Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 01-11-2018, 05:36 AM
adaher adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,010
Labor shortage= labor costs more than employers want to pay.
  #102  
Old 01-11-2018, 05:36 AM
asahi asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 5,384
Quote:
Originally Posted by doreen View Post
Let's see what happens to the owners- this was apparently related to a 2013 investigation where 8 franchisees and managers pled guilty, apparently to charges regarding using stolen identities so they could employ illegal workers and pay them less than minimum wage. As far as I can tell, the only punishment was that they had to pay back wages. Not much of a deterrent, more a cost of doing business.
Typically, politicians are afraid to shut down businesses outright (permanent loss of jobs and tax revenues). Criminally, government has to prove that the owners weren't deceived, which is not easy. A number of 7-11's I've been to, though, are owned and operated by franchisees who themselves are foreign-born. I would not want to be a foreign-born franchisee caught with undocumented immigrants in the era of Trump.
  #103  
Old 01-11-2018, 05:47 AM
asahi asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 5,384
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
Labor shortage= labor costs more than employers want to pay.
Not always. It can also be not having enough people on hand to keep up with the demand at peak hours, resulting in lost sales. I remember this from my time in retail during my college years. When you have long lines at Christmas time and you've only got one person on the sales floor and another guy at the register, the company might be saving money by not having an extra employee, but if even two or three people at the end of that line get frustrated enough to go to the other end of the mall or even next door and buy whatever they wanted, then those savings ended up costing that company lost revenue.

Now each industry is different. I'm referring to my past experience in retail electronics. A frustrated customer that left the store was potentially several hundred dollars of lost revenue, easily. A fast food franchisee is a different example altogether. The most that an employer loses in that case is $5-15 per frustrated customer that walks out. It really depends, but I would be careful in making the blanket assumption that immigrants get hired because employers are cheap. Go around to your local strip where there are fast food restaurants lined up and throughout much of the country, you're likely to see "Help Wanted" signs on the door.

Working at minimum wage isn't as attractive to most Americans as it is for immigrants (legal or not). For one thing, the wages barely cover basic necessities required to live the independent, consumerist American life that we've all grown entitled to. For another, it's just not an attractive job for the Instagram generation. Migrant workers don't give a shit about any of that - they'll take the money. At the risk of engaging in stereotypes, they're used to packing large families in close quarters. They share precious resources. They're less concerned with self-image. They'll take a job at a mini-mart, work their way up, save resources and perhaps one day own their own shop.
  #104  
Old 01-11-2018, 05:56 AM
adaher adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,010
In rare cases, there aren't enough employees no matter how much an employer offers, but the vast majority of the time an employer just makes a decision to lose a few customers rather than escalate their pay structure. Better yet, they just lobby politicians to import more workers so they can hold wages down.

It's true that automation is a bigger factor, because at some point it's just better to automate than to pay more. Eventually there will be no demand for low skill labor at all, which should end illegal immigration for the most part.
  #105  
Old 01-11-2018, 06:12 AM
doreen doreen is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Woodhaven,Queens, NY
Posts: 5,494
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
Well, the penalties are supposed to be $10,000 per violation. And they can keep on coming back and fine that same $10,000 per employee every time employee files aren't compliant. Employers can be hit hard financially, the tools are there.
I'm not saying the tools aren't there- I'm saying they aren't used often enough to be a deterrent.
  #106  
Old 01-11-2018, 07:16 AM
adaher adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,010
That's because there are very few in power who want to deter illegal hiring. As with most regulations and laws, they harass the law abiding more than the criminal.
  #107  
Old 01-11-2018, 10:31 AM
mikecurtis mikecurtis is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: chicago
Posts: 1,113
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
First of all, the Center for Immigration Studies is NOT a neutral source, though surprisingly, despite your source, I don't think your claims are particularly biased in this case.

What I would submit, however, is that automation and the overall restructuring of the labor force over the past decades (including the shift to global supply chains) has had much more to do with declining wages than immigration. Immigration usually follows a demand for labor that is not being filled by the existing labor pool within the country. When the demand for labor dries up, then you see competition for labor, but the natural born citizens have the advantages that immigrants (legal or otherwise) don't. I agree with the criticism that it's over-simplification to claim that immigrants always take the jobs that citizens don't want - that's not always true, I agree. But more often than not, the fill labor shortages that are caused by a multitude of factors.
Yes I realize that CIS is not a completely neutral group (and being an open borders advocate, myself, they are "not on my side") but their data gathering and analysis are solid (and they are not alone in their position on this). And if we're gonna have an honest conversation about immigration I have to recognize that immigrants (especially the undocumented} do compete with some natives for jobs. The CIS also recognizes that Immigration provides net benefit to the economy, which, imho. is the more pertinent statistic.

