens? What level of illegal immigrant labor population do you expect to see within one to three years if the AgJobs bill were enacted, and on what basis do you make those assumptions?

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

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.

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.

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

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

Do you see how the blue card program can actually disincentivize employers from hiring blue card laborers?

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

Why not start by enforcing legal immigration policies, securing the border, streamlining the H-2A visa process, and improving the wages and conditions for farm workers first, then see what our labor requirement is and manage our immigration based on that?

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.

 

[TraneWreck]

You lost me. How does this bill step towards eliminating the possibility of "illegal" immigration (from which the category of "illegal immigrant" arises). Further, why would making all entry into a country legal by default be a good thing?

It would be better than our current situation.

Because we bestow "illegal" status on workers coming to America to exchange labor for wages, they're easily exploited for fear of deportation. Eliminate that basic extortion and the situation immediately improves.

 

[OMGturt1es]

The items picked by hand (generally fresh vegetables and fruit) tend to not store well for long, this isn't what gets exported. You can't, for example, ship lettuce halfway around the world and have it arrive fresh (not cheaply anyway).

Nearly all food is imported and exported around the globe. The US actually imports more vegetables and fruit than it exports. Here are some data to help illustrate how huge these markets are: http://www.intracen.org/tradstat/sitc3-3d/indexpi.htm. Notice just how much fruit the US already imports. Notice how little it exports.

I don't have any magic solutions. It is more costly to produce food in the US, even in some of the most productive agricultural basins in the world, because we have higher standards than other countries. We have labor laws. We have minimum wages. We have national pesticide and environmental regulations. We have state pesticide and environmental regulations.

These migrant workers continue to find work in our fields because it is beneficial to our economy. I do believe that these folk deserve far more money than they earn, but reality has crafted an unfair playing field. If we want these folk to be paid more, we need to then chose our domestic produce over cheaper, imported produce. Maybe I'm just pessimistic, but I don't see this happening. I don't think the vast majority of folk give a ****.

And what we do export, corn, wheat, and soy, is almost completely mechanized and doesn't require many workers.

Nearly all food is internationally traded, and even our most mechanized products still require a great deal of work. I grew up in the prune and walnut orchards. Both products have huge export markets. When major export markets failed, we felt the impact. And even with modern machines, both products require ridiculous amounts of manual labor. It's not easy work. If people understood just how difficult the work is-- it would often be against OSHA regulation in other markets-- migrant workers would at least be treated kindly.

The cost of the labor to pick vegetables is a small percentage of the sale price in a grocery store, most of the cost is transportation. Higher wages would have little effect on the price in the grocery store. The people benefitting from cheap migrant farm workers are the plantation owners. Remember when southern slave masters said no way agriculture survive in the American south without slavery? We're hearing much the same wrgument from modern-day plantation owners wrt impoverished farm workers.

There's so much more involved with production than harvest, and migrant workers are often behind these tasks. I can't tell you about vegetables. I can tell you about prunes and walnuts. These are year rounds jobs. The labor never ceases. You work in the rain and wind during the winter, and you work in 100+ F degree heat during the summer.

It appears to me that our agricultural markets are not in good shape. Our exports are decreasing, and our imports are increasing. Huge amounts of prime agricultural land have been re-zoned for development because agricultural development is just not very profitable. The disparity between land values indicates the anticipated profitability: Agricultural land is always cheaper-- and by a large degree.

No, it doesn't. Our policy of looking the other way encourages these people to come and be virtual slaves in the modern day.

Yup. But what are the other options?

Absolute BS. There are only wages Americans and other legal workers won't work for.

I'm sure we'd be willing to do the work at some wage. But I'm also sure we'd continue to buy cheaper, imported produce, and the higher labor costs would hurt our exports.

Unbelievable! You just spent the entire post arguing that we have to treat these people like crap otherwise prices at the grocery store might rice a few cents (horrors!). You don't actually want to improve the wages, benefits, and working conditions of farm workers, you want to keep them in abject poverty working for minimum wage, no benefits, and crappy working conditions. You really don't give a damn about the farm workers, otherwise you'd be looking for ways to improve their lot rather than fighting to keep the status quo. You're pretending to care about the migrant workers, when in reality all you care about is that the head of lettuce at your grocery store is $0.99 instead of $1.14.

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.

 

[Dorian Gray]

One example of inane:


Clearly the purpose of his visit was not gotten across, as Tranewreck did not even know there was a related bill to his visit. No action was taken. No progress made. Failure in anything other than stunt.

Sorry, but no. You're making the mistake that since you didn't get his point, that no one did.

 

[Dorian Gray]

A moronic circular statement. Enumerate which rights illegal immigrants are denied. Enumerate the rights which legal holders of H-2A visas have. List what rights they are denied which you think they should be afforded. I thought you sat at the adult table?

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

Circular argument: The word of God is true because it's in the Bible. The Bible is true because it's the word of God.

Not a circular argument: US citizens get certain rights. Illegal immigrants are not US citizens, so they don't get those rights.

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

 

[Dorian Gray]

Since you understand the legislative process, perhaps you can answer the following questions:

Recent polling shows that over 40% of self-identified progressives and liberals oppose amnesty. Over 40% would be less likely to support a Presidential candidate who favored amnesty. Given this level of opposition within their own base, why would Democrats continue with bills focused towards amnesty?

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.

Given that virtually all of the agricultural laborers who were granted amnesty in 1986 left the agricultural sector, why would you expect results to be different this time around? Where do you expect these over 1 million low-skilled workers to go to, and how does this affect the present 14-15 million unemployed American citizens? What level of illegal immigrant labor population do you expect to see within one to three years if the AgJobs bill were enacted, and on what basis do you make those assumptions?

Citation needed.