Immigrants actually help the job market, at least in California

[Pathless]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Do you seek to find a way to agree... or do you seek iniquity?

I'll answer this one, too. If we can't agree, we can't agree, and that's what happens. It doesn't make our perspectives less true or valid when we have a hard time seeing where the other is coming from. I mean, your perspective may look totally skewed from where I stand, but it makes sense to you. Yet I don't feel that either of us should have to go out of our way to agree with the other to avoid feeling like we are some type of depraved iniquitor (iniquitor? What is the noun form of iniquity?).

And maybe the more we discuss this, the more we'll get to know each other, and then we can poke fun at each other because each one of us is convinced that the other's viewpoint is just so... weird.

Peace,
Pathless

[Pathless]

duplicate message deleted.

/resume thread

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

For the people here convincing others that all immigration is good, both the legal and the illegal, that it is needed and wonderful for the economy and everyone... what is the goal exactly? Lets say that I were to believe that immigration into the USA was somehow restrictive or unfriendly, are we suggesting that immigration law has no place in America?

cyberpi, I haven't seen anyone making these points. In fact, I very clearly said just the opposite. The points I have been gleaning from people's posts, my own included, is that immigration policy in the US seems to be unfairly focused on our Mexican border, and that perhaps having as many Hispanic immigrants as we do is not such a negative thing as the government would have us believe, and that a reconsideration of official immigration policies would seem to be in order.

You do realize, don't you, that tourism falls under the auspices of the Citizenship and Immigration Services? Have you ever seen how simple tourists are treated at the gates? They only want to be here a few weeks - imagine how the people who want to come live here are treated. I think the effort and money spent in keeping them out and being rude to tourists (after all, this is their first taste of America - don't we want it to be a pleasant one?) could be better spent elsewhere - like say, dealing with illegal immigration from Mexico.

I haven't seen anyone bring up the point that immigration to the US works on a quota system, based on what part of the world the immigrant comes from and how beneficial their field of employment is seen as being. Is it possible that the amount of field workers farmers actually need doesn't gel with the amount of field workers allowed in? Could this be a cause of the high number of illegal field workers? Also, pop over to the website of the CIS and take a look at Chapter 22 of the Adjudicator's Field Manual. Given the sheer amount of paperwork involved, and the well-known speed with which government bodies get to work, I would guess that by the time a farmer got DOL approval for every single laborer on his ranch, the strawberries would have turned to mulch in the fields. I would guess the process needs to be easier.

[wil]

Originally Posted by Scarlet Pimpernel

Have you ever seen how simple tourists are treated at the gates? They only want to be here a few weeks - imagine how the people who want to come live here are treated.

Oh you learn how to act at borders...Canadian or Mexican (I've not traveled out of North America) It doesn't matter how long I'm going for...I always say the same thing...We are traveling...but just going over for the day. You tell them you are headed to Mexico City...you get the run around...or try telling Canada you are headed up the AlCan to Fairbanks...you'll get your credit card checked, your bank account, how much cash do you have on hand, what is the condition of your car, tires.... The issues at the border teach us to lie... I imagine it is no different for others..

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by Scarlet Pimpernel

The points I have been gleaning from people's posts, my own included, is that immigration policy in the US seems to be unfairly focused on our Mexican border, and that perhaps having as many Hispanic immigrants as we do is not such a negative thing as the government would have us believe, and that a reconsideration of official immigration policies would seem to be in order.

I submit that it is not the decision of the people of the USA that the Southern border is being unequally bombarded. The greatest amount of immigration, both legal and illegal is from Mexico. That is not the choice of the people of the USA. If Canada was bombarding the border, then the problem would be there. The USA does not choose the border that gets bombarded.

