Illegal Immigrants Plan to Boycott May 1

[Renfield]

AND have graduated from a California high school or been in attendance for 3 years. That's not what you said. Show me the law which allows an illegal alien in California to get in-state tuition in Wisconsin.

That was an error on my part. Some states have more stringent requirements then others that offer in state to illegal immigrants. So sue me.

My point remains valid though. You're not allowed to come into the country, but once you DO manage to sneak in, then you have a right to go to American public schools. Not real sensible to me, if you want to discourage people from breakign the law.

 

[Manny]

That was an error on my part. Some states have more stringent requirements then others that offer in state to illegal immigrants. So sue me.

Nah, no lawsuit necessary. I appreciate you realizing your error and correcting it.

My point remains valid though. You're not allowed to come into the country, but once you DO manage to sneak in, then you have a right to go to American public schools. Not real sensible to me, if you want to discourage people from breakign the law.

And here's my point. They're here. Their sons and daughters are American citizens. What is to be done? Round up 11 million people? Create a sub-population even more illiterate and less skilled than they already are? OK the spread of communicable diseases because we don't want to pay to treat these people? Maybe you and Mr. Change the 14th Amendment guy ought to have a chat and come back with a realistic plan. I happen to like the President's plan (indeed, my ideal plan would be slightly more "lenient" than his), but I can see other reasonable alternatives so long as they capture the reality of the situation.

 

[Tricky]

My point remains valid though. You're not allowed to come into the country, but once you DO manage to sneak in, then you have a right to go to American public schools. Not real sensible to me, if you want to discourage people from breaking the law.

See, thats the thing. They don't really want to discourage people from breaking the law. If they did, they'd set up sting operations to catch the people hiring them, something that would be child's play, with as many companies as hire illegals. But you see, illegals are vital to the economy in some regions. You couldn't get legals to do the work they do for a comparable price. The governments recognize this, and some of the states actually build in a little bit of security and basic services for illegals. (I consider education to be a basic service.)

Yet governments, or more correctly, politicians, also recognize that there is a tremendous amount of resentment towards illegals who are working when legals can't find work (or at least not work that pays them a decent wage). So it is important that they bluster and speechify and pound the podium against illegal immigrants to make people think they are doing something about the problem, when they are quite intentionally ignoring the easiest possible remedy to the flow of illegal immigrants. They realize that the outcry against immigration would be dwarfed by the outcry against inflation (as our recent gasoline "crisis" demonstrates.)

The simple fact is that the US labor market cannot compete against foreign labor markets because they are too expensive. We demand more money because we have a higher quality of life. To a lot of businesses though, it's the bottom line, and if that bottom line goes into the red, they will either fail or find other ways to reduce costs.

 

[Morrigan]

He used it twice, and without quotes. He could have quite easily said, "no, sorry, you misunderstand, I meant this is what the jerks think." Instead, in response, he latched onto this bizarre "Cleon is a communist" canard that Jocko has been parroting. So the only logical conclusion is that he's a racist and doesn't mind advertising the fact.

As for his points, well, I've addressed his points. Repeatedly. He has chosen to ignore that, construct strawmen, and talks about opera and "wetbacks." Draw your own conclusions.

But good try.

Wow... this is as much intellectual dishonesty I can take for tonight.

I'll just say I agree with Renfield, and feel sorry for all the legal USA immigrants who have to jump through all the hoops and get seemingly less in return for their efforts.

 

[pipelineaudio]

Tricky, I think you and I are more on the same page than it would at first appear.

My BIGGEST desire is for the existing laws to be enforced

I dont want a fence or a wall between us and mexico. If you go down to the border when its not coyote season, it is one of the most beautiful places in this state, if not the world. Animals know no borders and they need to get back and forth

I have not made it clear enough obviously that I want ALL the related laws enforced, surely you see that most of this beef lately is that politicians dont want to, and they are encouraging people do break the laws they are too chicken to enforce

Number one on my list are those who hire illegals

My only remorse about it is that because joe hired some illegals, john will have to shut his plant down if he doesnt do the same

THATS WHY ITS ILLEGAL!

