(08-23-2018 01:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-23-2018 08:37 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I am in favor of the rhetorical wall. I oppose the physical wall, A physical wall is impractical. If I still had my importing business, the wall would run through two of my branches' parking lots. It would also wall off my cousin's cattle from their water source, the Rio Grande. Granted, my cousin's ranch is often used for illegal crossings. Every month a couple of bodies are found.

As to the employment, it is a good idea. But it is not giant industry that benefits most from the cheap labor. I knew a guy who had a roofing business, ran about 10 crews. Every crew was 100% Hispanic. (no idea of the split between American citizen, legal immigrant, and illegal immigrant) he said he had never had a black or white person apply.

The illegal I sold the house to had been employed for 16 years at a lumber yard.

In lieu of employer penalties, I would have a requirement that for any worker that could not show American citizenship or proof of legal residence, the employer would be required to withhold 25% of their gross. If he did not, he would be liable for the shortfall + other $$$ penalties. That would encourage the employers to comply, encourage the legal immigrants to get and show theiID, and get the income from the illegals. It would also encourage the legals to file a tax return to get their refund.

If money is the attracttent, use loss of money as the deterrent.

My feelings are quite mixed on this issue.

I think we should hold employers liable if they knowingly and willingly do something illegal. If they are not willing to pay a wage that will encourage an American citizen to apply, then they need to rethink their business model. And if enforcement is stepped up, then all employers will be dealing with the same issue. I don't have much sympathy for someone who complains they can't find citizens to do their job - I've worked with too many American non-O&G drillers that break their back, but do it because they make a decent, to believe that there are no Americans willing to do the work, it's just that they aren't willing to do the work for the current pay.

But from a pragmatic perspective, the easiest answer is to make it easier for the illegal immigrants to be working here legally. You could make seasonal worker visas more prevalent and easier to obtain. And if a check-in component is added, we'd likely see a decrease in people over staying their visas. I listened to a great podcast that talked in depth about how seasonal migration used to effectively result in a net-0 permanent illegal immigration flux, but once it became more dangerous and difficult to cross the border, the migrants that would come for seasonal work stayed because there was too great of a risk of getting caught the next season if they went back home. This could help increase the supply of people willing to work a lower wage, reducing the economic burden on the employer.

Guest worker/seasonal worker visas are good ideas, and I support them. How do you plan to make them go home when the visa expires? At that point, they change from legal to illegal, and we are back to where we are now. Whatever system we use, we need to control who is here, and send the noncompliant ones home.

As for offering a wage high enough to attract workers, would you leave your current job to work as a roofer for 125% of your current salary? Is that amount attractive enough to get you on a roof in the hot sun? Ok, stay in your air conditioning, and safe office.

People choose jobs for a lot of reasons. Whatever is offered, has to be much more attractive than what they have now. Not going to give up my benefits for a few dollars more.

But, going back to roofing, raising those wages raises the costs of new roofs, which raises the cost of insurance, which raises the cost of living, which raises...

Hmm, didn't somebody say the higher MW would be inflationary?

If you want these jobs to be taken by Americans, reduce the supply of of illegals willing to work cheap, and let the laws of supply and demand take over.

If, on the other hand, you don't mind having nonamericans do this work, let them in on guest worker visas. Fine with me.

Automatic withholding of at 20% for those with legal guest worker visas, 35% for those who cannot produce some confirmation of legality. The former encourages the filing of tax returns with big refunds, the latter reduces the attractiveness of being here illegally with smaller take home pay.

(08-23-2018 02:50 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-23-2018 01:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-23-2018 08:37 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I am in favor of the rhetorical wall. I oppose the physical wall, A physical wall is impractical. If I still had my importing business, the wall would run through two of my branches' parking lots. It would also wall off my cousin's cattle from their water source, the Rio Grande. Granted, my cousin's ranch is often used for illegal crossings. Every month a couple of bodies are found.

As to the employment, it is a good idea. But it is not giant industry that benefits most from the cheap labor. I knew a guy who had a roofing business, ran about 10 crews. Every crew was 100% Hispanic. (no idea of the split between American citizen, legal immigrant, and illegal immigrant) he said he had never had a black or white person apply.

The illegal I sold the house to had been employed for 16 years at a lumber yard.

In lieu of employer penalties, I would have a requirement that for any worker that could not show American citizenship or proof of legal residence, the employer would be required to withhold 25% of their gross. If he did not, he would be liable for the shortfall + other $$$ penalties. That would encourage the employers to comply, encourage the legal immigrants to get and show theiID, and get the income from the illegals. It would also encourage the legals to file a tax return to get their refund.

If money is the attracttent, use loss of money as the deterrent.

My feelings are quite mixed on this issue.

I think we should hold employers liable if they knowingly and willingly do something illegal. If they are not willing to pay a wage that will encourage an American citizen to apply, then they need to rethink their business model. And if enforcement is stepped up, then all employers will be dealing with the same issue. I don't have much sympathy for someone who complains they can't find citizens to do their job - I've worked with too many American non-O&G drillers that break their back, but do it because they make a decent, to believe that there are no Americans willing to do the work, it's just that they aren't willing to do the work for the current pay.

But from a pragmatic perspective, the easiest answer is to make it easier for the illegal immigrants to be working here legally. You could make seasonal worker visas more prevalent and easier to obtain. And if a check-in component is added, we'd likely see a decrease in people over staying their visas. I listened to a great podcast that talked in depth about how seasonal migration used to effectively result in a net-0 permanent illegal immigration flux, but once it became more dangerous and difficult to cross the border, the migrants that would come for seasonal work stayed because there was too great of a risk of getting caught the next season if they went back home. This could help increase the supply of people willing to work a lower wage, reducing the economic burden on the employer.

Guest worker/seasonal worker visas are good ideas, and I support them. How do you plan to make them go home when the visa expires? At that point, they change from legal to illegal, and we are back to where we are now. Whatever system we use, we need to control who is here, and send the noncompliant ones home.

As for offering a wage high enough to attract workers, would you leave your current job to work as a roofer for 125% of your current salary? Is that amount attractive enough to get you on a roof in the hot sun? Ok, stay in your air conditioning, and safe office.

People choose jobs for a lot of reasons. Whatever is offered, has to be much more attractive than what they have now. Not going to give up my benefits for a few dollars more.

But, going back to roofing, raising those wages raises the costs of new roofs, which raises the cost of insurance, which raises the cost of living, which raises...

Hmm, didn't somebody say the higher MW would be inflationary?

If you want these jobs to be taken by Americans, reduce the supply of of illegals willing to work cheap, and let the laws of supply and demand take over.

If, on the other hand, you don't mind having nonamericans do this work, let them in on guest worker visas. Fine with me.

Automatic withholding of at 20% for those with legal guest worker visas, 35% for those who cannot produce some confirmation of legality. The former encourages the filing of tax returns with big refunds, the latter reduces the attractiveness of being here illegally with smaller take home pay.

If you make the migration easy, it's likely that they won't want to stay. I can forward you the podcast that discusses this issue if you want. But in short, if your entire life is in Mexico and you're just looking for work, you want to go home in the off season, and you'll do that if there is no real cost to crossing the border.

Guys currently pull in 125% of my salary by being DPT drillers. They work in the hot sun, operate heavy equipment, and do that work in all kinds of environments, including places like swamps, for that king of pay.

By the way, my job does not keep in a "safe" office in the A/C all of the time. I'm regularly busting my a** in the hot, Gulf Coast summer, in the middle of a swamp with my drillers, on a job site with my construction crew, or inside an industrial facility on my own. I deal with those type of working conditions because I have good benefits and decent pay.

(08-23-2018 03:03 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-23-2018 02:50 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-23-2018 01:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-23-2018 08:37 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I am in favor of the rhetorical wall. I oppose the physical wall, A physical wall is impractical. If I still had my importing business, the wall would run through two of my branches' parking lots. It would also wall off my cousin's cattle from their water source, the Rio Grande. Granted, my cousin's ranch is often used for illegal crossings. Every month a couple of bodies are found.

As to the employment, it is a good idea. But it is not giant industry that benefits most from the cheap labor. I knew a guy who had a roofing business, ran about 10 crews. Every crew was 100% Hispanic. (no idea of the split between American citizen, legal immigrant, and illegal immigrant) he said he had never had a black or white person apply.

