The immigration law discussion Part 2 - The law of unintended consequences

[ordnance11]

Okay, Bob was correct in shutting down the previous thread concerning immigration since it seems that civility seems to be in very short supply. however, since this is an important issue. I'll try it again. So keep it civil, eh?
Georgia did it's own version of the Alabama immigration law. Well, it worked. Most of farm workers don't want to work there anymore. So now they're short of farm workers and they're trying to fill the gap with probationers:
http://www.huffingtonpost...tion-law-f_n_882050.html
Ain't gonna work. Most farm jobs is back-breaking work. Unless you get someone really desperate, used to farm work, I'd say 90% of your folks on probation are not gonna cut it. Same thing will probably happen here in Alabama. Wouldn't be too surprised if someone started to suggest chain gangs soon.
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

[robkelk]

Are you sure this was an unintended consequence? If anybody in power in Georgia is a "tough on crime" politician, this may have been done on purpose... but I don't know whether anybody in power in Georgia is a "tough on crime" politician.
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[Black Aeronaut]

I agree with Ord. This just ain't gonna work out, and in the meantime it's gonna get nastier and nastier. Glad I don't live there myself. As I write this we're on our way to Texas.

I don't know what it is with east coast, but it has really soured my mom on African-Americans - she swears up and down that some of the rudeest people she's ever met are African-Americans in the Baltimore-DC area. That, combined with the way Hispanics are looked upon in general around there. There'd be people that start out treating her like she's some ignorant illegal immigrant. It's kinda funny to see them back peddle when she opens her mouth and they realize she's a red-blooded American.

Although I'll admit that I'm not looking forward to dealing with uppity and self-righteous Latinos who act like their God's gift to the Earth. Pendejos.

But really, they need to work out a way of creating a work-to-naturalization visa. Of course, that'll never work because they are taking american jobs.

[ordnance11]

I don't know what it is with east coast, but it has really soured my mom
on African-Americans - she swears up and down that some of the rudeest
people she's ever met are African-Americans in the Baltimore-DC area.
That, combined with the way Hispanics are looked upon in general around
there. There'd be people that start out treating her like she's some
ignorant illegal immigrant. It's kinda funny to see them back peddle
when she opens her mouth and they realize she's a red-blooded American.

__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

[nemonowan]

I don't know what it is with east coast, but it has really soured my mom
on African-Americans - she swears up and down that some of the rudeest
people she's ever met are African-Americans

If I understand right, she complains that African-Americans tend to be more hostile to Latinos, in particular assuming that every single one is an illegal immigrant? There is a history of hostility between the two communities, and it goes both ways .
It seems that this kind of thing always happens when there is a new growing minority that "threatens" the "second place" position of an older entrenched minority.

Georgia did it's own version of the Alabama immigration law. Well, it
worked. Most of farm workers don't want to work there anymore. So now
they're short of farm workers and they're trying to fill the gap with
probationers

About Georgia, there ARE legal programs for temporary work visas that could be used to legally fill these jobs that no american wants to do, even if the paperwork hassle to get them and the impossibility of staying in the USA makes them a less attractive proposition for a would-be illegal immigrant. The problem is that RIGHT NOW, when they would be needed, there isn't enough people with this visas to do the work. If they had thought this trough, the law would only start being enforced next year and it would contain some provision to encourage this work visa program. Of course, that assumes that the point was not to send whatever small farmers remain into bankruptcy for the benefit of the agroindustrial companies.

[Star Ranger4]

This, however, points up a key issue of the problem, as I see it.

We americans consider things like Farmwork menial and beneath us... We all wanna be Steve Jobs or Bill Gates (and are willing to overlook all the blood sweat and legal shenanigans that actually got them there)
Hear that thunder rolling till it seems to split the sky?
That's every ship in Grayson's Navy taking up the cry-
NO QUARTER!!!
-- "No Quarter", by Echo's Children

[ordnance11]

This, however, points up a key issue of the problem, as I see it.

