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.
If the woman can afford to sponsor the relative, then the relative can come here. It costs a lot of money to be a sponsor and there is a whole lot of paperwork involved in the immigration process.
The sponsor is responsible for the immigrant for a period of five years so the immigrant cannot go on welfare or get any government money. If the immigrant is a retired person, like a grandparent, the person will be paying for the immigrant for the rest of their life. That's how it works.
So that person is usually not going to be able to afford more than one relative.
I'm voting for Obama but he has to do something about illegals. What I'm talking about is the LEGAL method, the RIGHT way. If everyone did it legally, we would not be over run with unskilled people and people who come here to get on welfare.
Germany is currently at the top of the pile in International Competitiveness. Waiters make $20/hr. in Germany. In fact, 20/hr is more or less the de facto minimum wage in Germany. Union autoworkers make over $60/hr in Germany. How the @#%%^ do they do it? The Lenovo factory worker in China who makes $3.00/hr ... lets look at that. Now the first thing that you must factor, and the Conservatives never do that, is the exchange rate between China and the U.S. It's not my job to know what it is. I'm not the one saying that U.S. citizens should work for $3.00/hr so the U.S. Fortune 500 can compete with Chinese labor. I don't think I am off base in assuming that Chinese money is worth less than U.S. money. Much less. Maybe 1/2 as much. Maybe much less than that. So.... that chinese worker making $3.00/nr in relative terms is actually making more than the minimum wage here and likely just about what that kind of factory work would pay here.
First, Germany's economy is largely focused around luxury goods. Secondly, the cost of living in Germany is much higher than in the United States. Thirdly, it has very strict immigration requirements. And is basically a socialist state. It would be impossible for Germany to have anything remotely similar to open-immigration.
Does Germany sell anything that is remotely reasonably priced?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leisesturm
In order to work somewhere, Red, an employer has to want you there. If s/he does not, you don't have a job. You can't make someone hire you. American employers who can, move their manufacturing to China because they can pay Chinese labor rates IN CHINA. They could not pay Chinese workers $3.00/hr IN AMERICA! And don't. When Central Americans come to America illegally they can and will work for less than the prevailing minimum wage because of their immigration status. They are exploitable. LEGAL immigrants are also exploitable to a lesser degree. Enough so to make it worth the doing if a company can swing it. Its all about the bottom line and you know it. If two people apply for the same job and both will do the same quality of work for the employer, the worker that is cheaper to hire will get the position.
I agree. But you seem to be under the impression that for every immigrant in this country working, is one less American working. But when this country's economy was booming, and unemployment was below 5%, we actually had more illegal immigrants than we do now. No one complains about immigrants until the economy sucks. And even then, its not an issue of just getting rid of immigrants so I'll have a job. They also want wages to go up before they'll do that job as well. Yes, lets have the cost of goods and services go up drastically to "fix the economy". Sounds like a wonderful idea.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leisesturm
But back to Germany. The reason why German car makers can pay line workers $60K/yr. is because they do not pay the CEO $40M/yr. Earlier you wondered why not a $100/hr minimum wage. Why get ridiculous? Why can't the right wing argue intelligently? Adjusted for inflation, the current $7.15/hr is a negative salary in many places in the U.S. like the East Coast. A minimum wage worker is a steady drain on the system because there is no way that that wage can sustain a human being living at an animal level, let alone in the manner to which a citizen of a First World country is indoctrinated to aspire to. So why not a $15 or $20 minimum wage? Indexed to inflation and the COL in the locality the wage is earned as well as the industry that pays the wage, i.e a different minimum wage for pizza delivery than warehouse work.
What you are saying is, because you are a citizen of the United States that you should be guaranteed a living wage. You talk about the cost of living, but you don't really talk about what causes the cost of living to be so high. Would housing be cheaper if there was little to no government regulation? Without government intervention, how much less would the cost of living be?
