Obama visits immigration activits (split topic)

[Peikko 1,575]

ICE disagrees with you, or they would not have taken legal action against DACA. Their belief is that this Administration is enforcing current legislation in a very selective, politically expedient manner.

It is one driver, the knock-on effects of which are felt far beyond the trades and industries that directly exploit the illegal immigrant labour pool. And if you believe that current policy efforts toward illegal immigration are not geared toward swaying the growing Latino population's voting preferences, then you are seriously kidding yourself.

The "fix" that no-one wants to consider is reforming the unemployment and welfare system to redirect the unemployed US citizens into these jobs they "refuse to undertake." Restructure benefits to incentivise employment, so that it becomes economically advantageous to work, regardless of the position, and people will reconsider remaining unemployed.

I am not suggesting that any administration is free from political expediency, all administrations are subject to it because of the money led nature of the US system. Politics is money pure and simple. The mistake is to suggest that one political party uses it to their advantage whilst the other is purely altruistic. That's asinine. The fact is however that in terms of numbers, large numbers are being deported and that's what you want, isn't it?

As to the 'fix' that no one wants to consider, there is a reason for that. While there is a niceness to the idea that those who are unemployed should be forced to undertake existing positions that are available that are currently filled by undocumented migrants I don't see how it can be accomplished without compromising fundamental principals legal, personal and economic.

If however as a first step you ensured that the jobs would be undertaken by legal workers regardless of whether those workers have to be imported from outside the US or not, that would at least resolve the issue of the legal status of those workers and ensure that these industries have a ready supply of reliable workers who have the protections of being legally employed while ensuring that the wages conform to the legal minimum requirements. That would be a good thing for everyone.

[Pooky 3,784]

I am not suggesting that any administration is free from political expediency, all administrations are subject to it because of the money led nature of the US system. Politics is money pure and simple. The mistake is to suggest that one political party uses it to their advantage whilst the other is purely altruistic. That's asinine. The fact is however that in terms of numbers, large numbers are being deported and that's what you want, isn't it?

Never have I suggested this to be a partisan issue. This is a Washington issue. Both sides are seeking whatever advantage they can gain.

As to the 'fix' that no one wants to consider, there is a reason for that. While there is a niceness to the idea that those who are unemployed should be forced to undertake existing positions that are available that are currently filled by undocumented migrants I don't see how it can be accomplished without compromising fundamental principals legal, personal and economic.

I'm not suggesting people being forced to work. What I am suggesting is that economic assistance being redistributed to provide an incentive for people to work. Make it so that taking a low-paying job does not place someone at a financial disadvantage, when compared to their situation if they were not working.

If however as a first step you ensured that the jobs would be undertaken by legal workers regardless of whether those workers have to be imported from outside the US or not, that would at least resolve the issue of the legal status of those workers and ensure that these industries have a ready supply of reliable workers who have the protections of being legally employed while ensuring that the wages conform to the legal minimum requirements. That would be a good thing for everyone.

All workers should have their legal status confirmed before they can be employed. Bring e-Verify up to snuff and mandate it's use. The penalties for businesses found to be employing illegal immigrants should be made sufficiently onerous to render the practice financially suicidal. Edited December 1, 2013 by Pooky

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

Good points Pooky. Furthermore, people on welfare should have to do something to remain there. Community service, undesirable agricultural labor, sweeping the sidewalks in their town square... anything to justify giving them benefits. Something for nothing is what they get now. Let's change that to something for something. I work, I pay taxes. I am not a burden 9n society. Those who ARE a burden should be made to give back. Drug testing for welfare is a good step, but it's not enough.

And as for illegal immigrants, they are a burden too. Sure, they do menial labor that most don't want to do. Because they can't get a good paying legal job. Buy they consume just as much as a legal person and they don't give back. No taxes paid. They allow the farming industry to reap larger profits. But they take up space and consume resources just like a taxpayer. More should be done to legalize them or remove them.

Don't think they are a real issue? Ask the native Indians what they think about unwanted immigrants... kinda messed up their whole world, didn't we?

[Peikko 1,575]

Never have I suggested this to be a partisan issue. This is a Washington issue. Both sides are seeking whatever advantage they can gain.

I'm not suggesting people being forced to work. What I am suggesting is that economic assistance being redistributed to provide an incentive for people to work. Make it so that taking a low-paying job does not place someone at a financial disadvantage, when compared to their situation if they were not working.

