Unskilled workers don't have a path to permanent residency

[sachinky 465]

I guess, my question is, WHY *should* unskilled workers have a legal path to residency or citizenship? Why? 'Cause they just love America? I really like French wine, bread, cheese and have a thing in general for French men. Do you think I can just pack up my bags and move to France tomorrow *just 'cause I want to?* They are not skilled workers or PhD holders who will contribute to society in meaningful ways with their particular set of learned skills. Unless, they are USC family members, why should they be entitled to US residency/citizenship?

As someone pointed out earlier, the point of employment based immigration is to bring people who have skills that the US doesn't have or generally lacks -- so why bring in workers who have no skills at all? The guest-worker programs is enough to meet whatever need exists.

There is no dearth of unskilled workers in the U.S. who are currently unemployed. Why bring in more?

I don't see India importing unskilled, poor people, do you?

This is just effin' nonsense. Really. So they have no legal route to US residency/citizenship. BFD, really. So now I am supposed to sympathise with them when they jump the border and break the law?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I worked in the hospitality industry in New Orleans almost 8 years ago. At that time all of the cooks, dishwashers and housekeeping were African Americans from the projects. It's not that no one will do them. Poor people can and will do "lesser jobs" if they have no other choice. What changed between 2002 and 2010 that we think only illegal hispanic workers will perform these jobs?

Most Americans can't make it on minimum wage, so many of them have had their income supplemented with government welfare through programs like Section 8 and WIC.

[GabiandVi 34]

I thought the point of worker immigration was to bring people who had skills that the US doesn't have or generally lacks? So why bring in workers with no skills at all?

The only reason I can think of is that it drives wages down and creates more corporate profit.

If we had a need for unskilled workers you can bet that we would offer visas to applicants with no specific skills. But we have no need for this, partly because those positions are filled by illegal immigrants. I often hear that if we "deported all the illegal immigrants, there would be no one to pick the lettuce." (Sounds sort of like a stereotype to me, but this comes from those against enforcing immigration laws because it is unfair to do so.) If we needed people to pick lettuce and we couldn't find them in the US, we would find them outside of the US, have no fear. I think that is where the queue-jumping argument holds water.

[Craneman 2]

Who built the railroads?

Vanderbit

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Most Americans can't make it on minimum wage, so many of them have had their income supplemented with government welfare through programs like Section 8 and WIC.

So you advocate the illigals coming in and doing the work "under the table" at lower wages? Ok, why not just junk all of our labor and wage laws then?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

So you advocate the illigals coming in and doing the work "under the table" at lower wages? Ok, why not just junk all of our labor and wage laws then?

The point I was making if you go back and read the exchange, is that low payed American workers have their income supplemented with Government welfare - from Section 8 to the EITC. The American taxpayer subsidizes poverty wages in this country. Whereas, expanding the guest worker program, making it need based and employer paid for, there wouldn't be the additional costs that are attached to working American families making near poverty wages.

Edited June 2, 2010 by El Buscador

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

The point I was making if you go back and read the exchange, is that low payed American workers have their income supplemented with Government welfare - from Section 8 to the EITC. The American taxpayer subsidizes poverty wages in this country. Whereas, expanding the guest worker program and make it need based, employer paid for, there wouldn't be the additional costs that are attached to working American families making near poverty wages.

What do the American families do then?

[SMOKE 1,426]

To be fair, that's the text from the article not the poster.

i am being fair. it was read prior to posting it.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

What do the American families do then?

Well, if we are to believe in the American Dream, then every American has economic mobility. They can go to school or learn a trade that will earn them a higher wage. Granted, our economy is just now recovering from a steep recession, but when our economy is in better shape we are suppose to believe there are enough high paying jobs for everyone that qualifies and wants one.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Well, if we are to believe in the American Dream, then every American has economic mobility. They can go to school or learn a trade that will earn them a higher wage. Granted, our economy is just now recovering from a steep recession, but when our economy is in better shape we are suppose to believe there are enough high paying jobs for everyone that qualifies and wants one.

I can tell you don't fully believe that. Don't worry I don't either.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I can tell you don't fully believe that. Don't worry I don't either.