The problem with what you are advocating is, you cannot have easy immigration to a country that guarantees some sort of welfare/living wage. Which is why the welfare systems of Europe are collapsing, and there is so much backlash towards immigration all across Europe right now.
That is the basis of my argument, you cannot have welfare and open-immigration, it cannot work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leisesturm
Unions? Union representation at 7% of all U.S. workers? Killing the country? Breaking its back? Destroying the Fortune 500? I don't think so, Red. I flat out disagree with everything you believe is true and representative of the "problem" the U.S. has with respect to immigration. As usual Conservatives want to blame the victims. Americans are lazy, they don't want to work for $3.00/hr and be competitive and the poor job creators what else can they do. And the immigrants should know better and out of respect, refuse the invitation to come and work in the U.S. or vice versa. Does that about sum up your position?
H
Well, Unions make up about 12% of all workers.
As for my position, I'm not saying that at all.
My position is simply a question about whether you could have a country with completely open-immigration.
Any argument about how immigrants are hurting us by taking jobs, is silly.
The only arguments against immigration that seem to stand up to any logic. Is cultural incompatibility, increase in crime, and social obligations in a welfare state.
Germany can't have open-immigration because they are a welfare state. We can't have open-immigration because we are a welfare state. We could only ever have open-immigration if we weren't a welfare state, like in the 1800's. Had we had a welfare state in the 1800's, we wouldn't have had practically open-immigration.
So the argument has to then shift into whether or not the welfare state itself is helpful or harmful. You can argue that there are welfare states like Germany that are doing well. But there are plenty of other examples of socialist/communist states that are utter failures. So the question is, does Germany have a strong economy because it is a welfare state, or did it become a welfare state only after it became an advanced nation?
Did America become a great nation because of the welfare state, or in spite of the welfare state?
The only arguments against immigration that seem to stand up to any logic. Is cultural incompatibility, increase in crime, and social obligations in a welfare state.
Those are your arguments against it. In actual fact, most immigrants to this country are decent, hard working and very socially conservative individuals. If my family is any example, the quality of the intellectual and physical work products of my particular immigrant sub-class exceeds that found in the dominant culture's middle class by a huge margin. You have to get well into the top 10% to find an equivalent social standard in the WASP population. But I am measuring raw talent and potential. In actual attainment, the attainments of myself and my close relatives is impressive but not awesome. The entrenched system of protectionism of the WASP majority holds immigrants that aspire to more than menial labor in America.
H
Last edited by Leisesturm; 10-22-2012 at 12:46 PM..
First, Germany's economy is largely focused around luxury goods. Secondly, the cost of living in Germany is much higher than in the United States. Thirdly, it has very strict immigration requirements. And is basically a socialist state. It would be impossible for Germany to have anything remotely similar to open-immigration.
Does Germany sell anything that is remotely reasonably priced?
I agree. But you seem to be under the impression that for every immigrant in this country working, is one less American working. But when this country's economy was booming, and unemployment was below 5%, we actually had more illegal immigrants than we do now. No one complains about immigrants until the economy sucks. And even then, its not an issue of just getting rid of immigrants so I'll have a job. They also want wages to go up before they'll do that job as well. Yes, lets have the cost of goods and services go up drastically to "fix the economy". Sounds like a wonderful idea.....
What you are saying is, because you are a citizen of the United States that you should be guaranteed a living wage. You talk about the cost of living, but you don't really talk about what causes the cost of living to be so high. Would housing be cheaper if there was little to no government regulation? Without government intervention, how much less would the cost of living be?
The problem with what you are advocating is, you cannot have easy immigration to a country that guarantees some sort of welfare/living wage. Which is why the welfare systems of Europe are collapsing, and there is so much backlash towards immigration all across Europe right now.
That is the basis of my argument, you cannot have welfare and open-immigration, it cannot work.
Well, Unions make up about 12% of all workers.
As for my position, I'm not saying that at all.
My position is simply a question about whether you could have a country with completely open-immigration.
Any argument about how immigrants are hurting us by taking jobs, is silly.
