Illegal Immigrants eligible for scholarships and in-state tuition (CA)

bandit0013 wrote:

I do find it interesting that I see a lot of people who generally lean to the left being ok with the argument that America simply MUST have labor that is paid below market wage and with little or no benefits or worker protections that if this a union argument they seem to feel American workers are entitled for.

No one finds this disconnect a bit... interesting?

I was just thinking along these same lines today.

Cheese, what he means is that a lot of the people who are union supporters also support the use of illegal workers. Why is it ok for illegal immigrants to work at or below minimum wage with little to no benefits while at the same time saying that everyone else needs higher wages and extensive benefits?

MattDaddy wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:

I do find it interesting that I see a lot of people who generally lean to the left being ok with the argument that America simply MUST have labor that is paid below market wage and with little or no benefits or worker protections that if this a union argument they seem to feel American workers are entitled for.

No one finds this disconnect a bit... interesting?

I was just thinking along these same lines today.

Cheese, what he means is that a lot of the people who are union supporters also support the use of illegal workers. Why is it ok for illegal immigrants to work at or below minimum wage with little to no benefits while at the same time saying that everyone else needs higher wages and extensive benefits?

Unionize them, for sure! I'm left-leaning (that may be an understatement) and I think they should definitely be paid fair wages with benefits and the like. What left-leaning people are you talking to who would insinuate otherwise? If they had to be paid fair wages, they would be no different than the average non-skilled American worker.

MattDaddy wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:

I do find it interesting that I see a lot of people who generally lean to the left being ok with the argument that America simply MUST have labor that is paid below market wage and with little or no benefits or worker protections that if this a union argument they seem to feel American workers are entitled for.

No one finds this disconnect a bit... interesting?

I was just thinking along these same lines today.

Cheese, what he means is that a lot of the people who are union supporters also support the use of illegal workers. Why is it ok for illegal immigrants to work at or below minimum wage with little to no benefits while at the same time saying that everyone else needs higher wages and extensive benefits?

I think these arguments kind of miss the point. Whenever I've heard the argument that America relies so heavily upon illegal workers that we can't get rid of them, it is never a case as to why they need to stay illegal and earn reduced pay-- only that our society benefits from a system that takes advantage of their situation, and simply kicking all the illegal immigrants out as so many conservatives want to do would have massive repercussions that said conservatives never want to honestly discuss. What liberals are talking about when they bring up such an argument is that we shouldn't be trying to kick them out en masse, or letting them stay and earn barely-livable wages-- we should be working out a system that allows the honest, hard-working migrant workers to stay in the country legally and earn a decent wage for the work that they do.

I've never heard a liberal argue that illegals need to stay illegal and earn only slave-wages-- only that all people who contribute to our society should have equal opportunities as everyone else to get higher wages and better benefits.

WipEout wrote:
Whenever I've heard the argument that America relies so heavily upon illegal workers that we can't get rid of them, it is never a case as to why they need to stay illegal and earn reduced pay-- only that our society benefits from a system that takes advantage of their situation, and simply kicking all the illegal immigrants out as so many conservatives want to do would have massive repercussions that said conservatives never want to honestly discuss. What liberals are talking about when they bring up such an argument is that we shouldn't be trying to kick them out en masse, or letting them stay and earn barely-livable wages-- we should be working out a system that allows the honest, hard-working migrant workers to stay in the country legally and earn a decent wage for the work that they do.

This. I'm all over the map politically, but on the whole it seems like conservatives only want to have half the discussion required to solve this problem.

How come no one wants to talk about the U.S.'s dirty little secret? A LOT of business owners are very happy with the fact that they can employ "illegals" to do work that would cost them exponentially more if this hired citizens.

bandit0013 wrote:
labor that is paid below market wage

Minor point, they are paid at market wage, which is below the government, artificially floored wage.