The illegal I sold the house to had been employed for 16 years at a lumber yard.

In lieu of employer penalties, I would have a requirement that for any worker that could not show American citizenship or proof of legal residence, the employer would be required to withhold 25% of their gross. If he did not, he would be liable for the shortfall + other $$$ penalties. That would encourage the employers to comply, encourage the legal immigrants to get and show theiID, and get the income from the illegals. It would also encourage the legals to file a tax return to get their refund.

If money is the attracttent, use loss of money as the deterrent.

My feelings are quite mixed on this issue.

I think we should hold employers liable if they knowingly and willingly do something illegal. If they are not willing to pay a wage that will encourage an American citizen to apply, then they need to rethink their business model. And if enforcement is stepped up, then all employers will be dealing with the same issue. I don't have much sympathy for someone who complains they can't find citizens to do their job - I've worked with too many American non-O&G drillers that break their back, but do it because they make a decent, to believe that there are no Americans willing to do the work, it's just that they aren't willing to do the work for the current pay.

But from a pragmatic perspective, the easiest answer is to make it easier for the illegal immigrants to be working here legally. You could make seasonal worker visas more prevalent and easier to obtain. And if a check-in component is added, we'd likely see a decrease in people over staying their visas. I listened to a great podcast that talked in depth about how seasonal migration used to effectively result in a net-0 permanent illegal immigration flux, but once it became more dangerous and difficult to cross the border, the migrants that would come for seasonal work stayed because there was too great of a risk of getting caught the next season if they went back home. This could help increase the supply of people willing to work a lower wage, reducing the economic burden on the employer.

Guest worker/seasonal worker visas are good ideas, and I support them. How do you plan to make them go home when the visa expires? At that point, they change from legal to illegal, and we are back to where we are now. Whatever system we use, we need to control who is here, and send the noncompliant ones home.

As for offering a wage high enough to attract workers, would you leave your current job to work as a roofer for 125% of your current salary? Is that amount attractive enough to get you on a roof in the hot sun? Ok, stay in your air conditioning, and safe office.

People choose jobs for a lot of reasons. Whatever is offered, has to be much more attractive than what they have now. Not going to give up my benefits for a few dollars more.

But, going back to roofing, raising those wages raises the costs of new roofs, which raises the cost of insurance, which raises the cost of living, which raises...

Hmm, didn't somebody say the higher MW would be inflationary?

If you want these jobs to be taken by Americans, reduce the supply of of illegals willing to work cheap, and let the laws of supply and demand take over.

If, on the other hand, you don't mind having nonamericans do this work, let them in on guest worker visas. Fine with me.

Automatic withholding of at 20% for those with legal guest worker visas, 35% for those who cannot produce some confirmation of legality. The former encourages the filing of tax returns with big refunds, the latter reduces the attractiveness of being here illegally with smaller take home pay.

If you make the migration easy, it's likely that they won't want to stay. I can forward you the podcast that discusses this issue if you want. But in short, if your entire life is in Mexico and you're just looking for work, you want to go home in the off season, and you'll do that if there is no real cost to crossing the border.

Completely disagree.

If you make the migration easy, they may go home for Christmas, but most likely when they return they will have their wife and kids, her uncle,his cousin, and a couple of neighbors. I., E., bring their entire life with them. Whatever happened to the mantra "they just want a better life for their kids"? Well, lots of them will decide a better life for their kids is in Dallas, not some sun baked small town in Sonora.

if they came north for the planting season, then when that ends they will stay for the something else season, then for the completely different thing season, and so forth.

I've seen too many of these small towns and big cities in mexico to think there will be a lot of them going home.

Anecdote: I was shown through a house under construction. In one room they proudly showed me an intricate design on the wall. At first I thought it was wallpaper, but then they showed me the man marking in on the wall with a little tiny artist's brush. Cheaper than wall paper.

Point: If labor is cheap here, it is dirt cheap there. The more skilled there can get jobs there in factories. The unskilled will come here, where they can make a ton of money, comparatively, and if they find work, they will send for the family.

Take your drillers. Are they going to come here for a year or less, make a ton of $$$, and then move back to East Peck, Montana, when they will be hard pressed to find a job loading trucks at $10/hour, just because that is where Aunt Tillie and Uncle Elmer live?

(08-23-2018 03:50 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-23-2018 03:03 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-23-2018 02:50 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-23-2018 01:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-23-2018 08:37 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I am in favor of the rhetorical wall. I oppose the physical wall, A physical wall is impractical. If I still had my importing business, the wall would run through two of my branches' parking lots. It would also wall off my cousin's cattle from their water source, the Rio Grande. Granted, my cousin's ranch is often used for illegal crossings. Every month a couple of bodies are found.

As to the employment, it is a good idea. But it is not giant industry that benefits most from the cheap labor. I knew a guy who had a roofing business, ran about 10 crews. Every crew was 100% Hispanic. (no idea of the split between American citizen, legal immigrant, and illegal immigrant) he said he had never had a black or white person apply.

The illegal I sold the house to had been employed for 16 years at a lumber yard.

In lieu of employer penalties, I would have a requirement that for any worker that could not show American citizenship or proof of legal residence, the employer would be required to withhold 25% of their gross. If he did not, he would be liable for the shortfall + other $$$ penalties. That would encourage the employers to comply, encourage the legal immigrants to get and show theiID, and get the income from the illegals. It would also encourage the legals to file a tax return to get their refund.

If money is the attracttent, use loss of money as the deterrent.

My feelings are quite mixed on this issue.

I think we should hold employers liable if they knowingly and willingly do something illegal. If they are not willing to pay a wage that will encourage an American citizen to apply, then they need to rethink their business model. And if enforcement is stepped up, then all employers will be dealing with the same issue. I don't have much sympathy for someone who complains they can't find citizens to do their job - I've worked with too many American non-O&G drillers that break their back, but do it because they make a decent, to believe that there are no Americans willing to do the work, it's just that they aren't willing to do the work for the current pay.

But from a pragmatic perspective, the easiest answer is to make it easier for the illegal immigrants to be working here legally. You could make seasonal worker visas more prevalent and easier to obtain. And if a check-in component is added, we'd likely see a decrease in people over staying their visas. I listened to a great podcast that talked in depth about how seasonal migration used to effectively result in a net-0 permanent illegal immigration flux, but once it became more dangerous and difficult to cross the border, the migrants that would come for seasonal work stayed because there was too great of a risk of getting caught the next season if they went back home. This could help increase the supply of people willing to work a lower wage, reducing the economic burden on the employer.

Guest worker/seasonal worker visas are good ideas, and I support them. How do you plan to make them go home when the visa expires? At that point, they change from legal to illegal, and we are back to where we are now. Whatever system we use, we need to control who is here, and send the noncompliant ones home.

As for offering a wage high enough to attract workers, would you leave your current job to work as a roofer for 125% of your current salary? Is that amount attractive enough to get you on a roof in the hot sun? Ok, stay in your air conditioning, and safe office.

People choose jobs for a lot of reasons. Whatever is offered, has to be much more attractive than what they have now. Not going to give up my benefits for a few dollars more.

But, going back to roofing, raising those wages raises the costs of new roofs, which raises the cost of insurance, which raises the cost of living, which raises...

Hmm, didn't somebody say the higher MW would be inflationary?

If you want these jobs to be taken by Americans, reduce the supply of of illegals willing to work cheap, and let the laws of supply and demand take over.

If, on the other hand, you don't mind having nonamericans do this work, let them in on guest worker visas. Fine with me.

Automatic withholding of at 20% for those with legal guest worker visas, 35% for those who cannot produce some confirmation of legality. The former encourages the filing of tax returns with big refunds, the latter reduces the attractiveness of being here illegally with smaller take home pay.

If you make the migration easy, it's likely that they won't want to stay. I can forward you the podcast that discusses this issue if you want. But in short, if your entire life is in Mexico and you're just looking for work, you want to go home in the off season, and you'll do that if there is no real cost to crossing the border.

Completely disagree.

If you make the migration easy, they may go home for Christmas, but most likely when they return they will have their wife and kids, her uncle,his cousin, and a couple of neighbors. I., E., bring their entire life with them. Whatever happened to the mantra "they just want a better life for their kids"? Well, lots of them will decide a better life for their kids is in Dallas, not some sun baked small town in Sonora.

if they came north for the planting season, then when that ends they will stay for the something else season, then for the completely different thing season, and so forth.