The only arguments against immigration that seem to stand up to any logic. Is cultural incompatibility, increase in crime, and social obligations in a welfare state.
Germany can't have open-immigration because they are a welfare state. We can't have open-immigration because we are a welfare state. We could only ever have open-immigration if we weren't a welfare state, like in the 1800's. Had we had a welfare state in the 1800's, we wouldn't have had practically open-immigration.
So the argument has to then shift into whether or not the welfare state itself is helpful or harmful. You can argue that there are welfare states like Germany that are doing well. But there are plenty of other examples of socialist/communist states that are utter failures. So the question is, does Germany have a strong economy because it is a welfare state, or did it become a welfare state only after it became an advanced nation?
Did America become a great nation because of the welfare state, or in spite of the welfare state?
I agree with much of your post EXCEPT this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
Any argument about how immigrants are hurting us by taking jobs, is silly
It's not silly at all ... illegals will work for less that wage standards which
for those who made standard wages - they are now forced to work for less ...
You don't think that being forced to take lower wages doesn't hurt our economy?
Lower wages = less fluid cash flow
less fluid cash flow = less product sales
less product sales = less generated taxes
less generated taxes = increasing taxes on more successful MIDDLE CLASS so government can spend more.
It's not silly at all ... illegals will work for less that wage standards which
for those who made standard wages - they are now forced to work for less ...
You don't think that being forced to take lower wages doesn't hurt our economy?
Lower wages = less fluid cash flow
less fluid cash flow = less product sales
less product sales = less generated taxes
less generated taxes = increasing taxes on more successful MIDDLE CLASS so government can spend more.
Note how he blurs the lines between legal and illegal by calling them all just "immigrants"? There is a huge difference between the two groups. We allow in over 1 million legal immigrants per year and it is already based on our needs for foreign workers and far too much based on connections to relatives here.
We don't need to increase our numbers for legal immigrants especially with 23 million Americans out of work and we sure as hell don't need illegal immigrants.
Note how he blurs the lines between legal and illegal by calling them all just "immigrants"? There is a huge difference between the two groups. We allow in over 1 million legal immigrants per year and it is already based on our needs for foreign workers and far too much based on connections to relatives here.
We don't need to increase our numbers for legal immigrants especially with 23 million Americans out of work and we sure as hell don't need illegal immigrants.
The 1% may not need legal or illegal immigrants but they want them. What the 1% wants, the 1% gets. The U.S. remains on track to add 50 Million new immigrants by 2050. You have plenty of time to get used to the idea if you start picturing it now.
Why do [you] constantly spin what others have said and their reasons for saying so? IMO, legal immigration should have little bearing on what relatives they have here. It should be based more on skills that we need.
Immigration should be diversified but you spin it to mean that we don't want immigrants coming here from certain countries. That's simply not true! How is wanting equal and diversifed numbers from all sending countires equate to not wanting immigrants from certain counties? Why do you always have such a big chip on your shoulder?
Why do you constantly spin to what immigration you want, my response was to how immigration is. Even for employment-based immigration, it isn't based on a skill set we don't have in the United States, it is based on what an employer is willing to pay (or actually not pay) for that trait. You can't even decide whether you want skills or diversity as a primary criteria for immigration, maybe just whatever blocks the most legal immigrants that you don't like?
The 1% may not need legal or illegal immigrants but they want them. What the 1% wants, the 1% gets. The U.S. remains on track to add 50 Million new immigrants by 2050. You have plenty of time to get used to the idea if you start picturing it now.
H
There is no reason to "get used to the idea". Our politicians are suppose to represent us and we are the majority in this country and want controlled legal immigration that meets our needs as a country and want illegal immigrants removed from our country. You may have a defeatist attitude about the soveirgnty of our country and our power at the polls but I do not and neither do most Americans.
If you think that with unemployment numbers increasing Americans are going to sit idly by while illegal immigrants or other cheap, foreign labor floods our borders then you don't know Americans very well.
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.