And as you point out, immigrants aren't the only thing competing for wages in the economy. Rather than try and prevent competition for wages (a losing battle for sure), we should be trying to find ways for those native workers to move up the wage scale; through education, training and job creation.

This thread, however, is about whether or not, and at what point, undocumented immigrants should be allowed to stay; and since they are a net boon to the economy, the fact that they compete with natives in certain areas should not count against them.

mc
  #108  
Old 01-11-2018, 10:48 AM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 55,357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Really? I can enter America legally on a travel visa but when it expirees I am illegally living in the country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
You should notify the Supreme Court of that. They seem to be unaware of it.
The Supreme Court notes that it's not generally a crime -- but it can result in an arrest, interestingly enough. An alien residing in the United States illegally -- that is, "in violation of immigration law," is subject to arrest and detention pending a decision on whether the alien is to be removed from the United States. This is not the ordinary course of action; normally the alien is issued a civil Notice to Appear (see 8 CFR ß239.1(a)). But at the discretion of the Attorney General, such an alien may be arrested pursuant to a warrant.

When I hear, "illegally," in this context I think "in violation of a law," as opposed to "a crime."
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #109  
Old 01-11-2018, 02:42 PM
WillFarnaby WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 3,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
In rare cases, there aren't enough employees no matter how much an employer offers, but the vast majority of the time an employer just makes a decision to lose a few customers rather than escalate their pay structure. Better yet, they just lobby politicians to import more workers so they can hold wages down.

It's true that automation is a bigger factor, because at some point it's just better to automate than to pay more. Eventually there will be no demand for low skill labor at all, which should end illegal immigration for the most part.
On the contrary, automation makes more jobs low skill. Manufacturing jobs used to very skill intensive. Folks do not realize the skill it took to make even mass-produced products before large scale improvements to automation. Now it is very easy to plug a low skill worker into a process that is partly or largely automated and get much more consistent outputs in less time. (Though this plugin is less easy than some think, which can end quite badly)

Management and scheduling work is lower skill than ever thanks to software.

Even “knowledge work” is made lower skill by automation. Companies can hire many less design and process engineers thanks largely to software, which is pretty much automated mathematics.

With the permeation of the global division of labor into corners of the former third-world, jobs will become easier and production will increase across the entire supply chain in every industry.

Last edited by WillFarnaby; 01-11-2018 at 02:44 PM.
  #110  
Old 01-11-2018, 04:53 PM
D'Anconia D'Anconia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,598
Quote:
Originally Posted by UDS View Post
Yes, she is.

Russia doesn't make a deal with President Trump; Russia makes a deal with the United States of America. Constitutionally, President Trump is the agent who acts on behalf of the United States in negotiating and concluding the deal, but it remains a deal with the US, not a deal with Donald J. Trump.
That doesn't apply to Executive Orders, which is what DACA was.
  #111  
Old 01-11-2018, 07:13 PM
GulfTiger GulfTiger is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: NORTEX
Posts: 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
Never.
It is a Nation-States privilege to decide who can and cannot reside within its borders.

This has been the reality for centuries.

And closely related, if you have a powerful military that can defeat the people occupying a landmass, you have the right to reside there.
  #112  
Old 01-11-2018, 09:38 PM
adaher adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,010
Unfortunately, that's the way the world still works. We are only a couple of steps removed from "might makes right" WITHIN democratic countries. Between countries, it's still the law of the jungle.

There's actually a lot of philosophy on that subject. Back during the Civil War, the NY Times was very explicit about the fact that the South was committing treason. Unless they won, in which case they would have proved they had a right to be independent.
  #113  
Old 01-12-2018, 12:29 AM
GIGObuster GIGObuster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 27,335
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
Unfortunately, that's the way the world still works. We are only a couple of steps removed from "might makes right" WITHIN democratic countries. Between countries, it's still the law of the jungle.

