RE: Immigration debate, legal charges against employers (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

thompsonx -> RE: Immigration debate, legal charges against employers (5/27/2010 5:50:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

Yeah- lets have Pedro make you a Margarita.


STOMP




Centenario anejo por favor.



pahunkboy -> RE: Immigration debate, legal charges against employers (5/27/2010 5:57:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

Yeah- lets have Pedro make you a Margarita.


STOMP




Centenario anejo por favor.


My brother goes to those resorts all the time.  40 years old- banging some 20 year old down there right now.    but how would that be?  20 years old in bed cool but out of bed- no.



Jeffff -> RE: Immigration debate, legal charges against employers (5/27/2010 5:58:58 PM)

PA... I'll he is banging a 20 year old........intern at JP Morgan!!!!!!!



pahunkboy -> RE: Immigration debate, legal charges against employers (5/27/2010 6:03:18 PM)

LOL Jefff.

This thread is derailed again.   Back to the topic--  (sorry VE)



AnimusRex -> RE: Immigration debate, legal charges against employers (5/27/2010 7:08:23 PM)

OK, I will wade into this once again. I posted on another thread (which I can't find now) that we have no problem with a globalized economy, where capital and property flow effortlessly across borders, but somehow labor cannot.

Let look at an example-
Suppose I own a cabinet shop, making kitchen cabinets for houses. If I hire Mexican craftsmen to build them, I am a criminal. The craftsmen live in Los Angeles, spend their paychecks in LA, pay SS taxes (paying into other peoples accounts!) and in general, act just like any American citizen living and working in LA.

If I move the shop to Mexico and have those very same craftsmen build them, I am a clever businessman, entitled to enjoy my profits. The craftsmen live in Mexico, pay Mexican taxes, spend all their money in Mexico.

So which scenario is preferable?

Oh, and by the way- with a globalized economy, using American craftsmen is NOT an option. sorry, the cabinet marketplace demands low-wage labors.

My point, is that the marketplace in America demands low wage labor for certain things like low skilled labor. We could attract Americans to these fields by increasing the minimum wage, but that seems politically unpopular.

So we settle for an unworkable solution, which is to set immigration quotas artificially low, yet patronize businesses that use undocumented workers, all with a wink and a nod.



thornhappy -> RE: Immigration debate, legal charges against employers (5/27/2010 7:21:55 PM)

The College Republicans and other young Republicans have made a serious study of Alinski's methods also.  It's not unique to either party.
quote:

ORIGINAL: RacerJim


quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

At least I could sleep at night under Reagan.   The country was fun back then.  Now it is a nut show.


Exactly. Actually, I could still sleep at night if all this country is now is a nut show but the "nuts" running the "show" in this country now aren't "nuts" at all but, rather, they are elitist progressives who know exactly what they are doing...employing Saul Alinski's "Rules for Radicals" to implement the "Cloward-Pevin Strategy" in order to fundamentally transform the United States of America into the United Socialist States of America.



domiguy -> RE: Immigration debate, legal charges against employers (5/27/2010 7:28:22 PM)

I rather agree with animusrex....We send our jobs overseas to take advantage of the cheap labor. When the cheap labor comes to us we scream bloody murder.

I realize that many are concerned that the illegal cheap labor is also taxing our systems...Health, schools etc.

I would like to know what exactly someone who is illegal is paid in regards to someone that is a citizen.


The problem is not with the illegals, the problem is that we are becoming such a poorly educated nation that our jobs can be easily filled by anyone with any type of a work ethic.



thornhappy -> RE: Immigration debate, legal charges against employers (5/27/2010 7:30:13 PM)

Lots of folks around San Diego got outraged that illegals were camping in the canyons, but used the same folks for their yardwork or minor repairs around the house.



Vendaval -> RE: Immigration debate, legal charges against employers (5/27/2010 11:49:13 PM)

You are right on, AnimusRex,

This is one of the major problems driving the whole economic model. And let's not forget that the other attraction of low wage labor is not having to pay medical benefits. The whole situation is a cycle tied to changes in the US economy.

And like thornhappy I have heard numerous people complain about illegals at the same time hiring them for day labor, landscaping, housecleaning, etc.

In other threads on this subject I have brought up the Bracero Program, the US-Mexico Guest Worker Program, that was instituted from 1942-1964 for historical perspective. The debate of exploitation or opportunity still applies.

http://americanhistory.si.edu/onthemove/themes/story_51_5.html



quote:

ORIGINAL: AnimusRex
My point, is that the marketplace in America demands low wage labor for certain things like low skilled labor. We could attract Americans to these fields by increasing the minimum wage, but that seems politically unpopular.

