Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I completely agree with jazzlover. The problem is two fold. I have heard from a lot of people that we need Mexican immigrants to do jobs Americans will not do. The problem is we are not getting those workers to do those jobs for lower wages. They are getting free medical, free food stamps, free housing...all things that would be paid for out of pocket by a person who was paid a decent wage for the job. They aren't doing the job for less in any way shape or form. It is just that we are all as a society paying their wages as opposed to the business owner paying it to them. If they can't afford the higher wage - they go out of busines. That is a free economy which by the way the U.S. is not anymore. Obama has his wish.
Hong Kong, New Zealand, Australia, Singapore, Switzerland, Ireland, Denmark and Canada all have more free economies than we do. Is that an error or accident or is that the will of the people of this country?
The true history of presidential policy toward illegal immigration, and of deportations, is neither as simple nor as successful as claimed.
Hoover did not use immigration policy to "create jobs" and never "ordered the deportation of all illegal aliens." During his four-year presidency, roughly 121,000 persons were officially deported or induced to leave through threat of deportation, according to our analysis of official statistics. (We explain our sources and analytical methods fully in the "Where We Got The Numbers" section below.)
Truman did not try to "create jobs for returning veterans" by ordering deportations. In fact, he signed legislation protecting the rights of Mexican migrant laborers recruited legally to help harvest U.S. crops, and was unable to win congressional approval of measures to crack down on employers of illegal immigrants. During his nearly eight years in office, about 3.4 million were deported or left "voluntarily" under threat of deportation.
Eisenhower did not deport 13 million Mexicans. Only one-tenth that number was ever claimed by the federal officials in charge of "Operation *******," and even that figure is criticized as inflated by guesswork. Officially, just over 2.1 million were recorded as having been deported or having departed under threat of deportation.
[LEFT]Historian Mae M. Ngai calls the message "a most interesting distortion of history," and our research backs that up. Ngai, now at Columbia University, told us that "none of these presidents presided over any general deportation campaign."
So this e-mail’s claim that a president could "sure do it today" — that is, easily deport all the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants now in the U.S. — is a conclusion based on false evidence. No relocation effort nearly so large has ever been attempted, let alone accomplished "in two years" as this e-mail states.[/LEFT]
However, let us give it a try here. Do you think there are farmers let us say in California that cannot fill jobs because they cannot find Americans to do them? Look it up and whether you or I is ignorant of that fact.
How about checking if there are corporations that have to hire foreigners to come to this country because we do not have enough educated Americans to do some of those jobs? Is that true or false. See how ignorant you or I or maybe both are? I will give you this. Looks like you are nice individual for forgiving me, it touched my heart. I follow your example and forgive you too.
Also, do you think that because you wrote that in red a divine light will come down on me and suddenly make think, "Wow! I never saw that!" and after that statement you all you do is write a statement to pull the heart strings? Did not work with me. Take care.
[/quote]
Actually, I do not see him as ignorant. I used some humor in response of him labeling that way. I just get a kick of people that start using ad hominens as response. I remember one of my brothers was a supervisor at work. One of the subordinates told him he was stupid. My brother simply said "I may be but that does not make you any smarter". I actually thought I should have use the same line "I may be ignorant but that does not make you any more or less ignorant either".
At times you just use humor to deflect responses that start to get personal. There are some people that for some reason like to do that. Take care.
The true history of presidential policy toward illegal immigration, and of deportations, is neither as simple nor as successful as claimed.
Hoover did not use immigration policy to "create jobs" and never "ordered the deportation of all illegal aliens." During his four-year presidency, roughly 121,000 persons were officially deported or induced to leave through threat of deportation, according to our analysis of official statistics. (We explain our sources and analytical methods fully in the "Where We Got The Numbers" section below.)
Truman did not try to "create jobs for returning veterans" by ordering deportations. In fact, he signed legislation protecting the rights of Mexican migrant laborers recruited legally to help harvest U.S. crops, and was unable to win congressional approval of measures to crack down on employers of illegal immigrants. During his nearly eight years in office, about 3.4 million were deported or left "voluntarily" under threat of deportation.
Eisenhower did not deport 13 million Mexicans. Only one-tenth that number was ever claimed by the federal officials in charge of "Operation *******," and even that figure is criticized as inflated by guesswork. Officially, just over 2.1 million were recorded as having been deported or having departed under threat of deportation.