There's actually a lot of philosophy on that subject. Back during the Civil War, the NY Times was very explicit about the fact that the South was committing treason. Unless they won, in which case they would have proved they had a right to be independent.
Of course one should not forget that the south was not only committing treason, but wanting to deny that blacks had rights or that they were human beings.
  #114  
Old 01-12-2018, 01:32 AM
madsircool madsircool is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
Of course one should not forget that the south was not only committing treason, but wanting to deny that blacks had rights or that they were human beings.
Then the USA also was committing treason against Great Britain during the Revolutionary War.
  #115  
Old 01-12-2018, 01:45 AM
AI Proofreader AI Proofreader is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Posts: 510
1) The point where their country of origin will not take them back - through no fault of theirs. At that point it becomes a "human rights" issue. You're going to send them back to a place where they will be persecuted and possibly jailed or killed?
2) When removing the person will cause demonstrable harm to their new country. IE, someone has illegally immigrated to a country. They start a landscaping business. They're employing 10 other people, all of whom are citizens - the net effect of deporting that person will be that 10 citizens will lose their jobs. Hundreds of others will be negatively affected by a loss in business they would have had if those 10 citizens could still afford to pay.
3) When removing the person will cause demonstrable harm to a minor. Call it, in my opinion, the day a child starts school around 5 years old. They've now officially "entered" the system in the country their parents moved to, and have also gotten to the point where enough cultural / developmental milestones have been passed that moving them to a very different culture could be somewhat traumatic.
__________________
- Born after "computer" was a synonym for "woman" but before "worker" becomes a synonym for "robot."
  #116  
Old 01-12-2018, 04:24 AM
septimus septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 15,793
In Thailand, at least a hundred thousand "hill people" who have been in the Kingdom for several generations are denied citizenship.

On a separate matter, [from the trivial desk] the author of the famous couplet
Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason?
Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason.
was also the inventor of the flush toilet (and installed one for his godmother Queen Elizabeth I at Richmond Palace).
  #117  
Old 01-12-2018, 09:27 AM
Arizona Mike Arizona Mike is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 414
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
No, I donít see that it becomes any less wrong just because they do more of it.
It is essentially unfair to those who take the time and effort to go through legal channels of immigration. It is rewarding line-jumpers.
  #118  
Old 01-12-2018, 11:37 AM
Damuri Ajashi Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 19,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by UDS View Post
Which raised the obvious question; if kicking out the Jews were popular with voters, should the government set the immigration rules to produce this outcome?
In the bizarre world that this could come to pass, if the people repealed the part of the constitution that would prohibit this from happening, then frankly I would leave the country as well. The country would not be recognizable to anyone here.

Now back to reality, the electorate gets to elect representatives that decide who gets in and who doesn't.

I will repeat my question from above:

What makes the illegal immigrants from Latin America who break the law to get here or to stay here so much worthier of US residency than the dirt farmers in India and China?
  #119  
Old 01-12-2018, 11:39 AM
Damuri Ajashi Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 19,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
It's not so clear.
The law of supply and demand makes it pretty clear.
  #120  
Old 01-12-2018, 12:25 PM
Velocity Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 10,981
Quote:
Originally Posted by AI Proofreader View Post
When removing the person will cause demonstrable harm to a minor. Call it, in my opinion, the day a child starts school around 5 years old. They've now officially "entered" the system in the country their parents moved to, and have also gotten to the point where enough cultural / developmental milestones have been passed that moving them to a very different culture could be somewhat traumatic.
The term "anchor babies" is rightfully considered a derogatory term, but what would prevent illegal-immigrant parents from using this as an intentional strategy?
  #121  
Old 01-12-2018, 02:57 PM
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 55,114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
The term "anchor babies" is rightfully considered a derogatory term, but what would prevent illegal-immigrant parents from using this as an intentional strategy?
What prevents most parents from using their own children for personal gain? Are immigrants somehow less ethical/moral when it comes to their children than we are?
  #122  
Old 01-12-2018, 08:09 PM
XT XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 33,125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
What prevents most parents from using their own children for personal gain? Are immigrants somehow less ethical/moral when it comes to their children than we are?
Well, many (no idea if it's 'most') parents DO use their children for personal gain, even if that just means claiming them on your income tax or getting free labor to wash the dishes or cut the grass. I'm not sure what your objection is here...it's a fact that a non-zero number of people (wealthy Chinese for instance) do indeed do this. And it's not like it's a harm or exploitation of the kids...the parents are often trying to give themselves AND their kids a better life here in the states than they would have back home.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #123  
Old 01-12-2018, 08:25 PM
GIGObuster GIGObuster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 27,335
Quote:
Originally Posted by madsircool View Post
Then the USA also was committing treason against Great Britain during the Revolutionary War.
As King George put it to Ambassador Adams years later:

