No there aren’t. Job desirability is totally dependent on wage; if you pay enough, Americans will do anything. Actually, the same is true of Mexicans, only their wage threshold is lower. Drop the wage from $4 an hour to 50¢ an hour, and even they will turn up their noses at it.
‘Suggesting that a different system of legal employment could render all this irrelevant’ = ‘my earlier post’
‘smuggling drugs’ = ‘nothing to do with anything I said’
Understand?
'Cause you can’t.
Your intelligence lurks somewhere between simian and fungal. You yourself say that the problem is that “whitey” won’t do the job for $4 an hour. Where is it written that California has a right to a $4/hour prevailing wage for unskilled labor? By the way, you’ve got to be either white or Nat X. Since about 1974, only self-hating whites and Nat X have used the term “whitey”.
Waah, waah, I’m too lazy to mow my own lawn, but I only want to pay $4 an hour, so the government should stop enforcing the immigration law! What a fucking load.
Meanwhile, rest assured that if you are arrested for smuggling drugs, murder, jaywalking, or any other crime in a foreign country, the U.S. State Department has your back. They won’t tell you how to commit a crime (unlike those dirty Mexicans), but they’ll be more than happy to help you beat the rap after the fact.
I think there are quite a few posters here that need a little education:
National Bureau of Economic Research
The American Enterprise Online
Center for Immigration Studies
Farm Foundation (pdf) (for you rjung)
Another Farm Foundation article (pdf)
Even Minnesota has their concerns.
Urban Institute (pdf file) This one is quite interesting since Illegals are now leaving California for better paying jobs elsewhere.
What the hell, here’s the rest of the Google searches.
There were tons of other articles, but this will get all of you on some level of understanding…both sides of this arguement is the NAIVE side.
You’re right. “Smuggling drugs” = nothing to do with anything you said. That’s because I WASN"T RESPONDING TO YOU’RE EARLIER POST. I WAS RESPONDING TO WHAT **gAwD **SAID. That’s why my quote starts with “originally posted by GaWd”, in case you didn’t notice. When I quote you, it’ll say “originally posted by GorilllaMan”.
I’ll let GaWd come back into this thread and respond to my question, which was directed at him, not you.
Ah, corportation, nation, person, philosophy…it’s all the same to rjung; if it’s U.S., it sucks!
What do you mean by “quasi-legal”? The Okies and blacks were natives of the United States, and when the Irish and Chinese came in the 1800s, immigration policy was left up to the states. 99% of the people in those groups were in violation of no immigration laws.
We’ve done that seven times since 1986, and there’s another one coming courtesy of Senor Bush. The story is always the same - we grant amnesty and say, “But from now on…we’re going to control the border.” Then we do it again and say, “This time we really mean it…no more illegal immigration.” After about the fourth time, the message came through that our government didn’t give a shit about controlling the border. It came through to potential illegal immigrants, anyway. U.S. voters haven’t quite caught on yet.
Also, the 1986 amnesty netted us Mahmud Abouhalima, who in an act of patriotic gratitude bombed the World Trade Center in 1993. I guess in the current atmosphere of brotherhood between the U.S. and Islamic fundamentalists, we don’t need to worry too much about history repeating itself.
That’s not it at all. Your idea is just so simplistic, and ignorant that it would be a waste of my time to try and make something productive of your equally simian and fungal effluence.
“Whitey”, won’t do the job of an illegal immigrant Mexican worker. Period. Fact of life, Pal. Not only will most jobs that illegals do not even enter the thinking of most Americans, but at the rate of pay in which their “employers” pay to them, it’s unfathomable. THey do the jobs that we won’t do, for a rate of pay we would never accept, taking the associated risks, dangers, Etc. all to bring you food and other domestic products at a price so cheap to be competitive in the marketplace.
And therein lies the problem. Most of America wants it better, cheaper, faster, their way, right away, right now. To do this, and succeed in the marketplace, certain industries are forced to save by changing hiring practices. It’s very attractive to business, and the general consumer will ignore the fact of it when at the marketplace looking at competing products and their associated prices.
Nobody says they should “stop enforcing immigration law”. One poster, thinks they should be re-written(an idea I’m amenable to), and another poster(me), thinks the actions of the Mexican Government are defensible because they appear to be publishing this guide in order to save the lives of their citizens.
So really, bite me.
Sam
Oh yes it is. Pure straw at that.
First of all, illegal immigration and drug smuggling are not even in the same arena when it comes to crime and punishment.
Secondly, it is definitely arguable that illegal immigration and immigration are generally more advantageous to a society than they are disadvantageous. Whereas drug smuggling is generally more disadvantageous than advantageous.
THirdly, one as a product keeps an economy working without killing people and causing secondary problems like that which are associated with dope(illegal immigration). The other directly and negatively affects people. I’m sure you can refute this by showing where dope sale and import has positively influenced a region, and where illegal immigration was the fall of another, however.