I don't think I ever shared my "If I were king" plan for illegal immigration. So let me spell it out for you. It's based upon the following premises:

1. The only reason there are jobs that "americans won't do" is because they pay too little. Thus, increasing the supply of labor through illegals serves to keep wages depressed, in essence creating a continuous underclass of non citizen which I personally view as immoral, since it is a small step above slave labor.

2. If you work in America, in a just system, every worker should be entitled to the same protections that other workers get. A level playing field for employment is essential in a (somewhat) free market.

That all being said, here is the plan:

1. Set up a working employee identification system, perhaps run by the social security administration. Require all employers to check work eligibility status. If employers are found who are not doing this, fine the employer heavily. Multiple occurrences should include jail time for the management responsible.

2. Set up an efficient guest worker program with Latin America and Canada. Potential workers should show up, apply for work eligibility, and after a background/education check should be put into the eligible labor pool. The application process should be designed to take no more than a few weeks.

3. The department of labor should provide statistics by geographic area on wages for unskilled labor. Any business seeking to hire these potential workers should have to pay a rate of 25% higher than the average unskilled labor wage. All businesses are required to provide high deductible health insurance and injury/disability insurance for the temporary workers they hire. (This is intended to encourage wages to move up to a level where citizens will actually consider them).

4. Employers will specify the time frame for the temporary worker, the temporary work visa will be good for the worker and their family for that time period. If they are terminated, they may remain in the country for a period of 6 months, if they don't find work in that time, they have to go home. If a temporary worker has gainful employment for more than a 3 year period, they may apply for fast-tracked citizenship for their immediate family. Out of work but present temporary workers go to the front of the hiring queue to prevent unnecessary shuffle.

5. If at any time a temporary worker commits a crime that is more than a misdemeanor, their status is to be immediately terminated and they must leave the country.

For existing illegals, I propose a grace period where they come forward, show proof of employment, submit to a background check. Ones that have had employment in the last 2 years and have a clean criminal record can stay and will be issued a temporary work permit as per the process above, the rest should be deported.

I welcome discussion on why this plan would be a bad thing.

I think I threadjacked my own thread. Wonder if I should move that plan to it's own topic.

I am not sure that the whole horrifically underpaid farm worker thing really outs though. I'd have to see wage numbers before I say with any certainty that that is the reason Americans won't do those jobs.

I know of at least three East Tennessee dairy farmers who hire exclusively Mexicans (and pay them between $10-20/hour depending on tasks) not because they are cheaper than resident Americans, but because resident Americans lack the necessary skill sets, experience, and reliability to run a properly functioning dairy. If you need someone to run a $250k combine tractor, you don't want to put it in the hands of just anyone. You want to know that they know what they're doing.

I am certain that there are farm labor jobs that require little or no skill and pay crap, but much of those are quickly being displaced by automation. What most of my ag friends tell me is that the jobs that exist on most farms are skilled trades and require a lot more commitment than your average unemployed high school or even college graduate is going to have. And for the last few decades, Americans seem to have become allergic to that sort of work irrespective of how well it pays.

Yeh, I don't see what the issue is. At the end of the day we're all human.

Paleocon wrote:
I am not sure that the whole horrifically underpaid farm worker thing really outs though. I'd have to see wage numbers before I say with any certainty that that is the reason Americans won't do those jobs.

I know of at least three East Tennessee dairy farmers who hire exclusively Mexicans (and pay them between $10-20/hour depending on tasks) not because they are cheaper than resident Americans, but because resident Americans lack the necessary skill sets, experience, and reliability to run a properly functioning dairy. If you need someone to run a $250k combine tractor, you don't want to put it in the hands of just anyone. You want to know that they know what they're doing.

I am certain that there are farm labor jobs that require little or no skill and pay crap, but much of those are quickly being displaced by automation. What most of my ag friends tell me is that the jobs that exist on most farms are skilled trades and require a lot more commitment than your average unemployed high school or even college graduate is going to have. And for the last few decades, Americans seem to have become allergic to that sort of work irrespective of how well it pays.