All workers should have their legal status confirmed before they can be employed. Bring e-Verify up to snuff and mandate it's use. The penalties for businesses found to be employing illegal immigrants should be made sufficiently onerous to render the practice financially suicidal.

Point taken, you don't tend to the partisan.

That said, there is a problem with changing the present system of low income assistance from being a mandate that applies to anyone who falls under the qualifying level and imposing conditions on its uptake. It's extremely expensive to administer any system that requires qualification and verification and it generally makes it less likely that those who people consider the 'deserving poor' will avail themselves of it.

This image that most of the people on government assistance are grasping, entitled ne'er do wells is fallacious. Many recipients are in work in low paid jobs now and often reluctant to take advantage of the programs. I am not sure what people imagine it's like being in this low income bracket or what they think people who live in these situations aspire to. It's like they see the nutters on Jerry Springer and superimpose these values, or lack of them on 'the poor' and dismiss them as worthless.. I am not sure if that's what goes on, but the pervading idea that most people who are poor are happily living the good life off 'our tax dollars' is a bizarre one that doesn't fit any version of reality that I have ever experienced.

The other thing that seems to be forgotten is that a lot of the jobs that undocumented migrants undertake are seasonal, migratory and located in areas thousands of miles from these long term unemployed wastrels who can't be bothered in the current system. How do you incentivise an unemployed person to take up this 'on the road' lifestyle and give them hope that this will lead to something better? These are not stepping stone jobs, they can be physically tough and they do not provide a permanent structure to base a life around.

[Peikko 1,575]

Good points Pooky. Furthermore, people on welfare should have to do something to remain there. Community service, undesirable agricultural labor, sweeping the sidewalks in their town square... anything to justify giving them benefits. Something for nothing is what they get now. Let's change that to something for something. I work, I pay taxes. I am not a burden 9n society. Those who ARE a burden should be made to give back. Drug testing for welfare is a good step, but it's not enough.

And as for illegal immigrants, they are a burden too. Sure, they do menial labor that most don't want to do. Because they can't get a good paying legal job. Buy they consume just as much as a legal person and they don't give back. No taxes paid. They allow the farming industry to reap larger profits. But they take up space and consume resources just like a taxpayer. More should be done to legalize them or remove them.

Don't think they are a real issue? Ask the native Indians what they think about unwanted immigrants... kinda messed up their whole world, didn't we?

No, they should not. They should be encouraged, educated and assisted but not 'made' to take up jobs that are 'undesirable'. The US does not allow for 'the poor' to have their human rights and dignities erased just because you don't like where some of your tax dollars go. I don't like my tax dollars going on munitions, a lot more of my tax dollars goes on that undesirable destination than your go on those few 'undeserving' poor and yet where do you see me moaning the odds about that? I don't. This is how taxes work. You don't get to choose which programs they go to.

You are also wrong about the taxes that the undocumented migrants put back into the economy. They do not just suck everything up and siphon it out of the US, that's asinine. However, they should be given legal status and integrated properly into the working environment for everyone's benefit, not least their own. My preference it simply to provide short term/fixed term work permits. Cheap, simple, fixed.

[Pooky 3,784]

Point taken, you don't tend to the partisan.

That said, there is a problem with changing the present system of low income assistance from being a mandate that applies to anyone who falls under the qualifying level and imposing conditions on its uptake. It's extremely expensive to administer any system that requires qualification and verification and it generally makes it less likely that those who people consider the 'deserving poor' will avail themselves of it.

We should not, as a nation, avoid doing the right thing, simply because it's hard to do. JFK would not approve.

This image that most of the people on government assistance are grasping, entitled ne'er do wells is fallacious. Many recipients are in work in low paid jobs now and often reluctant to take advantage of the programs. I am not sure what people imagine it's like being in this low income bracket or what they think people who live in these situations aspire to. It's like they see the nutters on Jerry Springer and superimpose these values, or lack of them on 'the poor' and dismiss them as worthless.. I am not sure if that's what goes on, but the pervading idea that most people who are poor are happily living the good life off 'our tax dollars' is a bizarre one that doesn't fit any version of reality that I have ever experienced.

There will always be moochers. I'm under no illusions about that.

However, there are countless people out there who would very much appreciate a system that did not, in effect, penalise them for being employed. There should never be a circumstance whereby the loss of public assistance means they take home less money by being employed. That's not fair and it's certainly not an incentive to aspire to a better life through hard work.

