Mexicans Hate Texas Boarders

[MichaeltheGreat]

Re: Re: Re: expanding legal immigrants

Originally posted by Oerdin


There would still be a language barrier which would prevent most of them from getting other work. At least intially until they learned English. Besides I for one would gladely pay extra for a head of lettice if I know it was grown above board and didn't exploit anyone. If the growers didn't have illegal labor to exploit then wages would rise and we'd find all sorts of people who'd do the work. The point is wages are depressed do to surpluss illegal labor thus no one but illegals want's to do it. Remove the illegal labor and wages will rise.

How much would it take you to work a 12 hour day bent over picking lettuce in 80-95 degree heat depending on the sun position? Wages won't rise enough to lure people to take those jobs. Keep in mind, you also have a quota to fill - you have to pick and load enough lettuce each day, or you're on your ass.

There's also plenty of people down here who speak English, and who have plenty of technical qualifications. If you open up the green card quotas, they'll be in the front of the line, not little farmers from El Salvador, or Oaxaca or Chiapas states in Mexico.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Re: Re: Re: expanding legal immigrants

Originally posted by pchang
Maybe because that is the kind of work they are familiar with and maybe because they don't have the skills to do anything else.

Edit. Also, you don't have to limimt yourself to green cards. You could have work visas to allow people to come in and work in certain job classifications, etc.

Actually, that was the system for a long time - seasonal work permits, but it was "easier" to hire people outside the system, especially if you wanted to do piecework contracts in substantive violation of US labor laws.

I think a return to that type of system, rather than an increase in green cards, etc., would be the most practical. Either that, or just gut farm subsidies and let the Mexicans do your farming down here.

Getting either one through Congress won't ever happen, though.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
no matter how oppressive, your chances of getting political asylum are extremely slim, and if you're a leftist fleeing from a friendly righ-wing government, they're just about zero.

You get an automatic six month review period as soon as you file for aslum so just about everyone claims they are refugees. Even with such a vast number of people claiming aslum we still accept 20% of all applications filed. That's according to KPBS which aired a special on asylum and illegal migration just yesterday and it is also showing tonight.

That means something like 100k (I'm guessing) people get aslum and that's on top of the total number of people who are naturalized, given visas, or work permits.

Bull****. Just carpet chewing racist bull****.

It's racist to say people cut in line? It's racist to say they knowingly and willingly break the law? It's racist to say these people are acting arrogantly to all of the people who completed the legal process? It's racist to say we should accept law abiding people as immigrants before we accept criminals?

The illegals are in tune with their job market, via the smugglers who are in many cases contracted by US based employers.

As I stated before fine the employers out of business to make examples out of them. No one should be above the law we should never willingly accept criminality or lawlessness.

Most of them won't make minumum wage, and the only "illegal" act is physically crossing the border. Of course, it's illegal to hire them, then there's that whole slew of labor law violations, tax law violations, and often occupational safety and health law violations by the employers,

Wrong. Illegally crossing the border is just the start. Next there is working without a work permit, providing false sociol security numbers, failure to pay taxes since most work under the table (that's a felony for both the employers and employed), o0r if they do file tax returns then they commit tax fraud (see part about fack social security numbers), and if my own experience of seeing illegals run away from border patrol agents is any clue we can add evading arrest from a lawful peace officer of the United States.

Both the employers and employed are criminals who should be punished as I've said numerous times.

If you think it's so ****ing atrocious they come across to do those jobs, and they make so much money, why don't you apply for a job as a field hand instead of taking money from the state? It's harvest season, there's plenty of jobs available. Not one California (or Texan) in ten has a legitimate excuse to claim unemployment and draw tax funded benefits.

Thanks I paid into the system so I don't feel bad. BTW I still haven't recieved a single Unemployment check and
I've had three interviews this week. Not bad for a guy who moved back here a week ago.

[Ned]

MtG, if we offered the states of Mexico the opportunity to become states of the United States, as Texas and California have, how many would vote to seceed from Mexico and join their sister states in America?

[Dinner]

Re: Re: Re: Re: expanding legal immigrants

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
How much would it take you to work a 12 hour day bent over picking lettuce in 80-95 degree heat depending on the sun position? Wages won't rise enough to lure people to take those jobs. Keep in mind, you also have a quota to fill - you have to pick and load enough lettuce each day, or you're on your ass.

There's also plenty of people down here who speak English, and who have plenty of technical qualifications. If you open up the green card quotas, they'll be in the front of the line, not little farmers from El Salvador, or Oaxaca or Chiapas states in Mexico.