When I left the dairy farm in 1988 I was making $3.30/hr and working a 40 hour capped week. I actually worked closer to 100 hours per week but due to the financials I was only paid for a max of 40. In the interest of full disclosure, I ate about $400 worth of food a week!

I might go back to running a combine when I retire for that wage. Hell now they have a/c, stereos and bit cushy seats.

El-Taco-the-Rogue wrote:
Yeh, I don't see what the issue is. At the end of the day we're all human.

Yes.
/tucks in tentacle
Human.

Grubber788 wrote:
El-Taco-the-Rogue wrote:
Yeh, I don't see what the issue is. At the end of the day we're all human.

Yes.
/tucks in tentacle
Human.

We must go forward, not backward; upward, not forward...

clover wrote:
Grubber788 wrote:
El-Taco-the-Rogue wrote:
Yeh, I don't see what the issue is. At the end of the day we're all human.

Yes.
/tucks in tentacle
Human.

We must go forward, not backward; upward, not forward...

And always twirling, twirling..

Another interesting disconnect: If it's fine for illegal (yes, they are here illegally so it's a valid term and not a loaded one as part of some great conservative conspiracy) immigrants to come here and work since it's a better life for them, why is it such an outrage that companies outsource work to other (usually poorer) countries?

MattDaddy wrote:
Another interesting disconnect: If it's fine for illegal (yes, they are here illegally so it's a valid term and not a loaded one as part of some great conservative conspiracy) immigrants to come here and work since it's a better life for them, why is it such an outrage that companies outsource work to other (usually poorer) countries?

Because corporations are not people?

MattDaddy wrote:
Another interesting disconnect: If it's fine for illegal (yes, they are here illegally so it's a valid term and not a loaded one as part of some great conservative conspiracy) immigrants to come here and work since it's a better life for them, why is it such an outrage that companies outsource work to other (usually poorer) countries?

I bolded the critical part of your question. To whatever extent outsourcing is building a middle class overseas, I'm all for it, and I only think it could help America in the long run. The problem is it's not just that they outsource work to poorer countries. It's that they outsource work to countries where it's not just a matter of the workers being poorer, it's a matter of the workers having a weaker negotiating position that isn't getting any stronger.

SallyNasty wrote:
MattDaddy wrote:
Another interesting disconnect: If it's fine for illegal (yes, they are here illegally so it's a valid term and not a loaded one as part of some great conservative conspiracy) immigrants to come here and work since it's a better life for them, why is it such an outrage that companies outsource work to other (usually poorer) countries?

Because corporations are not people?

People in China or India getting those outsourced jobs are getting a better life because of it. Why are you outraged at the corporations for this?

MattDaddy wrote:
Another interesting disconnect: If it's fine for illegal (yes, they are here illegally so it's a valid term and not a loaded one as part of some great conservative conspiracy) immigrants to come here and work since it's a better life for them, why is it such an outrage that companies outsource work to other (usually poorer) countries?

I think it has a lot to do with the type of jobs that are typically outsourced. These are more likely jobs that would be desirable and reasonably easy to gain the skills necessary to qualify, compared to manual labor or skilled farmwork.

SallyNasty wrote:
MattDaddy wrote:
Another interesting disconnect: If it's fine for illegal (yes, they are here illegally so it's a valid term and not a loaded one as part of some great conservative conspiracy) immigrants to come here and work since it's a better life for them, why is it such an outrage that companies outsource work to other (usually poorer) countries?

Because corporations are not people?

Or because they are actively filtering money out of the US economy.

Again, for your arguments you keep dismissing the fact that no one is arguing that illegal status is generally bad-- just that kicking them out completely is the wrong move, and there should be a means to make them legal immigrant workers. The popular conservative tactic is to demonize the illegal immigrants and kick them all out of the country, rather than work on a system to make them legal and continue to support the economy.

Plus, I don't hear a lot of liberal arguments against outsourcing-- that seems to me, at least, to be a more conservative stance. I agree that it sucks that Americans are losing their jobs to poorer countries, and I think there should be s system that dictates if Joe Company is going to remove X number of jobs from the US economy, they need to first figure out how to re-purpose their former American employees before kicking such large groups of them to the curb for maximized profit.