It is partially true. There are plenty of examples of poor Americans who managed to get out of poverty. The fact that we even have wages that keep working Americans in poverty however, is another problem. IMO, since we know that we'll always need these kinds of services/jobs in this country, we either need to be prepared to pay higher wages for the labor, or look elsewhere (guest workers) to fill the need.

Edited June 2, 2010 by El Buscador

[GabiandVi 34]

It is partially true. There are plenty of examples of poor Americans who managed to get out of poverty. The fact that we even have wages that keep working Americans in poverty however, is another problem. IMO, since we know that we'll always need these kinds of services/jobs in this country, we either need to be prepared to pay higher wages for the labor, or look elsewhere (guest workers) to fill the need.

I agree with a issuing a potential immigrant visa to unskilled laborers in times of worker shortages, but not through amnesty, and not while we have people who are unemployed but unwilling to do such jobs. As you have said, we have subsidies for people to make up the difference between salary and survival. I also agree that we should be willing to pay higher wages for many jobs, but you have to admit that one of the reasons wages are so low is that if minimum wages were raised, until we can take care of the "undocumented worker" problem, there would be more unemployed and underemployed Americans.

Bringing in unskilled workers as long as we have unemployed Americans would be irresponsible. However, there is no question that if somehow every illegal worker went home tomorrow, we would suddently find that we were in need of unskilled laborers, or people willing to do those jobs, and we would have to reorganize our visa system.

Canada opened up its very tight immigration policies a few years back because they had extremely low unemployment and needed unskilled laborers and some specialized skills in places like Alberta. That has changed since the economic downturn and we may see a tightening again.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

It is partially true. There are plenty of examples of poor Americans who managed to get out of poverty. The fact that we even have wages that keep working Americans in poverty however, is another problem. IMO, since we know that we'll always need these kinds of services/jobs in this country, we either need to be prepared to pay higher wages for the labor, or look elsewhere (guest workers) to fill the need.

With millions of illegals here working for less than minimum wage the poor in this country will stay poor. The illegals are hurting poor Americans with their willingness to work for less. If you really had empathy for the poor in this country you would want all illegals to leave and not import unskilled workers at all. We have plenty of unskilled workers already. If the illegals were not here wages would go up due to higher demand and lower availibility of unskilled labor. Yes our prices would go up but that is fine with me if it means our poor are working and not living off of the taxpayers. With your obvious progressive leanings I find it unreal that you would want our poor to suffer like this.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I agree with a issuing a potential immigrant visa to unskilled laborers in times of worker shortages, but not through amnesty, and not while we have people who are unemployed but unwilling to do such jobs. As you have said, we have subsidies for people to make up the difference between salary and survival. I also agree that we should be willing to pay higher wages for many jobs, but you have to admit that one of the reasons wages are so low is that if minimum wages were raised, until we can take care of the "undocumented worker" problem, there would be more unemployed and underemployed Americans.

Bringing in unskilled workers as long as we have unemployed Americans would be irresponsible. However, there is no question that if somehow every illegal worker went home tomorrow, we would suddently find that we were in need of unskilled laborers, or people willing to do those jobs, and we would have to reorganize our visa system.

Canada opened up its very tight immigration policies a few years back because they had extremely low unemployment and needed unskilled laborers and some specialized skills in places like Alberta. That has changed since the economic downturn and we may see a tightening again.

Yep - it would have to be need based and IMO, employer sponsored (paid for), which would then discourage employers from hiring guest workers over American workers when there are Americans applying for the same jobs.

Edited June 2, 2010 by El Buscador

[Saddle Bronc 124]

Reiterating my earlier post, Dalmia's article is twaddle--as unskilled workers have MORE THAN ONE path to permanent residency, there is no need for more such paths! The fact that Steve did not even NOTICE this really ticks me off.

• marriage to a skilled worker who is in GC process
• marriage to a GC holder (albeit takes longer)
• parent of USC
• child (note: age/marital-status restrictions apply) of USC or GC holder
• sibling of USC aka FB-4 (already in heavy use, considered as "last resort of those who wouldn't otherwise qualify", which is probably the reason for the gross backlogs--12 to 22 years--in this category)
• marriage to USC