So we settle for an unworkable solution, which is to set immigration quotas artificially low, yet patronize businesses that use undocumented workers, all with a wink and a nod.



pahunkboy -> RE: Immigration debate, legal charges against employers (5/28/2010 3:17:41 AM)

I see some of AM point.

But I doubt the money stays in LA.  It is wired down to MX.

And what if the bad SSN is someone ON SS?   That could really cause trouble.



truckinslave -> RE: Immigration debate, legal charges against employers (5/28/2010 4:30:25 AM)

quote:

From the article cited it seems unlikely that his business will be forfiet. If they had targeted tyson foods,cargil,adm,wallmart or any major employer of illegal aliens then confiscation becomes a real possibility.


I too want to go after major corporations. It is my contention and belief that a series of coordinated, simultaneous raids targeting businesses from major corporations to three-man lawn crews should be staged, each with only one objective in mind: the arrest and subsequent perpwalk of the owner, human resources manager, and/or CEO. The perpwalks should take place with an eye towards maximum exposure on the 6 o'clock news.

Confiscation of businesses would be counterproductive to legal workers and should not be pursued. Instead, the gov could offer plea bargains of minimum fines (1K per illegal maybe?) and one night in the county jail per illegal (up to, say 2 weeks). Give them three days to take it or face allout fullbore prosecution.

Can you imagine the CEOs of Citi, ADM, and a dozen other major corporations ordered by their boards to take the plea?
Can you imagine 10 million pink slips within 48 hours?
And the two-month southbound traffic jam at the Mexican border?



truckinslave -> RE: Immigration debate, legal charges against employers (5/28/2010 4:46:14 AM)

quote:

Most people born and raised here seem to think that working as a maid, janitor, bus person (removing dirty dishes), dishwasher, laundry workers, etc is too hard, too dirty and beneath them.


The first law made in this country by a European was made to confront just such a situation and was something like: "Those who would eat the ships stores would do the ships work".

I.E. "work or go hungry". Not a bad law at all imo.



eyesopened -> RE: Immigration debate, legal charges against employers (5/28/2010 4:58:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AnimusRex

OK, I will wade into this once again. I posted on another thread (which I can't find now) that we have no problem with a globalized economy, where capital and property flow effortlessly across borders, but somehow labor cannot.

Let look at an example-
Suppose I own a cabinet shop, making kitchen cabinets for houses. If I hire Mexican craftsmen to build them, I am a criminal. The craftsmen live in Los Angeles, spend their paychecks in LA, pay SS taxes (paying into other peoples accounts!) and in general, act just like any American citizen living and working in LA.

If I move the shop to Mexico and have those very same craftsmen build them, I am a clever businessman, entitled to enjoy my profits. The craftsmen live in Mexico, pay Mexican taxes, spend all their money in Mexico.

So which scenario is preferable?

Oh, and by the way- with a globalized economy, using American craftsmen is NOT an option. sorry, the cabinet marketplace demands low-wage labors.

My point, is that the marketplace in America demands low wage labor for certain things like low skilled labor. We could attract Americans to these fields by increasing the minimum wage, but that seems politically unpopular.

So we settle for an unworkable solution, which is to set immigration quotas artificially low, yet patronize businesses that use undocumented workers, all with a wink and a nod.


AnimusRex, what you say makes a lot of sense.  Not easy for me to fully grasp, since I am old and cranky and an isolationist at heart. 

I would love to see the system streamlined and reworked so that in your cabinet shop you could sponsor the craftsmen you needed and that you could pay them by contract at the wage they are happy with.  Make it legal to use cheap labor here, rather than send the money out of the country.

At the same time, there is a legal distiction between big business and small business that makes it attractive to remain a small business.  Lets say your cabinet shop employs 40 people and your business is booming!  You need 15 more people to really expand your shop and keep up with demand.  (Please, people, I don't know the exact numbers of what constitutes small business and at what point it breaks, I'm using an example here and am really tired of nit-picky attacks)  If you hire the people you need, you may go into a different bracket for taxation, insurance requirements, etc just because of the number of people you employ.   Also, if you creep past the small buisness status, you are automatically at a disadvantage on that big state building project bid because they have to favor the small buisness.  Therefore, it is to your advantage to pay people off the books than to hire what you need.  It's not always about wages.  If it were, I don't think it would be as much of an issue.

I would venture to guess that most of the criminal employers are not looking for cheap labor, they are looking to keep employees off the books so they can avoid WC premiums, taxes, insurances and more.  It's easier to find illegals to agree to be off the books than it is to find citizens willing to do so.



rulemylife -> RE: Immigration debate, legal charges against employers (5/28/2010 5:11:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RacerJim

There ya go...this is all Bush's fault too. Never in my 67 years have I known a POTUS and their supporters to blame so many things for so long on their immediate predecessor.


Did you fall asleep for the eight years Bush was in office?

