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.
? Obviously I was not referring to laws. I mean 10 year olds do not have the capacity to understand a contract.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eleanora1
No it doesn't. An employer and employee have all kinds of laws they must adhere to including overtime laws and laws that govern illegal activities. You can't sell drugs or become a prostitute either even thought many people would argue those, too, are also victimless crimes.
And I disagree with the majority of those, too, with the exception of a few laws designed to prevent the exploitation of employees.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eleanora1
Illegals affect the rest of us. They increase the use of social services, make urban planning difficult, burden our roads and schools and create all kinds of problems for many Americans. This is not a victimless crime at all. We have the right to make our voices heard without being shouted down as mere racists.
I haven't called anyone here a racist.
All of these statements need data backup. I think that it's been clearly established that you are overstating the burden on social services as well as schools (and....roads? Not sure what you're referring to). Also not sure what urban planning problems you are referring to, but I'm a bit of an urban planning buff, so feel free to discuss it.
And of course, no one is arguing against your right to voice your opinion, so I'm not sure why you'd bring that up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eleanora1
I wouldn't define success as someone who works for less than minimum wage and neither would most Americans. The markets are not free to operate without moral standards.
The minimum wage is indeed a "moral standard" being imposed, but it's actually based on what I consider to be economically viable concepts regarding employment levels as they correlate to wages. I don't believe that the protectionist standards that support protecting domestic labor supplies are economically defensible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eleanora1
Seventh grade drop outs who live here, father children they cannot support and do not speak English aren't very bright. Just because an employer wants to employ him for low wages does not make him any mor educated or the employer any less creepy.
lol, creepy? Whatever.
I am not saying they are "very bright." I'm just saying that calling them "morons" is A. obviously just designed to be insulting and B. only fair if you call the people who they are beating out for jobs morons as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eleanora1
If you want to employ people for low wages, not hand them any benefits and then demand the taxpayer absorb your labor costs yes you are miserable greedy jerk.
How low should wages go, anyway? Should I be free to refuse to pay minimum wage if someone wants to work for less?
Why is common sense so offensive to you and your fellow illegal advocates?
Again, I support minimum wage for a variety of reasons, mostly due to the fact that there appears to be a very limited impact on unemployment. I don't have too much of a problem with the government preventing people from being paid less than minimum wage, whether they are legal or not.
What I do not care to do is draw a distinction between how the government applies its labor standards to domestic workers and anyone else.
In short, if there are two otherwise identically skilled human beings, one an American and one an illegal immigrant in America, and only one can get a given job, I do not care who it is.
The people here were trying to make me think they were driving our country to economic ruin.
Glad we have settled that
The point is that they are a net drain, if even by a little -.07% ($10.25B) of GDP ($14.64T). This doesn't take into consideration the "benefits" they use in increased government expenditures They also increase government expenditure by using public services, including fire and police protection, public roads and bridges, publically funded emergency health care, and, most importantly, public education — though not all at the same levels as the native born.
And lol, I mean really LOL at "why is common sense so offensive to you?!" Do you actually think there is meaning there? More importantly, do you think "common sense" is a good way of determining the economic impact of mobile labor? Do you scoff when you see a study about this topic, because "by golly, someone just needs to common sense the hell out of this issue so we can really get to the bottom of it!"?
If the farmer can use the VISA program and elects not to one has to question the motives.
Why not? Could it be he can fill the jobs with legal workers but might have to sacrifice a profit margin? Or is it he cant abuse his labor force as freely because they know they dont have to put up with it?
If the farmer can use the VISA program and elects not to one has to question the motives.
Why not? Could it be he can fill the jobs with legal workers but might have to sacrifice a profit margin? Or is it he cant abuse his labor force as freely because they know they dont have to put up with it?
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.
