A-Man

    > > Bush also seems to think this will magically stop illegal immigration.
He
    > > is forgetting that when he promotes illegals to legal status, they will
    > have
    > > the full rights to move jobs and will therefore demand to be compensated
    > > properly which will encourage an entire new wave of illegals to fill the
    > gap
    > > of illegal worker pay.
    > Again, you are not reading his proposed legislation. The visas will be
tied
    > to a specific employer. And why would we have illegals, if all jobs, even
    > the $5.15/hour ones, would qualify for a legal visa? I don't know if you
    > know what illegals in America are being paid, but even those day workers
on
    > the street corners are fetching $5-$10/hour. No illegal here is working
for
    > $.25/hour.

I don't know the going average illegals are paid. I can only assume that
illegals, on average, are paid below market level wages for their particular
industry of employment, otherwise, why bother taking the risk of employing
them? I do realize they are not paid $.25/hour. Once illegals are
legalized, they will fall under Federal regulations such as Minimum wage
laws, government benefit payout holdbacks (Social security, income taxes,
etc.), employee regulation legislation (safety issues, work time rules,
overtime pay, etc), and a host of other things that add up to more money to
be spent by employers. It seems logical to me that this will just set the
stage for another round of massive illegal immigration to fill the low wage
void employers want to pay (and to curtail the aforementioned federal
regulations), and at the same time, place our new legal immigrants into the
government benefit payout system (welfare) because they are now being
undercut by illegal labor. The fact is that to become a legal immigrant,
you will have to wait for the BCIS to act, also there is the rather large
potential that the demand for unskilled immigration to the US will far
outstrip the supply of jobs the US can provide these wanting immigrants (if
5 million Mexicans wanted to come to the US because it is now legal to do
so, both the BCIS and the US job market could not possibly absorb this
increase in such a short time). So, I can only conclude that it will again
pay to bypass the system, you won't have to wait on BCIS to act, you won't
have to wait your turn in the US job market queue to get a US job.

For what it is worth you do bring some good points to the argument. It is a
heated debate and it seems that it is evenly divided. I know it has stirred
up some anger in people I know here locally who are not even immigrants,
they simply don't like the fact that illegal immigrants are being rewarded.

Mrraveltay

bequibar wrote:

    > th
    > • These workers receive a temporary three-year visa, renewable once.
    > They are expected to return to their countries of birth once their
    > visas expire.
    >

Why would they have to return to their country of birth?

    > While temporary workers will have the opportunity to try to stay in the
    > United States permanently, they will be encouraged to return to their
    > home countries with financial incentives.

Who is going to give them a financial incentive?

Andrew Defaria

A-MAN wrote:

    > I don't know the going average illegals are paid. I can only assume
    > that illegals, on average, are paid below market level wages for their
    > particular industry of employment, otherwise, why bother taking the
    > risk of employing them? I do realize they are not paid $.25/hour. Once
    > illegals are legalized, they will fall under Federal regulations such
    > as Minimum wage laws, government benefit payout holdbacks (Social
    > security, income taxes, etc.), employee regulation legislation (safety
    > issues, work time rules, overtime pay, etc), and a host of other
    > things that add up to more money to be spent by employers. It seems
    > logical to me that this will just set the stage for another round of
    > massive illegal immigration to fill the low wage void employers want
    > to pay (and to curtail the aforementioned federal regulations), and at
    > the same time, place our new legal immigrants into the government
    > benefit payout system (welfare) because they are now being undercut by
    > illegal labor. The fact is that to become a legal immigrant, you will
    > have to wait for the BCIS to act, also there is the rather large
    > potential that the demand for unskilled immigration to the US will far
    > outstrip the supply of jobs the US can provide these wanting
    > immigrants (if 5 million Mexicans wanted to come to the US because it
    > is now legal to do so, both the BCIS and the US job market could not
    > possibly absorb this increase in such a short time). So, I can only
    > conclude that it will again pay to bypass the system, you won't have
    > to wait on BCIS to act, you won't have to wait your turn in the US job
    > market queue to get a US job.

You're right. There is only really one solution, one that our good
government is hell bent on implementing and that seems to be to make it
such that so many people come here and dilute our way of life and
standard of living to the point where the demand of jobs and a good life
get lowered so much so as to make America no longer a desirable place to
immigrate to. Then and only then it will stop!
--
If debugging is the process of removing bugs, then programming must be
the process of putting them in.