Originally Posted by Scarlet Pimpernel

You do realize, don't you, that tourism falls under the auspices of the Citizenship and Immigration Services? Have you ever seen how simple tourists are treated at the gates? They only want to be here a few weeks - imagine how the people who want to come live here are treated. I think the effort and money spent in keeping them out and being rude to tourists (after all, this is their first taste of America - don't we want it to be a pleasant one?) could be better spent elsewhere - like say, dealing with illegal immigration from Mexico.

You lost me here... the USA has the highest net immigration of any country, even counting Europe as one country. If you are passing on generalizations that Americans are rude to foreigners, and discouraging them, whether that is true I submit it is a weak argument for illegal immigration, or for immigration without law. As an extreme example, if the people of the USA held a vote and collectively decided that nobody is going to cross any border, then I submit they have a right to close the borders and deny ALL immigration into the USA. If the people decide that only the Southern border will be permanently sealed, then that is their decision. As the other extreme example, if the people of the USA held a vote and collectively decided that the borders should be open to everyone, then I submit they have a right to open the borders and accept all immigration into the USA.

Originally Posted by Scarlet Pimpernel

I haven't seen anyone bring up the point that immigration to the US works on a quota system, based on what part of the world the immigrant comes from and how beneficial their field of employment is seen as being. Is it possible that the amount of field workers farmers actually need doesn't gel with the amount of field workers allowed in?

That is what I like to see... I'd like to hear what people think immigration law is supposed to look like. Should there be any selectivity? Just what requirements should be met of a person seeking entry?

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

If you are passing on generalizations that Americans are rude to foreigners, and discouraging them, whether that is true I submit it is a weak argument for illegal immigration, or for immigration without law.

No, buddy, I ain't doing anything of the sort. I am saying that many of my European friends have been screamed - yes, screamed at by the passport authorities when trying to enter the US on vacation. I haven't said anything about Americans in general, I have only been speaking of the passport authorities as far as this point is concerned. And as far as your statement that people know how to get around passport authorities, it's a little difficult to claim that you're only going for a day when you have to spend weeks in advance filling out paperwork, including listing exactly how long you plan to stay and where you will be staying in order to get a visa so you can enter the US in the first place.
And I certainly have never tried to use this example to promote illegal immigration. Please go back and read what I've written and stop putting words in my mouth.

Wait - you've said you're just going to Mexico for the day when really you were planning to go to Mexico City? Um, is that legal?

[InLove]

cyberpi--

I understand the points you are making. I live in the middle of the stormy immigration issue in Texas. I can't even comment much on this thread because the issue is so very close to home for me.

But I know for sure that you are a listener.

Listen to Scarlet. She knows of what she speaks . I know what she is talking about. I have seen it.

No, I am not an illegal immigrant. But I do see both sides. And it is so close that it blurs my vision.

InPeace,
InLove

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

cyberpi - I apologize for my final comment up there. I read the thread too quickly, but on going back over it I see the comments about getting around border patrol were from wil, not you.

[InLove]

Well, then, wil--head's up!

Sorry cyberpi--maybe I am not as good at listening as you are.

Anyhoo--someone should listen to Scarlet, I'm tellin' ya!

InPeace,
InLove

[China Cat Sunflower]

Look, businesses don't want to pay what it would cost to attract citizens to their jobs. We hear all this stuff about how great the "market" is. How "market forces" will control. But big business wants an out from market forces when it comes to employee's pay. So they're trying to figure out how they can continue to pay less than a "market" wage. I'm not against immigration. Make them all citizens, that way we don't have a permanent underclass of workers undermining the wages of the working class.

Chris

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

that way we don't have a permanent underclass of workers undermining the wages of the working class.

But China Cat, according to the article I quoted in the OP, that's exactly what doesn't happen:

U.S.-born workers on average experienced a 4 percent wage boost between 1990 and 2004 from immigration.

[China Cat Sunflower]

I don't buy it Scarlet. But even if it's true you're talking about a 4% wage increase in 14 years. That doesn't come close to pacing inflation.

