Poll: Public Wants Illegals to Go Home

[Peikko 1,575]

Like the flu? Highly communicable, in the top ten of the most likely causes of death among the US population and...

Not on the list beacuse?

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

I have yet to find the cheaper cucumber that the illegal picked. Is there a separate shelf in the grocery somewhere where I can get the bargains that illegal labor affords me? I mean, 75% of the produce is picked by legally employed individuals leaving only 25% to be picked by illegal labor. Same goes for the restaurant where I am still searching for that 15-20% niche that will offer the savings of illegal labor to me. So, where does one go for the actual savings?

Oh, that's right. The savings ain't for the consumer. It's just for the profiteer that employs the illegal alien.

I'm not sure where you found those percentages, but I'm certain I've read those percentages were much higher. At the risk of sounding anecdotal - just go see how many non-hispanics you can find harvesting the crops or in the kitchens of restaurant across the country. And that's no accident. California was importing seasonal migrant workers for agriculture for the last century - we even made it legal for them to be here...imagine that.

There's your central issue, Steven. Just because you see a lot of hispanics in agriculture, restaurant kitchens and construction, doesn't mean that the percentages of illegal labor that I quoted are too low. Not all hispanics, you know, are illegal aliens. The vast majority - upwards of 75% - 80% of "jobs Americans won't do" [in the context of the debate around illegal aliens, this should really be read as "jobs legally employable workers won't do" in order to keep the debate on focus] are actually done by those legally able to work in the US. The small percentage of illegals amount to no cost benefit to you and me on the product we consume but to a cost benefit only for those that employ them. You and I get to pay the bills that the illegal aliens incur while here against the law. I'd rather not pay those bills anymore. Maybe you can pick up my share seeing that you'd like to keep them all here...

I agree with you in principle about employers being the biggest benefactor in the cases where illegals are be paid under the table, although some of that savings is passed onto the consumer, particularly with agriculture.

Then I ask again, where do I go for the discounted produce that illegals have picked at lower cost? I haven't found the "lower price thanks to illegals" shelf in the store just yet. But I'll keep looking.

What I hear is nothing but rhetoric about how much it's costing us when there is evidence that all of us are benefitting through lower cost items. Cheap labor is a ongoing issue/problem of its own - factory jobs have all but disappeared in this country and you can't blame that on illegal immigration.

Again, I don't see the lower cost items. I'd appreciate if you could point me in the right direction. The relative disappearance of factory jobs (there's a lot of them around still and that'll continue to be the case) has indeed nothing to do with the illegals in the country. Those jobs are being shipped off no matter what. That said, having the number of illegal workers increase dramatically in the sectors that cannot be shipped overseas while factory jobs are shipped out really adds insult to injury for the American worker. That may just be part of the reason that the tolerance for illegal aliens is dropping. I am quite certain that if it was you whose job was affected by this problem, you'd be singing a different tune.

Reinhard, I'm not sure what publications you read or what news programs you watch, but there's a lot of good information out there if you look.

Here's just an example...

Food and Punishment

Colorado's inmates-as-farmworkers plan says plenty about our food culture

Last summer, the Colorado General Assembly passed some of the nation's most rigorous anti-immigrant policy laws. Debate was fierce -- but only because some GOP lawmakers fumed that the Democratic-engineered crackdown wasn't draconian enough.

Essentially, the state's political elite -- backed editorially by The Denver Post -- took aim at its low-wage workforce: the people who clean bedpans, prep food in restaurants, harvest vegetables, and perform other "low-value" tasks.

The new code denied most "nonessential" services, including non-emergency health care, to undocumented workers (although it didn't exempt them from paying sales tax). It also upped identification requirements to get driver's licenses, and penalized businesses for not confirming workers' documentation.

While lawmakers congratulated themselves on their foresight -- or deplored their inability to enact harsher sanctions -- immigrants began to flee Colorado. And now the state's large-scale farms, which are almost comically reliant on immigrant labor for profitability, are begging the state government to help them find workers for the growing season.

http://www.grist.org/comments/food/2007/03/15/inmates/

As a resident of CO steven.. the article you posted is far from factual. Yes there was a crack down... the illegals though are not feelign in droves... the measure was far from "draconian" and some of the farm producers are whining because now they cant pay some 13yr old kid 12.50 a day to pick vegetables for 10-12 hrs. As to them still paying sales tax... even tourists pay that while visiting from other countries. no one is exempt. And what is wrong with requiring proof of eligibility to get a DL, or show proof to work legally here in the US. I had to when I applied for the new job, and I am sure you did too when you applied for your new job.