“I wish you Sir, to believe, and that it may be understood in America, that I have done nothing in the late Contest, but what I thought myself indispensably bound to do, by the Duty which I owed to my People. I will be very frank with you. I was the last to consent to the Separation, but the Separation having been made and having become inevitable, I have always said, as I say now, that I would be the first to meet the Friendship of the United States as an independent Power."

Of course then the Confederacy years later was trying to continue an institution that even Britain had abolished by then. An echo of how things change and sometimes former enemies turn better than you later is when nowadays we see a lot of xenophobia and fascism rearing their ugly head around the world and the USA.. and it is the Germans who are the good guys now..

Last edited by GIGObuster; 01-12-2018 at 08:25 PM.
  #124  
Old 01-13-2018, 09:49 AM
Hector_St_Clare Hector_St_Clare is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by GulfTiger View Post
This has been the reality for centuries.

And closely related, if you have a powerful military that can defeat the people occupying a landmass, you have the right to reside there.
Correct to both of these.
  #125  
Old 01-13-2018, 09:51 AM
Hector_St_Clare Hector_St_Clare is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
Never.
It is a Nation-States privilege to decide who can and cannot reside within its borders. Otherwise, its not a Nation-State, its a jumped up province or municipality.
+1000 to this.
  #126  
Old 01-13-2018, 09:55 AM
Hector_St_Clare Hector_St_Clare is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur866 View Post
In America we have a long list of things the voters and their elected representatives aren't allowed to do, you might have learned about this in school.
If enough people wanted to strip a particular ethnic group of citizenship and expel them from the country, and if it meant that much to them, sooner or later they'll amend the constitution to do that. Constitutions are a roadblock, not an absolute bar to policy. (Some countries like India have partially unamendable constitutions, but I don't think that's that common).
  #127  
Old 01-13-2018, 11:32 AM
Eva Luna Eva Luna is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Chicago-ish, IL
Posts: 10,422
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
The term "anchor babies" is rightfully considered a derogatory term, but what would prevent illegal-immigrant parents from using this as an intentional strategy?
Quite simply, because in the vast majority of situations, it doesn't work.

Eva Luna, Immigration Paralegal
  #128  
Old 01-13-2018, 02:52 PM
adaher adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,010
It doesn't work immediately, but the American child does have the right to move to the US as an adult and then apply to have his or her parents come over legally. That's why family migration has to be reformed. It should be limited to high skill immigrants who can support their families.
  #129  
Old 01-13-2018, 03:17 PM
GIGObuster GIGObuster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 27,335
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
It doesn't work immediately, but the American child does have the right to move to the US as an adult and then apply to have his or her parents come over legally. That's why family migration has to be reformed. It should be limited to high skill immigrants who can support their families.
Sounds that you are a bit off; in my experience, even before Trump, it is required in the request that you should be over the poverty line and making enough to support a family member that is coming in. And also there are a lot of limitations for any government support or no support for new arrivals until several years after, meaning that usually the immigrants that do come via family migration are not coming to be a burden.

They beg for jobs, not handouts.
  #130  
Old 01-13-2018, 03:19 PM
adaher adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,010
I'm sure that's what they want, but as with many things in the immigration system, what the law says and what our government actually does are two different things. I am aware of the law that potential immigrants must be judged unlikely to become a burden on society, and yet many are burdens on society. That part of the law is not adequately enforced. Since discretion has failed ,it's time to take that discretion away and adopt a more Canadian immigration system.
  #131  
Old 01-13-2018, 03:33 PM
Nava Nava is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 37,755
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arizona Mike View Post
It is essentially unfair to those who take the time and effort to go through legal channels of immigration. It is rewarding line-jumpers.
Only, the American immigration maze is set up in such a way that even if you're following all the rules it is still possible (and in fact quite easy) to find yourself undocumented at some point. I was improperly documented for three months myself:
* I had to be able to provide my unrestricted SS card within 15 days of entering the country,
* but I could only ask for a new one in-country (my old one was restricted),
* and the background check required before I was given the new card took three months,
* during which I'd even had to surrender the old SS card,
* and at no point did I get any receipts, nothing to indicate I was "being processed" and that the delay was no fault of mine.

