Yeah, I’m going to hop on my immigration soap box, yet again…Mainly with a rhetorical question.
Bush seems to think that illegals take jobs that Americans don’t want. Late, last week, I read an editorial with this line – which caught my attention – It’s not exactly that they take jobs Americans don’t want, it’s that they take jobs middle class Americans don’t want. – Granted, I’m not a “lower-class” American, so I can’t speak for those who would classify, economically.
Now, one of the “positives” of having a worker corps made of illegals is that it’s cheap labour, locally. I haven’t had the chance to actually read over this Immigration reform bill, but I’m curious as to whether or not the changes include paying minimum wage. Now, should they start paying minimum wage, or even comparable wage (to the type of work), I’m curious as to whether or not they will continue to seek the new round of illegals – those who choose to opt-out of this program – on the basis that they can pay below minimum wage. On top of that, there has been speculation about how exactly this plan will be enacted. One issue that I have seen mentioned, is the inability for this new class of worker to form unions or any other type of labour group. Personally, I would like to see them form Unions, to prevent them from being treated like labour animals vs. humans (e.g. inability to complain without threat of losing job and being deported). The 3 years time-table is a bit of an iffy for me, as well. So you have 3 years to work here. It takes upwards of 7 years to become a naturalized citizen through the normal channels. Will there be any retro-active clause for those who’ve chosen to enter legally, in the first place, to gain their citizenship earlier based on being gainfully employed and their contributions to this society in the time that they’ve been here?
Honestly, I don’t fully believe the b.s. about “jobs Americans don’t want”. Yes, there are those out there who believe that working on a fruit farm are beneath them (though, farming has been pretty much relegated to the realm of technology than multitudes of farm hands), but there are also those out there who are willing to do it. How about also putting into place a national job registry that includes relocation assistance for jobs like in that realm? If we look at the way we run the job market right now, small time things (like, oh say, an Army-Navy store seeking employees) don’t get internet postings online. They seek through local print, maybe, but mostly through word-of-mouth or window-front signs. There was one example from the Dallas Morning News, that I found interesting. An out-of-work white collar guy went out to the local “illegal pick-up” in hopes that he would potentially gain a day job, doing something. He was passed over by every seeker who showed up. Not for lack of body build (granted, that’s an opinion that I didn’t form), not for lack of intelligence (he wasn’t even approached). It can be assumed it was because he was white, was legal, and various other reasons. But it does make an interesting point to ponder, for me, and it really does point to a variety of other issues that complicate this whole smorgasbord of the greater issue. Again, I find that we’re probably putting a short-term solution that will end up creating an even greater problem in the future. However, a point that I found extremely interesting, came from the former Mexican Sec. of State. He pointed out that the Mexican population is gentrifying. Right now, we are getting the influx of the younger generation that sees no future in Mexico. That will continue for a decade or so, gradually decreasing, year after year, as the older generations become less and less mobile. Of course, that leads to problems on Mexico’s side for their own economy when they don’t have enough workers and the economy, potentially, takes a down-turn for that reason. Granted, it might also be a cause for an exodus of the younger generations (coupled with wealth, give or take) back to Mexico to take advantage of investment opportunities there to create more jobs.
But, alas, my cynical side tells me it’s all bunch of blown-up crap and I’m thinking too positively.
Freakchylde's 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25882-2003Dec23.html that one?
There’s a couple of issues I have with this program. The big, justifiable one is that it doesn’t say *anything* about paying a minimum wage, and “some legal standing” doesn’t really mean much in this context. The wrinkle of the legal standing for the immigrant is dependant on there being a “willing worker for a willing employer”, and anyone who complains about only getting a dollar an hour can lose his job and isn’t any longer a “willing worker”. Which means said immigrant loses that legal standing, and ends up being just another illegal.
The second, and less justifiable complaint I have is that I don’t believe the gentrification of Mexico isn’t coming from productive industry and rising wages among Mexican nationals, but is rather coming from funds being funneled to Mexico from workers in the US, essentially sending cash out of the US that’s unlikely to ever return. I don’t know if that’s millions of dollars per year or billions, but it’s a sink that doesn’t come back. A US worker buys the fruit or meat, or eats in the restaurant or whatever, with the dollar paid by his employer, and the US economy gets a dollar back into it. Hire someone sending money “back home”, even at a reduced rate (say fifty cents), and that worker sends a dime home. Fifty cents “saved” by the company and forty cents paid to the worker stay in the economy, and a dime vanishes. That’s not exactly a growth situation.
Basically, we’re creating the opportunity for companies to “move off-shore” jobs that can’t physically be moved. We’ve already shoveled away manufacturing to China and Mexico, tech jobs to India. Now we want to get rid of the rest?
LikeLike
I’ll have to check the link. But I very much agree with you on all points. As far as the gentrification of Mexico point went, the discussion offered by the Mex. SecOSt was in regards to the influx of Mexican citizens and whether or not it would level off. They didn’t discuss anything in regards to the flow of American dollars to Mexico. Though, the points you’ve made on that have merit and cause for concern that I don’t believe has been taken into account. In all honesty, I think this is just a ploy to legalize slavery of a different elephant, as well as managing to “move a company offshore” without actually, physically moving anything.
LikeLike
In my previous life as a restaurant manager, we could not find any “citizens” who wanted to work as dishwashers or busboys. We paid well above the minimum wage of the time. The only workers who wanted those jobs were people who brought a green card with them. They worked hard, took a fair wage, lived decently AND sent money home.
There’s also the fact that the miraculous American economy was built on the backs of lower-class immigrants. Eventually they turned their sweat equity into a “better life”, moved up the ladder and their space was taken by another group. The process continues unabated today.