If we offered work visas for low skilled laborers, that would fix both of those issues.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I have yet to find the cheaper cucumber that the illegal picked. Is there a separate shelf in the grocery somewhere where I can get the bargains that illegal labor affords me? I mean, 75% of the produce is picked by legally employed individuals leaving only 25% to be picked by illegal labor. Same goes for the restaurant where I am still searching for that 15-20% niche that will offer the savings of illegal labor to me. So, where does one go for the actual savings?

Oh, that's right. The savings ain't for the consumer. It's just for the profiteer that employs the illegal alien.

I'm not sure where you found those percentages, but I'm certain I've read those percentages were much higher. At the risk of sounding anecdotal - just go see how many non-hispanics you can find harvesting the crops or in the kitchens of restaurant across the country. And that's no accident. California was importing seasonal migrant workers for agriculture for the last century - we even made it legal for them to be here...imagine that.

There's your central issue, Steven. Just because you see a lot of hispanics in agriculture, restaurant kitchens and construction, doesn't mean that the percentages of illegal labor that I quoted are too low. Not all hispanics, you know, are illegal aliens. The vast majority - upwards of 75% - 80% of "jobs Americans won't do" [in the context of the debate around illegal aliens, this should really be read as "jobs legally employable workers won't do" in order to keep the debate on focus] are actually done by those legally able to work in the US. The small percentage of illegals amount to no cost benefit to you and me on the product we consume but to a cost benefit only for those that employ them. You and I get to pay the bills that the illegal aliens incur while here against the law. I'd rather not pay those bills anymore. Maybe you can pick up my share seeing that you'd like to keep them all here...

I agree with you in principle about employers being the biggest benefactor in the cases where illegals are be paid under the table, although some of that savings is passed onto the consumer, particularly with agriculture.

Then I ask again, where do I go for the discounted produce that illegals have picked at lower cost? I haven't found the "lower price thanks to illegals" shelf in the store just yet. But I'll keep looking.

What I hear is nothing but rhetoric about how much it's costing us when there is evidence that all of us are benefitting through lower cost items. Cheap labor is a ongoing issue/problem of its own - factory jobs have all but disappeared in this country and you can't blame that on illegal immigration.

Again, I don't see the lower cost items. I'd appreciate if you could point me in the right direction. The relative disappearance of factory jobs (there's a lot of them around still and that'll continue to be the case) has indeed nothing to do with the illegals in the country. Those jobs are being shipped off no matter what. That said, having the number of illegal workers increase dramatically in the sectors that cannot be shipped overseas while factory jobs are shipped out really adds insult to injury for the American worker. That may just be part of the reason that the tolerance for illegal aliens is dropping. I am quite certain that if it was you whose job was affected by this problem, you'd be singing a different tune.

Reinhard, I'm not sure what publications you read or what news programs you watch, but there's a lot of good information out there if you look.

Here's just an example...

Food and Punishment

Colorado's inmates-as-farmworkers plan says plenty about our food culture

Last summer, the Colorado General Assembly passed some of the nation's most rigorous anti-immigrant policy laws. Debate was fierce -- but only because some GOP lawmakers fumed that the Democratic-engineered crackdown wasn't draconian enough.

Essentially, the state's political elite -- backed editorially by The Denver Post -- took aim at its low-wage workforce: the people who clean bedpans, prep food in restaurants, harvest vegetables, and perform other "low-value" tasks.

The new code denied most "nonessential" services, including non-emergency health care, to undocumented workers (although it didn't exempt them from paying sales tax). It also upped identification requirements to get driver's licenses, and penalized businesses for not confirming workers' documentation.

While lawmakers congratulated themselves on their foresight -- or deplored their inability to enact harsher sanctions -- immigrants began to flee Colorado. And now the state's large-scale farms, which are almost comically reliant on immigrant labor for profitability, are begging the state government to help them find workers for the growing season.

http://www.grist.org/comments/food/2007/03/15/inmates/

1) The information on the portion of illegals in the workforce came up here on VJ not too long ago. The Pew Hispanic center had those figures published, I believe. Damn that anti-illegal immigrant organization, eh?