We americans consider things like Farmwork menial and beneath us... We all wanna be Steve Jobs or Bill Gates (and are willing to overlook all the blood sweat and legal shenanigans that actually got them there)

Actually, Star that had always been the case since the beginning of this country. The backbreaking and dangerous jobs the immigrants and whoever else is disadvantaged gets it since there are more better and lucrative jobs available to every else by either connections or education. Then they try to break out from the bottom by whatever means possible.
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

[Star Ranger4]

I would disagree Ordie.

or rather we seem to be not quite on the same page. it feels like, starting around the time of the civil rights movement that a great number of Americans somehow started believing that if they wanted something better, all they had to do was kvetch about it. The generations before them would dig in and make it happen.

Westward expansion, same thing. It was primarily fueled by people who were willing to get 'stuck in' and work hard to make the life they wanted for themselves. Today most Americans my age or younger seem to think that they should be able to achieve the status and wealth of a Jobs or Gates WITHOUT doing the work, without the brilliance of creating the computer that was accessable to the masses... without having worked hard to create an operating system that made them easy to use (though Gates was NOT, of course, above beg borrowing or stealing as additional resources became available). Working their tuscas developing their inital products, getting tem to market, growing the company overall and keeping from taking off in a wrong direction whenever possible.

It may not have been all day in the fields the way it was in more Agricultural times, but most of the people in the top earnings spots did work their buts off for it. Todays youth? they seem to think there is a magic wand or handshake or something that will get them all of that without their having to work.

Techinically it is. Its called inheritence. However, all the present generation seems to be inheriting is a sense of privilage without being willing to pay for it.
Hear that thunder rolling till it seems to split the sky?
That's every ship in Grayson's Navy taking up the cry-
NO QUARTER!!!
-- "No Quarter", by Echo's Children

[Ayiekie]

Man, the kids these days! I do believe inscriptions kvetching about the lazy, shiftless youth that don't want to work for their living and don't respect their elders have been found in Babylon. Or was it Ur?

In any case, the social contract works both ways. People in the past could expect to be rewarded for hard work with a lifetime job, regular pay raises, and a nice gold watch and reasonable retirement funds at 65. This security encouraged people to work harder and more steadily (with several bad social effects, but that's another discussion). That has not been the case for an increasingly vast amount of occupations over the last 30 years. That being said, there is certainly no shortage of entrepreneurs in the modern US, nor do people in the US work shorter hours or take more vacation time than in most first world nations (indeed, the opposite is true - Americans work longer hours, with less vacation, less benefits, and often less pay, than people in most other modern economies). I don't believe your assertion is really backed by anything concrete.

Moreover, even were Americans chomping at the bit to get fruit picking jobs, they wouldn't get them. One of the primary reasons illegal immigrants are hired for those sort of occupations is because they can be paid less than actual Americans would be, and they have no legal recourse because they are, after all, illegal immigrants. Profit margins for the sort of industries that employ illegal immigrants often tend to be quite low, so this isn't even always a matter of greed on the part of the owners but rather survival (although, of course, without an underpaid labour supply no doubt the industry would reorganise itself to turn a profit without them... eventually).

[Black Aeronaut]

And once more this all turns back into economics via employers looking for dirt-cheap labor. (Funny term, that, because I bet some of these people would settle for a nice plot of earth as long as they weren't harassed by drug lords and crooked politicians. "YOU! Grow my cacao trees or else I kill your boys and rape your women!")

Please try and tell me how lawmaking in immigration has nothing to do with the economy. Granted, the fact that the recent drug-related violence in Mexico has been spilling across the border doesn't help matters any... But last time I checked that's a problem that mainly Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California have to deal with. Not unless the drug lords have been arming those narco subs of theirs. And if that's the case, then we got some serious problems that go well above the State level. Seriously, how much violent crime do they have in Alabama that is caused by illegal immigrants? Honestly, if anyone knows this statistic, then please post it.

If violent crime isn't the issue, then what is it? Is it because they're a burden on the social welfare system? That is utter BS. They're not citizens. They don't even have legal work visas. Why should they get things like food stamps or welfare checks or even a driver's license? Some of these people just come to the US for a year or two, work their asses off while sending all the money home, and then go back so they can 'retire to a better life' (if you can call it that).