Thats my beef

Please try and understand without some preconcieved notions so many seem to around here that it is about immigrants, or even mexicans. Honestly you would have to pry the mexican parts of our culture here from my cold dead fingers, it just isnt about that. This is about criminals

I propose all businesses with 5 or more employees have 30 days to get their stuff straight, this way john wont have to worry about joe undercutting him

Illegals who want to be here can go wait in line like everyone else. Prove they can be law abiding citizens, which up to this point they have proven otherwise

If we are going to just decend into anarchy or pick laws at random to ignore, I'd like to run my car with open exhaust...sound good to you?

 

[shecky]

I'll just say I agree with Renfield, and feel sorry for all the legal USA immigrants who have to jump through all the hoops and get seemingly less in return for their efforts.

Precisely why immigration law should be changed. It's currently so restrictive that millions are motivated to simply ignore it.

My BIGGEST desire is for the existing laws to be enforced

Why? They haven't worked. They're difficult to enforce. They fail to take into account market forces. Even in a world of saints, they create criminals. Resting on a arguement of "It's illegal" is a copout that simply doesn't work.

Bad laws need to be changed, not enforced. If they can't or won't be changed, they need to be ignored.

I propose all businesses with 5 or more employees have 30 days to get their stuff straight, this way john wont have to worry about joe undercutting him

Why? I propose the government get the hell out of business' way (and people's way) as much as possible.

Illegals who want to be here can go wait in line like everyone else. Prove they can be law abiding citizens, which up to this point they have proven otherwise

This is just plain stupid. Why make everyone suffer? Why not make it easier instead of equally difficult. This is kind of like keeping Prohibition because legalizing booze would reward successful bootleggers over teetotalers.

If we are going to just decend into anarchy or pick laws at random to ignore, I'd like to run my car with open exhaust...sound good to you?

In some ways, we're already there. And it's not that bad.

The key is that illegal immigration is pretty much a victimless crime. With current uneployment rates at under 5%, it's difficult to argue that illegal immigrants has a negative impact on employment. Blaming state and federal deficits on illegal immigrants is a weak attempt to scapegoat when the true fault lies with voters who are not willing to pay for government services.

 

[Ausmerican]

I as a person who drives MINIMALLY am on my third hit and slam from a illegal mobile. Its the familiar "everyone jumps out of the truck and runs off, leaving the truck in the intersection" to anyone in this area

Seriously, you must be a faily poor driver. As someone who drives around the Phoenix area a lot (daily) I have been in one accident in the last 5 years and I don't think 'Mark Johnson' was illegal.

Even at 500 dollar a plate resort restaraunts, the illegals are the staff.

No, Hispanics you ASSUME are illegals are the staff.

COnstruction jobs, except finish work and a VERY few other specialties are gone.

Seriously I think this comes down to who is more willing to work in the 120 degree summers. I worked in construction in North Carolina and didn't even consider it here.

SHow me where legal immigrants have as a whole worked under the table to the point where tradesemen must leave their crafts en masse.

Tradesmen? Tradesmen are usually licensed. Illegals may be taking some labourers jobs but it's doubtful they are forcing tradesmen out of work.

 

[thaiboxerken]

We should erect a giant wall that seperates Mexico from the USA and Canada from the USA. That way we can close off our borders and technology will advance in the USA. It worked for China.

 

[BPSCG]

Precisely why immigration law should be changed. It's currently so restrictive that millions are motivated to simply ignore it.

I keep hearing that claim. Yesterday, I heard that the U.S. gets about 1.2 million legal immigrants every year. Assuming that's accurate (I haven't checked), that means we take in a number of legal immigrants each year equal to the entire population of Hawaii. We take in more legal immigrants each year than any other country.

So is it fair to complain that our immigration policies are too restrictive, when that many people manage to get in, year after year? If so, how many people should we be allowing in?

 

[Tricky]

Tricky, I think you and I are more on the same page than it would at first appear.

It is always good when discussions of this sort can reach some sort of mutual understanding, though we still have different outlooks on this.

My BIGGEST desire is for the existing laws to be enforced.

My biggest desire is to do that which helps my country the most. If that means enforcing the laws, then I want to see the ones that have the most effect enforced the most, targeting the greedy, not the needy. But is is possible that what we need are different laws, and if that is the case, we should strive for more workable laws that not only provide a living wage to workers, regardless of their nationality, but also does not spiral the country into economic ruin. It is a very tough balance.