[LEFT]Historian Mae M. Ngai calls the message "a most interesting distortion of history," and our research backs that up. Ngai, now at Columbia University, told us that "none of these presidents presided over any general deportation campaign."
So this e-mail’s claim that a president could "sure do it today" — that is, easily deport all the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants now in the U.S. — is a conclusion based on false evidence. No relocation effort nearly so large has ever been attempted, let alone accomplished "in two years" as this e-mail states.[/LEFT]
I find it amusing that this publication uses statistics from the pew hispanic center. No political agenda there right?
At any rate the majority of deportations were not by the Feds to begin with, they were by local law enforcement in local comunities. And it was not just hispanics that were escorted out of state, it was also American immigrants from other states. Another correction, there are not 12 million illegals in the US, there are 20 million.
Until just recently, with the implementation of NAFTA and the WTO, we used tariffs to protect the financial interests of our citizens for our entire history since 1776.
The "global economy" is only beneficial for multi national corporations and the wealthy as our current economy shows.
The argument that we need to compete in the world market is idiotic, WE HAVE A TRADE DEFICIT! That means we buy more than we sell.
We are not competing to sell our goods to people in China and India who make $2000 a year, they cannot afford to buy what we make.
Our market is here in the US where people can afford to purchase what we make here. Or at least they used to before we exported their jobs to China and India.
Is everyone blind to the fact that things have done nothing but gotten worse since all these trade agreements were enacted?
If you take an action that causes your economy to go into the toilet, does it not make sense to alter that action?
Let’s make this real simple. Answer one question, has the trade deficit improved or gotten worse since NAFTA?
Because we have used protectionism since 1776 it does not mean it is the smart thing to do from the standpoint of commerce and ecomomics. I read a very good book entitled "A Splendid Exchange: How Trade shaped the World". It is a history of commerce pretty much since the time of recorded history. You will see how nations have used protectionism and the effects of it. Very often it may look that is is to protect let us say producers of tomatoes. Well, it may help the tomato producers but if you look closely, very often it only help that group while other farmers may pay the price. Also the customer ends up paying more for the same product. There are farmers that do not want to diversify and in this case only want to produce tomatoes. Other businesses are flexible and adjust to the demands out there. What to do, they go to the government to protect them or for subsidy. In the long run all that does is hurt the customers as I said.
As far as global economy only helps multinational corporations that may be true but it only covers part of the picture. It also help the customer. In commerce demands change as I am sure you very well know. The business demands hurt some people and benefits others. Let me give you an example: Do you remember when the government started to demand car companies produce cars that run on fuel combined with corn. I do not remember the correct name, ethanol? You may now. What was the result of it? Many farmers switched from producing wheat to corn. The consequences? World wheat production went down many african nations suffered because there was not enough wheat to send to them. Thousands of people paid the price. The honest and well meaning intentions of government interference produced unintended consequences. It is good to try to protect the environment but at times you have to make a call. Do so at such extent that thousands pay the price dying of hunger?
Do you think it is OK for the government to demand products like let us say potatoes to rut on the fields or burn them instead of donating them because it may bring the price of potatoes down and hurt the farmers? Who paid the price? The customer.
The trade deficit would not be such a problem if we could compete more fairly with the world by not superficially price our own commodities by imposing minimum wages and other demands from the government. All that does is not being able to sell our commodities when we compete with other nations. That is the reality of the commerce world.
Am I saying there should trade with no checks? No, but to go the other extreme and impose so many restrictions chokes businesses and hurt the customers.
I do agree that some trade agreements do affect our businesses? Why? Because we artificially increase our own products price and that makes it difficult to compete.
Go back in the days that we became pretty much the economic world power. We had the technology and we pretty much did not have as many restrictions as we have now. The rest of the world was less developed and could not compete with us. At that time the competition was pretty much within our own borders. Businesses did not do anything different than they do today. The only difference is that companies moved to areas where taxes were lower. The results? Some states loss businesses and other gaing businesses. Many states learned to adjust and look for other types of businesses they could create or support.
The bottom line, you can try to protect ourselves with restrictions. Your heart is with good intentions and I do not hold that against you. I simply believe the strategy you may suggest I do not share.
When you allow commerce to work its magic on its own things do level off. Granted some people do have it better than others but generally all do benefit and quality of life does improve around the world. That is how I see it. Take care.