Vampier

    > I've often made the Morocco/Mexico comparison. The cultures are
    > completely different but economically they are in similar boats. I also
    > happen to love Mexico and the Mexican people, unlike some Americans.
    > I've grown up around many first and second (and third and fourth and
    > fifth for that matter) generation Mexican immigrants and I personally
    > believe they are a positive contribution to America as a whole. I am
    > tired of the Mexican bashing and I think the U.S. should be a better
    > neighbor. I'm sure I'll get flamed for that but I don't care.
    > As for ADF I have gone into seizures before trying to have a dialogue
    > with him. Strangely enough I often agree with him, he's just impossible
    > to have a conversation with. He's more interested in pushing buttons
    > than actually communicating. For my own mental health, I have vowed
    > never to speak to him again.
    > If it makes you feel any better. I make $10,000 a year less than I did
    > 10 years ago. The work I'm doing now is much more demanding and
    > requires much more skill. Such is life.
My brother moved to Mexico in August, he's doing just fine there, he loves
the country and the people... who have a hard time dealing with gringo's
until they hear he's not from America... then everything is fine :-)

Indeed ADF is a major first class f@ckhead, but we're at the point where he
shows his try colors (black and white in this case) nough said

I know why America is hated (I have seen all perspectives) and I really
wonder why most American's don't know it themselves. Is it because they
don't care (like Adolf DeFarce) or is it because they are to busy managing
their own lifes?

I wonder.

Dekka's Angel

Two things. First, can you please quote for me where in my post I advocated for "stopping immigration"?

Second, these jobs used to pay enough to do precisely what you insist without evidence they will not be able to do. That's indisputable. So please address why that has changed. A large reason for the change is the reasons that I discussed. You have simply asserted that this is not the case, without saying why it is not the case.

As I said in my first post, I invite you to go tell them that. Personally. Face to face. Not all olf them see cheaper TVs as a benefit that exceeds the personal value of access to steady work at a wage that allows one to have a decent life here in the US.

I never raised the question of affirmative action, and believe that it is an entirely separate question from that being discussed in this thread. It certainly does not bear any relevance to the two issues I have raised - one, the manner in which unchecked immigration, particularly at the brown and blue collar end of hte labor pool, undercuts African American progress and two, the choice to devalue labor in the US -- thus encouraging business to look "offshore" for labor rather than pay living wages to US workers -- so that those at the highest end of the income distribution can maximize personal profits

Comparing any transient immigrant population to the experience of African Americans as a permanent underclass is an apples and oranges comparison that devalues and dismisses our unique experience here and the lingering, deep seated ongoing impact of that experience and our relationship to people in this country who are in the position to determine who has access to jobs and capital than anyone else. The experiences are not the same. And in truth, when one looks at the experience of why they are not the same, the same racism lies at the root of the reason why they are not. Just because Chinese and Latino people are not "white" in terms of appearance does not mean that American society doesn't consider them "white" or at least closer to it when deciding whether to prefer them in labor market in competition with African Americans. The historical and current evidence bears out the truth of the matter.

And your point is? That the existence of some wealthy Black people undoes the fundamental truth of what I have said about the problems with Bush's proposal for normalizing illegal immigrant workers?

By the way did I mention that I have a lot of relatives in Maryland? (I know that I have, at least once, on this NG, probably in connection with the sniper discussions). Including, believe it or not, in Prince George's County. It's a lovely area, indeed. Last time I visited (far too long) about 30 or so of my relatives out of a clan of hundreds in the DC Metro area live there. Of course, they have been living there since when they were in the minority, segregated in one corner of the county, and most of them had steady and secure jobs in industries that today no longer offer that same security for African Americans. I'm glad that finally their choice to remain rooted to the community instead of be driven out by the gentrification and suburbanization that first hit in the 60's has paid off for them financially. A similar phenomena is what created Baldwin Hills, California, which was until about 15 years ago in fact the most wealthy African American region in the country.

Of course, this still doesn't have any relevance to the question of normalization of illegal immigrants and the impact on vast majority of Black people in the United States, who live neither in Baldwin Hills, nor Prince George's County, nor the ever gentrifying Harlem USA for that matter. Which you have spent almost no effort to address in your response, choosing instead to argue about something else and deflect away from what is a hard reality to dispute -- but quite apparently an easy reality to ignore for those who like the system just fine as it is.

Dekka's Angel

It doesn't surprise me at all. What surprises me is that there is no hue and cry, informed study or reasoned analysis about whether it is good for America to allow this cycle to continue unabated. To the point where now, there seems to be no bottom to the level that we will allow unbridled greed to forcibly depress wages and life chances for native born Americans, particuarly those of African Americans, in the name of maximizing "efficiency" and profit". And to the point where now folks argue we need to go "offshore" for "cheap labor" if we cannot normalize illegal immigrants to remain "competitive".

