It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

White House Plan on Immigration Includes Legal Status

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sestias
reply to post by jdub297
 
How can you deduce that that's xenophobic?


Your presumptions of ignorance and helplessness speak for themselves.


Also, illegal workers of all nationalities typically put up with worse treatment than Americans. This is not only true of Hispanic illegal aliens.


Prove it. Any employer willing to abuse workers does not care about their nationality. What difference does "American" make, aside from xenophobia?
What makes Americans so special that they will get better treatment from unscrupulous employers? Crooks are crooks. Employers who violate labor and immigration laws should be put out of business.

You confuse labor regulation and immigration regulation.

Labor regulation applies to ALL employers and workers. Immigration regulation applies to the people lawfully within our borders.

They are not interconnected. They are independent. Stop, think, get your facts in order, and try to make a case within reality.


Yes, there are organizations, including labor unions, that devote themselves to improving wages and working conditions for all labor. But it is not easy for a person who is here illegally to access them. For example, an illegal cannot testify in court against an employer without coming under a great deal of scrutiny and possible deportation.


Pure B.S. Tell that to the INS border guards serving 10-year sentences for shooting a dope trafficking alien.

The alien appeared in court, testified, continued selling dope, and went about his business; all on the taxpayers' dime.

An illegal CAN testify with impunity. Even if he is deported, he is no worse off than where he began, is he? Or do you prefer he work in silence in abominable conditions?

No one is prosecuting employers.
Name names.

Your agenda has no support in logic, politics, economics or fact.

jw




posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 04:28 PM
link   
Originally posted by Sestias


The point is there are AREADY millions of undocumented workers getting less than minimum wage and in many cases working under terrible or unsafe conditions.


Where? If you know this, why doesn't someone like you speak up?


They are doing jobs that no American will take, as well as some they would. If they cause them any trouble their employers can always report them to the immigration authorities.


Name one. This is a myth and you perpetuate it. If it's a job "they would," what possibly justifies giving it to an illegal alien over an American?

And if employers could "always report them," what do they gain? Getting busted themselves?

You really don't think these things through, do you?


The people who profit most from illegal labor are the American employers, in many cases people like you and me, who hire maids, gardeners, etc. at less than minimum wage and with no benefits.


If you are hiring employees at illegal wages, you should go to jail.
If you are hiring independent contractors, the terms of service are between you and the vendor. Ever hear of "free market?"

Have you ever paid someone to mow your grass? Clean your house? Change your oil? Clean your chimney or drains?

(Snip)


Yes, they do compete with Americans, mainly for low-paid jobs at minimum wage, but again, they work at less than that, and many Americans won't take those jobs at that pay anyway.


So, focus on the PAY instead of the PAYEE, and what do you get? Illegal employers.

Jail them all. What difference will amnesty make to an employer who doesn't care what the law says about wages in the first place?


If these workers were legalized they could have the legal and political clout to advocate for the minimum wage and other benefits, making the playing field at least equal with Americans who are looking for the same jobs


I know and have known dozens of illegal aliens. I married one of their daughters. They are not "low wage" or "unskilled" as a group. Your prejudice and paternalism cloud your thinking.

Many of the illegals I know own homes, own businesses, employ other illegals, and contribute to the economy. They are still here illegally.

I do not oppose a mechanism enabling these "Americans" to legitimize their presence in the U.S. Blanket amnesty does nothing of the sort.

jw


[edit on 18-11-2009 by asala]



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297

Are you an idiot?


I would like to remind you of the T&C and the recent emphasis on strictly reinforcing them. There is no need to call me denigrating names and spew insults at me.

I see there is no possibility of a rational discussion here.

But as one last try, I'll tell you ONE of my personal experiences that has a bearing on the subject:

When I lived in NYC I worked in a restaurant for awhile. It was a union shop and I enjoyed better than average wages because I became a member. I also got choice stations, ones near the front of the restaurant that typically had the most customers and therefore the best tips. Even my uniform was paid for by my employer.

There were, however, at the same restaurant undocumented workers from Thailand . A few were waiters and a few worked in the kitchen. They all shared an apartment to make ends meet. They were not union members, because American citizenship was one of the prerequisites for joining.