I've seen too many of these small towns and big cities in mexico to think there will be a lot of them going home.

Data doesn't actually support that fact. This podcast touches on that (by focusing on a former general that took over Border Patrol in the 70s): http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/2...last-stand

It's pretty interesting and discusses circular migration in detail.

Quote:Anecdote: I was shown through a house under construction. In one room they proudly showed me an intricate design on the wall. At first I thought it was wallpaper, but then they showed me the man marking in on the wall with a little tiny artist's brush. Cheaper than wall paper.

Point: If labor is cheap here, it is dirt cheap there. The more skilled there can get jobs there in factories. The unskilled will come here, where they can make a ton of money, comparatively, and if they find work, they will send for the family.

Take your drillers. Are they going to come here for a year or less, make a ton of $$$, and then move back to East Peck, Montana, when they will be hard pressed to find a job loading trucks at $10/hour, just because that is where Aunt Tillie and Uncle Elmer live?

Two things, most of the drillers I've worked with are local in the sense that they have lived in Florida, Louisiana, or Texas their entire lives and work for a shop located in those states. But they often do work out of state for months at a time because that is where their company sends them. So in essence, they're willing to move where the work takes them but keep a home base where their roots are.

The other is that if the driller from Montana knows he can go down to Florida each winter, get six months of work and make some bucks, and then return to Montana for the summer without any impediments, he will. I've met drillers who have done something similar, who basically know they can almost always get hired as a hand with some environmental drilling outfit. These guys have more been the careless wandered types who want to spend a few months traveling places or, most recently, racing motorbikes and playing professional football in Austria.

You should read up on the concept, it's called circular migration (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_migration).

I think the thing you're missing with the concept is that people use the out-of-town work to basically create a stockpile of cash for when they return home, and then are willing to take a cut in pay when they're home.

Sorry Lad..... I simply dont buy the notion that "If you make the migration easy, it's likely that they won't want to stay."

Way too much time in other countries, and way too many interactions with immigrants leads me to the polar opposite conclusion.

Massey's study runs completely contrary to Pew's research that shows that the vast majority of illegal Mexican immigrants have resided in the US for over a decade.

Quote:As of 2014, 78% had lived in the U.S. for 10 years or more, while only 7% had been in the country for less than five years.

Further the podcast expressly stated that the circular flows pretty much ended in '77 when Chapman effectively ended the era of 'zero-cost' border crossing. The podcast states 'when you make the cost to cross and work higher, you either end circular flows or extend their cycles as to effectively end them' (paraphrase). That is in complete comport with the Pew research above.

(08-23-2018 04:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-23-2018 03:50 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-23-2018 03:03 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-23-2018 02:50 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-23-2018 01:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  My feelings are quite mixed on this issue.

I think we should hold employers liable if they knowingly and willingly do something illegal. If they are not willing to pay a wage that will encourage an American citizen to apply, then they need to rethink their business model. And if enforcement is stepped up, then all employers will be dealing with the same issue. I don't have much sympathy for someone who complains they can't find citizens to do their job - I've worked with too many American non-O&G drillers that break their back, but do it because they make a decent, to believe that there are no Americans willing to do the work, it's just that they aren't willing to do the work for the current pay.

But from a pragmatic perspective, the easiest answer is to make it easier for the illegal immigrants to be working here legally. You could make seasonal worker visas more prevalent and easier to obtain. And if a check-in component is added, we'd likely see a decrease in people over staying their visas. I listened to a great podcast that talked in depth about how seasonal migration used to effectively result in a net-0 permanent illegal immigration flux, but once it became more dangerous and difficult to cross the border, the migrants that would come for seasonal work stayed because there was too great of a risk of getting caught the next season if they went back home. This could help increase the supply of people willing to work a lower wage, reducing the economic burden on the employer.

Guest worker/seasonal worker visas are good ideas, and I support them. How do you plan to make them go home when the visa expires? At that point, they change from legal to illegal, and we are back to where we are now. Whatever system we use, we need to control who is here, and send the noncompliant ones home.

As for offering a wage high enough to attract workers, would you leave your current job to work as a roofer for 125% of your current salary? Is that amount attractive enough to get you on a roof in the hot sun? Ok, stay in your air conditioning, and safe office.

People choose jobs for a lot of reasons. Whatever is offered, has to be much more attractive than what they have now. Not going to give up my benefits for a few dollars more.

But, going back to roofing, raising those wages raises the costs of new roofs, which raises the cost of insurance, which raises the cost of living, which raises...

Hmm, didn't somebody say the higher MW would be inflationary?

If you want these jobs to be taken by Americans, reduce the supply of of illegals willing to work cheap, and let the laws of supply and demand take over.

If, on the other hand, you don't mind having nonamericans do this work, let them in on guest worker visas. Fine with me.

Automatic withholding of at 20% for those with legal guest worker visas, 35% for those who cannot produce some confirmation of legality. The former encourages the filing of tax returns with big refunds, the latter reduces the attractiveness of being here illegally with smaller take home pay.

If you make the migration easy, it's likely that they won't want to stay. I can forward you the podcast that discusses this issue if you want. But in short, if your entire life is in Mexico and you're just looking for work, you want to go home in the off season, and you'll do that if there is no real cost to crossing the border.

Completely disagree.

If you make the migration easy, they may go home for Christmas, but most likely when they return they will have their wife and kids, her uncle,his cousin, and a couple of neighbors. I., E., bring their entire life with them. Whatever happened to the mantra "they just want a better life for their kids"? Well, lots of them will decide a better life for their kids is in Dallas, not some sun baked small town in Sonora.

if they came north for the planting season, then when that ends they will stay for the something else season, then for the completely different thing season, and so forth.

I've seen too many of these small towns and big cities in mexico to think there will be a lot of them going home.

Data doesn't actually support that fact. This podcast touches on that (by focusing on a former general that took over Border Patrol in the 70s): http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/2...last-stand

It's pretty interesting and discusses circular migration in detail.

Quote:Anecdote: I was shown through a house under construction. In one room they proudly showed me an intricate design on the wall. At first I thought it was wallpaper, but then they showed me the man marking in on the wall with a little tiny artist's brush. Cheaper than wall paper.

Point: If labor is cheap here, it is dirt cheap there. The more skilled there can get jobs there in factories. The unskilled will come here, where they can make a ton of money, comparatively, and if they find work, they will send for the family.

Take your drillers. Are they going to come here for a year or less, make a ton of $$$, and then move back to East Peck, Montana, when they will be hard pressed to find a job loading trucks at $10/hour, just because that is where Aunt Tillie and Uncle Elmer live?

Two things, most of the drillers I've worked with are local in the sense that they have lived in Florida, Louisiana, or Texas their entire lives and work for a shop located in those states. But they often do work out of state for months at a time because that is where their company sends them. So in essence, they're willing to move where the work takes them but keep a home base where their roots are.

The other is that if the driller from Montana knows he can go down to Florida each winter, get six months of work and make some bucks, and then return to Montana for the summer without any impediments, he will. I've met drillers who have done something similar, who basically know they can almost always get hired as a hand with some environmental drilling outfit. These guys have more been the careless wandered types who want to spend a few months traveling places or, most recently, racing motorbikes and playing professional football in Austria.

You should read up on the concept, it's called circular migration (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_migration).

I think the thing you're missing with the concept is that people use the out-of-town work to basically create a stockpile of cash for when they return home, and then are willing to take a cut in pay when they're home.

So the answer is to make it easy for them to come in and because of that they will go home and stay home.

Basically, open borders and no enforcement.

Same philosophy that says if you don't lock the store people will not be tempted to break in. Ifr they do take something, they will bring it back because it is easy to get back into the store.

Look, your drillers are not immigrants to Florida or wherever they work. They didn't have to evade the Florida Border Patrol, and if they are caught in Florida, nothing happens.The illegals are not the same. They aren't going back. They are fleeing poverty, no opportunity, high crime, cartels, etc. Why would they live beautiful Kansas City for the same stuff they fled. Nothing new there. I don't need to listen to your miracle podcast anymore than I need to to read Mein Kampf. Just because somebody has an opinion doesn't mean they are right. Marx had an opinion, too, but he was wrong.