I have not made it clear enough obviously that I want ALL the related laws enforced, surely you see that most of this beef lately is that politicians dont want to, and they are encouraging people do break the laws they are too chicken to enforce

Number one on my list are those who hire illegals.

Okay, I agree with your priority of enforcement, but that priority was not obvious from your initial posts. I think that may have been what led to a lot of the recrimination on this thread.

At the same time, I understand (even if I don't agree with) the politicians' reasoning for not enforcing the laws. They are afraid ("chicken", if you prefer) of the consequences.

My only remorse about it is that because joe hired some illegals, john will have to shut his plant down if he doesnt do the same

THATS WHY ITS ILLEGAL!

It is illegal because we don't want market forces causing our workers to earn a lower wage. It is a form of protectionism.

You know, there used to be no distinction between legal and illegal immigrants. Documentation is a fairly recent thing, brought on because the country no longer needed such a large supply of cheap labor and because of social changes that had the country actually taking care of its citizens rather than letting them fend for themselves.

We could argue a long time about the ramifications of this, but suffice it to say that if we relied on each person to take care of themselves with no laws in place to make sure people don't starve, then there would be no immigration "problem". It would simply be supply and demand, and to hell with anybody who couldn't make it in that situation.

Thats my beef.

It seems a bit simplistic to me. Yes it is illegal, but laws are not always good. Sometimes they decay into uselessness by simply not being enforced, (examples) sometimes they are changed if the people decide they are not good laws. (slavery laws are one example.) I'm not in favor of mindlessly enforcing laws just because they are laws, but I agree that it is legal to do so. In fact, sometimes a person insists on having a bad law enforced because they want to get that law changed. But I digress.

Please try and understand without some preconcieved notions so many seem to around here that it is about immigrants, or even mexicans. Honestly you would have to pry the mexican parts of our culture here from my cold dead fingers, it just isnt about that. This is about criminals.

And you will certainly agree that some criminals are worse than others. Just calling them criminals means nothing. What we should be discussing is the consequences of their crime. I am not convinced that the consequences of illegal aliens is as bad as it is made out to be, but if it is, then we should take the steps that are most effective to stop it. Herding up illegals is not effective, nor is vilifying them. It only leads to impotent rage and xenophobic hatred. I think my suggestions for stopping illegal immigration are not only easier, but would be more effective by stopping the problem at its source.

I propose all businesses with 5 or more employees have 30 days to get their stuff straight, this way john wont have to worry about joe undercutting him.

Okay, I'll buy that. It will be a monumental task to verify documentation of every worker, and of course, you can't just pick on Hispanics. You have to do everybody. It won't be cheap. But I agree, this is the way to go.

What do you propose for punishment for companies who fail to detect illegals working for them? Remember that driving them out of business will only make the employment numbers worse. Everything is a trade-off.

Illegals who want to be here can go wait in line like everyone else. Prove they can be law abiding citizens, which up to this point they have proven otherwise.

I don't believe it is useful to go for little fish when the big fish are so easily catchable. To do so makes it look like we're not interested in solving the problem, but only in finding a scapegoat.

If we are going to just decend into anarchy or pick laws at random to ignore, I'd like to run my car with open exhaust...sound good to you?

Selective enforcement of laws is not anarchy. I do not believe that we should arrest everyone in New Jersey who owns a garbage disposal simply because it is a law. (See link above). All laws are not equal, Pipeline. You know this is true. You have probably broken a few yourself. I know I have.

The question is what to do that will be best for the country. That is not so simple as arresting every criminal.

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

Precisely why immigration law should be changed. It's currently so restrictive that millions are motivated to simply ignore it.

which "millions" are you referring to? If it is immigrants then your statement is unbelievably arrogant. The laws of the USA are set by the voters via their representatives. It seems to me that foreigners (and I am one) don't actually get to decide which laws of the USA they are going to abide with inside the USA. The 'desire to come to the USA" is not some sort of human right.

If you do not like the laws - don't go to the USA. It is a fairly simple concept.

Why? They haven't worked. They're difficult to enforce. They fail to take into account market forces. Even in a world of saints, they create criminals. Resting on a arguement of "It's illegal" is a copout that simply doesn't work.

no more of a cop out than "millions of illegal immigrants can't be wrong"

Bad laws need to be changed, not enforced. If they can't or won't be changed, they need to be ignored.