The problem is we are not getting those workers to do those jobs for lower wages. They are getting free medical, free food stamps, free housing...all things that would be paid for out of pocket by a person who was paid a decent wage for the job. They aren't doing the job for less in any way shape or form. It is just that we are all as a society paying their wages as opposed to the business owner paying it to them.
You are absolutely correct. We, as taxpayers, are actually subsidizing these businesses so they can make big profits off the illegals. It is shameful that the media doesn't really connect the dots to educate the public on how this works---and how we would be so much better off economically by hiring Americans to do this work at decent wages.
Because we have used protectionism since 1776 it does not mean it is the smart thing to do from the standpoint of commerce and ecomomics. I read a very good book entitled "A Splendid Exchange: How Trade shaped the World". It is a history of commerce pretty much since the time of recorded history. You will see how nations have used protectionism and the effects of it. Very often it may look that is is to protect let us say producers of tomatoes. Well, it may help the tomato producers but if you look closely, very often it only help that group while other farmers may pay the price. Also the customer ends up paying more for the same product. There are farmers that do not want to diversify and in this case only want to produce tomatoes. Other businesses are flexible and adjust to the demands out there. What to do, they go to the government to protect them or for subsidy. In the long run all that does is hurt the customers as I said.
As far as global economy only helps multinational corporations that may be true but it only covers part of the picture. It also help the customer. In commerce demands change as I am sure you very well know. The business demands hurt some people and benefits others. Let me give you an example: Do you remember when the government started to demand car companies produce cars that run on fuel combined with corn. I do not remember the correct name, ethanol? You may now. What was the result of it? Many farmers switched from producing wheat to corn. The consequences? World wheat production went down many african nations suffered because there was not enough wheat to send to them. Thousands of people paid the price. The honest and well meaning intentions of government interference produced unintended consequences. It is good to try to protect the environment but at times you have to make a call. Do so at such extent that thousands pay the price dying of hunger?
Do you think it is OK for the government to demand products like let us say potatoes to rut on the fields or burn them instead of donating them because it may bring the price of potatoes down and hurt the farmers? Who paid the price? The customer.
The trade deficit would not be such a problem if we could compete more fairly with the world by not superficially price our own commodities by imposing minimum wages and other demands from the government. All that does is not being able to sell our commodities when we compete with other nations. That is the reality of the commerce world.
Am I saying there should trade with no checks? No, but to go the other extreme and impose so many restrictions chokes businesses and hurt the customers.
I do agree that some trade agreements do affect our businesses? Why? Because we artificially increase our own products price and that makes it difficult to compete.
Go back in the days that we became pretty much the economic world power. We had the technology and we pretty much did not have as many restrictions as we have now. The rest of the world was less developed and could not compete with us. At that time the competition was pretty much within our own borders. Businesses did not do anything different than they do today. The only difference is that companies moved to areas where taxes were lower. The results? Some states loss businesses and other gaing businesses. Many states learned to adjust and look for other types of businesses they could create or support.
The bottom line, you can try to protect ourselves with restrictions. Your heart is with good intentions and I do not hold that against you. I simply believe the strategy you may suggest I do not share.
When you allow commerce to work its magic on its own things do level off. Granted some people do have it better than others but generally all do benefit and quality of life does improve around the world. That is how I see it. Take care.
Basically all you are saying is that every situation regardless of what we do benefits one group at the expense of the other which is perfectly true, there is no economic policy that benefits everyone.
What I am saying is that the use of tariffs were used for over 200 years to protect American companies and American workers and that it was for the most part very successful. The downsides were that the American consumer paid more for goods and services than they would have otherwise, but the money they paid went into the economy supporting money velocity and providing jobs and customers for domestic business.
So called "free trade" while it does lower prices for imported goods does so at the expense of domestic jobs and businesses. It makes profits for corporations and stock holders of corporations, but it does so at the expense of jobs for the working class. It is good for exporting counties, but not so much for the US.
What this all comes down to is a question of fairness. Once we accept as fact that every trade policy has upsides and downsides, we then need to access who is being helped and who is being hurt by what we are doing.
Clearly the present policies are reducing the cost of imports, but is doing so at the expense of jobs.
Clearly some corporations are making more profit, and stockholders are enjoying capital gains as a result, but once again these gains have a cost and the cost of those profits and gains are an eroding jobs base.
The scales at present are clearly tilted in favor of the wealthiest segment of our society and against the people in the working class.