You still hear Clinton being blamed for things on these threads today.

And rightly so.

When a President leaves office his policies linger on.  This new mantra of Bush is gone so we can't refer to his actions in office is ridiculous. 

It's just an attempt to spin the problems Bush created into a failure by Obama and rebuild Bush's shattered reputation.



thishereboi -> RE: Immigration debate, legal charges against employers (5/28/2010 5:11:50 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vendaval

IMO, jailing the restaurant owner and seizing his property goes too far because of the economic impact on the local economy. I am fine with him paying fines and being checked by ICE on a regular basis. But the taxpayers will pay for a trial and any jail/prison time.
So if someone commits a crime, we shouldn't have a trial, because it will cost too much?

And why a private business? Why not go after a chain restaurant? Or a major hotel chain?
Personally I think they should go after any business that is operating illegally. Not sure what difference it makes if it's a chain or single owner.


And if his business closes all the taxes and paychecks it provides goes away in that community too. If his long term workers have no record of criminal activities in the form of theft, robbery, violence, etc then they would be good candidates for amnesty. Again, I understand the sentiment of making a public example for political points but am thinking about the economic effects to that community.

IME living in California, the majority of restaurant and hotel workers behind the scenes are immigrants. If most of them were deported there would be a severe labor shortage and potential increase in prices for these goods and services. Most people born and raised here seem to think that working as a maid, janitor, bus person (removing dirty dishes), dishwasher, laundry workers, etc is too hard, too dirty and beneath them.
I think it's just great that you folks in California have this amazingly cheap labor force. But do you honestly think its ok to keep paying them lower wages and offering lousy work conditions just to keep your states bottom line in the black. Don't you care about the thousands of illegals who are being forced into slave labor situations just to keep the cost of fruit down?






Sanity -> RE: Immigration debate, legal charges against employers (5/28/2010 5:14:39 AM)


The companies themselves will raise a jobs starting pay until they have a suitable applicant.


quote:


My point, is that the marketplace in America demands low wage labor for certain things like low skilled labor. We could attract Americans to these fields by increasing the minimum wage, but that seems politically unpopular.







Louve00 -> RE: Immigration debate, legal charges against employers (5/28/2010 5:20:20 AM)

I think whether its politically unpopular or not, you have to make a decision.  You can't straddle the fence wanting it both ways.  Do we want illegals here or do we want them gone.  Saying we want them gone *but*, gives good excuse to keep them here and good excuse for states like AZ to go on the way they have with other states to follow.  In other words, if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.  We're Americans.  We can adapt to hirer wages to attract Americans to do the jobs Americans should do.  If we wouldn't have encouraged this whole mess with paying illegal immigrants they way we do, this never would have been a problem and paying for your employees, small business, chain business, or a damn monopoly would all accept it.  They'd have to.  Or we can quit our bitchin and put up with it.



thishereboi -> RE: Immigration debate, legal charges against employers (5/28/2010 5:20:48 AM)

quote:

Typically your front of house staff at a restaurant or hotel is US born and the janitors, maids, laundry, etc are immigrants. And this is true for small businesses through the big mega-chains.


I worked at a Days Inn as a maid and it was about 1/2 and 1/2. The timeshares I worked at as a maid were about the same. But then again, maybe they weren't the typical maid jobs you were talking about. I suppose it's a good thing no one told me I wasn't supposed to want that type of job, or I might not have applied in the first place and unemployment sucks.



truckinslave -> RE: Immigration debate, legal charges against employers (5/28/2010 5:24:46 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

That does make sense, but I guess they're using him as an example and I really can't be too upset over him going to jail...yeah I think 60 years is pretty crazy but a year or two not so much, if it is true that he was told that his workers SSN's were bad and didn't do anything about it.


Ain't you just the little blond haired blue eyed bigot.
You have no problem chucking an illegal alien back across the boarder and making him wait ten years to get in a 25 year long waiting line to apply for legal entry but you think a slaver should not be punished more severly.
You are a real piece of work girl.



I want to slow legal immigration to a damned trickle of people with needed skills and/or wealth, eliminate illegal immigration, chuck many of the illegals here back across the border (exceptions based upon sterling character/conduct/productivity, family members who are citizens, needed skills). Those we allow to stay should face some kind of fine and extended or perhaps even permanent resident status.

Never again, in my opinion, should we reward an illegal act with (a pathway to) US citizenship.

I just wanted to see what names you'd call me, since I'm neither blond, nor little, nor blue-eyed, but am of thoroughly mixed racial make-up (including, I believe, more African but less Arab ancestry than Ear Leader).

















pahunkboy -> RE: Immigration debate, legal charges against employers (5/28/2010 5:26:55 AM)

umm- We agreed to drop the name calling.






Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
3.198242E-02