Unskilled workers don't have a path to permanent residency

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

To clarify, I'm not against a visa for unskilled workers if such a need arose which there currently isn't -- I still don't support a path to permanent residency or citizenship for them. I can understand, "come pick lettuce in the summer and go back home" but "come pick lettuce and become a USC in 5 years" is just crazy-talk.

I think anyone who contributes to this country in whatever capacity, provided they did so legally, deserves a pathway to permanent residency. That has been the tradition here since the founding of this country. We brought Chinese and Irish workers over to build the railroads. Shutting the door on them while giving only skilled laborers a pathway defies our national identity.

[GabiandVi 34]

To clarify, I'm not against a visa for unskilled workers if such a need arose which there currently isn't -- I still don't support a path to permanent residency or citizenship for them. I can understand, "come pick lettuce in the summer and go back home" but "come pick lettuce and become a USC in 5 years" is just crazy-talk.

Okay. This is where we disagree. This sort of road to residency and citizenship would not be a new concept in US immigration history. It is how a large portion of our forefathers established themselves here, and not so long ago.

I would want to see different restrictions for such a visa than we have for other visas, but I think there has to ultimately be a road to residency and citizenship.

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

Okay. This is where we disagree. This sort of road to residency and citizenship would not be a new concept in US immigration history. It is how a large portion of our forefathers established themselves here, and not so long ago.

I would want to see different restrictions for such a visa than we have for other visas, but I think there has to ultimately be a road to residency and citizenship.

[Peikko 1,575]

Underemployed is a college student working at Burger King or someone only working 20 hours instead of fulltime. Therefore, while these people are employed, they are not earning to their full potential.

Just in case you have not heard, an economy is tied together - joined at the hip. You cannot have a huge underclass or millions unemployed in one sector and believe, it will not impact you. However, this mindset is nothing new from you. After all, you clearly support an unlimited number of eastern Europeans entering the UK and refuse to accept their negative impact on wages for Brits.

Do you have to always run off on some mad tangent? I know what underemployed is, and that's my point, why did you add those in when they are irrelevant to any argument for or against the idea that there are already plenty of unemployed USC's that could and should do the work currently being undertaken by migrant workers? Seriously, how does that make any sense at all?

[GabiandVi 34]

Excluding family immigration, immigration should be on a per-need basis. At 10% unemployment, there is little justification for any workers, let alone unskilled. Those with niche specialties, like a PhD, being the exception of course but not any others. Once the economy improves, the Visas can open up again.

I don't think anyone is promoting offering visas to unskilled laborers during times of high or even moderate unemployment. And I think there probably needs to be an overhaul of the "special skills" visas as well. I know a lot of unemployed teachers where there are teachers recruited from the Philippines.

[Heracles 417]

I think anyone who contributes to this country in whatever capacity, provided they did so legally, deserves a pathway to permanent residency. That has been the tradition here since the founding of this country. We brought Chinese and Irish workers over to build the railroads. Shutting the door on them while giving only skilled laborers a pathway defies our national identity.

You mean around the 1860 then, when the US had approx 31 million people to cover such a large continent.

Or do you mean the 1700s/early 1800's when the Irish came, when the US had under 20 million?

[Heracles 417]

Do you have to always run off on some mad tangent? I know what underemployed is, and that's my point, why did you add those in when they are irrelevant to any argument for or against the idea that there are already plenty of unemployed USC's that could and should do the work currently being undertaken by migrant workers? Seriously, how does that make any sense at all?

Rather, as pointed out by others, you have no clue to what others post and then force people waste their time having to explain things to you.

Sorry Cleo, not all of us are too good to do that sort of work. Seems to be a common theme amongst those with views for illegals. You are too good to do x work, so you would rather someone else be your servant.

Edited June 3, 2010 by Booyah!

[Peikko 1,575]

Rather, as pointed out by others, you have no clue to what others post and then force people waste their time having to explain things to you.

Sorry Cleo, not all of us are too good to do that sort of work. Seems to be a common theme amongst those with views for illegals. You are too good to do x work, so you would rather someone else be your servant.

You posted something completely illogical - I pointed it out. That's all there is but because you have this huge log in your eye you can't see who I am because of it. Luckily, I don't really care

[Heracles 417]

I don't think anyone is promoting offering visas to unskilled laborers during times of high or even moderate unemployment. And I think there probably needs to be an overhaul of the "special skills" visas as well. I know a lot of unemployed teachers where there are teachers recruited from the Philippines.

Here is the way I see it.

America has a chronic issue with poverty, when compared to other first world countries and is leaning towards becoming second world. Yet America also accepts the largest number of immigrants than every other country combined. That to me is totally illogical. It would be like saying India and China would prosper if they accepted each others population because of the increase tax base.

[SMOKE 1,426]

I think anyone who contributes to this country in whatever capacity, provided they did so legally, deserves a pathway to permanent residency. That has been the tradition here since the founding of this country. We brought Chinese and Irish workers over to build the railroads. Shutting the door on them while giving only skilled laborers a pathway defies our national identity.

ok, any illegal immigrant should not be given a pathway as they have not contributed legally.

[Heracles 417]

You posted something completely illogical - I pointed it out. That's all there is but because you have this huge log in your eye you can't see who I am because of it. Luckily, I don't really care

Once again, Cleo doesn't get something so it's illogical. Sorry, Cleo cannot be bothered playing these games with you anymore. After all, you talk about the plight of AA whenever you get the chance, yet to this day, fail (epically) to discuss how to improve their situation. Rather, you prefer to stick to the you just don't get it or history stance.

