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.
There are people in plants all across America and doing plenty of lesser glamourous jobs, I disagree with me being "rare"... I think i'm just not willing to take a handout. You learn nothing doing that and my experience in this area taught me that an education was the only way forward. Thankfully I wasn't content as many others are in this particular lifestyle/career. The history of America can be summed up in one expression: problem ===> solution(s). After everything America/American's have invented or perfected... I don't think a solution to the problem of harvesting onions would be that hard to solve. But there hasn't been the need to tackle this yet as there is still an inexpensive alternative. Food prices are high? It would help if we didn't use over 40% of our corn for ethanol while using less than 10% for food... that's what oil is for... you know, gas. I'm not a republican, it's just common sense.
Thanks for representing your side with some honest opinions.
Honestly, I think the mechanization of agriculture has already reached such insane levels that I wonder how much further it can practically go in the short term. I don't think it's likely that something will come along and increase yields further in short order. But that's okay; it's a debatable issue.
Really the issue in agriculture is that the demand for labor varies tremendously throughout the year. During harvest time, the demand for farm labor swells, and during non-harvest time, it collapses. Farm workers have learned to cope with this pretty well, for what it's worth.
That's where the real damage of E-Verify comes into play. E-Verify makes you verify an employee's status AFTER you hire them, not before.
So say you're a farmer trying to hire workers for your annual onion harvest. You need workers right now, and big picture efficiency gains don't mean anything to you at the moment: you've got onions to harvest. Two guys come up to you one day, and you have one last position to fill. One of them appears to be Latino, while the other seems to be a native-born American. Both seem similar in terms of work ethic and wage expectations.
Which one do you extend an employment offer to? The native-born American, who will definitely not have a problem with E-Verify, or the Latino guy, who may or may not be an illegal immigrant?
You're going to hire the native-born American. Every time. You'd be taking a foolish risk by putting someone who has a decent chance of not being eligible on your payroll.
People who are American citizens or valid visa-holders who have immigrated here from Latin America are going to be discriminated against by this rule. And that's only one of several ways the flawed E-Verify system negatively impacts minorities of legal status. And the government is aware of this. You can read a big report about it here:
So you think that exactly none of the support that this law gets is motivated by xenophobia? That would be a pretty odd conclusion to draw from all of this.
Did I ever indicate that I thought "none" of the opposition at all was caused by xenophobia? Of course not. You just want to put hyperbolic words in my mouth. I think it's a very, very small percentage are probably xenophobes, but this is a convenient excuse for the people who are apologists for breaking the law.
It seems that whenever you have a situation like this one, and the people doing the wrongdoing are a minority or from another country, then the people pointing out and opposing the wrongdoing are labeled as racists and xenophobes. How very convenient. Then the people who are actually wrong...the ILLEGAL aliens....get a pass....right?
Did I ever indicate that I thought "none" of the opposition at all was caused by xenophobia? Of course not. You just want to put hyperbolic words in my mouth. I think it's a very, very small percentage are probably xenophobes, but this is a convenient excuse for the people who are apologists for breaking the law.
It seems that whenever you have a situation like this one, and the people doing the wrongdoing are a minority or from another country, then the people pointing out and opposing the wrongdoing are labeled as racists and xenophobes. How very convenient. Then the people who are actually wrong...the ILLEGAL aliens....get a pass....right?
So you think a "very, very small" amount of the support comes from xenophobia, while I think most of it does. What's the cause for being "offended" here?
Moreover, I didn't give that as a reason not to support the law--I explicitly said that there are non-xenophobic reasons to support the law, in fact. YOU asked why I think this is a sad day for Georgia, and I simply answered you. Am I not allowed to believe that most of the support the law gets is xenophobic? Or am I just not allowed to say it? What's if it's true!?
Once again, we've gone over this. Equating "wrong" and "illegal"--morality with legality--has such absurd moral outcomes if you try to be remotely logically consistent that I really have no idea why you would continue the line of argument. MLK, Rosa Parks, Harriet Tubman, Ben Franklin...all were WRONG according to your apparent and bizarre moral code.
Testa - I have some nice beachfront property in Kansas i'd like to sell you, if you think that all illegal immigrants are perfect little angels. How many of them are sex offenders? Or rapists? Or murderers? Or drug dealers? No one knows... (Not denying some are here to improve their own lives as stand-up people, but they're still illegally going about it and the ones who have gone about it legally should be pissed.) Borders are there for a reason, you can't just pretend like all the borders in the new world have been erased with a number 2 pencil and call it Nouth America. My patriotism is great. I'm just tired of people complaining about the best country in the world and dragging its name through the mud for what amounts to the most part as politics instead of common sense.
So you think a "very, very small" amount of the support comes from xenophobia, while I think most of it does. What's the cause for being "offended" here?
