Reply With Quote
I think you'll find there are many many rank and file democrats who don't support amnesty.
They wouldn't. Yes, it's unfair. They would have to learn to accept it. Speaking as someone who's help sponsored a person for a green card, who will also be helping them with citizenship, I'm personally ok with it.
Note: Nearly all immigration proposals also, besides the payment for forms, include some sort of 'penalty' tax as well. So that would be somewhat a punishment. Not like it's not already expensive enough to get a green card... the forms cost me $1400 or so, and the lawyer was $2500.
I think you'll find there are many many rank and file democrats who don't support amnesty.
Yes, that's my point. Democrats and Republicans both block true border security because they are in the pockets of businesses. and occasionally they think that's actually the right thing to do. And then you have some Democrats and Republicans who are for amnesty, most often because it will give them a bump in the polls, and occasionally some who think that's actually the right thing to do.
IIRC, Magic Negro said in his campaign that his solution for illegal immigration
1. illegal immigrants pay a fine for breaking the law
2. illegal immigrants apply for a working/residence permit, getting in line behind all the legal applicants.
That's a normalization, not amnesty.
Lots of difficulties with that approach, but it's a very difficult problem.
The Repugs had 6 unfettered years to solve illegal immigration, and did nothing. Maybe Repug employers didn't want illegals solved, but wanted to continue exploiting them?
Hey micca, you never told us how you avoid everything in life that could possibly be tainted by the scourge of illegal immigrant labor.
Living in a 'sanctuary city' is odd. It's as if certain people do not exist, though they stand at an intersection all day long. None dare acknowledge their presence.
micca, PC anti-racist avenger, strikes again.
Not just that but our politicians in general do not want to due anything about immigration or enforce the laws as they are. Really the most logical step is to allow them to purchase insurance and that way we don't get stuck with the bill. Its the same with car insurance, anyone here ever been hit by an illegal immigrant with no insurance, you get screwed twice in that deal. Just let them buy insurance, its easier then granting amnesty and cheaper than deporting millions of people who will be back tomorrow. It also makes it cheaper on we the people.
Yes Yes Yes, you guys said it all.
Sub par wages make people money. It's that simple. You'll notice that most of the propaganda is directed at the undo ented (alot of it is quite frankly racist), yet hardly at employers. Wealth controls what the media says.
Yup, they did. You know why the didn't solve it? It denies money to their cons uents, kiss those nice fat monetary donations goodbye.
I'm sure mostly everyone on this board here in SA has witnessed what kind of wealth people generate/save from hiring illegals. You can find it EVERYWHERE. It's pathetic.
Who do you think that would pay for the increased labour wages?
a) employers/share-holders
b) consumers
Both. That's a pretty stupid question interest groups like to pose on people. I'll just assume that you didn't come up with yourself and spare you the insults. Sometimes, when people raise prices too high, they don't get sold. Everybody suffers. That's where compe ion comes in, however it only works when it's FAIR
I thought of sponsoring a person as well. Then I was shown the amounts you just mentioned. I financially couldn't do it. Of course mine were to have this person work for me. A good person. One deserving a chance to be here. I just simply couldn't afford it.
I'm guessing your situation is different than mine.
But it leads to the point I'm making. How is it fair to "legalize" illegal immigrants for free by government proposal into law when many go through the expenditures such as yourself and those who sacrifice everything they fiscally have doing it legally.
And once that can of worms is opened...how do we handle future illegals if this is set as precedence?
If they don't get sold, they won't get produced and no jobs will be available, right?
Yeah, that's called having a unsustainable business. Thank goodness for bankruptcy laws.
That's where someone who can get the job done legally for the price comes in. Although, according to most people with your argument, they don't exist.
Why don't they exist? If they can get the job done for the same price legally, they already exist. If anything, there will be less offer, causing a raise on the price to the consumer, ceteris paribus. If the job can't get done for the same price, either the consumers will need to pay the increase in the price or the job simply won't be done.
I don't buy people's arguments that Americans won't do certain types of work unless it's the right price. They will if that's what's available. We used to lead the world in manufacturing, now we don't do anything near it because "it's too hard/ bad work. etc" Everyone is en led to slack off apparently nowadays. Damn baby boomers
Why would an American work for the salary of a Chinese manufacture worker? He would simply collect the food stamps et all and do something else with his time. The reason you don't lead the world in manufacturing isn't because it's too hard (there are lots of harder jobs Americans are willing to do), but because the living standard that leading the world in manufacture leads to is not acceptable any more to an American.