MattDaddy wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:
MattDaddy wrote:
Another interesting disconnect: If it's fine for illegal (yes, they are here illegally so it's a valid term and not a loaded one as part of some great conservative conspiracy) immigrants to come here and work since it's a better life for them, why is it such an outrage that companies outsource work to other (usually poorer) countries?

Because corporations are not people?

People in China or India getting those outsourced jobs are getting a better life because of it. Why are you outraged at the corporations for this?

Those are two different conversations, and I believe and you know that:)

CheezePavilion wrote:
To whatever extent outsourcing is building a middle class overseas, I'm all for it, and I only think it could help America in the long run. The problem is it's not just that they outsource work to poorer countries. It's that they outsource work to countries where it's not just a matter of the workers being poorer, it's a matter of the workers having a weaker negotiating position that isn't getting any stronger.

So if I understand you correctly, it's about worker rights, no matter where or who they are. It's a valid point for discussion, but I doubt they are in no position to negotiate.

wages in China are soaring—up 15% or more a year in some locales.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052970204294504576615251485073540.html

MattDaddy wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
To whatever extent outsourcing is building a middle class overseas, I'm all for it, and I only think it could help America in the long run. The problem is it's not just that they outsource work to poorer countries. It's that they outsource work to countries where it's not just a matter of the workers being poorer, it's a matter of the workers having a weaker negotiating position that isn't getting any stronger.

So if I understand you correctly, it's about worker rights, no matter where or who they are. It's a valid point for discussion, but I doubt they are in no position to negotiate.

wages in China are soaring—up 15% or more a year in some locales.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052970204294504576615251485073540.html

Again, I bolded the important part of your post.

If they are in a better position to negotiate, that would only mean I was in error over the facts, not that there was a disconnect. This is one case where I'd be happy to be wrong.

Precisely what is the corrolary attempted to be drawn between outsourcing, migrant farm workers, and scholarship funds? Or is this more an immigration catch all now?

KingGorilla wrote:
Precisely what is the corrolary attempted to be drawn between outsourcing, migrant farm workers, and scholarship funds? Or is this more an immigration catch all now?

My guess it was an attempt to find out if people were holding inconsistent positions: whether people were willing to rely on an argument for support in discussing scholarship funds that they'd criticize if someone else brought it up in a discussion of outsourcing.

MattDaddy wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
To whatever extent outsourcing is building a middle class overseas, I'm all for it, and I only think it could help America in the long run. The problem is it's not just that they outsource work to poorer countries. It's that they outsource work to countries where it's not just a matter of the workers being poorer, it's a matter of the workers having a weaker negotiating position that isn't getting any stronger.

So if I understand you correctly, it's about worker rights, no matter where or who they are. It's a valid point for discussion, but I doubt they are in no position to negotiate.

wages in China are soaring—up 15% or more a year in some locales.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052970204294504576615251485073540.html

cant see the full article but honestly I don't know what to believe about China anymore.

anecdotal stuff about China.

I have a friend who has lived in Shanhai for several years now doing investment banking. The stories he tells me about China and how business is done makes you think its mars. From developers using garbage as a foundation for a building. It falling over (no victims) and the people involved swiftly being how do you say uhh 'removed' from the Chinese capitalist population. Or solving worker morale at an apple plant by installing nets to catch people attempting to commit suicide.

What to believe? to say the least employers enter that market knowing the government is willing to cater to you... up to a point where you might get copied/pirated/nationalized.

As for India being the next source of cheap labour =/ China. While travelling there and speaking to some well off Indians the culture is just not the same. All asides and anecdotal.

back on topic:

The obvious solution to me if illegal immigration is actually a problem would be to help Mexico (and keep going further south) raise its standard of living to the point where people are happy to stay put.

Bandit what is your stance on the War on Drugs™.