At present the employment participation rate is 64% and falling, and there is nothing on the horizon that is going to change that so long as we continue with the current trade policies. In fact the chain reaction caused by off shoring insures that this trend will continue. For every business that off shores production, the supporting businesses who supported that production loose business and jobs.
In the end the question that begs to be answered is who needs help?
Is it the wealthiest segment of society who have benefited greatly from the elimination of tariffs? Or is it the working class who have been decimated by it?
Being from California, all I hear about is....immigrants take jobs regular americans won't do...blah, blah.
These people don't travel much, the ones that believe that.
-I went to the east coast last year, what do you know....white people clean the beds in vermont! White people work at mcdonalds. Its not uncommon throughout the country.
I think the lack of critical thinking in this country has hurt the immigration debate. I.e. proponents get away with more than they should. I think its more of a political ideology (esp california)...i.e. the free welfare, food stamps, etc to illegals. It's not really jobs per se.
I think the immigration impact on healthcare is much more important. The crowding is ridiculous in ER's.
Basically all you are saying is that every situation regardless of what we do benefits one group at the expense of the other which is perfectly true, there is no economic policy that benefits everyone.
What I am saying is that the use of tariffs were used for over 200 years to protect American companies and American workers and that it was for the most part very successful. The downsides were that the American consumer paid more for goods and services than they would have otherwise, but the money they paid went into the economy supporting money velocity and providing jobs and customers for domestic business.
So called "free trade" while it does lower prices for imported goods does so at the expense of domestic jobs and businesses. It makes profits for corporations and stock holders of corporations, but it does so at the expense of jobs for the working class. It is good for exporting counties, but not so much for the US.
What this all comes down to is a question of fairness. Once we accept as fact that every trade policy has upsides and downsides, we then need to access who is being helped and who is being hurt by what we are doing.
Clearly the present policies are reducing the cost of imports, but is doing so at the expense of jobs.
Clearly some corporations are making more profit, and stockholders are enjoying capital gains as a result, but once again these gains have a cost and the cost of those profits and gains are an eroding jobs base.
The scales at present are clearly tilted in favor of the wealthiest segment of our society and against the people in the working class.
At present the employment participation rate is 64% and falling, and there is nothing on the horizon that is going to change that so long as we continue with the current trade policies. In fact the chain reaction caused by off shoring insures that this trend will continue. For every business that off shores production, the supporting businesses who supported that production loose business and jobs.
In the end the question that begs to be answered is who needs help?
Is it the wealthiest segment of society who have benefited greatly from the elimination of tariffs? Or is it the working class who have been decimated by it?
Thanks for the reply. I see it differently. When you protect a group, let us say farmers that produce X product. In many instances it protect the most wealthy farmers. Many other farmer get hurt or even loose their farms. Who else gets hurt? The customer, specially the ones at the lowest bracket. They are the ones that have to pay higher for X product. They are the ones that try to stretch their dollar. Farmers get to set prices since they do not have the competition and competition is what helps prices go lower so customers do benefit, specially those that need it the most. Also, is it right for farmers to burn excess production so X product does not go lower in prices? So yes, in every case someone gets hurt and someone else gains.
I am for the free market be free and let the chips fall where they may. However, the ones that the market serves, the customer is the one that benefits the most in the long run. Sure, corporations do gain, I am aware of that but they do so why the laws of economics and I do not see a problem with that. However, I do not support a protected group to gain because it is protected, not so much because they made smart or wise economic decisions and gain it out of their own smarts.
The government interference to me historically has resulted in many negative unintended consequences.
Just look at it this way. I venture to guess that politicians are just as much interested in their own self interests, aren't they?
I do not blame people for asking the government to protect them and help them. What to do? They mean votes so at times they insitute laws and economic programs that in the long run simply cost the taxpayer more and hurts the economy. In the short term it may look like it is helping but in the long run it only hurts.
I share with you something I read somewhere: You do not trust your money to three types of people-Children, thieves, and politicians.
That is what this guys do very often. The spend our money protecting and subsidising programs to 'help' some specials groups. Well, in that sense it is not fair because the only help some groups and leave others out.
Also, you can only spend taxpayers moneys so much becaus eventually we run out of money. The taxpayer can only support so much. So what to do? Tax the heck of those that produce jobs which takes away incentives to expand businesses. How do politicians do this? By telling you that the greedy corporations are milking the people. It works I must say but it does hurt the very people they claim they help.