The people you want to allow to enter unimpeded and unknown to us are the dregs of Mexico. The poorest, the least educated, the least skilled. The least prepared to do much beyond physical labor. The least likely to want to return. Why not put a filter at the border, and turn back anybody with an education or a skill. Mexico is not concerned with losing engineers, scientists doctors. Those are not the people wading the river. They are not the people you want in.. Every time on of the poor people cross the Rio, Mexico improves. We do not.

(08-23-2018 08:39 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-23-2018 04:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-23-2018 03:50 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-23-2018 03:03 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-23-2018 02:50 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Guest worker/seasonal worker visas are good ideas, and I support them. How do you plan to make them go home when the visa expires? At that point, they change from legal to illegal, and we are back to where we are now. Whatever system we use, we need to control who is here, and send the noncompliant ones home.

As for offering a wage high enough to attract workers, would you leave your current job to work as a roofer for 125% of your current salary? Is that amount attractive enough to get you on a roof in the hot sun? Ok, stay in your air conditioning, and safe office.

People choose jobs for a lot of reasons. Whatever is offered, has to be much more attractive than what they have now. Not going to give up my benefits for a few dollars more.

But, going back to roofing, raising those wages raises the costs of new roofs, which raises the cost of insurance, which raises the cost of living, which raises...

Hmm, didn't somebody say the higher MW would be inflationary?

If you want these jobs to be taken by Americans, reduce the supply of of illegals willing to work cheap, and let the laws of supply and demand take over.

If, on the other hand, you don't mind having nonamericans do this work, let them in on guest worker visas. Fine with me.

Automatic withholding of at 20% for those with legal guest worker visas, 35% for those who cannot produce some confirmation of legality. The former encourages the filing of tax returns with big refunds, the latter reduces the attractiveness of being here illegally with smaller take home pay.

If you make the migration easy, it's likely that they won't want to stay. I can forward you the podcast that discusses this issue if you want. But in short, if your entire life is in Mexico and you're just looking for work, you want to go home in the off season, and you'll do that if there is no real cost to crossing the border.

Completely disagree.

If you make the migration easy, they may go home for Christmas, but most likely when they return they will have their wife and kids, her uncle,his cousin, and a couple of neighbors. I., E., bring their entire life with them. Whatever happened to the mantra "they just want a better life for their kids"? Well, lots of them will decide a better life for their kids is in Dallas, not some sun baked small town in Sonora.

if they came north for the planting season, then when that ends they will stay for the something else season, then for the completely different thing season, and so forth.

I've seen too many of these small towns and big cities in mexico to think there will be a lot of them going home.

Data doesn't actually support that fact. This podcast touches on that (by focusing on a former general that took over Border Patrol in the 70s): http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/2...last-stand

It's pretty interesting and discusses circular migration in detail.

Quote:Anecdote: I was shown through a house under construction. In one room they proudly showed me an intricate design on the wall. At first I thought it was wallpaper, but then they showed me the man marking in on the wall with a little tiny artist's brush. Cheaper than wall paper.

Point: If labor is cheap here, it is dirt cheap there. The more skilled there can get jobs there in factories. The unskilled will come here, where they can make a ton of money, comparatively, and if they find work, they will send for the family.

Take your drillers. Are they going to come here for a year or less, make a ton of $$$, and then move back to East Peck, Montana, when they will be hard pressed to find a job loading trucks at $10/hour, just because that is where Aunt Tillie and Uncle Elmer live?

Two things, most of the drillers I've worked with are local in the sense that they have lived in Florida, Louisiana, or Texas their entire lives and work for a shop located in those states. But they often do work out of state for months at a time because that is where their company sends them. So in essence, they're willing to move where the work takes them but keep a home base where their roots are.

The other is that if the driller from Montana knows he can go down to Florida each winter, get six months of work and make some bucks, and then return to Montana for the summer without any impediments, he will. I've met drillers who have done something similar, who basically know they can almost always get hired as a hand with some environmental drilling outfit. These guys have more been the careless wandered types who want to spend a few months traveling places or, most recently, racing motorbikes and playing professional football in Austria.

You should read up on the concept, it's called circular migration (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_migration).

I think the thing you're missing with the concept is that people use the out-of-town work to basically create a stockpile of cash for when they return home, and then are willing to take a cut in pay when they're home.

So the answer is to make it easy for them to come in and because of that they will go home and stay home.

Basically, open borders and no enforcement.

Same philosophy that says if you don't lock the store people will not be tempted to break in. Ifr they do take something, they will bring it back because it is easy to get back into the store.

Look, your drillers are not immigrants to Florida or wherever they work. They didn't have to evade the Florida Border Patrol, and if they are caught in Florida, nothing happens.The illegals are not the same. They aren't going back. They are fleeing poverty, no opportunity, high crime, cartels, etc. Why would they live beautiful Kansas City for the same stuff they fled. Nothing new there. I don't need to listen to your miracle podcast anymore than I need to to read Mein Kampf. Just because somebody has an opinion doesn't mean they are right. Marx had an opinion, too, but he was wrong.

The people you want to allow to enter unimpeded and unknown to us are the dregs of Mexico. The poorest, the least educated, the least skilled. The least prepared to do much beyond physical labor. The least likely to want to return. Why not put a filter at the border, and turn back anybody with an education or a skill. Mexico is not concerned with losing engineers, scientists doctors. Those are not the people wading the river. They are not the people you want in.. Every time on of the poor people cross the Rio, Mexico improves. We do not.

No, not open borders. In this regard, I would argue for an increase in the worker visa program that would allow people to legally become seasonal workers. You can then implement proven techniques that have done a good job keeping track of illegal immigrants in deportation proceedings (check ins or electronic monitoring) to make sure people do not overstay their visa. And then have very severe repercussions for those that intentionally overstay their visa.

This follows the same principal I have regarding drug use, create an easy to navigate legal pathway that allows for law enforcement officials to focus on those abusing the system and and trying to skirt it.

In your analogy, the same philosophy would be to not have a guard at your shop's entrance to frisk people coming into/out of the store, and leave the door unlocked and ungaurded during business hours. That way people can come and go while someone is manning the store.

And some illegal immigrants are fleeing desperate, dangerous circumstances - that is why we have asylum cases. I'm not talking about those, I'm talking about those trying to escape poverty who come for a job. They often don't want to leave their homeland, but they do for work, and would gladly return with money, and then keep repeating that trip.

Your ignorant mocking of a resource is illuminating. I'm shocked someone with a Rice degree is so willing to blatantly ignore another perspective to remain set in their ways. Comparing a podcast that discusses an interesting perspective on immigration, that interviews experts on immigration, to Mein Kampf is ludicrous.

But I shouldn't be surprised that it comes from someone who, by the end of their post, is completely and intentionally misrepresenting my position, and twisting it into a strawman. I did not say, anywhere, that I want "to allow to enter unimpeded and unknown." I very explicitly said that I wanted to increase the worker visa program, which would monitor people entering/exiting the country. I even said that I wanted to monitor them while they were legally in the country to make sure they did not overstay their visa.

But you are relying on your Trump-esque gut to assume the worst about these people and their intentions, without data to back it up.

I just wonder, when your family immigrated from their home country, were they of a skilled profession? Countless American families were started because our country did not only accept immigrants with skills, and I would remind you to remember that history when advocating for ONLY allowing in immigrants with technical skills. I firmly believe that we should always maintain some immigration that allow in people who want to work for a better life and want to join the American dream and contribute to their community, regardless of their innate or taught skills.

(08-23-2018 09:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-23-2018 08:39 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-23-2018 04:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-23-2018 03:50 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-23-2018 03:03 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  If you make the migration easy, it's likely that they won't want to stay. I can forward you the podcast that discusses this issue if you want. But in short, if your entire life is in Mexico and you're just looking for work, you want to go home in the off season, and you'll do that if there is no real cost to crossing the border.

Completely disagree.

If you make the migration easy, they may go home for Christmas, but most likely when they return they will have their wife and kids, her uncle,his cousin, and a couple of neighbors. I., E., bring their entire life with them. Whatever happened to the mantra "they just want a better life for their kids"? Well, lots of them will decide a better life for their kids is in Dallas, not some sun baked small town in Sonora.

if they came north for the planting season, then when that ends they will stay for the something else season, then for the completely different thing season, and so forth.