As for the jobs thing... like I said before in the other thread, the economy is simply broken - profoundly so, in fact - and if we do not get a handle on it we are quickly gonna go the way of the Roman Empire. We operate on a fiat currency that has nothing of any tangible value backing it and we keep on raising our debt limits like it's going out of style. A handle has to be gotten ahold of in every single aspect of our government. Fat must be trimmed, corruption rooted out, and change to better ways must be fostered.

The trouble is that we cannot be overly radical in how we do things. A good place to start would be to re-implement the changes the Clinton Administration had implemented. Back then, the economy was on an even keel, a road map to better times had been plotted, we had a surplus in the Federal Government's coffers, and the Trade Deficit was slowly, but surely starting to shrink. Once we get to that point once more, then we can implement more radical changes that, while only promising very slow growth, guarantee the long term success of the nation. And one tried and true method is the opening of our borders to immigrants looking for a better life. It's these people that, if they are welcomed into the country, become the most rabidly patriotic Americans and it is all because of the basic rights we guarantee: The right to speak, the right to due process, the right to self-defense, the right to gather, the right to worship, the right to be represented, the right to equality, and the right to vote.

[ordnance11]

A good step in immigration reform would be the passage of the DREAM act. It was actually a good idea that Bush II and his team thought of. Too bad his party rejected the notion.  
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

[Black Aeronaut]

Screw that, I got a better idea.

How about we provide some sort of provisional visa that allows immigrants into the country even if they don't have any papers. It would permit them to work, but they would also have law enforcement checking in on them regularly just to make sure everything's on the up-and-up - no warrant needed (they aren't citizens yet anyhow) but we'll have them sign a waiver anyhow. Full biometrics can be taken when they get the visa so they aren't as immune from police investigation as they were before. It will also help ensure they do not get anymore social welfare than the State they reside in feels is allowable. Any immigrant with these visas that screws up is immediately deported (that is, after due process has run its course and they are judged guilty).

[CattyNebulart]

Deporting them only after due process would be a significant step up even for people who currently have a visa. In general just the mere accusation of a crime is enough for deportation. I'm not sure I like the biometrics idea due to the false positive bais that many biometrics have, but that is a whole other complicated topic, and biometrics are already taken anyway.

As for regular checkup by cop I dislike the idea on a few fronts (cop manpower being one of them, cop abuse being another.) .

Still your suggestions would be a massive improvement, with rules that liberal not seen since the Mayflower arrived at these shores. Yeah the current immigration rules are that bad.
E: "Did they... did they just endorse the combination of the JSDF and US Army by showing them as two lesbian lolicons moving in together and holding hands and talking about how 'intimate' they were?"
B: "Have you forgotten so soon? They're phasing out Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

[Black Aeronaut]

Things were more liberal than that at one point in time. I've been told that there were times when the naturalization process included English lessons.

[Star Ranger4]

Yes, BA. Once upon a time it was, in fact, a requirement that you have a certain knowlege of both English (the offical language of government) and how the system works (at a theoretical level anyway) before you would be granted citizenship. Personally, I thought it still was, though I could be wrong.

In any case, the social contract works both ways. People in the past could expect to be rewarded for hard work with a lifetime job, regular pay raises, and a nice gold watch and reasonable retirement funds at 65.

Wrong. Said social contract never existed except in dreams. The closest that comes from that is Social Security retirement; which is part of the democratic 'new deal' that followed the bank crash of 1929 where peoples savings were wiped out. In fact, prior to the turn of the century, there only retirement you could count on was what you yourself saved and or any support your children might provide.

Then along came the Unions. THEY are the ones who truely exposed the ideal quoted above, about the lifetime job, etc. Because at the time they organized, people could NOT expect a lifetime job, regular pay raises nor any guarentee that they'd have reasonable retirment funds at ANY age, let alone 65. And working conditions were actually living to be that old would take a miracle.