Because IMO getting out of that mess and weakening the cartels would go a long way in helping Mexico get back to a manageable country with legitimate growth potential.

Because IMO getting out of that mess and weakening the cartels would go a long way in helping Mexico get back to a manageable country with legitimate growth potential.

Mexico is like Ravenholm. We don't go there anymore.

Seriously, the tour company that ran my vacation this summer said they haven't booked a single person for a Mexico tour for several years. Then you hear things like that This American Life episode a few months back where a cartel literally drove another one out of the town and then basically became the legitimate local government, going out of their way to make the lives of the townspeople better... I don't know how to judge that. Could we see benevolent cartels? If we go in there and start taking these guys down indiscriminately because of our "War on Drugs" policy, are we doing something really stupid? That's assuming we wouldn't be doing something really stupid by crossing the border with armed forces in the first place...

NSMike wrote:
Because IMO getting out of that mess and weakening the cartels would go a long way in helping Mexico get back to a manageable country with legitimate growth potential.

Mexico is like Ravenholm. We don't go there anymore.

Seriously, the tour company that ran my vacation this summer said they haven't booked a single person for a Mexico tour for several years. Then you hear things like that This American Life episode a few months back where a cartel literally drove another one out of the town and then basically became the legitimate local government, going out of their way to make the lives of the townspeople better... I don't know how to judge that. Could we see benevolent cartels? If we go in there and start taking these guys down indiscriminately because of our "War on Drugs" policy, are we doing something really stupid? That's assuming we wouldn't be doing something really stupid by crossing the border with armed forces in the first place...

To clarify my position it wouldn't be taking the cartels out. It would be the realization that prohibition doesn't work. Move towards legalization/regulation and take away their ridiculous margins that allow them to finance things like taking over whole towns.

But this is all off topic whatever the topic is anymore. But yea I don't think the government actually thinks illegal immigration is a problem, neither is what actually happens in Mexico or actually solving whatever the war on drugs is.

WipEout wrote:
Again, for your arguments you keep dismissing the fact that no one is arguing that illegal status is generally bad-- just that kicking them out completely is the wrong move, and there should be a means to make them legal immigrant workers.

I'll take that statement as the truth for a moment. What you're saying is that everyone can agree that illegal status is generally bad. Then I have to ask why we should reward bad behavior by giving the children of illegal immigrants free tuition? Rewarding bad behavior will get you more bad behavior. In this case, it encourages others to simply run across the border.

I'd also like to mention that no one here has advocated kicking them all out as a solution.

WipEout wrote:
Plus, I don't hear a lot of liberal arguments against outsourcing-- that seems to me, at least, to be a more conservative stance. I agree that it sucks that Americans are losing their jobs to poorer countries, and I think there should be s system that dictates if Joe Company is going to remove X number of jobs from the US economy, they need to first figure out how to re-purpose their former American employees before kicking such large groups of them to the curb for maximized profit.

Life isn't fair, Wipeout

OK, now the serious response. I'm not saying it's a liberal or conservative view. I just know people who are fine with illegal immigrants coming into the US to work who are also mad as hell about US jobs being outsourced to other countries. They say it's good for the immigrants that they can make more money here doing jobs US workers won't (at least not for pay they are willing to do it for). They also say it's not right for companies to send jobs to other countries just because people there are willing to do the same work for less money. Those arguments seem contradictory to me.

I also agree that sucks, but I'm not sure what the solution is. It may be that we just need to reach a global equilibrium. That unfortunately may mean that the US standard of living goes down while other countries go up.

MattDaddy wrote:

OK, now the serious response. I'm not saying it's a liberal or conservative view. I just know people who are fine with illegal immigrants coming into the US to work who are also mad as hell about US jobs being outsourced to other countries. They say it's good for the immigrants that they can make more money here doing jobs US workers won't (at least not for pay they are willing to do it for). They also say it's not right for companies to send jobs to other countries just because people there are willing to do the same work for less money. Those arguments seem contradictory to me.

I agree - those are contradictory points of view.