2) You're not fooling me with begging farmers. Here as in Europe, farmers are always the loudest to scream for subsidies. Despite harboring quite a bit of wealth.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I want the illegals to go home because they are here illegally

And you are prepared to deal with the economically disruptive effects of doing so? You are prepared to uproot families that have been here for years, including the lives of young children?

Either you don't realize the impact of what you're suggesting, or....

Yes I am. It's not my problem that they have been here illegally so long that they have roots. Just because they have gotten away with it for years does not forgive the crime. They should go home. All of them. Then we can institute a guest worker program and they can come back.

I have two problems with that.

1. By letting them in (loose to non-existent border controls) and letting them stay (by not having stronger employer sanctions to begin with, by allowing Mexican consular cards, etc.), this country is complicit in their crime. That means you, I, Steven, all of us. We're complicit by the very fact that we enabled them. To punish them now is shameless political scapegoating.

2. To uproot families the way you are describing is immoral.

You complicity argument doesn't fly. These things are not within my control or yours. It's like claiming that I am somehow complicit in the Enron accounting scandal since I willingly consumed energy. Talking about Enron: Is it also immoral to cut these guys off their illegal profits seeing that they were pretty used to them?

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

2) You're not fooling me with begging farmers. Here as in Europe, farmers are always the loudest to scream for subsidies. Despite harboring quite a bit of wealth.

The U.S. has an incessant need/desire for cheap labor - we can argue all day as to how much of that is shouldered by business/agriculture and how much of it each one of us contributes to that. At least here, we do have a lot of consumer choices - you can go to the store and choose a lot of Fair Trade products now. Free market capitalists tout that it is consumer choice/buying trends that dictate the market. I don't believe that entirely falls on the consumer, but our buying choices do make a difference.

Just like our drug policy, we'd be better off to make it easier for companies to sponsor low skilled workers with temporary visas then we bring it out in the open to stop the potential exploitation as well as giving these workers rights. The current restrictions and enforcement on hiring was like putting a bandaid on a severed artery.

Edited May 27, 2007 by Steven_and_Jinky

[LuzyC 0]

2) You're not fooling me with begging farmers. Here as in Europe, farmers are always the loudest to scream for subsidies. Despite harboring quite a bit of wealth.

The U.S. has an incessant need/desire for cheap labor - we can argue all day as to how much of that is shouldered by business/agriculture and how much of it each one of us contributes to that. At least here, we do have a lot of consumer choices - you can go to the store and choose a lot of Fair Trade products now. Free market capitalists tout that it is consumer choice/buying trends that dictate the market. I don't believe that entirely falls on the consumer, but our buying choices do make a difference.

Just like our drug policy, we'd be better off to make it easier for companies to sponsor low skilled workers with temporary visas then we bring it out in the open to stop the potential exploitation as well as giving these workers rights. The current restrictions and enforcement on hiring was like putting a bandaid on a severed artery.

Bring it out in the open after they all go home. Then start a guest worker program that can be regulated and enforced. If you really have that much compassion for the illegals then that is the best way to protect them. Otherwise we have no control or regulation and they will continue to be exploited.

[mawilson 2,133]

Like the flu? Highly communicable, in the top ten of the most likely causes of death among the US population and...

Not on the list beacuse?

It's not life threatening?

[mawilson 2,133]

If we offered work visas for low skilled laborers, that would fix both of those issues.

There are plenty of lazy-### low-skilled Americans on welfare that would do the work if we took away their benefits.

[JoeMama 0]

If we offered work visas for low skilled laborers, that would fix both of those issues.

There are plenty of lazy-### low-skilled Americans on welfare that would do the work if we took away their benefits.

Damn! You're right on the money!

[Artegal 1]

Same old argument recycled over and over.

Gee I wasn't aware that NAFTA was signed in to Law in the 1800's

[Artegal 1]

The U.S. has an incessant need/desire for cheap labor - we can argue all day as to how much of that is shouldered by business/agriculture and how much of it each one of us contributes to that. At least here, we do have a lot of consumer choices - you can go to the store and choose a lot of Fair Trade products now. Free market capitalists tout that it is consumer choice/buying trends that dictate the market. I don't believe that entirely falls on the consumer, but our buying choices do make a difference.

Just like our drug policy, we'd be better off to make it easier for companies to sponsor low skilled workers with temporary visas then we bring it out in the open to stop the potential exploitation as well as giving these workers rights. The current restrictions and enforcement on hiring was like putting a bandaid on a severed artery.