You seem to be under the misapprehension that the laws are for the benefit of illegal aliens - they are for the benefit of citizens.

Why? I propose the government get the hell out of business' way (and people's way) as much as possible.

well instead of trying to impse solutions on people why not persuade the voters instead?

In some ways, we're already there. And it's not that bad.

The key is that illegal immigration is pretty much a victimless crime. With current uneployment rates at under 5%, it's difficult to argue that illegal immigrants has a negative impact on employment. Blaming state and federal deficits on illegal immigrants is a weak attempt to scapegoat when the true fault lies with voters who are not willing to pay for government services.

I agree with you in part - but I disagree with your "true fault" analysis. Personally I happen to agree with the President's view on this - I think if we are going to have a NAFTA then free movement of trade should also encompass free movement of labor. Make it simple and easy for Mexican nationals to obtain work visas, let them get the jobs they want. A lot of them would quite happily like to move back home if they were able to come and go as they pleased with the money sent home the standard of living back there would rise making the desirability of moving "oop north" much less.

But I have one big caveat about this - it is the american people who have to want this, the american voters. Persuasion, teaching not bombastic messages about how they cannot set the laws for their own country and how they are at fault for not paying even more taxes.

 

[shecky]

I keep hearing that claim. Yesterday, I heard that the U.S. gets about 1.2 million legal immigrants every year. Assuming that's accurate (I haven't checked), that means we take in a number of legal immigrants each year equal to the entire population of Hawaii. We take in more legal immigrants each year than any other country.

So is it fair to complain that our immigration policies are too restrictive, when that many people manage to get in, year after year? If so, how many people should we be allowing in?

Ideally, the government should allow the market to decide how many people come to the US.

In practical terms, it kinda already does. However, it does so without official sanction of the government, which seems to irk so many people already here.

The outcry for for the government to "do something" seems to translate into "do something more restrictive and even less realistic". I've heard no proposal from lawmakers that would be an improvement over the current practice of generally ignoring the law.

 

[BPSCG]

Ideally, the government should allow the market to decide how many people come to the US.

Which would mean, in effect, to accept everyone?

The fact that we have so many illegals, who are subject to downward pressure on their wages that the rest of us are not subject to, distorts the salaries they can command. If they were to all become legal overnight, their bosses could no longer fire them, underpay them, or otherise mistreat them with impunity, and their wages would therefore rise to market level, more or less.

But what is the "market level" demand for new immigrants?

And don't we have to balance off the market's need for new immigrants with the nation's need to control its own borders and to control who becomes a citizen or not? Otherwise, why have a national border? Why not let people wander in and out as they please?

 

[shecky]

Originally Posted by shecky :
Precisely why immigration law should be changed. It's currently so restrictive that millions are motivated to simply ignore it.


which "millions" are you referring to? If it is immigrants then your statement is unbelievably arrogant. The laws of the USA are set by the voters via their representatives. It seems to me that foreigners (and I am one) don't actually get to decide which laws of the USA they are going to abide with inside the USA. The 'desire to come to the USA" is not some sort of human right.

If you do not like the laws - don't go to the USA. It is a fairly simple concept.

What's so arrogant about facing reality? Ignoring the laws is also a two way street. The American economy demands the labor pool provided by illegal immigrants and conveniently looks the other way in order to get it.

no more of a cop out than "millions of illegal immigrants can't be wrong"

Millions of illegal immigrants and their employers and the economy they serve. They can't be wrong. They aren't.

You seem to be under the misapprehension that the laws are for the benefit of illegal aliens - they are for the benefit of citizens.

Yet they don't seem to benefit citizens. As evidence, they're ignored by citizens.

Why? I propose the government get the hell out of business' way (and people's way) as much as possible.

well instead of trying to impse solutions on people why not persuade the voters instead?

How do you impose the lack of government regulations on business and people?

I agree with you in part - but I disagree with your "true fault" analysis. Personally I happen to agree with the President's view on this - I think if we are going to have a NAFTA then free movement of trade should also encompass free movement of labor.

Is this the President's view?

Make it simple and easy for Mexican nationals to obtain work visas, let them get the jobs they want. A lot of them would quite happily like to move back home if they were able to come and go as they pleased with the money sent home the standard of living back there would rise making the desirability of moving "oop north" much less.