You're right the green card programs would take skilled over unskilled workers any day, but, that's not the only program. There are guest worker programs which specifically target ag workers and gives them a legal way to do the same work they are doing now without breaking the law. The down side is they'd have to pay taxes so both the employers and the employed would rather keep it under the table.

Crack down on the law breakers and we'll solve 90% of the problem legally.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ned
MtG, if we offered the states of Mexico the opportunity to become states of the United States, as Texas and California have, how many would vote to seceed from Mexico and join their sister states in America?

None. Mexico is a pretty patriotic country even if their government gives them so little to be patriotic about.

[SlowwHand]

Just a bigger Cuba, is all.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Oerdin
You get an automatic six month review period as soon as you file for aslum so just about everyone claims they are refugees. Even with such a vast number of people claiming aslum we still accept 20% of all applications filed. That's according to KPBS which aired a special on asylum and illegal migration just yesterday and it is also showing tonight.

You get up to an automatic six month period - not a blanket allowance to stay for six months. If you're from Haiti, El Salvador, or a large number of countries, the INS has a set of standard criteria, and if they want to get off their ass, they can deny your status within days. If they're busy doing other things, they can choose to ignore you, but that's a function of INS bureaucratic games, not the law itself.

Of the applications the US accepts, what is the breakdown on a per-country basis? Cubans who reach the beach have a free ticket, so they're 100%. If you look at it on a country by country basis, it's a bit different. And is that 20% of all applications filed, or 20% of all applications not initially dismissed on economic refugee grounds, and not subsequently appealed.. The INS also has a simple method of coercing withdrawal of applications - they can deny you entry (if you're not in the US or in custody), or they can deny you bail (if you're in the US).

So if you're told "well, you can process this application, but we're going to hold you in custody and set immigration bond at $50,000 during the application period" you have a choice - give it up voluntarily and go somewhere else, sneak in, try again, or whatever, or you can play ball and accept voluntary deportation or denial of status.

There are so many legal tactics available to INS, and they control publication of their case statistics, so I wouldn't trust any reportage, in any direction, of what they do or don't claim to do without access to the full set of data. I see arrestees, deportees and detainees on a near daily basis, and deal with INS on a near daily basis. If you keep your ears open, you find out a lot of stuff. One of the things you find out is that most of their case handling is virtually off the books (unless magically, San Ysidro operates differently from every other immigration processing site in the US), because they give people "incentives" to not apply for any entrance status and to accept voluntary deportation. In many cases, they're not even turned back to Mexican authorities - just chained together, marched to the limits of the US bound crossing, unchained, and told to keep walking south.

It's racist to say people cut in line? It's racist to say they knowingly and willingly break the law? It's racist to say these people are acting arrogantly to all of the people who completed the legal process?

It's racist to blame the leetle brown people, and ignore the beeg white people, who contribute to the same thing, and are part of the same cycle. They don't come here to work without a ready job market that wants them for their exploitability. And it's a lot different degree of culpability for some working slob with a family to feed who wants to simply work, than it is for a multimillionaire valley farmer with 4,000 acres.

Blame the wetback who irons and washes the yuppies' clothes, but don't blame the yuppie?

Blame the seamstresses in the sweatshops, but not the sweatshop operators?

Yeah, it's racist. Because all the outrage that gets generated every time California is in a recession (notice how when things were booming, there was a lot less talk about illegals) gets focused on the leetle brown people, not the ones that hire them. Or maybe you can spin it into a preference for management and "the company" over labor and "the working man" if you'd like - but the outrage sure as hell isn't symmetric with the degree of responsibility.

It's racist to say we should accept law abiding people as immigrants before we accept criminals?

I wasn't aware "we" "accepted" criminals.

As I stated before fine the employers out of business to make examples out of them. No one should be above the law we should never willingly accept criminality or lawlessness.

But that will never happen, and we both know it will never happen.

Wrong. Illegally crossing the border is just the start. Next there is working without a work permit, providing false sociol security numbers, failure to pay taxes since most work under the table (that's a felony for both the employers and employed), o0r if they do file tax returns then they commit tax fraud (see part about fack social security numbers), and if my own experience of seeing illegals run away from border patrol agents is any clue we can add evading arrest from a lawful peace officer of the United States.

Both the employers and employed are criminals who should be punished as I've said numerous times.

And I suppose you drive the speed limit all the time, and report to IRS if you find a dollar in the street and pick it up. Yes, let's look for every trivial aspect we can in connection with getting employed as a field hand.

Thanks I paid into the system so I don't feel bad.

Nope, your employers did, not you, and unless your employers have had their experience rate adjusted for exceptionally high turnover, the max they've paid in under both SUI and FUTA is about $350.00 for the year. So whenever the state deigns to give you benefits, after the first couple of weeks you're operating off of contributions not related to your employment.