The Thais were always given the poorer stations at the back, the ones with fewer customers and therefore fewer tips. If a union representative or other authority dropped by the restaurant their first sight was of union workers busily doing their jobs. They paid for their own uniforms and had no paid days off.

Still, they did not ever complain or try to organize. They did nothing to antagonize or disagree with the management, but cheerfully fulfilled their duties.

This in contrast to us union members, who always took our grievances to the top and to the union if necessary. I know of no one who complained that was fired for doing so.

One of the Thais told me the reason they were so acquiescent in relation to our employers was because no matter how hard they had to struggle their condition was better than it had been in Thailand. That, and the fact that if they got fired or failed in any way they would be immediately sent back home. Some sort of agreement between the restaurant and the people who brought them to America.

All of the employees understood the plight of the Thais and wished them well, so nobody ever blew the whistle on them or on the restaurant. Besides, we all believed in the American Dream and could never begrudge anyone the opportunity to aim for success and happiness. There are plenty of good people in the U.S. who likewise look the other way when they meet or work with undocumented aliens, even when they see them exploited in some ways.

I believe the restaurant I worked for was, like many, guilty of such exploitation of the Thais and other undocumented workers. But I didn't want to risk bringing them to the attention of the authorities or the union because such exposure might jeopardize the situation of the Thais who worked in the back and whose position was so tenuous.

This is one of the experiences that brought me to my current position on giving amnesty to a limited segment of the illegal population.





[edit on 16-11-2009 by Sestias]



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 01:29 AM
link   
I guess Joe Wilson was not so crazy after all. But I am sure obama lovers will still say he was not lying about giving health care to illegal aliens. To me it almost seems like a plan all over the world you let alot of people in and then pit everyone against one another. Maybe I look to deep. Or maybe 2+2 does = 4



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Sestias
 
Aha! The truth of your own guilt comes out at last.


I would like to remind you of the T&C and the recent emphasis on strictly reinforcing them. There is no need to call me denigrating names and spew insults at me.


(I didn't "call you a name," or spew any insults; I asked you a question! You've answered it well in your post.)


This in contrast to us union members, who always took our grievances to the top and to the union if necessary. I know of no one who complained that was fired for doing so.


Typical liberal "nanny" mentality: "We have someone who will take care of 'us'; leave the others alone."

Yet no one of "us" complained that the employer was violating right to work and equal opportunity laws? Collective bargaining laws? You took advantage of the illegal aliens with your preferential treatment and silence.

What hypocrisy.


One of the Thais told me the reason they were so acquiescent in relation to our employers was because no matter how hard they had to struggle their condition was better than it had been in Thailand. That, and the fact that if they got fired or failed in any way they would be immediately sent back home. Some sort of agreement between the restaurant and the people who brought them to America.


And YOU! Your acquiescence makes you an accomplice to fraud, exploitation and worse. You are in effect the right-hand of the unscrupulous employer. Shame on you.


All of the employees understood the plight of the Thais and wished them well, so nobody ever blew the whistle on them or on the restaurant.


Self-serving rationalization, plain and simple. "We did it for their own good." What BS!


Besides, we all believed in the American Dream and could never begrudge anyone the opportunity to aim for success and happiness.


Unless your own well-being required your silence and complicity. Your "American dream" implicitly includes taking advantage of the weak and "powerless." You assume the Thais had no legal recourse, so you kept your mouth shut and profited at their expense.

This is sick.


There are plenty of good people in the U.S. who likewise look the other way when they meet or work with undocumented aliens, even when they see them exploited in some ways.


How does complicity in crime make anyone "good people?" You have no idea who Kitty Genovese was, do you?


But I didn't want to risk bringing them to the attention of the authorities or the union because such exposure might jeopardize the situation of the Thais who worked in the back and whose position was so tenuous.


More self-serving rationalization. You are no less a thief and exploiter/slavemaster than the employer you cower behind.


Deny ignorance.

jw

[edit on 17-11-2009 by jdub297]



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Sestias
 


So now you've called me an idiot. I gather that's your attitude toward everyone you consider a liberal.