Chris

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by Scarlet Pimpernel

But China Cat, according to the article I quoted in the OP, that's exactly what doesn't happen:

Scarlet, what is your purpose in quoting an article that looks for a trend on a correlation in California salaries versus the census of immigrants across all salary ranges? Are you trying to convince Americans that immigration is good? I suspect that many Americans would agree... hence the very large rate of immigration. I'm not sure that salary is the only thing an American concerns himself with, but since you have quoted an article advising that LEGAL immigration is marginally good for salaries, shall I take it that you agree that ILLEGAL immigration is then a problem?

I would even agree that a similar study on ILLEGAL immigrants would report the same for some people, but as China points out... not everyone. Early Americans who traded second class citizens known as slaves, who also had NO voting power, no labor union, no health insurance, knew that there was an economic benefit for them to have second class citizens.

As an American, it seems that I am being sold and rebuked by the same argument. Many people argue, perhaps rightfully so, that a white American generically on average is taking advantage of a Mexican American on the one hand... on the other it seems that I am being sold to positively, economically take advantage of illegal immigrants. What is wrong with this picture? Then I see a Venezuelan elected president arming himself with oil revenues and Russian weapons in the same way that Saddam did, chanting "Gringo go home!" For right or wrong, I am seeing a very backwards pattern in the world.

Here is the publication referred to in that newspaper article, from the OP:
How Immigrants Affect California Employment and Wages
http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/cac...CC_207GPCC.pdf

I also considerd it a poor publication... while California is home to a growing population of immigrants, it is also home to silicone valley, Hollywood, oil drilling, and as a coastal state, military bases. Those have grown well in the last decade so to assume a correlation of salary due to the immigrants is silly! The exact same correlation could also be made between salaries and computer chip sales, internet growth, oil prices, etc.. To claim the California salary increases above the US was due to immigration is just silly. But, regardless, I am sure there is benefit and I had already considered immigration to be good.

(Here is one that actually discusses ILLEGAL immigration)
At Issue: Illegal immigration
http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/atissue/AI_406HJAI.pdf

Following are some more informative articles I found from PPIC on the assimilation of Mexican Americans, including illegal immigrants:

Holding the Line? The Effect of the Recent Border Build-up of Unauthorized Immigration
http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_702BRR.pdf

Falling Behind or Moving Up? The Intergenerational Progress of Mexican Americans
http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_502JGR.pdf

The Changing Role of Education in the California Labor Market
http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_900JBR.pdf

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by Pathless

I'll answer this one, too. If we can't agree, we can't agree, and that's what happens. It doesn't make our perspectives less true or valid when we have a hard time seeing where the other is coming from. I mean, your perspective may look totally skewed from where I stand, but it makes sense to you. Yet I don't feel that either of us should have to go out of our way to agree with the other to avoid feeling like we are some type of depraved iniquitor (iniquitor? What is the noun form of iniquity?).

And maybe the more we discuss this, the more we'll get to know each other, and then we can poke fun at each other because each one of us is convinced that the other's viewpoint is just so... weird.

Peace,
Pathless

Well, I wish you honestly tried the exercise, but you seem discouraged so I will throw you a curve. Understand this: that if the individuals in one group or country do NOT seek agreement with the individuals in another group or country, then that is INIQUITY. That is lawlessness between a people. I am not defending the government per say or man's implementation of law and reliance on it. I can see that you are also opposing an iniquity you see... and I like that aspect of this, in that this subject is challenging people to think.

With that understanding of iniquity though, groups of people can be convicted... people of a country, of a religion, of any organization,... but only as individuals. Realize that generalizations are mostly untrue for individuals, but that it is rightful for a group to enforce a standard. That is what I have been impressing upon this thread. That standard is itself seen as a generalization, because the eye is a generalizer. The strength of the standard is measured by the number of people who agree.