But hey, it beats working in those rice fields by the airport in Sacto, doesn't it? Best to get some Mexicans to do that kind of crap.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned
MtG, if we offered the states of Mexico the opportunity to become states of the United States, as Texas and California have, how many would vote to seceed from Mexico and join their sister states in America?

None, but with the exception of Texas, which you stole fair and square , you could give back the rest of the states you stole. Assuming you pay compensation for the extracted gold and silver from California, Nevada and Colorado.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: expanding legal immigrants

Originally posted by Oerdin


You're right the green card programs would take skilled over unskilled workers any day, but, that's not the only program. There are guest worker programs which specifically target ag workers and gives them a legal way to do the same work they are doing now without breaking the law. The down side is they'd have to pay taxes so both the employers and the employed would rather keep it under the table.

Crack down on the law breakers and we'll solve 90% of the problem legally.

The net effect for the ag workers would be to pay less if they were paid legally, taxed on those wages, and had legal rights. A lot of times, they're clipped by predatory practices on everything from housing to the cost of sending money down to their families, so you'd be very hard pressed to find many who'd prefer the present system to one that gave them a limited degree of legal status and legal protections.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Just a bigger Cuba, is all.

Hey, Cuba is cool.

Best tourism deal in the Caribbean too.

[SlowwHand]

Rodent head.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
It's racist to blame the leetle brown people, and ignore the beeg white people, who contribute to the same thing, and are part of the same cycle. They don't come here to work without a ready job market that wants them for their exploitability. And it's a lot different degree of culpability for some working slob with a family to feed who wants to simply work, than it is for a multimillionaire valley farmer with 4,000 acres.

Blame the wetback who irons and washes the yuppies' clothes, but don't blame the yuppie?

Blame the seamstresses in the sweatshops, but not the sweatshop operators?

Yeah, it's racist.

As I posted before you even arrived to in this thread the employers should be hit with fines big enough to bankrupt them. Make an example out of them and make sure the papers run articles talking about sweat shops which go belly up and farmers who lose everything. I didn't make any distinction between the employer who breaks the law or the illegal who breaks the law; I said fine them and punish them harshly to discourage other potential offenders.

I'll be accepting your retraction of the racism charge now.

I wasn't aware "we" "accepted" criminals.

The US accepts criminals every time they run one of those horrible amnesty programs for illegal aliens. I have a deep philisphical problem with the idea of rewarding people for criminal behavior. The overt racism of the whole amnesty program also makes me angry.

When I was in college I had a dutch co-worker who's status had expired, yet, he remained in the US mostly because he wanted to stay with his American daughter. You see he married an American girl and they had a baby but they got divorced after few years. Since he wasn't married to a citizen and he hadn't been in the US long enough to keep his residiency he technically had to leave but if he returned to Holland then he would almost never get to see his daughter. He read about one of those illegal alien amnesty programs and he decided to go down and apply for amnesty. Do you want to know what the state worker told him? "I'm sorry but you're not eligable only Mexicans are." If they're going to give amnesty to criminals then at least make it all criminals and not just the criminals the politicos are trying to get votes from.

Nope, your employers did, not you, and unless your employers have had their experience rate adjusted for exceptionally high turnover, the max they've paid in under both SUI and FUTA is about $350.00 for the year. So whenever the state deigns to give you benefits, after the first couple of weeks you're operating off of contributions not related to your employment.

Hell, I've been working since I was 15 (14 if you count the paper route) so I've got some back money coming due. In any event I've applied for a temp job as a soils tech which I should be a shoe in for. Yes, I do consider that sort of work to be well below my qualifications but I'd make more then wat UI pays.

But hey, it beats working in those rice fields by the airport in Sacto, doesn't it? Best to get some Mexicans to do that kind of crap.

Hell, rice and all the other grains are harvested by machine now. A person never touches it. Same hold true for many fruits and nuts and it's mostly just veggies that need to be hand picked. I do think alot of the weeding and what not has to be done by hand but a great deal of the work is automated.

[Theben]

Personally I say keep the illegals and for every one we keep we deport some lazy white trash to Mexico or Guatemala for a "wake up call".

I also see plenty of hypocrisy by the tighty righties here. Is the old "pull yerself up by the britches" ethic only good for the white man? And since you're defending this practice based on legal arguements, does that mean you'll all finally shut up about affirmative action, roe vs. wade, and gun control?

And as for punishing the owners, I'm all for that, but if the guy has all the necessary I-9 info (which is common) why should we punish them?

[Verto]

As far as I'm concerned, the situation has become ridiculous. We need to pump Border Patrol full of steroids.

Enough is enough.