You've said what you are against, but not what you are for.

Do you agree with amnesty or not? That's the subject of this thread.



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sestias

It ultimately helps the American worker to legalize a lot of current aliens. With such a large pool of cheap illegal labor, employers can get away with paying less than the minimum wage, thereby reducing the market for American workers. Besides being cheaper, illegals can be easily abused and manipulated because who are they going to complain to -- the authorities? American employees have rights and privileges, like overtime and unemployment, that employers don't need to respect or provide if they can get their work done for less money and hassle.


So many holes in this "logic" that a mexican truck could be driven through!

Where to start? OK, let's try this.

If you make them all legal and then subject to all the legal protections given to U.S. workers such as the minimum wage and unemployment benefits, won't these people become just as "expensive" as the current U.S. citizen workers that are already here?

And when they come wanting to compete for your union job while asking for less money, it will either cost you a pay cut, or your actual job!

Doh!


Legalizing (and therefore reducing) the competition creates a more level playing field for American workers.


Still more "fuzzy logic".

How does legalizing them reduce the competition? Does it make them then move on to Canada?

IMO you need to go back to whoever gave you those talking points and ask for your money back!



[edit on 11/19/2009 by centurion1211]



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sestias
reply to post by Sestias
 


Do you agree with amnesty or not? That's the subject of this thread.



IMO, no real, thinking American will be in favor of amnesty.

It can do the country no good to allow millions of people who's first official act here was to break the law, and who drive around with flags and bumper stickers saying "I love (some country south of the Rio Grande)", and who know nothing or care nothing about this country's language, culture or traditions, and who have no plans to assimilate.

BTW, these are hardly stereotypes, since I've seen them every day for the last 15 years I've lived on or near the West Coast.

Face it, you've been duped. The real reason obama and the dems want to do this is for the votes they will get from registering all the thankful "ex-illegals".

Last, the question no proponent of amnesty can or will answer:

What do you do about the NEXT wave of illegals that granting amnesty will create?


[edit on 11/19/2009 by centurion1211]



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Sestias
 


You've said what you are against, but not what you are for.


I have posted my thoughts on true reform, and shared them in-depth via u2u.

There are just a few points:

Canada and Mexico must bear part of the burden as the sources of the illegal entries. We should partner with them to curb illegal entrance and promote entry of "qualified" candidates for residency/employment.

The last "reform" plan called for $5,000 payments as incentives to assimilation. Such payments should instead fund "emigration centers" that prepare potential border crossers for entry and assimilation. The funds would come from Canada and Mexico as well as the U.S.

Employers must face arrest and publicity, serious fines and economic consequences, but not necessarily jail time. The Dept. of Labor rather than DHS/ICE would be responsible for enforcement of documentation and wage regulations.

DoL raids would leave aliens alone, unless they possessed false documents. ICE would remain responsible for immigration enforcement, or the lack of it.


Do you agree with amnesty or not? That's the subject of this thread.


Absolutely not. We gain nothing from it, and add to our social-welfare burdens.

By your logic, why shouldn't we grant "amnesty" to tax evaders, petty criminals and minor drug offenders?

(I'm not saying we should not do so, but we should prioritize if we do. Why not help otherwise productive Americans before non-citizens?)

deny ignorance.

jw



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Sestias
 


[Do you agree with amnesty or not? That's the subject of this thread.


How do you or the administration propose to deal with the consequences?

You are adding only a portion of the estimated 12 million to the workforce.
The rest are family members who will not add to the workforce, taxbase or community resources. There are GENERATIONS in Texas (and likely elsewhere) who have not and will not ever assimilate.

What about other consequences?

State-funded immunizations and early childhhod/pre-school care and preparation. "Recoupment " of false payments to and from SS and pensions. Elimination of previously stolen identities. Legitimization of the "coyotes" and forgers who procured transport and documentation in the first place? Identification of illegals and abettors with no intent of assimilation, but who wish to continue smuggling and capitalizing on the continued flow of people and contraband.

How do you pay for and provide or remedy these?

That's just for a start off the top of my head.