Now comes the Bank Crash of 1929 and the 'New Deal' And 'Social Security' in general, which was an attempt to spread both the union saftey blanket and therefore its implied social contract to all Americans.

So, from 1776 to 1900's: No 'social contract' at all for 125 years.
1900's to 1930's: Unionizations vision of the Social contract about 30 years
1930 - 2010: "Social Contract" that you describe. 80 years, tops. Which means that MAYBE the vision of the social contract you ascribe too has been around as long as not.

AND said social contract requires both parties to abide by it. Starting in the sixties, that broke down... As part of the civil rights movement government aide starts becomign available for young women who find themselves pregnant by an ever increasing number of men who after finding out, cut and run. This is meant to ensure that the children dont starve, have proper shelter, etc.

What happens is that these children, and their children, go on to become the welfare underclass with a huge sense of the government OWES them. The children of the Projects. Meant to provide safe housing for those who could not afford it otherwise; become a hothouse for todays gang problems. Many others sucumb to desparation of their condition and seek solace from mood and mind altering substances... creating todays drug problem.

None of them were or are willing to relocate and follow the crops, working their butts off. why should they? they get money from the government JUST FOR SITTING AROUND Having children and taking care of them. In short, breaking said social contract, and gettting paid for it to boot.

THIS is when the illgals really start coming up from Mexico in large numbers. And the liberals seem to think that reguardless of if they are Citizens or not they should have the same rights to certain government services. Even though these workers do not pay taxes. Thats what the taxes are there for, to allow the goverment to provide for the functions that we the people have deemed neccecary.
Hear that thunder rolling till it seems to split the sky?
That's every ship in Grayson's Navy taking up the cry-
NO QUARTER!!!
-- "No Quarter", by Echo's Children

[Ayiekie]

1930 - 2010: "Social Contract" that you describe. 80 years, tops. Which means that MAYBE the vision of the social contract you ascribe too has been around as long as not.

 That was what I was referring to. And it was actually about 50 years, tops. I'm not going to point out what was to blame for it ending, but people can probably do the math. Or just look at the statistics for when middle-class income flatlined.

None of them were or are willing to relocate and follow the crops, working their butts off. why should they? they get money from the government JUST FOR SITTING AROUND Having children and taking care of them. In short, breaking said social contract, and gettting paid for it to boot.

Sorry, don't feel up to dealing with your right-wing boilerplate about how all the welfare queens are stealing your hard-earned taxes because they don't want to work for a living. 
 

[Black Aeronaut]

.... Ayiekie, do you even live in America? I can see it every day. Best of all, I see both sides of the issue - the illegal immigrants and the welfare babies. If I want to, all I gotta do a drive a few miles into town and I can see it in action. BTW: I'm in San Antonio, Texas. Where the hell do you live?

Other places where you can go and see it in action? Virtually any major metropolitan area in the US. We generally call them the slums or the projects. Also, it's part of why my mom didn't like being in the Baltimore-DC area. Too many welfare riding ass-hats that think the god damn world owes them a living.

You know, maybe instead of giving them a handout per se, we should just put them to work. You know, like a temp agency, only government operated. If you can't find work they will place you somewhere. And if you refuse, well, then you don't get your welfare checks. See, nice and legal. Not socialistic at all.

Now, if only we didn't have that unwashed portion of the population that goes, "Oh wait... the government is actually doing something constructive! Why... THAT'S SOCIALISM! OH MY GOD, WE'RE A BUNCH OF COMMIES!"

[Ayiekie]

I live in Australia at the moment. I'm Canadian and lived there until a couple of years ago. Right-wingers in both countries also whine about the same thing (indeed, there was a big "crackdown" on it in Oz a bit back). In both countries, and in yours, they are wrong, and statistics consistently back that up. There is not a substantial portion of the populace who willingly take welfare and don't try to work - a few individuals yes, but they are statistically insignificant. Most people want to work, both for personal pride reasons and because you really can't have a good living on welfare. When there is a large percentage of people on welfare in an area, it is because there is not a lot of jobs in the area. That is the only reason.