I've seen too many of these small towns and big cities in mexico to think there will be a lot of them going home.

Data doesn't actually support that fact. This podcast touches on that (by focusing on a former general that took over Border Patrol in the 70s): http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/2...last-stand

It's pretty interesting and discusses circular migration in detail.

Quote:Anecdote: I was shown through a house under construction. In one room they proudly showed me an intricate design on the wall. At first I thought it was wallpaper, but then they showed me the man marking in on the wall with a little tiny artist's brush. Cheaper than wall paper.

Point: If labor is cheap here, it is dirt cheap there. The more skilled there can get jobs there in factories. The unskilled will come here, where they can make a ton of money, comparatively, and if they find work, they will send for the family.

Take your drillers. Are they going to come here for a year or less, make a ton of $$$, and then move back to East Peck, Montana, when they will be hard pressed to find a job loading trucks at $10/hour, just because that is where Aunt Tillie and Uncle Elmer live?

Two things, most of the drillers I've worked with are local in the sense that they have lived in Florida, Louisiana, or Texas their entire lives and work for a shop located in those states. But they often do work out of state for months at a time because that is where their company sends them. So in essence, they're willing to move where the work takes them but keep a home base where their roots are.

The other is that if the driller from Montana knows he can go down to Florida each winter, get six months of work and make some bucks, and then return to Montana for the summer without any impediments, he will. I've met drillers who have done something similar, who basically know they can almost always get hired as a hand with some environmental drilling outfit. These guys have more been the careless wandered types who want to spend a few months traveling places or, most recently, racing motorbikes and playing professional football in Austria.

You should read up on the concept, it's called circular migration (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_migration).

I think the thing you're missing with the concept is that people use the out-of-town work to basically create a stockpile of cash for when they return home, and then are willing to take a cut in pay when they're home.

So the answer is to make it easy for them to come in and because of that they will go home and stay home.

Basically, open borders and no enforcement.

Same philosophy that says if you don't lock the store people will not be tempted to break in. Ifr they do take something, they will bring it back because it is easy to get back into the store.

Look, your drillers are not immigrants to Florida or wherever they work. They didn't have to evade the Florida Border Patrol, and if they are caught in Florida, nothing happens.The illegals are not the same. They aren't going back. They are fleeing poverty, no opportunity, high crime, cartels, etc. Why would they live beautiful Kansas City for the same stuff they fled. Nothing new there. I don't need to listen to your miracle podcast anymore than I need to to read Mein Kampf. Just because somebody has an opinion doesn't mean they are right. Marx had an opinion, too, but he was wrong.

The people you want to allow to enter unimpeded and unknown to us are the dregs of Mexico. The poorest, the least educated, the least skilled. The least prepared to do much beyond physical labor. The least likely to want to return. Why not put a filter at the border, and turn back anybody with an education or a skill. Mexico is not concerned with losing engineers, scientists doctors. Those are not the people wading the river. They are not the people you want in.. Every time on of the poor people cross the Rio, Mexico improves. We do not.

No, not open borders. In this regard, I would argue for an increase in the worker visa program that would allow people to legally become seasonal workers. You can then implement proven techniques that have done a good job keeping track of illegal immigrants in deportation proceedings (check ins or electronic monitoring) to make sure people do not overstay their visa. And then have very severe repercussions for those that intentionally overstay their visa.

This follows the same principal I have regarding drug use, create an easy to navigate legal pathway that allows for law enforcement officials to focus on those abusing the system and and trying to skirt it.

In your analogy, the same philosophy would be to not have a guard at your shop's entrance to frisk people coming into/out of the store, and leave the door unlocked and ungaurded during business hours. That way people can come and go while someone is manning the store.

And some illegal immigrants are fleeing desperate, dangerous circumstances - that is why we have asylum cases. I'm not talking about those, I'm talking about those trying to escape poverty who come for a job. They often don't want to leave their homeland, but they do for work, and would gladly return with money, and then keep repeating that trip.

Your ignorant mocking of a resource is illuminating. I'm shocked someone with a Rice degree is so willing to blatantly ignore another perspective to remain set in their ways. Comparing a podcast that discusses an interesting perspective on immigration, that interviews experts on immigration, to Mein Kampf is ludicrous.

But I shouldn't be surprised that it comes from someone who, by the end of their post, is completely and intentionally misrepresenting my position, and twisting it into a strawman. I did not say, anywhere, that I want "to allow to enter unimpeded and unknown." I very explicitly said that I wanted to increase the worker visa program, which would monitor people entering/exiting the country. I even said that I wanted to monitor them while they were legally in the country to make sure they did not overstay their visa.

But you are relying on your Trump-esque gut to assume the worst about these people and their intentions, without data to back it up.

I just wonder, when your family immigrated from their home country, were they of a skilled profession? Countless American families were started because our country did not only accept immigrants with skills, and I would remind you to remember that history when advocating for ONLY allowing in immigrants with technical skills. I firmly believe that we should always maintain some immigration that allow in people who want to work for a better life and want to join the American dream and contribute to their community, regardless of their innate or taught skills.

Assume the worst? I KNOW these people. I think you just called me a racist. I know you called me ignorant, the lst resort of a leftist.

I am relying on 73 years experience dealing with Mexico and Mexicans, legal and illegal residents, and I think if I put it all into a podcast it wouldn't change whetheryou thought I was right or wrong. I think less control of the border is wrong, I don't care if it is shouted from rooftops with megaphones. Nothing magic about a podcast. I think the magic part is he said what you wanted to hear.

I guess the progenitors of the spanish(Conquistador) and german(hessian mercenary) portions of my ancestry were soldiers, not unskilled laborers. Can't say about the Anglo portion, but I know one ancestor was a lieutenant in the New York militia in 1831, so I guess soldiering ran in the famil(ies) early. Lately more education and medicine. Not so much ignorance, although I do appreciate the unnecessary personal attack.

But of course, all of my branches started with people smart enough or brave enough or knowledgeable enough to get themselves passage on ships crossing a great ocean. Exactly like the people I used to see wading the river with a bundle of clothes on their head. Not.

You are shocked to hear that anybody with a Rice degree is "so willing to blatantly ignore another perspective to remain set in their ways." I presume this means you would be willing to listen to a podcast by a white supremicist, to demonstrate that you are not set in your ways. How about a podcast on how well president Trump is doing for us, or a podcast on how misguided the antiTrump Resistance is? Open mindedness is not a feature of the left, who routinely shout down other perspectives. Don't accuse me me of doing the same things you do. I am not shocked that some people with Rice degrees want to ignore facts and logic in order to remain set in their ways. I am conversing with one now, and another ran off in a huff.

Think of the worst places in america, the places with most ignorance and the worst living conditions. Those are the people you welcome. Certainly some of them are fine people - Enrique who bought that house from was a fine man. Others, not so much. Just as every person who came to america in the 18th or 19th centuries was not a paragon of virtue neither are the people wading the river. If you insist on romanticising them all as noble people with noble objectives, then that is as racist as damning them all.

If they want to come and earn a living and support their family and pay their taxes and obey the laws, and not only have the inclination but also the means to do so, fine, I want them. But I want them to say so on an application, not just wade the river.

You get your straw men out of the road, I will tend to mine.

OO, please restate what I’ve actually said about my thoughts on worker visas. I think when you do that you’ll realize that at least your last two posts are arguing against a position I haven’t taken. My goal is to make legal immigration across the border easier for potential workers because of an increase in worker visas/ease of applying for them. Currently, employers need to initiate the H-2A visa process, which poses obvious hurdles to places like farms that use illegal immigrant immigrants. So I’ll repeat my stance again, I want better legal means that allow immigrants looking for work to immigrate for work, coupled with proven tracking methods.

And if you send me an article that provides expert opinion that states that more strict immigration enforcement, a process that makes it more difficult to cross the border or reduces the number of slots available for immigrants, actually reduces illegal immigration, then I’ll be interested in it. I generally read many of the articles Tanq posts when we have debated Trump issues, regardless of their source. It’s good to understand what information is informing others.

And OO, I didn’t call you racist.

