White House Plan on Immigration Includes Legal Status

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

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]

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]

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

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]

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.

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]

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]

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

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.

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.