The Dawn of a new slave...a Mexican slav

OK so Bush is getting hard on the Mexican border most the media are like alright screw mexicans and maybe a few texans alike however when the card turns an it just may. Bush will be like ok everyone doesn't want this hardcore approach on Mexican border fine we will do an int'l work prgram. Sign this have your work card.

INT'l workers do not fall under min wage (booya companies I will do this for ya if you do something for me)

No SSN needed nor welfare will be available for this int'l worker program and just think we can almost bring back slaves

and now for my next trick I will pull a Jeb from my arse!

wtf

is all I can say. Please repoast, and make everything much clearer for us slow folk down here.

I second that. Please, for those of us who are apparently somewhat slow, do repost that.

bring back slaves?

they are already here. they always have been. the pc crowd just changes the name to make it paletable to sooth their conscience as they wave to their landscaper. but they have never gone away. i completely agree with you.
mexican labour is slave labour, as is minimum wage. its all a propaganda machine, they tell you you can be anything you want; but you know damn well the cooks in the back of a mcdonalds didnt sit daydreaming about that in the sandbox in elementery school...

Originally posted by seagull
I second that. Please, for those of us who are apparently somewhat slow, do repost that.

I agree. I thought the title was referring to a person of Mexican-Czechoslovakian descent.

I believe 32genroman was trying to say that Bush is for illegals because creating guest workers is benefitial to business since they do not fall under the minimum wage laws. Since they could work for next to nothing, they would be (relative to regular Americans), like slaves.

I don't know if that's true or not, but that seemed to be the point.

Personally, though, I am against ANY minimum wage laws. A free man should be able to choose for himself if a job is worth his time and efforts.

If a man chooses to work for a buck 50 an hour, that's his business, not mine.

Such is the way Liberty is truly supposed to be, but too many feel people are just too stupid or simply like to be victimized to be trusted with such normal choices as these.

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
If a man chooses to work for a buck 50 an hour, that's his business, not mine.

Why would anyone choose to do that?

What characterizes a truly free economic transaction? The ability of both parties to walk away from it, which in practice means that the consequences of walking away from it are tolerable.

If a man "chooses" to work for $1.50 an hour because it is that or not work at all, he is not making a free choice.

A man has choices in abundance in America. Choice of location, familial status, lifestyle, education (which is free many times), wage, etc.

Because you judge a choice not to be a free one does not make it so.

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
If a man chooses to work for a buck 50 an hour, that's his business, not mine.

Why would anyone choose to do that?

Imagine a wheelchair-bound person who collects a disability income that covers his basic needs. He can make $1.50/hr working on his computer; he does this for about 8 hours/day. It supplements his income.

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
A man has choices in abundance in America.

True, but not to the extent you're suggesting. Many of the things you list as being choices, including location, education, lifestyle, and wages, are for most people very limited in range.

Because you judge a choice not to be a free one does not make it so.

My judgment is not the reason I presented why the choice was not free. That the person making it has no option but to make it was the reason. I also explained why they have no choice. You need to refute that, not sidestep it.

Originally posted by jsobecky

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
If a man chooses to work for a buck 50 an hour, that's his business, not mine.

Why would anyone choose to do that?

Imagine a wheelchair-bound person who collects a disability income that covers his basic needs. He can make $1.50/hr working on his computer; he does this for about 8 hours/day. It supplements his income.

Bah. Serves me right for asking such an open-ended question.

However, you must surely recognize that this is a special case, and since the law does not allow wage discrimination based on disability, such an hourly rate would have to apply to everyone doing the work -- including those who, unlike your hypothetical, depend on it to support themselves.

Actually, this illustrates my point rather well. Your disabled person IS making a free choice, because he doesn't have to work at all -- for him, not working is a viable choice. He would lose a portion of his income, but he would not starve, fail to pay the rent, etc.

For those depending on wages to support themselves, and living in a country where workers' rights are not protected, the "choice" between working for sub-subsistence wages and not working is not a free choice, any more than the "choice" a robbery victim makes to hand over his money rather than be murdered, or a slave makes to work rather than be tortured.

Freedom exists only where more than one acceptable alternative is available.