(08-24-2018 07:12 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  OO, please restate what I’ve actually said about my thoughts on worker visas. I think when you do that you’ll realize that at least your last two posts are arguing against a position I haven’t taken. My goal is to make legal immigration across the border easier for potential workers because of an increase in worker visas/ease of applying for them. Currently, employers need to initiate the H-2A visa process, which poses obvious hurdles to places like farms that use illegal immigrant immigrants. So I’ll repeat my stance again, I want better legal means that allow immigrants looking for work to immigrate for work, coupled with proven tracking methods.
And if you send me an article that provides expert opinion that states that more strict immigration enforcement, a process that makes it more difficult to cross the border or reduces the number of slots available for immigrants, actually reduces illegal immigration, then I’ll be interested in it. I generally read many of the articles Tanq posts when we have debated Trump issues, regardless of their source. It’s good to understand what information is informing others.
And OO, I didn’t call you racist.

Considering that this discussion primarily involves Hispanic immigrants, and OO is Hispanic, calling him a racist is probably not a good move. Whether it's a move you made or not may be less clear.

It seems to me that a basic rule of economics is that when you have a willing supply and a willing demand, you are going to have transactions. Therefore it seems logical that finding lawful ways to have those transactions (hirings) makes more sense than making them illegal. So increasing the amount of legal immigration appears to be a no brainer.

At the same time there are any number of good and great reasons to regain control our borders. A band of ten to twenty million people, wandering about the country with no knowledge of who they are and where they are, or even how many they are, cannot be helpful from a national security or public safety or public health or economic perspective--among others.

So it would seem that a compromise could be reached. The problem from a political perspective is that Reagan and Tip O'Neil reached such a compromise 30 years ago--amnesty for the ones already here in exchange for stronger border controls. Reagan lived up to his side, which could be done immediately. Tip reneged on is. Republicans haven't trusted democrats on this issue since.

Quote:provides expert opinion that states that more strict immigration enforcement, a process that makes it more difficult to cross the border or reduces the number of slots available for immigrants, actually reduces illegal immigration,

I think the old Berlin Wall is good example of "more strict immigration enforcement"; and it undoubtedly did curtail the flow of people.

There is no physical difference between a physical act of restricting people in from restricting flows out; the are both restricting flows of people.

Also just base economic theory tells us the same thing -- it was reinforced in several minutes of your own podcast. Paraphrase quote: "When something is free of cost, people consume as much as possible. In this case the item is illegal immigration, and since the cost was low or zero, tons of people did it." Fast forward to another paraphrased quote from your own source: "The US drastically raised the cost of of illegal immigration. Accordingly the flow was relatively restricted and the circular flows dried up."

No 'expert' study needed when you supplied it already; and a very good example of that benefit v cost in restriction of flows of people is provided with the border between the East bloc and the West up to the late 1980's.

You really dont need an 'expert opinion' on this...... common sense tells you all you needed to know. But, your own source previously also indirectly states this in the body of the 'podcast' proof.

(08-24-2018 07:12 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  OO, please restate what I’ve actually said about my thoughts on worker visas. I think when you do that you’ll realize that at least your last two posts are arguing against a position I haven’t taken. My goal is to make legal immigration across the border easier for potential workers because of an increase in worker visas/ease of applying for them. Currently, employers need to initiate the H-2A visa process, which poses obvious hurdles to places like farms that use illegal immigrant immigrants. So I’ll repeat my stance again, I want better legal means that allow immigrants looking for work to immigrate for work, coupled with proven tracking methods.

And if you send me an article that provides expert opinion that states that more strict immigration enforcement, a process that makes it more difficult to cross the border or reduces the number of slots available for immigrants, actually reduces illegal immigration, then I’ll be interested in it. I generally read many of the articles Tanq posts when we have debated Trump issues, regardless of their source. It’s good to understand what information is informing others.

And OO, I didn’t call you racist.

This is the phrase I found to be hinting that I am racist:

But you are relying on your Trump-esque gut to assume the worst about these people and their intentions,

As Owl 69 says, I am partial Hispanic heritage, and partial seems to be enough these days. I honor all my heritages, the primary ones being Spain, Germany, and England. I was born on the border and raised there until age 11, in one of the poorest and most Hispanic cities in the US. I have dozens of cousins on both sides of the river, both nationalities.(One of my aunts married a Mexican, my grandmother had 8 siblings, seven married Mexican or Mexican-American). Among them are a Federal judge, a doctor, several attorneys, several felons, a couple of deadbeats, and so on. I am well acquainted with the breadth and depth of hispanics, and find them much like any group of people in the world - some good ones, some bad ones, some inbetween ones.

As an adult, I was involved in the importing business and spent much of my time in Mexico. I worked in the big cities, like Chihuahua and Juarez and Monterrey. I also worked in the small villages and settlements. One place I went, my supplier's phone number was 2. Just the one digit. 1 belonged to the Chief of police, of course.

Then you go and tell me I am assuming the worst about "these people". Maybe I am just hearing a dog whistle, but if I am you are blowing it.

Now let's forget this. I assume you did not mean to call me a racist, and you can assume I took no offense.

I get tired of people with little or no experience of the border or Mexico telling me what "those people" are like. I know. A similar situation would be some lily white reformer who lives in an all white gated community on a hill outside of town telling people what inner city black people are like and what to do about them.

I have zero quarrel with the idea of guest workers or other special worker visas, but they have to be part of a framework of strict enforcement. A guest worker visa should require some screening, which can only be done by enforcing an application process. Screening for what? Criminal backgrounds, first. Second, the ability to work in some way to support themselves. Third, the likelihood of them going back at the end of their term, or reapplying to extend. There has to a mechanism for enforcing the stays. Enforcement is what many of the left have a problem with.

Not everyone who wades the river is prepared to thrive here, or even survive. I knew a woman who lived in a cave, and had no knowledge of how to use a telephone or a toilet. She came up north, but could not cope. I want people here who can add to the country. If they want to be roofers and they have a roofing job lined up, fine. If they are just going to wander until they find a temp job moving stuff from place to place, not so much. If they cannot read in either language(yes, have met those, too), not so much.

You say they are refugees from violence and poverty. I could say the same thing of people wanting to get out of Chicago's South Side. why not take care of our own refugees first?

Many references are made to the 18th and 19th centuries, when all one needed to immigrate was a boat ticket. Lots of people came over. some did very well for themselves and this country. Some descended into crime and violence. Seems like the latter group is forgotten whenever a discussion of immigration comes up.

Go in peace, my friend.

(08-24-2018 08:29 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-24-2018 07:12 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  OO, please restate what I’ve actually said about my thoughts on worker visas. I think when you do that you’ll realize that at least your last two posts are arguing against a position I haven’t taken. My goal is to make legal immigration across the border easier for potential workers because of an increase in worker visas/ease of applying for them. Currently, employers need to initiate the H-2A visa process, which poses obvious hurdles to places like farms that use illegal immigrant immigrants. So I’ll repeat my stance again, I want better legal means that allow immigrants looking for work to immigrate for work, coupled with proven tracking methods.
And if you send me an article that provides expert opinion that states that more strict immigration enforcement, a process that makes it more difficult to cross the border or reduces the number of slots available for immigrants, actually reduces illegal immigration, then I’ll be interested in it. I generally read many of the articles Tanq posts when we have debated Trump issues, regardless of their source. It’s good to understand what information is informing others.
And OO, I didn’t call you racist.

Considering that this discussion primarily involves Hispanic immigrants, and OO is Hispanic, calling him a racist is probably not a good move. Whether it's a move you made or not may be less clear.

It's pretty darn clear I never did. The thought hadn't crossed my mind once.

Quote:It seems to me that a basic rule of economics is that when you have a willing supply and a willing demand, you are going to have transactions. Therefore it seems logical that finding lawful ways to have those transactions (hirings) makes more sense than making them illegal. So increasing the amount of legal immigration appears to be a no brainer.

At the same time there are any number of good and great reasons to regain control our borders. A band of ten to twenty million people, wandering about the country with no knowledge of who they are and where they are, or even how many they are, cannot be helpful from a national security or public safety or public health or economic perspective--among others.

So it would seem that a compromise could be reached. The problem from a political perspective is that Reagan and Tip O'Neil reached such a compromise 30 years ago--amnesty for the ones already here in exchange for stronger border controls. Reagan lived up to his side, which could be done immediately. Tip reneged on is. Republicans haven't trusted democrats on this issue since.