Perhaps you tell me how more immigrants help AA in any way? What it does is adds even more steps and obstacles to prevent them from getting out of poverty. It lowers wages and restricts opportunities, which prevents them from starting somewhere to get a head start. Forces them to compete with illegals who are willing to do the work for $6, rather than allow supply and demand to work and salaries to increase.

Because of this suppression of wages, it tells them that they either go to college, as this currently cannot be touched by illegals and work visa are limited, or they stay on welfare and in the ghettos; hoping they have some sort of entertainment talent to use to get out. Is that what you call progress and helping others out?

Edited June 3, 2010 by Booyah!

[GabiandVi 34]

ok, any illegal immigrant should not be given a pathway as they have not contributed legally.

[Moonandstar 6]

It is also ignorant and unrealistic, not to mention blindly stubborn, to close the door on a possibility of offering visas to unskilled workers in the event we need them. The truth is, if we were to KILL OFF every illegal immigrant tomorrow, we wouldn't have enough citizens/legal residents to fill all the positions those millions of illegals currently hold. I'd rather fill those positions with people who go through the legal process than with more queue-jumpers, but currently that isn't an option.

Immigration law is a living entity. Should we need them, it can be changed to accommodate them. I never said it would be ignorant and unrealistic to ever have them.

How many times have your spouse's relatives or friends asked you how they can come to America? And what can you tell them? There is NO WAY to come legally unless you have an immediate family member to petition you or you have a special skill (in which case they are already educated and probably can do as well in their own country) or, if your country participates, you win the greencard lottery.

Sorry, i think i'm gonna have to go with sachinky on this one. Never. In fact, they're dirt poor. So is my fiancee, and even for her the only reason she has agreed to go is to be with me. The US isn't quite the center of the universe as it like to portray itself as.

Who said anything about no restrictions on such visas? Why would you think that such a visa would be granted to anyone and everyone who applies regardless of the employment situation in the US? It would be little different from the "special skills" visa that is currently available, except that it would exist to address a shortage in the unskilled labor force. Not every special skills visa is approved, and visas that were approved for such and such special skill last year may not be available for that skill this year if there is not a need for the skill. What's the difference? If we needed the workers, why wouldn't we offer the visa? It seems stupid to me to not even consider the option. Currently, we have no need for unskilled laborers, but this is in large part due to the number of illegal aliens who fill those positions.

Take out the illegal immigrants and we have Americans to fill the positions. Currently and in the foreseeable future there is no need for them. Again, i'm not proposing a bill of 'unrights' that cant be changed that says unskilled laborers can never come.

It's not about being anti-immigrant but about using some common sense. Less than 100 years ago, the US had under 100 million people. Now it has 310 million and is projected to reach 500 million. What do people think this will do to the quality of life for most Americans? Now, what does pretty-much every third world country have in common? Hint: involves people and is the opposite to the first world.

Exactly. Continue this trend and no one will own houses anymore (among other things). It'll all be cheap, 5-30 story apartment buildings.

I think anyone who contributes to this country in whatever capacity, provided they did so legally, deserves a pathway to permanent residency. That has been the tradition here since the founding of this country. We brought Chinese and Irish workers over to build the railroads. Shutting the door on them while giving only skilled laborers a pathway defies our national identity.

I agree it does defy the (former) national identity. But read the history books- thats a thing of the past already. You think anyone was getting visas or greencards in the 1800s? We live in a changing world, and even a country who's identity has long been "go west young man" will run out of "west" someday. That day is today.

Okay. This is where we disagree. This sort of road to residency and citizenship would not be a new concept in US immigration history. It is how a large portion of our forefathers established themselves here, and not so long ago.

True, not so long ago, but if your check the census, it shows that population increases exponentially, not at a flat rate. Thats the weak point of your argument. The US is full. Personally, I'm all for abandoning all immigration (therefore, "immigrant visas" other than family based immigration. You think China has an immigration pathway?

Edited June 3, 2010 by Moonandstar

[GabiandVi 34]

Here is the way I see it.

America has a chronic issue with poverty, when compared to other first world countries and is leaning towards becoming second world. Yet America also accepts the largest number of immigrants than every other country combined. That to me is totally illogical. It would be like saying India and China would prosper if they accepted each others population because of the increase tax base.

You have missed the point. It wasn't that long ago that the US needed unskilled laborers. Do you think that illegal immigration rose in a void? Currently, we have high unemployment and it would be stupid to hand out visas for unskilled laborers in such an economy. But it would be equally stupid to not offer some sort of visa when we come to a point when we again need unskilled laborers.

Even during this recession I see signs at nearly every strip mall, Walmart, restaurant, and fast food joint advertising for workers. Walmart even posts its pay and it is more than two times higher than minimum wage. We have what you would call poverty here. I live in about the 48th or 49th poorest state in the US. Of course the poor here have cell phones I can't afford and drive cars nicer than mine and get their nails and hair done regularly while I cut my own hair and haven't had a mani/pedi since leaving China. I've lived in Europe, and the "not poor" lived in housing smaller and less up-to-date than the poor I taught in one of the poorest areas of America. And my Australian friends tell me all the time about the sorts of poor they work with. But that's a different issue and I'm getting off topic. The point is, once we fill those Walmart jobs with our poor, if we still have a need, it would be stupid not to have people filling it LEGALLY.

[GabiandVi 34]

You think China has an immigration pathway?

I know they don't. I lived there for a decade. Are you suggesting we become like China?