Moreover, I didn't give that as a reason not to support the law--I explicitly said that there are non-xenophobic reasons to support the law, in fact. YOU asked why I think this is a sad day for Georgia, and I simply answered you. Am I not allowed to believe that most of the support the law gets is xenophobic? Or am I just not allowed to say it? What's if it's true!?
Once again, we've gone over this. Equating "wrong" and "illegal"--morality with legality--has such absurd moral outcomes if you try to be remotely logically consistent that I really have no idea why you would continue the line of argument. MLK, Rosa Parks, Harriet Tubman, Ben Franklin...all were WRONG according to your apparent and bizarre moral code.
My "bizarre moral code" .... Huh? You have some freaking nerve.
When did it become "bizarre" to advocate enforcing laws and punishing criminals? The other thing that is ridiculous and insulting is the comparison to civil rights. Comparing the treatment of Americans born here with a group of people who feel entitled to come to the US illegally is what's bizarre in this discussion.
My mother is an immigrant who came here legally, and the latest crop of foreigners who feel entitled to come here makes a mockery of the process and my mother.
Testa - I have some nice beachfront property in Kansas i'd like to sell you, if you think that all illegal immigrants are perfect little angels. How many of them are sex offenders? Or rapists? Or murderers? Or drug dealers? No one knows...
Strawman alert!
Question:
Would you be more likely or less likely to engage in illegal means of making money (stealing, drug dealing) to support yourself if you were not legally allowed to seek employment? If your goal is to curtail crime from illegal immigrants (actual crime; you know, where there are actual victims involved), then the first thing you'd do would be allow them to work.
Quote:
(Not denying some are here to improve their own lives as stand-up people, but they're still illegally going about it and the ones who have gone about it legally should be pissed.)
I've already stated many, many times why I don't care one bit about this. Would you care about breaking one of Mexico's laws if it finally allow you to buy shoes for your daughter and medicine for your sick father?
Also, keep in mind that hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants were taken here by there parents, often at a very young age. Some have no memories of any place besides the US. What about these folks? Are they, too, brazen lawbreakers who should be rounded up and sent back to whatever poor, miserable country they were born in?
Quote:
Borders are there for a reason, you can't just pretend like all the borders in the new world have been erased with a number 2 pencil and call it Nouth America. My patriotism is great. I'm just tired of people complaining about the best country in the world and dragging its name through the mud for what amounts to the most part as politics instead of common sense.
I really hope I'm reading this paragraph incorrectly.
My allegiance to the United States isn't like my allegiance to Georgia football. The ideal of freedom and equality for all, a sanctuary from tyranny and oppression--that means something to me. It's not just a bunch of hollow historical background. Your mileage may vary, of course, but this is what America means to me.
The notion that people are "dragging America's name through the mud" when they protest loudly in favor of freedom and against government power is ironic and disappointing indeed.
My "bizarre moral code" .... Huh? You have some freaking nerve.
You're the one who apparently believes laws are just simply because they are laws. I just call them like I see them.
Quote:
When did it become "bizarre" to advocate enforcing laws and punishing criminals?
Once again, following the logic that all laws are just and should be enforced leads to perverse conclusions. We can discuss this in detail if you'd like--I have several questions I'd definitely like answered about this interesting viewpoint.
Quote:
The other thing that is ridiculous and insulting is the comparison to civil rights. Comparing the treatment of Americans born here with a group of people who feel entitled to come to the US illegally is what's bizarre in this discussion.
Why? They're all human. I don't really give a damn whether someone was born on one side of a line in the sand or another.
Quote:
My mother is an immigrant who came here legally, and the latest crop of foreigners who feel entitled to come here makes a mockery of the process and my mother.
I'm glad your mother had a visa available for her. Most people who want to come to this country aren't in that position; that's what I think should change.
Keep in mind, I don't like illegal immigration. I think anyone should be able to come here legally, provided they don't have criminal record in their home country and are not associated with terrorism in some way. This would actually allow us to manage the process and keep bad apples out of the mix.
Like I've said, if your interest is in law and order, you should advocate forgiving people of the victimless crime they committed by coming here, and introduce them into the legitimate economy and legal system. That's the only way to accomplish everything you say you want--for illegals to pay taxes, preventing them from consuming welfare, having recourse for creditors, and the ability to police them effectively.
First, I'm not sure when criminal became a race, but you know what, since logic, truth, law, and common sense mean nothing, and your whole argument is that people from foreign countries should be able to come here as they please, and the people of the US and our govt have no say, then I'm done here.
Your response is empty rhetoric and calling people racists and xenophobes. I have no respect for that attitude or opinion, since it presumes motives and other facts not in evidence, and frankly is contemptuous on its face.
"Because you say so" is not a sufficient reason to just open up the border. Neither is "because my own country sucks, I deserve to come to yours."
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.