I think your first paragraph here hits the nail on the head. We will not solve our problems here by simply increasing border control, so we must find a way to alleviate some of the pressure, and do so in a smart manner.

I say one path is to make it easier to document workers who want to come here to work, track them through a proven method while they're here, and ensure that they leave in a timely manner. Ensure that if they follow the rules, they'll be allowed back in for seasonal work in the future, so they do not feel the need to lay down roots here. Basically, try to revive and strengthen circular migration.

(08-24-2018 08:34 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

Quote:provides expert opinion that states that more strict immigration enforcement, a process that makes it more difficult to cross the border or reduces the number of slots available for immigrants, actually reduces illegal immigration,

I think the old Berlin Wall is good example of "more strict immigration enforcement"; and it undoubtedly did curtail the flow of people.

There is no physical difference between a physical act of restricting people in from restricting flows out; the are both restricting flows of people.

Also just base economic theory tells us the same thing -- it was reinforced in several minutes of your own podcast. Paraphrase quote: "When something is free of cost, people consume as much as possible. In this case the item is illegal immigration, and since the cost was low or zero, tons of people did it." Fast forward to another paraphrased quote from your own source: "The US drastically raised the cost of of illegal immigration. Accordingly the flow was relatively restricted and the circular flows dried up."

No 'expert' study needed when you supplied it already; and a very good example of that benefit v cost in restriction of flows of people is provided with the border between the East bloc and the West up to the late 1980's.

You really dont need an 'expert opinion' on this...... common sense tells you all you needed to know. But, your own source previously also indirectly states this in the body of the 'podcast' proof.

But you're conflating issues here - the illegal immigration they're talking about was circular migration, so illegal immigrants weren't staying here then. They came for work, left, came back, left, etc. So the net migration was zero - that's what they mean by the circular flows dried up. You're focusing only on the word "illegal" on not on the type of immigration they were talking about.

So if what we do is create a legal process that is easy and simple to navigate, we create a situation for migrant works with near zero economic cost. The means there is a chance that the circular flow springs up again, and that net immigration is near zero. So you would remove the "illegal" nomenclature, and you would bring the laborers out of the dark and into the light.

I think you misunderstood the point that they were trying to make in the podcast, which was that when the economic cost of crossing the border went up, the illegal immigrants that used to go back home, decided to stay here because it wasn't worth the risk to go home. When they decided to stay, they put down roots and built families.

(08-24-2018 09:22 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-24-2018 07:12 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  OO, please restate what I’ve actually said about my thoughts on worker visas. I think when you do that you’ll realize that at least your last two posts are arguing against a position I haven’t taken. My goal is to make legal immigration across the border easier for potential workers because of an increase in worker visas/ease of applying for them. Currently, employers need to initiate the H-2A visa process, which poses obvious hurdles to places like farms that use illegal immigrant immigrants. So I’ll repeat my stance again, I want better legal means that allow immigrants looking for work to immigrate for work, coupled with proven tracking methods.

And if you send me an article that provides expert opinion that states that more strict immigration enforcement, a process that makes it more difficult to cross the border or reduces the number of slots available for immigrants, actually reduces illegal immigration, then I’ll be interested in it. I generally read many of the articles Tanq posts when we have debated Trump issues, regardless of their source. It’s good to understand what information is informing others.

And OO, I didn’t call you racist.

This is the phrase I found to be hinting that I am racist:

But you are relying on your Trump-esque gut to assume the worst about these people and their intentions,

As Owl 69 says, I am partial Hispanic heritage, and partial seems to be enough these days. I honor all my heritages, the primary ones being Spain, Germany, and England. I was born on the border and raised there until age 11, in one of the poorest and most Hispanic cities in the US. I have dozens of cousins on both sides of the river, both nationalities.(One of my aunts married a Mexican, my grandmother had 8 siblings, seven married Mexican or Mexican-American). Among them are a Federal judge, a doctor, several attorneys, several felons, a couple of deadbeats, and so on. I am well acquainted with the breadth and depth of hispanics, and find them much like any group of people in the world - some good ones, some bad ones, some inbetween ones.

As an adult, I was involved in the importing business and spent much of my time in Mexico. I worked in the big cities, like Chihuahua and Juarez and Monterrey. I also worked in the small villages and settlements. One place I went, my supplier's phone number was 2. Just the one digit. 1 belonged to the Chief of police, of course.

Then you go and tell me I am assuming the worst about "these people". Maybe I am just hearing a dog whistle, but if I am you are blowing it.

Now let's forget this. I assume you did not mean to call me a racist, and you can assume I took no offense.

I get tired of people with little or no experience of the border or Mexico telling me what "those people" are like. I know. A similar situation would be some lily white reformer who lives in an all white gated community on a hill outside of town telling people what inner city black people are like and what to do about them.

I have zero quarrel with the idea of guest workers or other special worker visas, but they have to be part of a framework of strict enforcement. A guest worker visa should require some screening, which can only be done by enforcing an application process. Screening for what? Criminal backgrounds, first. Second, the ability to work in some way to support themselves. Third, the likelihood of them going back at the end of their term, or reapplying to extend. There has to a mechanism for enforcing the stays. Enforcement is what many of the left have a problem with.

Not everyone who wades the river is prepared to thrive here, or even survive. I knew a woman who lived in a cave, and had no knowledge of how to use a telephone or a toilet. She came up north, but could not cope. I want people here who can add to the country. If they want to be roofers and they have a roofing job lined up, fine. If they are just going to wander until they find a temp job moving stuff from place to place, not so much. If they cannot read in either language(yes, have met those, too), not so much.

You say they are refugees from violence and poverty. I could say the same thing of people wanting to get out of Chicago's South Side. why not take care of our own refugees first?

Many references are made to the 18th and 19th centuries, when all one needed to immigrate was a boat ticket. Lots of people came over. some did very well for themselves and this country. Some descended into crime and violence. Seems like the latter group is forgotten whenever a discussion of immigration comes up.

Go in peace, my friend.

OO, I called something you said Trump-esque because you literally said:

"The people you want to allow to enter unimpeded and unknown to us are the dregs of Mexico."

That's pretty darn similar to Trump saying Mexico is not sending its best, which is why I called it Trump-esque. Do you disagree with that?

And I didn't call you a racist, and sorry you felt that I implied that. I just pointed out that you pretty much parroted a talking point that Trump has when discussing illegal immigrants from Mexico.

But your bolded paragraph is where I think we've come to an impasse. You seem to be arguing with "the left" and not with me. Interpreting the points I'm raising through a lens that turns me into a caricature of the left that you hold. So said that "enforcement is what many of the left have a problem with," yet I did not argue for less enforcement. I argued for a revision to our current worker visa program to make the application easier to navigate. For starters, you could change it so that the employer does not have to be the one sponsoring an individual, but allow migrants to do so. Then put them through a screening process like you mention. I've never suggested otherwise, yet you act like I have.

(08-24-2018 10:26 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  OO, I called something you said Trump-esque because you literally said:

"The people you want to allow to enter unimpeded and unknown to us are the dregs of Mexico."

That's pretty darn similar to Trump saying Mexico is not sending its best, which is why I called it Trump-esque. Do you disagree with that?

I agree agree with Trump that Mexico is not sending its best, because Mexico is not sending anybody at all. Is there some government program I have missed of them exporting people? The best educated and prepared have good jobs and family money and status there. Why leave? I cannot begin to tell you number of business executives i met who had degrees from Michigan, Harvard, Texas, and so forth. Those people go back to Mexico to work in the family business, armed with a degree and working English. I never met a plant owner who did not speak English, and all of them had learned in the States.

The next level, the mangers or professionals, such a pharmacists, have no reason to leave. Who wants to quite working in a pharmacy to go someplace where they can work as a roofer?

The next level, non professionals with some skills and education, are the ones who wait in line for legal immigration, if they cannot get a job with a factory. If they can, they stay.

The ones crossing illegally are from the rest, the bottom of the barrel, thus the dregs. They are the ones who do not have the connections, the education, the skills of the others. They come here because they can get a good price, relatively speaking, for their labor. But don't believe the myth that they are noble and honest. "They" are a wide spectrum, and the lower ends of the spectrum are not people we want or need. They are not people you would be comfortable around.