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211

Where to start? OK, let's try this.

If you make them all legal and then subject to all the legal protections given to U.S. workers such as the minimum wage and unemployment benefits, won't these people become just as "expensive" as the current U.S. citizen workers that are already here?


Yes, they will become just as expensive. But right now illegals are taking many thousands of jobs that might go to Americans because they work cheaper than the minimum wage. If they weren't cheaper Americans might have a fighting chance to compete with them.

The only other option would be to lower or eliminate the minimum wage so Americans could compete with illegals by working for even less. Given that it's impossible to live on the minimum wage as it is, that would not be a very desirable alternative.

Of course, unscrupulous employers might just find another group to exploit, or move their operation to a third world country, like Mexico. It would be ironic if Americans ended up migrating south of the border in order to work for $2.00 an hour.


And when they come wanting to compete for your union job while asking for less money, it will either cost you a pay cut, or your actual job!

Doh!


One of the purposes of a union is to negotiate for higher wages for all its members. It wouldn't allow a union member to undercut the other members by working for less. A person who did so might well get tossed out.



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297

How do you or the administration propose to deal with the consequences?


I'm not sure how one would deal with all the consequences. I was looking for some answers when I posted this thread. I am also stymied about what to do with the other waves of illegals that will be coming into the U.S. following this group. We've given amnesty to some before and it hasn't stopped millions of new immigrants.


You are adding only a portion of the estimated 12 million to the workforce.
The rest are family members who will not add to the workforce, taxbase or community resources. There are GENERATIONS in Texas (and likely elsewhere) who have not and will not ever assimilate.


I agree that if people want to move here, they should at least learn the language. And they should at least attempt to understand and bridge their cultural differences from other Americans. But I'm not sure about what assimilating into "American culture" is, exactly. American culture is in large part made up of many different and unique cultures living together.

But I thought you said you married into a family of illegal immigrants, and they are prosperous, industrious and generally well off. Hopefully, those illegals who are given amnesty would be similar in character and ability, as will their families.


What about other consequences?

State-funded immunizations and early childhhod/pre-school care and preparation. "Recoupment " of false payments to and from SS and pensions. Elimination of previously stolen identities. Legitimization of the "coyotes" and forgers who procured transport and documentation in the first place? Identification of illegals and abettors with no intent of assimilation, but who wish to continue smuggling and capitalizing on the continued flow of people and contraband.

How do you pay for and provide or remedy these?


As was mentioned earlier in this thread, many illegals are already paying into social security --often under false names and numbers, but nevertheless paying in. They also pay sales and other taxes. Arianna Huffington, in her book, cited several billions that are coming into the economy through illegal workers (see my post on page 1, and also Nixie Nox's).

Actually, I agree with you on many points, like the education centers that would prepare potential immigrants for assimilation, and you have some good arguments against legalizing the 12 million.

Ideally, nobody would enter the country without going through the legal channels and being prepared to work, become educated and contribute to society as citizens.

But something has to be done with all the illegals that are already here. Some of them would be productive, contributing members of American society. Many have already proven their willingness to start at the bottom and endure hardship in order to realize the American dream.



[edit on 19-11-2009 by Sestias]



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by thegreatobserver
 



So, if you fear anyone destroying job opportunities, then it's the multinational corporations not the illegal immigrant.


What fun would that be?

People have gotten pretty good at slamming illegals for America's woes.

Thank God McDonald franchised overseas rather than moving there.



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 10:30 PM
link   
1- This issue is just too controversial. Dems won't touch it with a ten foot pole in 2010 due to elections.

2- Republicans will gain seats so it will be a non issue in 2011 and 2012.

3- Sooner or later US will have to unite with other countries in North and South America if they plan to compete with a growing and stronger EU. Might as well start considering how we are all going to get along.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Sestias
 
While my in-laws and their relatives have prospered despite their status, they have CHOSEN to remain more closely connected to Mexico than the U.S.

In my limited experience, the aliens who have done well have no desire whatsoever to be American citizens or to choose between their birthplace and America. Their allegiance will always be for "home."