Personally I would prefer that the immigration policies were reviewed to make sure they’re reasonable, fair and provide a decent opportunity for the number of workers we need to come into the country. I am unalterably opposed to providing “benefits” or “entitlements” of any kind to so-called undocumented aliens. If we can’t solve the problems of citizens we shouldn’t be spending our thinning resources on those who aren’t supposed to be here.
It may all be a moot argument, because the current white-collar job drain to India, China and other countries coupled with the dismantling of our industrial base in the face of “legal” obstructionism from abroad means that my son may well live in a country where all we produce is “…you want fries with that?”
LikeLike
In my previous life as a restaurant manager, we could not find any “citizens” who wanted to work as dishwashers or busboys. We paid well above the minimum wage of the time. The only workers who wanted those jobs were people who brought a green card with them. They worked hard, took a fair wage, lived decently AND sent money home.
Well, in seeing the kids that come through my store (not precluding your kid in this *wink*), I can understand why there’s an issue with finding people to bus and wash. They’re “privileged. Granted, I refused to work in McD’s in H.S. for working crap hours as a stat for a hockey club. I still scrubbed grills in college in the mess hall. The problem that we see in Americans today is what will perpetuate in immigrant families down the line as economic status improves.
Personally I would prefer that the immigration policies were reviewed to make sure they’re reasonable, fair and provide a decent opportunity for the number of workers we need to come into the country. I am unalterably opposed to providing “benefits” or “entitlements” of any kind to so-called undocumented aliens. If we can’t solve the problems of citizens we shouldn’t be spending our thinning resources on those who aren’t supposed to be here.
That’s where one of our major problems lies. Our immigration policies are not balanced and is completely biased. Haitians get booted, regardless, Cubans are welcomed with open arms (if they get past the Coast Guard and live to tell about it), immigrant spouses are treated close to criminals in legal suspicions, and now we’re granting cross-board (with exceptions) legal status to illegals from Mexico. I’m quite curious as to what the policy is going to be in regards to Canadians and citizens from other countries, who are supposedly under this plan as well. Especially since they don’t usually take jobs that classify as “jobs Americans aren’t willing to take”.
It may all be a moot argument, because the current white-collar job drain to India, China and other countries coupled with the dismantling of our industrial base in the face of “legal” obstructionism from abroad means that my son may well live in a country where all we produce is “…you want fries with that?”
I doubt that will be the case, granted, the hope is that we’ll become a more globally mobile society and won’t see our only job potentials as those at home. If we can’t get them here, there’s a chance we can get them elsewhere. *shrugs* But I’m cynical, so I think we’re screwing ourselves.
LikeLike
doubt that will be the case, granted, the hope is that we’ll become a more globally mobile society and won’t see our only job potentials as those at home. If we can’t get them here, there’s a chance we can get them elsewhere. *shrugs* But I’m cynical, so I think we’re screwing ourselves.
You can’t get your job when it moves to India, because what you’ll make at that job in India won’t support you in the style to which you are accustomed. Same goes for any job moved to any 3rd World country.
LikeLike
yes, because the cost of living differs from country to country. the theory, and i do mean this is a theory, is that through globalization, the cost of living will increase in the countries where these companies are opening (till the cost hits the point where they decided to move countries, then they run off to 3rd world countries instead of emerging 2cd world countries). yadda, yadda, yadda. i think it’s a whole load of crap, but if it does hit that point, my hope is that other 1st world countries (germany, france, UK) will have increased job prospects. of course, given our start up habits, maybe it’ll be us heading down to mexico to take up the economic slack.
LikeLike
Yes, I know that cost of living varies between countries – my point is that a middle-class job moved to India won’t pay middle-class Indian wages.
Globalization may well eventually raise the standard of living across the planet, but in the short term it’s going to cost the United States most of our manufacturing and an appallingly high number of our middle-class “desk” jobs. We’ll wind up being the economy that needs ‘help’ from outside. If you can find a way to help the rest of the planet catch up without putting me on the street, I’ll sign up, but I don’t think that you can.
LikeLike
Yep.
LikeLike
I was gonna ramble here, but decided I just couldn’t stomach it. I actually went to law school to study international law, specifically immigration, but got sidetracked and sucked in to criminal. After my immigration studies, nothing shocks me anymore. Wellllllll except this.
I do NOT see the likelihood, however, of a retroactive application and granting of citizenship to those who have been working illegally. I don’t see what benefit that gives to the US.
Oh, and as for your friend not getting chosen? Odds are that he looked suspicious/conspicuous. What’s that hunky white guy doing with all these vatos? Is he undercover Migra? OOOOOOOOR, my other theories being that they already knew the other workers, and he was new. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOR the dude was looking out for his peeps.
LikeLike
I do NOT see the likelihood, however, of a retroactive application and granting of citizenship to those who have been working illegally. I don’t see what benefit that gives to the US.
No, not those here illegally, those here legally. As for those here illegally, my understanding of this program is that, those who are here illegally and already gainfully employed will be placed in this program through their employers.
Oh, and as for your friend not getting chosen? Odds are that he looked suspicious/conspicuous. What’s that hunky white guy doing with all these vatos? Is he undercover Migra? OOOOOOOOR, my other theories being that they already knew the other workers, and he was new. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOR the dude was looking out for his peeps.
this was actually an example from the Dallas Morning News. They interviewed a guy who had done this (supposedly). But I do use this as an example that there are people out there willing to do the type of work that some of the illegals do, but no one’s looking for them. They just show up at the local pick-up spot and pick and choose.
LikeLike