The vast reams of welfare queens taking MAH TAX DOLLARS don't actually exist - they are figments of the imagination of people who are more concerned with the concept that someone somewhere is cheating the system then they are with how well the system works for honest people.

[Star Ranger4]

None of them were or are willing to relocate and follow the crops, working their butts off. why should they? they get money from the government JUST FOR SITTING AROUND Having children and taking care of them. In short, breaking said social contract, and gettting paid for it to boot.

Sorry, don't feel up to dealing with your right-wing boilerplate about how all the welfare queens are stealing your hard-earned taxes because they don't want to work for a living. 
 

And NOW who's hiding behind rhetoric?  People said "Provide proof".  So I cited known historical referents.  And now I'm being 'Right Wing'?  Rather, it sounds to me like YOU are being a left wing liberal troll stiring things up just because you dont want to admit that the other side has a point.
And no, the 'welfare queens' dont steal MY taxes.  But lord do they steal my mothers.  She's well over 65 and she still works.  Because she cant AFFORD to retire onto what 'Social Security' will pay, and she pays 50% of *HER* income in income taxes.
Hear that thunder rolling till it seems to split the sky?
That's every ship in Grayson's Navy taking up the cry-
NO QUARTER!!!
-- "No Quarter", by Echo's Children

[robkelk]

Folks, the last thread got locked because of posts like the last four. Do you really want to go for two locks in a row?

Debate the issue calmly - don't bring emotions into it, please. We're all intelligent adults here, and somebody can hold an opinion that doesn't match your own without being evil.
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[Star Ranger4]

I'm not the one who stared throwing "Blank wing adjutctive" labels around.
Hear that thunder rolling till it seems to split the sky?
That's every ship in Grayson's Navy taking up the cry-
NO QUARTER!!!
-- "No Quarter", by Echo's Children

[robkelk]

I'm not the one who stared throwing "Blank wing adjutctive" labels around.

Ever hear your father say "I don't care who started it"? That's what a forum lock is, after all - Bob stepping in and playing the "I'm ending it" card.

(C'mon, folks - we're supposed to be better than that. Bob shouldn't need to play that card.)
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[Black Aeronaut]

Ayiekie, just because you lived 'on the other side of the fence' does not mean you know what's going on here. Until you've actually lived in a US city that is having these problems, then everything you have to say is based on hearsay unless you can present some concrete data to back it up.

For my part, here's my concrete data. Sources are http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/ and http://www.ucrdatatool.gov/


Here's one for defense spending (a frequent target of yours) vs. welfare spending.  Remarkable, isn't it?  On average, the welfare budget has always been about half of what our defense budget is.  And considering how big the defense budget is, that is no small chunk of change.
Now, contrast that with the following graph.

Uh-yup.  That welfare system of ours sure is turning out some mighty fine citizens, ain't it?

[Dartz]

The thing with welfare budgets is that, the billions that go into 'welfare' don't necessarily go into the pockets of people providing the services. There're certain corporations who see government contracts as an excuse to bilk as much as possible out of state coffers while delivering the bare minimum of services to get by. It seems to me that this may well be part of the cost of welfare bloat.

The US may spend a massive amount on welfare, but it isn't going to the people receiving it, is it? it doesn't seem to be. It all seems like it's getting lost in the bureaucracy. How does medicaid/care work, how're the prices set for medications? Is the government even entitled to bargain for the best price, or does it have to pay what's specified?

It's a simple and devious trap. If you don't have a job, it can be hard to scrounge up the money to move to where there are jobs. It's hard to afford a car to drive to work. It's hard to afford a bus journey, especially if you live somewhere where there aren't buses. It's a vicious circle which gets worse if any unexpected big bills come along.
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?

[Rod.H]

It's a simple and devious trap. If you don't have a job, it can be hard to scrounge up the money to move to where there are jobs. It's hard to afford a car to drive to work. It's hard to afford a bus journey, especially if you live somewhere where there aren't buses. It's a vicious circle which gets worse if any unexpected big bills come along.

Ayep, we've locations just like that (the Projects) in Australia too, though we do at least attempt to provide a bus service.