So bad analogy, Johnny boy. If I can think of a more proper analogy, I’ll post it back here for your thoughts.
Sam
I’m not sure if I should explain to you what the concept of a “joke” is, or point out that this is the BBQ Pit, not Great Debates. Though I suspect neither approach will make a dent in that titanium bowling ball you call a head.
And, once again, Starving Artist shows that he still can’t read beyond a first-grade level.
Bad analogy is a possibility, but not strawman-- I never proposed something, just asked you a simple question. So, let’s explore the analogy:
You said the first responsibility of a government is to keep its citizens safe. Explain again why it is “good” for the Mexican government to advise its citizens how to break the laws of a foreign country, but “bad” for the US government to do so. Let’s talk about something as simple as marijuana, probably the most commonly used illegal drug, and one that has viturally no chance of causing someone to die.
In fact, that analogy is quite good. Both activities, though illegal, are significant parts of the economies of the countries we’re talking about. Both activities are officially illegal, but have large interests in keeping those activities going, and often involve bribing officials, or having officials look the other way. Both activities are dangerous only because they are illegal-- ie, there would be little if any danger to the individuals engaged in either migratory work or dope smoking if those activities were legal.
I suspect that you had a knee-jerk reaction to side with who you perceived to be the victims in this case, but can’t accept that your position doesn’t stand up to logical scrutiny.
Yeah. You’ve never put forward a serious proposal in the Pit before, right? And your earlier statment isn’t consistent with your general political philosophy, right?
Like they say, though, a joke that has to be explained isn’t a very good joke. So I’ll accept you at your word and agree that you made a (pretty lame) joke. Good for you. That’s a small improvement over your usual. 
So you’re the one who’s been barred from all the comedy clubs in a fifty-mile radius!
Yep. Everything he says that is “misinterpreted” is a result of our “lack of reading comprehension” or because we “don’t have a sense of humor”. Everything.
Does anyone else find that remarkable, that someone can be so misunderstood every single time?
A rational person would say it’s not an accident, that those are cop-outs for people calling bullshit, but not with our rjung. Everything he says is a joke. In fact, it’s all so innocous and funny, all so self-parodying, that we JUST. DON’T. GET. IT.
In other words, accede to his wishes and don’t take anything he says seriously. Clearly nothing he says is serious. Want proof? Call him on it, and he’ll tell you.
Yeah, that’s it. :rolleyes:
Perception, perception. One man’s proposal is another man’s hypothetical.
Indeed it is.
I never said it was “good”. I said it was in-line with its charter as a government to keep its citizens safe.
I never said it was “bad” of the US to do this either, simply that the analogy/hypothetical/straw man put forth and the discussion of the OP were so disparate that they could not logically be discussed.
Whether or not someone dies as a result of the substance isn’t the deciding factor in whether or not it would serve as a good subject for your analogy.
Comparing drug smuggling, which is punishable by death in many countries, to our immigration laws which punish law breakers by putting them on a bus headed for home, is ludicrous. THeir effects on society are disparate as well, in many ways-though as I said before, you will no doubt be able to find evidence supporting the opposite of each case(that Immigration has negative impacts and that drug smuggling has positive impacts on a given region).
Apple, meet Orange.
And I suspect that your head is firmly and completely lodged in your ass. I’m hard-pressed to see where any of my opinions/positions could be considered “knee-jerk”, where I even broached the topic of the victimization of illegals, or where my argument won’t stand up to “logical scrutiny”-not being the ultimate arbiter of logic, just because I disagree with your weak analogy doesn’t mean my position doesn’t stand up to logic or scrutiny.
Sam
A big problem we’re going to have to face sooner then later.
To be honest, rjung, I consider 99% of what you post, in whatever forum, to be a joke. I had been giving your the benefit of the doubt but will stop doing so now that you’ve clarified the situation for all of us. Thanks.
Do you get all your information about white lifestyles from “The O.C.”? I’ve picked fruit, mowed lawns, delivered newspapers, swept floors, dug trenches, emptied shitters (reading your posts brings back memories of that particular job), baled hay, and fit pipe. These are not unusual things for whites (or blacks) to do in most parts of the country. Maybe you need to get out of California once in a while.
Clearly, you are projecting your own laziness and pusillanimity onto Americans in general. Do you know what steel-toe boots are for, or why Dr. Scholl’s does such good business? You know those rough bumps on your hands? Those are called calluses, and normal people get them from handling tools. You only get them from handling your own tool, probably beating off to policy screeds from La Raza.
Don’t worry, if all the illegals go home, we’ll still take care of you. You won’t have to mow your lawn or clean your swimming pool. But you will have to wipe your own pathetic lazy ass. We’re not going near that shit.