Paul Gani

"Dekka's Angel" <member8849@british_expats.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Oh, and one more followup question. When the Chinese were co-opted to build
the transcontinental railroad:

http://cprr.org/Museum/Chinese.html

were they also taking away valuable jobs from African Americans?

Paulgani

Matthew Udall

Hi Decca,
I read your earlier post today. I'm probably oversimplifying, but can it be summed up as the unbridled greed by business, which is the underlying problem?

If so, remember Paul is a business owner and employer, so he will naturally be biased against this argument (Plus he's Chinese... I don't know if that is relevant, but I see him using Chinese cheap labor a lot in his arguments).

(Plus, I'm not an economist and I've only roughly glanced over both of your arguments, but I will admit both of you seem to have some interesting points).

David9287

Dekka's Angel,
I know, I know... it's the nature of the "unspoken truth" that surrounds a capitolistic society. Without a doubt many people are locked out. I am actually quite sympathetic to the plight of young black americans. Racism is still rampet within our society, the prisons are full of young black men who's feelings of helplessness and hopelessness have lead them to a life of drugs and violence. Now, we have illegals willing to work for nearly nothing and owners more than willing to exploite them. It's the system more so than the policy. Immigration built the USA ....ie. the policy. Unfortunitly, capitolism....ie. the system, encourages the explotation of labor. There is a demand for labor and there are those who are willing to fill that demand at any wage (within reason). As you know, in sociology, one of the longest standing debates surrounds the issue of "distribution of wealth." Who gets what, when, where, how and why. Your argument is well taken.

David9287

Thank you Matthew.... from your post to Gods eyes!

Kocourkov

Reward the illegals and import more people willing to work for a bag of coffee per day while ignoring burgeoning domestic problems. BRILLIANT!

jeffreyhy

Matt,

I think you've touched on something that makes this exchange both interesting and educational - Paul is Chinese-American and Angel is African-American.

They are bringing into the discussion their separate knowledges of two different segments of our society that many of the rest of us - and they with regard to the other - don't know as much about as perhaps we ought to.

Regards, JEff

Dekka's Angel

Well, yes and no. I never accused immigrants of "taking away" so much as I accused those in control of labor and capital as deliberately "giving away" to the detriment of African American laborers in the name of maximizing "profit". It feels as if you are reacting defensively to what I wrote, interpreting it as an argument that immigrants are the "bad guys" in this equation. I did not make that assertion.

Remember, slavery still existed in the United States when the Transcontinental Railroad -- and those railroads that were constructed previously, which according to your article demonstrated to the developers of the Transcontinental Railroad that Chinese were an available and capable labor source for this work -- was planned and initially went into construction. Given that at that time it was highly illegal not to mention highly dangerous to harbor an escaped slave in most states (even in those that themselves did not have slavery -- see, for example, the Fugitive Slave Act (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/fugitive.htm) which was not repealed until 1864--these jobs could not have been held by most African Americans even if Chinese immigrants didn't hold them.

Second, even when the Emancipation Proclamation finally reached the Westernmost slave-holding state (Texas, on June 19, 1965), these jobs would not have necessarily been known to African-Americans (it's not as if folks could pick up the telephone and find out about these west-coast jobs, back then) who were concentrated on the eastern and southern seaboard of the continent and who, when they left the South, went north and only somewhat west initially, to Kansas and other states which had made themselves known as abolitionist strongholds. In many cases, by the time recently freed slaves would have found out about and traveled to even Utah (not all that easy since airtravel hadn't been invented yet and it takes money to have a horse, at least it did back then, given the dates of emancipation the railroad was nearly done anyhow (completed in 1869 according to your link).

For the record, there were large numbers of African Americans who either escaped slavery or were born free and came west to participate in the gold rush, unbeknownst to many today, and who were in California at the time choices were made by the developers of the transcontinental railroad. And yes, those in power may well have chosen immigrant Asians (many illegal immigrants) to perform the work over those of African descent here in California, but I don't know of any well-known historical source that makes this clear, one way or the other.

So in the end I'm not sure exactly what point in contrast to mine with this example. This experience doesn't seem to be at odds with what I said earlier. Perhaps you can clarify your point?

Paul Gani

"Dekka's Angel" <member8849@british_expats.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > Two things. First, can you please quote for me where in my post I
    > advocated for "stopping immigration"?