The other thing that seems to be forgotten is that a lot of the jobs that undocumented migrants undertake are seasonal, migratory and located in areas thousands of miles from these long term unemployed wastrels who can't be bothered in the current system. How do you incentivise an unemployed person to take up this 'on the road' lifestyle and give them hope that this will lead to something better? These are not stepping stone jobs, they can be physically tough and they do not provide a permanent structure to base a life around.

I have no issue with legal migrant workers.

What I see is that America has turned away from physical forms of employment. Kids these days expect to go to college, graduate, get a well-paid job and never have to undertake any form of manual labor. People trained in one field are often reluctant to accept employment outside of that field, preferring to remain out of work, instead.

I don't see it as erasing people's dignities to undertake manual labor. If I did, it would mean I viewed migrant labour as having less dignity. There is nothing less dignified about farm work. What I do not appreciate is people refusing employment because they consider certain work to be beneath them.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

President Bush serves the troops Thanksgiving dinner in Iraq 2003.

Absolutely! Obama should have illegally invaded a country for no good reason at all, wasting tens of thousands of lives and trillions of dollars so he could have had a better photo-op on Thanksgiving. That's it. That's what he should have done.

[Peikko 1,575]

We should not, as a nation, avoid doing the right thing, simply because it's hard to do. JFK would not approve.

There will always be moochers. I'm under no illusions about that.

However, there are countless people out there who would very much appreciate a system that did not, in effect, penalise them for being employed. There should never be a circumstance whereby the loss of public assistance means they take home less money by being employed. That's not fair and it's certainly not an incentive to aspire to a better life through hard work.

I have no issue with legal migrant workers.

What I see is that America has turned away from physical forms of employment. Kids these days expect to go to college, graduate, get a well-paid job and never have to undertake any form of manual labor. People trained in one field are often reluctant to accept employment outside of that field, preferring to remain out of work, instead.

I don't see it as erasing people's dignities to undertake manual labor. If I did, it would mean I viewed migrant labour as having less dignity. There is nothing less dignified about farm work. What I do not appreciate is people refusing employment because they consider certain work to be beneath them.

Interestingly, I was thinking about that and wondering if we couldn't somehow integrate a spell of agricultural labor as part of the curriculum. Not sure how, but if there is any part of the work force that lends itself to the indigent life, it's the college student. Not sure of an ethical way of doing it though.

As regards physcial labour, of course it's not without dignity, I am not suggesting it's not, but there is no step to other, better paid jobs. That's the difficulty.

[Sousuke 1,214]

Immigration enforcement could be operated as a cost neutral service. Consider that the current cost for one deportation is about 12,000 US dollars, these funds could be recouped through two parallel avenues.

1. Fines on businesses.

2. Taxes paid by new migrant visa holders who won't actually fully benefit from their tax payments.

It is true that the US probably needs somewhere in the realm of 300,000 additional migrant visa holders to "legally" harvest high labour crops such as grapes, tomatoes etc.

You'll find though that US businesses are currently hard at work lobbying against both ideas.

[Sousuke 1,214]

Interestingly, I was thinking about that and wondering if we couldn't somehow integrate a spell of agricultural labor as part of the curriculum. Not sure how, but if there is any part of the work force that lends itself to the indigent life, it's the college student. Not sure of an ethical way of doing it though.

As regards physcial labour, of course it's not without dignity, I am not suggesting it's not, but there is no step to other, better paid jobs. That's the difficulty.

Even Agricultural Labor will be diminished over time. Take tomatoes for instance, currently they require a high quantity of low paid labor. However, there are already GM tomatoes out there now that can be harvested by machine without being damaged.

[Peikko 1,575]

Even Agricultural Labor will be diminished over time. Take tomatoes for instance, currently they require a high quantity of low paid labor. However, there are already GM tomatoes out there now that can be harvested by machine without being damaged.

As for whether what has been engineered is in fact a tomato...all bets are off. I stopped buying what passes for tomatoes in stores years ago. If you taste a real tomato any time soon, you would too.

When these guys drop off lorries they don't squash, they bounce!

Edited December 1, 2013 by The Truth™

[Pooky 3,784]

As for whether what has been engineered is in fact a tomato...all bets are off. I stopped buying what passes for tomatoes in stores years ago. If you taste a real tomato any time soon, you would too.

When these guys drop off lorries they don't squash, they bounce!

If it has been engineered, I'd rather not eat it.