Anyway, the point is that it's impossible to use the law to force employers or shareholders to pay for increased costs. If they don't like the ROI they're getting, they'll simply move the capital elsewhere. That's why price-controls have never worked even though politicians have tried them since before the Roman Empire. If it was possible, the congress should simply enact a law increasing the minimum wage to $1,000 per hour and you'd have a country of millionaires.
Do you know how welfare law works? You simply can't just collect food stamps and do nothing to improve your situation. They'll boot you off the program quick..and I mean quick.
We had a good standard of living while we're were manufacturing leaders at various points history. That is simply incorrect and a lie. For example, We had a high end tax rate of 90% in the last century during the baby boom with very high standards of living.
Secondly, stopping illegal employment has nothing to do with price control law. It's a side argument that is not at hand.
You don't get welfare if you're unemployed? Anyway, if you can find 100/150 Americans willing to work 10 hours per day for a $94 monthly salary (no paid holidays and all that stuff), I'll take a flight next Monday to meet you and start the process to create a new plant.
What's exactly a lie? The goodness of a standard of living is always relative. Most Chinese manufacture workers live with less than $100 per month and are extremely happy with their standard of living. For example, the life expectancy for an American male in the 1955 was 63 years old - the same an Indian has today. But I doubt many Americans today would be happy with the life expectancy of an Indian.We had a good standard of living while we're were manufacturing leaders at various points history. That is simply incorrect and a lie. For example, We had a high end tax rate of 90% in the last century during the baby boom with very high standards of living.
There was a reason why JFK reduced those high end tax rates. They weren't getting the job done in a changing world.
I don't know about "stopping illegal employment" - I was just arguing with your point that shareholders would be the ones suffering from increased labour wages. What I'm saying is that all efforts to administratively control prices are futile and wages are prices themselves (the price of work).Secondly, stopping illegal employment has nothing to do with price control law. It's a side argument that is not at hand.
For that $94 Dollar monthly salary we sure could charge a lot less for those products at retail if they were made HERE. If people got paid $94 dollars here, you'd find much better deals than Chinese products. There are a lot of hands in the Jar with trade involving China. Every single middleman will get their take until it gets up to standard retail value (the price people will pay). We could pay our workers much more for comparable prices to say the least.
Secondly, I said it would hurt both consumers and businesses that engage in that illegal practice. It does hurt a business that is operating illegally when it is forced to operate legally, they can pass on costs but only to an extent or else they wont sell. Stockholders/Businesses aren't immune to the law.
Government would have to give them free flights then, which will also be an elephant huge cost. My suggestion is we keep those illegal aliens inboard and give them some works no American or legal immigrant is willing to take. Illegal immigrants are god-given slaves to United States, and it's not immoral to treat em the same way that Obama's ancestors were treated in America.
Yeah, it'd be very profitable, that's why I'm willing to take a plane ASAP. You can't pay much more, because there aren't that many middlemen (for example, Nike or Toys'r'us buy directly to the source and in some case they own the plant) and we'd be limited to the north-american market, as a German wouldn't pay more for an equal product just because it was made in America and not in China, so we'd lose the scale benefits, we'd pay higher prices for electricity, legal expenses, etc, etc. In the real world, the reason why companies delocalize is because they are able to reduce costs and sell at lower prices, increasing their compe iveness.
Of course they aren't immune to laws - that's why in 40s, post-war, there was no meat available in the US. Not even insuline for diabetics was available in the pharmacies (insuline was produced from animal meat). The reason for that was that farmers and meatpackers couldn't sell their meat at a price high enough to cover their costs (including the profit, which is the cost of the money invested). If forcing a business to operate legally increases their costs (and I don't know if that's the case, I'm just taking your scenario as a working hypothesis), including the renumeration the shareholders want, to the point they won't be able to keep selling, then they will stop operating. It's basically the same process because of which you try to get the higher interest rate for your deposits, not the lowest one (or why companies delocalize for countries with lower tax rates). In this sense, yeah, it hurts business (and it can hurt shareholds if they aren't efficient moving their money - it can hurt them badly if they never move it and the company goes bankrutp). But that's just destruction of wealth. Why is hurting businesses and destroying wealth a good thing? It's a pretty bad one, from my point of view.
p.s.- I'm not discussing if companies should be allowed to employ illegal imigrants. I'm just talking from an economical, value-free, perspective.
4. a.) Secure our Southern border. b.) Deport any 'pilgrim from (not America). c.) Increase the annual amount of Mexicans allowed in our country legally. d.) Suit up and play laser-tag. *Don't give preferential treatment to a culture that can walk across to America, even though every country wants to come to America.
Don't buy the round-trip. One way. Also I think Obama's black side wasn't even in America. His people were the ones on the coastline laughing at all their people shipped away. Little did they know that those people's family would have the last laugh.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