Like our drug policy? What are you trying to say, that we'd be better off to make it easier for drug dealers to sell crank, crack and meth? Bring it out in the open and quit exploitation of junkies, mules, and the coca farmer?

Or are you saying that the free market capitalists [didn't know a capitalists existed out of a free market] tout that it is consumer choice/buying trends that dictate the market--so therefore the war on drugs is just a problem of ill informed consumers?

What are you refering to when you say "Just like our drug policy"

PS: and you still haven't made your case for NAFTA causing a influx in migrant low-skilled labor.

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

The U.S. has an incessant need/desire for cheap labor - we can argue all day as to how much of that is shouldered by business/agriculture and how much of it each one of us contributes to that. At least here, we do have a lot of consumer choices - you can go to the store and choose a lot of Fair Trade products now. Free market capitalists tout that it is consumer choice/buying trends that dictate the market. I don't believe that entirely falls on the consumer, but our buying choices do make a difference.

Just like our drug policy, we'd be better off to make it easier for companies to sponsor low skilled workers with temporary visas then we bring it out in the open to stop the potential exploitation as well as giving these workers rights. The current restrictions and enforcement on hiring was like putting a bandaid on a severed artery.

Like our drug policy? What are you trying to say, that we'd be better off to make it easier for drug dealers to sell crank, crack and meth? Bring it out in the open and quit exploitation of junkies, mules, and the coca farmer?

Or are you saying that the free market capitalists [didn't know a capitalists existed out of a free market] tout that it is consumer choice/buying trends that dictate the market--so therefore the war on drugs is just a problem of ill informed consumers?

What are you refering to when you say "Just like our drug policy"

PS: and you still haven't made your case for NAFTA causing a influx in migrant low-skilled labor.

I meant by legalizing/decriminalizing drugs it would bring it out in the open so it can be regulated. Cheap, low skilled labor is a commodity and like drugs, most of the cheap labor is coming from outside this country illegally.

The conventional definition of a free market capitalist is one who opposes restrictions or regulations on the market. Milton Friedman believed the market would regulate itself through competition and consumer choice is the main driving force. That's why corporations will buy out the competition - to circumvent consumer choice. Do you have a different definition?

As for NAFTA and the influx of immigration - here's just one POV from Economist's View (Hardly a Liberal Slant):

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economis..._and_illeg.html

Mexico has shed nearly 30% of its farm jobs since the trade pact went into effect, according to government statistics. That translates into 2.8 million farmers and millions more of their dependents fleeing their fields. Some have taken subsistence jobs in Mexico's cities, but many have relocated to the U.S. ....

NAFTA experts say negotiators from Mexico and the U.S. knew that rural families ... would be hard hit by the trade deal. The bet was that many of them would find work in Mexico's burgeoning maquiladora export factories. But ... Mexico has lost more than four times as many farm jobs over the last 12 years as it gained in export manufacturing positions, in part because of relentless competition from China...

[Mirorgate 0]

If we offered work visas for low skilled laborers, that would fix both of those issues.

We already have a visa for low-skilled guest worker type visa.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

If we offered work visas for low skilled laborers, that would fix both of those issues.

We already have a visa for low-skilled guest worker type visa.

Yes we do. It's just that not everyone that wants one can get one. Many of those that can't get one, come here anyways. That's the issue that needs to be addressed. Raising the number of visas alone ain't gonna do the trick considering the number of people that would want to come to the US. There'll always be people that cannot get a visa. Until the message is out that NO means NO, we'll keep dealing with illegals. That is why those that came anyways cannot receive preferential treatment but need to be shown the door.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

2) You're not fooling me with begging farmers. Here as in Europe, farmers are always the loudest to scream for subsidies. Despite harboring quite a bit of wealth.

The U.S. has an incessant need/desire for cheap labor ...

The profiteers of illegal labor are not the US. The US doesn't have that need. Profiteers have the desire for cheap labor which is why they hire illegals. Hence they need to get cuffs slapped on and sent up the river so the market can compete fairly where all employers hire from the same lawful pool of employees. It's funny that in every industry, there are successful players that don't exploit illegal labor. And they are making it. That is why I keep saying, if you can't make it in this marketplace staying within the law, then get out of business and make room for those who can.