My previous stay in the US ended when my employer and my lawyer decided that it was "in the best interests of all parties involved" if I let my work permit lapse and just stayed ilegally; the employer refused to provide me a document I needed in order to ask for the renewal of the permit. A question to la migra about whether a letter from my manager would be acceptable instead was met with "you fucking stupid Hispanic whore," very helpful.
The penalty I faced for overstaying was losing everything I had. The penalty faced by my employer was a fine equivalent to my salary of a week. I could go back home, but what if I'd been from Haiti, el Salvador, Cuba? When the company's HR manager investigated, she discovered that at any given time, 1/3 of the company's employees were improperly documented and that the company would use that to blackmail them. Most of them weren't from countries they could go back to, or go back to and have any hopes of a decent career, as I did.

And any time you enter the country, the people at customs can decide they're not letting you in simply because they don't like your face, even if you have all appropriate paperwork.

Expecting people to follow rules which are impossible to follow or stacked against those trying to follow them is, at the very least, cynical.
__________________
Life ain't peaches and cream, but sometimes it's laughing your ass off when you have no ass. - WhyNot

Last edited by Nava; 01-13-2018 at 03:35 PM.
  #132  
Old 01-13-2018, 03:45 PM
adaher adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,010
THat's a great point, and it's why we need immigration reform. Real immigration reform, not just amnesty plus some enforcement and calling that reform. The system just needs to work better.
  #133  
Old 01-13-2018, 07:07 PM
GIGObuster GIGObuster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 27,335
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
I'm sure that's what they want, but as with many things in the immigration system, what the law says and what our government actually does are two different things. I am aware of the law that potential immigrants must be judged unlikely to become a burden on society, and yet many are burdens on society.
And I'm aware of that incomplete point. As it was pointed before the mayority are not. Trump and many Republicabs are still wong.

Quote:
That part of the law is not adequately enforced. Since discretion has failed ,it's time to take that discretion away and adopt a more Canadian immigration system.
Sorry, but the current executive has torched the very concept of discretion. As I have noted many times before, the conversation does feel like taking place in la la land when the Trump elephant is the one the republicans are allowing to set irrational inmigration policy.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 01-13-2018 at 07:10 PM.
  #134  
Old 01-14-2018, 07:23 AM
asahi asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 5,384
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
It doesn't work immediately, but the American child does have the right to move to the US as an adult and then apply to have his or her parents come over legally. That's why family migration has to be reformed. It should be limited to high skill immigrants who can support their families.
Define "skilled"

There are plenty of immigrants in my city who own shops like Subways, 7-11s, food stalls, or their own grocery stores. They don't hold IT degrees but they employ people and pay taxes to the city, state, and feds. They raise children who typically turn out to be entrepreneurial and/or educated.

Besides, not every natural born citizen is interested in cleaning hotels or picking vegetables in 100 degree heat. Someone has to do the work.
  #135  
Old 01-14-2018, 07:25 AM
asahi asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 5,384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
The law of supply and demand makes it pretty clear.
Not really.
  #136  
Old 01-16-2018, 06:08 PM
Arizona Mike Arizona Mike is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 414
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nava View Post
Only, the American immigration maze is set up in such a way that even if you're following all the rules it is still possible (and in fact quite easy) to find yourself undocumented at some point. I was improperly documented for three months myself:
* I had to be able to provide my unrestricted SS card within 15 days of entering the country,
* but I could only ask for a new one in-country (my old one was restricted),
* and the background check required before I was given the new card took three months,
* during which I'd even had to surrender the old SS card,
* and at no point did I get any receipts, nothing to indicate I was "being processed" and that the delay was no fault of mine.

My previous stay in the US ended when my employer and my lawyer decided that it was "in the best interests of all parties involved" if I let my work permit lapse and just stayed ilegally; the employer refused to provide me a document I needed in order to ask for the renewal of the permit. A question to la migra about whether a letter from my manager would be acceptable instead was met with "you fucking stupid Hispanic whore," very helpful.
The penalty I faced for overstaying was losing everything I had. The penalty faced by my employer was a fine equivalent to my salary of a week. I could go back home, but what if I'd been from Haiti, el Salvador, Cuba? When the company's HR manager investigated, she discovered that at any given time, 1/3 of the company's employees were improperly documented and that the company would use that to blackmail them. Most of them weren't from countries they could go back to, or go back to and have any hopes of a decent career, as I did.