We stay with organic, non-GM produce, and avoid Frankenfood whenever and wherever possible.

The push for GM crops is all part of the race to maximise profits and reduce costs. The consumer has come to expect low (relatively) supermarket pricing. Illegal immigrant labour only feeds this trend.

Edited December 1, 2013 by Pooky

[Karee 4,190]

This image that most of the people on government assistance are grasping, entitled ne'er do wells is fallacious. . It's like they see the nutters on Jerry Springer and superimpose these values, or lack of them on 'the poor' and dismiss them as worthless.. I am not sure if that's what goes on, but the pervading idea that most people who are poor are happily living the good life off 'our tax dollars' is a bizarre one that doesn't fit any version of reality that I have ever experienced.

That pretty much describes everyone I've known on welfare, or AFDC, or bridge card or whatever. Most of them family members. People will lower their standards to unbelievable levels to avoid working. Especially when they've been raised living that lifestyle.

Edited December 1, 2013 by Karee

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

Absolutely! Obama should have illegally invaded a country for no good reason at all, wasting tens of thousands of lives and trillions of dollars so he could have had a better photo-op on Thanksgiving. That's it. That's what he should have done.

He did, by virtue of not getting us out. And rather than getting us out like he promised when he took office, he is taking steps to keep us there until 2024. Another broken promise. (and it wasn't tens of thousands of lives, BTW) As for the money, he's spent more than any president in the past in a very short amount of time. Sure, there's inflation and all, but he's handed out money like candy as "bailouts", with little accounting for how the money was spent.

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

No, they should not. They should be encouraged, educated and assisted but not 'made' to take up jobs that are 'undesirable'. The US does not allow for 'the poor' to have their human rights and dignities erased just because you don't like where some of your tax dollars go. I don't like my tax dollars going on munitions, a lot more of my tax dollars goes on that undesirable destination than your go on those few 'undeserving' poor and yet where do you see me moaning the odds about that? I don't. This is how taxes work. You don't get to choose which programs they go to.

You are also wrong about the taxes that the undocumented migrants put back into the economy. They do not just suck everything up and siphon it out of the US, that's asinine. However, they should be given legal status and integrated properly into the working environment for everyone's benefit, not least their own. My preference it simply to provide short term/fixed term work permits. Cheap, simple, fixed.

What's asinine is you thinking I said they suck it up and siphon it out of the US. I said they don't pay taxes. Therefore that money can't go anywhere, in or out of the US. Therefore they don't put back into our nation like the legally employed are FORCED to do (which is actually not THEIR fault, it is the fault of the employer who is willing to cheat the system for cheap labor, which increases profits). I am FORCED to get a job and FORCED to pay taxes if I want nicer things in life. Why should the people of America waste our money or time encouraging, educating, and assisting them, if they won't do what it takes to be a legal citizen here? If I went to their country, they would expect me to follow the rules and pay the dues to not only becoming a citizen, but "learning the ropes" in their country. It's not their job to coddle me, I have the responsibility to learn THEIR ways and do the right thing by them and their government. We didn't insist they come here, the burden of educating them should not fall on our shoulders.

Oh, and don't forget that many of them who pay no taxes, which benefits our nation not, also send money home, wherever that may be. So technically, it IS siphoned out of the US. Just not the part you were talking about.

And that's a separate issue from the people on welfare to whom I was referring. All of us that pay taxes support people on welfare who refuse to work. And many take advantage of that system. Think I'm off base? Search the interwebs for the EBT theft that occurred in October when their database went offline for a few hours. People who receive food stamp benefits, who KNEW they didn't have any money, were trying to buy shopping carts loaded with food to take advantage of the system. If people on welfare deserve our help via government benefits, then they should be doing something for it. Being drug tested is a first to qualify, IMHO. And once you qualify, then you should be out working in the community. I'm not talking about displacing them and making them do that turrible seasonal labor to which you refer. I'm saying sweep the streets & sidewalks in their home town, picking up trash, local improvements. Why not? They are getting paid to sit at home and do nothing but collect, right? And SOMEONE has to do those chores that need doing. Why pay someone else to do it, or get it done via volunteers, when you have all those "needy" people doing nothing?

Two different issues, but both need fixing. Something like 131 million people are on welfare today, and approximately 142 million are full-time workers. NOT a good ratio. The illegal immigrants are not even included in those numbers, but they need to be, because they consume, and give back next to nothing.