However, if that group of people do NOT individually seek agreement with the people outside of the group, then it will be collapsed one way or another due to iniquity. Forces will oppose it. The unnatural or natural forces seek agreement between people, or more accurately, people who seek agreement. It will strengthen them. I recognize as you do that many international agreements are made between government leaders instead of people... and between consumers and manufacturers blind to each other through a middle-man. That practice may come crashing down if the people they serve are not the ones making informed agreements.

A common perspective that I see in the world is that in nearly every religion or educating institution, that we are each individually the immigrant trying to get into some form of heaven. From what I often hear, there is a narrow door. While these eyes have not necessarily seen it, a part of me has. Maybe it is that only a few people can achieve it... I frankly don't know the statistics. But, I recognize that if individuals in heaven are not doing what they can to give an individual a leg up, then heaven will come crashing down. If an individual is not doing what he can to be included, he is thrown out. That sounds like an oppressive conformist recipe, doesn't it? It is not if you think about it further though, because anarchy is hell... look around. Yet individuals like yourself desire freedom. I do too. Also there are many, many overlapping groups to interact with.

In many ways I agree that some people who defend government or are within government don't necessarily seem to understand the underlying principles of law. It is as if a representative is only a representative until he is voted in... then he represents his own agenda and private beliefs. Dogs who defend a lifestyle translates to defending that government's version of heaven. It is as if the government becomes a private little heaven for a select few, with at least 1/3 of every citizen a servant to it. But at least in a democracy like in the USA, they realize that they can be thrown out. My point is though, please don't confuse my words for law with what you see in government. I am simply for finding a way to take a step forward instead of a step back.

In summary Pathless, I have been exploring things beyond the issue of law and immigration. I came across recently an exercise of the 'burning man' and for some reason I am drawn to share it here. I've never done it, but I see that it has been growing exponentially faster than any immigration. I understand there is some who see it as an opportunity for expression or nudity, but I like some of the other premises. It is a public experiment or challenge in social aspects. While it could be just a large overgrown organized campground in the middle of nowhere, it removes cash exchanges and forces people together to cooperate and exchange in a different way. I think I might try. I guess the practice though is to burn everything afterwards, and that leaves a rather prophetic, self-fulfilling statement for global warming... but I do see value in it.

[Pathless]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Then I see a Venezuelan elected president arming himself with oil revenues and Russian weapons in the same way that Saddam did, chanting "Gringo go home!" For right or wrong, I am seeing a very backwards pattern in the world.

Awwww, hell. Now you're going to bring Hugo Chavez into this? Oh, okay, if that's what you want, take some time to read this article. I know it's hard to stomach and is different than the drivel you've been feeding on directly from the dripping tube of the mainstrream corporate media fascism factory. That's why it's important to see.

And why shouldn't every citizen of Venezuela very loudly proclaim "Gringo go home!" even pumping their fists in the air, if they are so inclined?? It is their country, after all.

Now I've taken the bait, though, and settled myself into a double-standard of thinking that it is okay for the Venezuelans to chat "Gringo go home," even while opposing those in the States who would like the south-of-the-border immigrants to go home.

I'm a very, very, very complex person.

I support Venezuela's right to the profits from their oil resources. I support their right to self-determination. In fact, I'll support the right to self-determination of anyone anywhere on the planet, as long as it doesn't deprive other people (and animals and trees and shrubs, flowers, and weeds) from their rights of self-determination.

The problem for my bleeding heart liberal punk ass--and I recognize that your critiques are not directed at me at the moment, but hell, I always get an adrenalin rush when Chavez is portrayed as a potential "terrorist" or some such tripe--is that the economic and military hegemony of powerful, narrow-visioned capitalist countries is sacrificing the lives of people, animals, and vegetables living on this planet right now and is every day perpetuating horribly damaging conditions that will continue to poison us all for years and years to come.

It's time for us to start being accountable, responsible human beings and to clean up our room. To clean up our planet, and allow people, animals, and evrything else alive everywhere to live with dignity.

Alright, I relinquish the soapbox for now. Who's next? I believe the topic was immigration. Pardon my tangent.