I agree completely. Yet, nobody in government has proposed this, as far as I know. The only problem with illegal immigration is that it's illegal. Immigration needs to be decriminalized.

But I have one big caveat about this - it is the american people who have to want this, the american voters. Persuasion, teaching not bombastic messages about how they cannot set the laws for their own country and how they are at fault for not paying even more taxes.

The American people do want this. They vote everyday with their dollars.

 

[shecky]

Which would mean, in effect, to accept everyone?

I don't see why not.

The fact that we have so many illegals, who are subject to downward pressure on their wages that the rest of us are not subject to, distorts the salaries they can command. If they were to all become legal overnight, their bosses could no longer fire them, underpay them, or otherise mistreat them with impunity, and their wages would therefore rise to market level, more or less.

The problem with this is...?

Though I don't understand how a boss could no longer fire someone. I've never had a job with so much leverage.

But what is the "market level" demand for new immigrants?

You'll have to ask the market that question. May as well ask what is the market level demand for new WalMarts or Starbucks.

And don't we have to balance off the market's need for new immigrants with the nation's need to control its own borders and to control who becomes a citizen or not?

Legalizing immigration removes incentive to sneak across the border in remote areas. I suppose for some reason the country could control who becomes a citizen or not. But why? The rights and privileges of citizenship aren't terribly impressive. And some of the duties, like serving on a jury, are a pain in the ass. I'd wager that if the public were to magically lose their citizenship tomorrow, a large percentage would never know different.

Giving the government responsibility to control immigration tends to mean giving the government responsibility to control a market force. It doesn't do that job very well, and there is no reason to believe such central control will ever really be a success.

Otherwise, why have a national border? Why not let people wander in and out as they please?

Why not indeed? Why not simply require a passport and do away with visas? I kinda like the adea of being able to move about for any reason, or none at all.

 

[Morrigan]

Precisely why immigration law should be changed. It's currently so restrictive that millions are motivated to simply ignore it.

Bollocks. There are plenty of immigrants who come to the USA legally. And as far as I know (someone correct me if I'm wrong), the USA is the country with the highest level of immigration.

Americans have decided on certain restricting factors on immigration. They are entitled to that, it's their country. If the restrictions are too high, the immigrants are free to go elsewhere (or stay home). Why are they entitled to come in the country just because they find the laws too inconvenient?

Moving to another country isn't an inalienable right. It's a privilege at best.

 

[thaiboxerken]

They'd rather move across the border than take the time and effort to make their own country a nice place to live.

 

[shecky]

Bollocks. There are plenty of immigrants who come to the USA legally. And as far as I know (someone correct me if I'm wrong), the USA is the country with the highest level of immigration.

The US does have a high amount of legal immigration. However, it doesn't reflect free market demands. In addition, it's a costly, bureaucratic nightmare. The American labor market has already decided that curent immigration laws are inadequate. It's time for the government to get with the program.

Americans have decided on certain restricting factors on immigration. They are entitled to that, it's their country. If the restrictions are too high, the immigrants are free to go elsewhere (or stay home). Why are they entitled to come in the country just because they find the laws too inconvenient?

You are correct, the US as a soverign nation, is entitled to make it's own rules.

However, ignoring the rule of supply and demand is a formula for failure. And you seem to mischaracterize illegal immigration a bit. Illegal immigrants don't impose their labor on the US. Instead, the US demands their labor. Immigrants can try going elsewhere. However, demand in the US is high, along with the highest possibility for reward.

Moving to another country isn't an inalienable right. It's a privilege at best.

This is a good point. Perhaps freedom of movement whould be an inalienable right. Particularly in a place like the US that prides itself on being the land of the free.

 

[shecky]

They'd rather move across the border than take the time and effort to make their own country a nice place to live.

I would, too. Imagine if we restricted movement of folks in rust belt towns, and forced them to stay rather than move to more prosperous places? Isn't that a bit ridiculous? Now imagine that we allow those people to move to an area where they can prosper and contribute to the overall economy, and make their own lives better? With that newfound success, they can now send capital to the underutilized rust belt towns and get them rolling again.

 

[BPSCG]

This is a good point. Perhaps freedom of movement whould be an inalienable right. Particularly in a place like the US that prides itself on being the land of the free.

Freedom of movement within a country, not between countries.