You did not. But it seemed implied in your argument.

    > Second, these jobs used to pay enough to do precisely what you insist
    > without evidence they will not be able to do. That's indisputable. So
    > please address why that has changed.

The world has changed. For example, steel used to be made most economically
in England. America had it for a while, then Japan, then Korea, and now
China.

We now have a barely surviving steel industry, which is of course one of
those industries that used to give African Americans, and many white
Americans, a stable living income.

    > > As I said in my first post, I invite you to go tell them that.
    > > Personally. Face to face. Not all olf them see cheaper TVs as a
    > > benefit that exceeds the personal value of access to steady work at a
    > > wage that allows one to have a decent life here in the US.

Tell who, my African American neighbor with the guaranteed for life high
paying government job and his pride and joy 60" big screen TV? We don't
live in the same neighborhood.

    > > I never raised the question of affirmative action, and believe that
    > > it is an entirely separate question from that being discussed in
    > > this thread. It certainly does not bear any relevance to the two
    > > issues I have raised - one, the manner in which unchecked
    > > immigration, particularly at the brown and blue collar end of hte
    > > labor pool, undercuts African American progress and two, the choice

It certainly is related to the issue of African American advancement. I see
little point in African Americans striving for the brown/blue collar jobs
they used to have in industries which used to be prosperous and will never
be so again in America. I would just as well have them strive for the
higher paying white collar jobs, and affirmative action is entirely relevant
in this context.

    > > Comparing any transient immigrant population to the experience of
    > > African Americans as a permanent underclass is an apples and oranges
    > > comparison that devalues and dismisses our unique experience here and
    > > the lingering, deep seated ongoing impact of that experience and our
    > > relationship to people in this country who are in the position to
    > > determine who has access to jobs and capital than anyone else. The
    > > experiences are not the same. And in truth, when one looks at the

Perhaps it would do well to have more immigrants in the U.S. in high places,
as we did not live through, and thus do not have, the same ingrained biases
related to slavery that you imply the existing decision makers have.

    > > experience of why they are not the same, the same racism lies at the
    > > root of the reason why they are not. Just because Chinese and Latino
    > > people are not "white" in terms of appearance does not mean that
    > > American society doesn't consider them "white" or at least closer to
    > > it when deciding whether to prefer them in labor market in competition
    > > with African Americans. The historical and current evidence bears out
    > > the truth of the matter.

Again, the solution is to replace the decision makers to a group more
representative of the American population.

I cringe when African American groups shun conservative minorities
appointed, elected, or promoted to high offices. As far as I'm concerned,
any Chinese American who reaches a high position is worth holding up as a
model, whether or not I even remotely agree with their politics.

    > And your point is? That the existence of some wealthy Black people

That I don't live in the same neighborhood as you, and so I don't see the
issues you present.

    > By the way did I mention that I have a lot of relatives in Maryland? (I

I have not read many of your posts. I did not know until now that you are
African American, or that you had relatives in Maryland.

    > the county, and most of them had steady and secure jobs in industries
    > that today no longer offer that same security for African Americans.

It is my understanding from the local press that stable government jobs are
the primary reason for African American prosperity in Prince Georges County
and in the entire DC area in general.

    > response, choosing instead to argue about something else and deflect
    > away from what is a hard reality to dispute -- but quite apparently an
    > easy reality to ignore for those who like the system just fine as it is.

You have your causes, I have mine. That is what makes America so great. We
can disagree in how to best direct the future of America. I don't believe
our causes really conflict. I think we really want the same thing.

Paulgani

Paul Gani

"Dekka's Angel" <member8849@british_expats.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > So in the end I'm not sure exactly what point in contrast to mine with
    > this example. This experience doesn't seem to be at odds with what I
    > said earlier. Perhaps you can clarify your point?

I was being sarcastic.

Some of the African American community is living as an underclass. ALL of
the illegal community, whether illegal Mexican, or illegal Chinese, or
illegal whomever, are also living as an underclass, probably under much
worse conditions than the African American underclass.

I see little reason or logic in keeping illegal aliens in their state of
underclass, just so the AA underclass can more easily get ahead. Policies
can be made to address the problem of the AA underclass without having to
resort to keeping the illegals in their underclass.

Legalizing the illegal alien underclass strikes me as a human rights
requirement. I'm sure you would scoff at the idea that slaves didn't need
to be freed - i.e. that better working conditions and rights would have been
good enough for them. Anything short of a full path to legalization for the
illegals would be tantamount to the same thing.

Paulgani