Quote:And I didn't call you a racist, and sorry you felt that I implied that. I just pointed out that you pretty much parroted a talking point that Trump has when discussing illegal immigrants from Mexico.

So now it has to be "parroted"? No leeway for me coming to similar conclusions based on my experiences and my intelligence? The only way I can say those things is to mindless parrot them?

I think you are the one parroting positions, much more than I am.

Quote:


But your bolded paragraph is where I think we've come to an impasse. You seem to be arguing with "the left" and not with me. Interpreting the points I'm raising through a lens that turns me into a caricature of the left that you hold. So said that "enforcement is what many of the left have a problem with," yet I did not argue for less enforcement. I argued for a revision to our current worker visa program to make the application easier to navigate. For starters, you could change it so that the employer does not have to be the one sponsoring an individual, but allow migrants to do so. Then put them through a screening process like you mention. I've never suggested otherwise, yet you act like I have.

I never said it had to be employer sponsored. It's enough for me that they can say "My cousin Julio works in Dallas as a roofer, and he will get me on his crew and show me the ropes." it's also enough for me if they demonstrate a skill, such a welding, that suggests they can find a job quickly. It's the guys wading the river with no plan, no tools, and no prospects that worry me.

But I would still let in the high school grads before the third grade dropouts.

And like it or not, Lad, on this board you represent the "left', as you defend many things from a left wing viewpoint. You may be center left, and certainly more open minded than many of your colleagues, but would you say you are on the right? If not, you are on the left.

(08-24-2018 10:51 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-24-2018 10:26 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  OO, I called something you said Trump-esque because you literally said:

"The people you want to allow to enter unimpeded and unknown to us are the dregs of Mexico."

That's pretty darn similar to Trump saying Mexico is not sending its best, which is why I called it Trump-esque. Do you disagree with that?

I agree agree with Trump that Mexico is not sending its best, because Mexico is not sending anybody at all. Is there some government program I have missed of them exporting people? The best educated and prepared have good jobs and family money and status there. Why leave? I cannot begin to tell you number of business executives i met who had degrees from Michigan, Harvard, Texas, and so forth. Those people go back to Mexico to work in the family business, armed with a degree and working English. I never met a plant owner who did not speak English, and all of them had learned in the States.

The next level, the mangers or professionals, such a pharmacists, have no reason to leave. Who wants to quite working in a pharmacy to go someplace where they can work as a roofer?

The next level, non professionals with some skills and education, are the ones who wait in line for legal immigration, if they cannot get a job with a factory. If they can, they stay.

The ones crossing illegally are from the rest, the bottom of the barrel, thus the dregs. They are the ones who do not have the connections, the education, the skills of the others. They come here because they can get a good price, relatively speaking, for their labor. But don't believe the myth that they are noble and honest. "They" are a wide spectrum, and the lower ends of the spectrum are not people we want or need. They are not people you would be comfortable around.

Quote:And I didn't call you a racist, and sorry you felt that I implied that. I just pointed out that you pretty much parroted a talking point that Trump has when discussing illegal immigrants from Mexico.

So now it has to be "parroted"? No leeway for me coming to similar conclusions based on my experiences and my intelligence? The only way I can say those things is to mindless parrot them?

I think you are the one parroting positions, much more than I am.

Quote:


But your bolded paragraph is where I think we've come to an impasse. You seem to be arguing with "the left" and not with me. Interpreting the points I'm raising through a lens that turns me into a caricature of the left that you hold. So said that "enforcement is what many of the left have a problem with," yet I did not argue for less enforcement. I argued for a revision to our current worker visa program to make the application easier to navigate. For starters, you could change it so that the employer does not have to be the one sponsoring an individual, but allow migrants to do so. Then put them through a screening process like you mention. I've never suggested otherwise, yet you act like I have.

I never said it had to be employer sponsored. It's enough for me that they can say "My cousin Julio works in Dallas as a roofer, and he will get me on his crew and show me the ropes." it's also enough for me if they demonstrate a skill, such a welding, that suggests they can find a job quickly. It's the guys wading the river with no plan, no tools, and no prospects that worry me.

But I would still let in the high school grads before the third grade dropouts.

And like it or not, Lad, on this board you represent the "left', as you defend many things from a left wing viewpoint. You may be center left, and certainly more open minded than many of your colleagues, but would you say you are on the right? If not, you are on the left.

What a crock that last bit is.

You're seriously trying to justify that you've been intentionally ignoring my own words because you think I represent the left as a whole? My goodness.

I'm confused by today's tweets. Trump is the head of the executive branch. Can't he unilaterally release (or order the release of) all these documents. How is it not in his power to do so? Why does he have to ask Sessions to do it?


Here are his tweets from this morning; I'm referring to the last two sentences:

Quote:“Department of Justice will not be improperly influenced by political considerations.” Jeff, this is GREAT, what everyone wants, so look into all of the corruption on the “other side” including deleted Emails, Comey lies & leaks, Mueller conflicts, McCabe, Strzok, Page, Ohr
FISA abuse, Christopher Steele & his phony and corrupt Dossier, the Clinton Foundation, illegal surveillance of Trump Campaign, Russian collusion by Dems - and so much more. Open up the papers & documents without redaction? Come on Jeff, you can do it, the country is waiting!"

A day after Pecker was granted immunity..

(08-24-2018 11:01 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-24-2018 10:51 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-24-2018 10:26 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  OO, I called something you said Trump-esque because you literally said:

"The people you want to allow to enter unimpeded and unknown to us are the dregs of Mexico."

That's pretty darn similar to Trump saying Mexico is not sending its best, which is why I called it Trump-esque. Do you disagree with that?

I agree agree with Trump that Mexico is not sending its best, because Mexico is not sending anybody at all. Is there some government program I have missed of them exporting people? The best educated and prepared have good jobs and family money and status there. Why leave? I cannot begin to tell you number of business executives i met who had degrees from Michigan, Harvard, Texas, and so forth. Those people go back to Mexico to work in the family business, armed with a degree and working English. I never met a plant owner who did not speak English, and all of them had learned in the States.

The next level, the mangers or professionals, such a pharmacists, have no reason to leave. Who wants to quite working in a pharmacy to go someplace where they can work as a roofer?

The next level, non professionals with some skills and education, are the ones who wait in line for legal immigration, if they cannot get a job with a factory. If they can, they stay.

The ones crossing illegally are from the rest, the bottom of the barrel, thus the dregs. They are the ones who do not have the connections, the education, the skills of the others. They come here because they can get a good price, relatively speaking, for their labor. But don't believe the myth that they are noble and honest. "They" are a wide spectrum, and the lower ends of the spectrum are not people we want or need. They are not people you would be comfortable around.

Quote:And I didn't call you a racist, and sorry you felt that I implied that. I just pointed out that you pretty much parroted a talking point that Trump has when discussing illegal immigrants from Mexico.

So now it has to be "parroted"? No leeway for me coming to similar conclusions based on my experiences and my intelligence? The only way I can say those things is to mindless parrot them?

I think you are the one parroting positions, much more than I am.

Quote:


But your bolded paragraph is where I think we've come to an impasse. You seem to be arguing with "the left" and not with me. Interpreting the points I'm raising through a lens that turns me into a caricature of the left that you hold. So said that "enforcement is what many of the left have a problem with," yet I did not argue for less enforcement. I argued for a revision to our current worker visa program to make the application easier to navigate. For starters, you could change it so that the employer does not have to be the one sponsoring an individual, but allow migrants to do so. Then put them through a screening process like you mention. I've never suggested otherwise, yet you act like I have.

I never said it had to be employer sponsored. It's enough for me that they can say "My cousin Julio works in Dallas as a roofer, and he will get me on his crew and show me the ropes." it's also enough for me if they demonstrate a skill, such a welding, that suggests they can find a job quickly. It's the guys wading the river with no plan, no tools, and no prospects that worry me.

But I would still let in the high school grads before the third grade dropouts.

And like it or not, Lad, on this board you represent the "left', as you defend many things from a left wing viewpoint. You may be center left, and certainly more open minded than many of your colleagues, but would you say you are on the right? If not, you are on the left.

What a crock that last bit is.

You're seriously trying to justify that you've been intentionally ignoring my own words because you think I represent the left as a whole? My goodness.

Well with JAAO off hiding from the monsters, you pretty much have been the sole opposition to the right wingers. Although I see you have some aid showing up.