And any time you enter the country, the people at customs can decide they're not letting you in simply because they don't like your face, even if you have all appropriate paperwork.

Expecting people to follow rules which are impossible to follow or stacked against those trying to follow them is, at the very least, cynical.
If you find the immigration process in your adopted country difficult or problematic, does that mean you should be able to ignore it? I agree it is cumbersome but many legal immigrants are able to navigate it.

No offense, but I doubt your story about an immigration official calling you a "fucking stupid Hispanic whore". No offense.
  #137  
Old 01-18-2018, 01:02 PM
Damuri Ajashi Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 19,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
What prevents most parents from using their own children for personal gain? Are immigrants somehow less ethical/moral when it comes to their children than we are?
Why would it be immoral or unethical to try to have a better life for you and your children?

It is absolutely an intentional strategy. Pregnant women from Latin America come here to have their babies, they hope for a better life for themselves and their babies.

Last edited by Damuri Ajashi; 01-18-2018 at 01:05 PM.
  #138  
Old 01-18-2018, 01:12 PM
Damuri Ajashi Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 19,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Not really.
Yes really.

Except at incredibly high income levels, more labor supply equals lower equilibrium wages. Do you have an argument other than "nuh unh"?
  #139  
Old 01-18-2018, 02:19 PM
mikecurtis mikecurtis is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: chicago
Posts: 1,113
Actually, as I pointed out earlier, it's not that clear cut. While immigrants (and an increase in labor availability in gen) may have a negative effect on some wages, as a whole it is a net increase. According to the US Chamber of Commerce (PDF):

Quote:
MYTH: Immigrants drive down the wages of American workers.
FACT: Immigrants give a slight boost to the average wages of Americans by increasing their productivity and stimulating investment.

Immigrant workers increase the wages of native born workers in two ways. First, immigrants and natives tend to differ in the amount of education they have, the occupations in which they work, and the skill sets they possess. The jobs which immigrants and natives perform are often interdependent. This increases the
productivity of natives, which increases their wages. Second, the addition of immigrant workers to the labor force stimulates new investment in the economy, which in turn increases the demand for labor, exerting upward pressure on wages.
mc
  #140  
Old 01-18-2018, 09:41 PM
gatorslap gatorslap is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Oakland, CA
Posts: 770
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arizona Mike View Post
If you find the immigration process in your adopted country difficult or problematic, does that mean you should be able to ignore it? I agree it is cumbersome but many legal immigrants are able to navigate it.
Is it the goal to be "difficult or problematic"?
__________________
The mind is a terrible thing to taste.
  #141  
Old 01-19-2018, 10:13 PM
Damuri Ajashi Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 19,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikecurtis View Post
Actually, as I pointed out earlier, it's not that clear cut. While immigrants (and an increase in labor availability in gen) may have a negative effect on some wages, as a whole it is a net increase. According to the US Chamber of Commerce (PDF):



mc
A few things.

I don't know how much stock you put in the Chamber of Commerce generally but they are effectively a lobbying group not a think tank.

They are talking about LEGAL immigration, the kind where WE can control the spigot. We can decide the general composition of the immigrants coming into the country to match our needs.

The entire paragraph you quote depends on the immigrants filling bottlenecks that allow current residents to be more productive by leveraging the cheap labor of the immigrants in places where there isn't enough cheap labor. But even this is probably bullshit for our country. If we were a country full of doctors but no nurses so that doctors ended up doing a lot of the nursing work, then sure, we should import more nurses, but that's not what illegal immigration does (and it would still depress the salaries of nurses). If we were a country full of lawyers but no secretaries or paralegals so lawyers ended up doing a lot of secretarial work, then sure but again, that is not what we are talking about. How does all the illegal labor in the construction business allow current construction workers to leverage themselves and be more productive?

The pdf you cite seems to think illegal immigration (the kind over which the country does NOT have the ability to determine the qualities that we are letting in). It only mentions illegal immigration once but it implies that reducing illegal immigration is a good thing.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:05 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017