You paternalistically ASSUME that every illegal here wants or needs to be an American citizen. Many (I'd guess close to a majority) do not want to be citizens. The nationalistic and cultural ties to Mexico or whatever "homeland" cannot be erased by changing status.

Your "financial" rationalizations are preposterous, and based on assumptions at best.


As was mentioned earlier in this thread, many illegals are already paying into social security --often under false names and numbers, but nevertheless paying in. They also pay sales and other taxes. Arianna Huffington, in her book, cited several billions that are coming into the economy through illegal workers (see my post on page 1, and also Nixie Nox's).


What about drug dealers, gun-runners and slave-traders/owners?

THEY generate billions in revenue, too! Should we legalize them to maximize our "return?"

This is not an economic or financial issue. It is about national sovereignty and border control. The only economic connection is the extension of already-limited resources to people who want to obtain them illegally. That takes us back to the dopers, slavers, et al.

Face it, if illegal aliens were proven to be conservative, independent or Republican voters (many of the already vote, you know), there would be no insistence on "amnesty" of any sort.

Want to see the proof? Grant "limited amnesty," with no right to vote for 5 years, and until establishing fluency in English, and see how much support there is. The outcry will deafen you.

(Sadly, the "English-fluent" requirement would eliminate about 10% of natural-born 'citizens' from the voter rolls)

jw



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 02:08 PM
link   
this is expected very bad news on so many counts
they are pushing us into a corner just like they planned
and with me it is the last straw


Sorry but I don't know how to embed properly:

Leonard cohen - the future. Jools Holland
www.youtube.com...

The Who-Won't Get Fooled Again@Concert For New York City
www.youtube.com...

The Who - Eminence front
www.youtube.com...



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ziggy1706
damn, aint this something..im legal,(born here) and got the crappy end of stick at work, retail job. Illegal immigrants work thier andd are trearted like gold...this is for a CVS
i did what the system wanted and expected of me, and got nothing in return. Illegals broke the law, and get served a godlen platter. Obama must be from another country, to consider us, legal citizens, not worth helping, and the illegals something to value*


Perhaps you were not passed up for a "CVS" (I assume job) because your competition were illegal aliens, but rather that they had better written communication skills than yourself?

The whole "illegals" took my job bit is stale. I don't know of a single job primarily occupied by illegal immigrants were an employer wouldn't gladly employ an American, but most Americans think themselves to "good" to do landscaping, wash dishes or do housekeeping.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297



As was mentioned earlier in this thread, many illegals are already paying into social security --often under false names and numbers, but nevertheless paying in. They also pay sales and other taxes. Arianna Huffington, in her book, cited several billions that are coming into the economy through illegal workers (see my post on page 1, and also Nixie Nox's).


What about drug dealers, gun-runners and slave-traders/owners?

THEY generate billions in revenue, too! Should we legalize them to maximize our "return?"



The differene of course being that "gun-runners, drug dealers and slave traders" are niether paying into social security nor employed in legitimate industries. Very poor comparison.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 12:37 AM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 

Assuming the premise Sestias offers, "using false names and SS numbers"
does not constitute "paying into social security" and certainly removes their employers from "legitimate occupations."

All of the examples I noted buy goods and services, pay sales and property taxes, and if using a real job as cover or for legitimacy, pay into retirement programs as well.

Sestias bases the rationalization for amnesty on monetary contributions to society, not on membership in the mainstream.

Taken to a logical extreme, even someone like you ought to see the absurdity of the argument.

jw



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 02:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by maybereal11
 

Assuming the premise Sestias offers, "using false names and SS numbers"
does not constitute "paying into social security" and certainly removes their employers from "legitimate occupations."


Actually, yes it does constitute paying into social security. Money is deducted from their paychecks, whether they have the right name and number or not, and paid to social security. They won't be able to collect it when they retire, but deductions are made every payday.



Sestias bases the rationalization for amnesty on monetary contributions to society, not on membership in the mainstream.


I didn't say monetary contributions ALONE are the reason for amnesty. I am merely pointing out that many illegals are contributing to American society in this way, among many others.

I discussed membership in the mainstream many times in this thread.

You don't listen very well.




top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join