The irony is that they institute programs to help the people and when they fail they turn around and point the finger at somebody else.
Look at what happened with Freddy and Maggie. Were they not told to not worry because they had the backing of the federal government in giving credit to those that had no solid credit record? They and lending companies were told to give credit to many that did not deserve to get it or else. We now what happened. The same happens when the government comes up with so many protectionist programs and others that interfere with the laws of economics.
The Constitution was drafted to help encourage and support commerce, not interfere with it. If you look at it closely that was what mostly the first subjects delineated as responsiblity of the federal government. Individual rights were not even there in the original Constitution. They were later added as the first ten ammendments, The Bill of Rights.
By the way just today I heard in the radio and later in the newspaper how farmers in Alabama were saying that the new immigration law left them with no hand to harvest their fields and no one is taking those jobs. One of the them said she needed them because Americans are not willing to take those jobs. Some of them said they will have not harvest because the products will be lost and they many of them will loose their farms, good intentions with bad consequences, Take care.
Thanks for the reply. I see it differently. When you protect a group, let us say farmers that produce X product. In many instances it protect the most wealthy farmers. Many other farmer get hurt or even loose their farms. Who else gets hurt? The customer, specially the ones at the lowest bracket. They are the ones that have to pay higher for X product. They are the ones that try to stretch their dollar. Farmers get to set prices since they do not have the competition and competition is what helps prices go lower so customers do benefit, specially those that need it the most. Also, is it right for farmers to burn excess production so X product does not go lower in prices? So yes, in every case someone gets hurt and someone else gains.
I am for the free market be free and let the chips fall where they may. However, the ones that the market serves, the customer is the one that benefits the most in the long run. Sure, corporations do gain, I am aware of that but they do so why the laws of economics and I do not see a problem with that. However, I do not support a protected group to gain because it is protected, not so much because they made smart or wise economic decisions and gain it out of their own smarts.
The government interference to me historically has resulted in many negative unintended consequences.
Just look at it this way. I venture to guess that politicians are just as much interested in their own self interests, aren't they?
I do not blame people for asking the government to protect them and help them. What to do? They mean votes so at times they insitute laws and economic programs that in the long run simply cost the taxpayer more and hurts the economy. In the short term it may look like it is helping but in the long run it only hurts.
I share with you something I read somewhere: You do not trust your money to three types of people-Children, thieves, and politicians.
That is what this guys do very often. The spend our money protecting and subsidising programs to 'help' some specials groups. Well, in that sense it is not fair because the only help some groups and leave others out.
Also, you can only spend taxpayers moneys so much becaus eventually we run out of money. The taxpayer can only support so much. So what to do? Tax the heck of those that produce jobs which takes away incentives to expand businesses. How do politicians do this? By telling you that the greedy corporations are milking the people. It works I must say but it does hurt the very people they claim they help.
The irony is that they institute programs to help the people and when they fail they turn around and point the finger at somebody else.
Look at what happened with Freddy and Maggie. Were they not told to not worry because they had the backing of the federal government in giving credit to those that had no solid credit record? They and lending companies were told to give credit to many that did not deserve to get it or else. We now what happened. The same happens when the government comes up with so many protectionist programs and others that interfere with the laws of economics.
The Constitution was drafted to help encourage and support commerce, not interfere with it. If you look at it closely that was what mostly the first subjects delineated as responsiblity of the federal government. Individual rights were not even there in the original Constitution. They were later added as the first ten ammendments, The Bill of Rights.
By the way just today I heard in the radio and later in the newspaper how farmers in Alabama were saying that the new immigration law left them with no hand to harvest their fields and no one is taking those jobs. One of the them said she needed them because Americans are not willing to take those jobs. Some of them said they will have not harvest because the products will be lost and they many of them will loose their farms, good intentions with bad consequences, Take care.
If you want completely free trade, be ready for the consequences.
Completely free trade will mean you are on a level playing field with the rest of the world.
The workers in the US will make the same wages as in India, China or Mexico.
The standard of living will be the same.
The problems with maintaining infrastructure the same.
The ability of the US to maintain even the lifestyle of its people now is being greatly diminished by free trade.
As it continues, that trend will get worse.
The US cannot bring the living standard of the rest of the world up to 1st world levels, but the rest of the world can bring the US down to 3rd world level.
I am not sure why people come to this country because of what it is, and then want to change it so it becomes what they escaped.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
