Immigrants actually help the job market, at least in California

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

 

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

 

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/cacounts/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

 

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.

 

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.

 

cp, I'm having a hard time following you. I'm not even sure where I'm having difficulties, so I am going to break out some of your statements and respond to them in classic forum debate fashion. Please bear with me while I try to straighten out my thoughts.

Here you are defining iniquity as a conflict between two nations. You say: "if the individuals in one group or country do NOT seek agreement with the individuals in another group or country, then that is INIQUITY." This puzzles me because I wonder, since it takes two groups of people (in this case, or perhaps two individuals in another) to disagree, which is the one in iniquity? Or is it both? It seems to me only to be fair that in this case the state of iniquity would be a phenomenon that both sides of the disagreement would find themselves in. If not, then somewhere we have made the assumption that one group is right and the other wrong. Instead of looking for a solution, instead of looking for a win-win situation, the situation is more likely to degenerate into the poisonous "us against them" attitude and then even further into a "might makes right" solution.

And then there is this statement:

I completely disagree. It is rightful for a group to enforce a standard? Who says? And enforce upon whom? I could possibly acknowledge that a social group has the right/responsibility to enforce standards of goodness and morality within the group, yet I am a hippy dippy shiny happy person who likes to believe that even this kind of enforcement is unnecessary when people are free to make their own decisions, express themselves fully, and fulfill their potential.

I imagine though that you refer to enforcing standards in the context of immigration, although that's not quite clear. I'm really not sure what you mean... perhaps you would elaborate?

This next part delves into an elitist concept of heaven which is very, very, very, very, very, very far from my heart:

It not only sounds oppressive, it sounds entirely dysfunctional. Here your description of heaven sounds like a very exclusive, uppity, militaristic, condescending society that I want no part of. If that's heaven, point me to the highway to hell, please.

The implication here is that all is well because there are provisions for impeachment and redress of grievances in US government. These provisions are hardly ever used, though. And when impeachment is discussed, it's because a president got his rocks off inside of an intern's mouth and all over her dress (what? it's true isn't it?), not because oh, say, a couple of elections were rigged, some "intelligence" was ignored while other "intelligence" was cooked up, and the president is sitting in his war room like a spolied child, playing an illegal game of Risk that has devastating and very real repercussions throughout the entire world.

And why should politicians take seriously this possibility of being kicked out of office when the system has been very thoroughly rigged in such a way to distract the masses from the truth at all turns? Many Americans I'm sure could not tell you what country the city of Quito is in, but they sure as hell could tell you where Anna Nicole Smith is going to be buried, and who all the men are who are claiming to be the father of her child.

Sick. Ness.

Now, in the last paragraph that you offered, we are getting somewhere.

Burning Man? I've never been either, but have heard of it, and this aspect of real trade for real goods, rather than just cash exchange, is really exciting to me and, unlike an apatheid, Berlin-Wall brandishing version of heaven, is very close to my heart. I was just talking to my very bestest friend yesterday morning about this idea. Barter, local economies. Getting hooked up with a boxful of ginger and horseradish in exchange for a hand-knit cap. Someone who makes scented soaps in her garage exchanging six or twelve of those those for a massage. A local Catholic mechanic changing your oil, and in return you carve a beautiful icon of the Virgin Mary for him. That's what I'm talking about. Let's not just do it at Burning Man. Let's build it into our lives, yo.

I like an idea of Burning Man, Burning Woman. My imagination of this concept has nothing to do with burning a straw effigy at a counter-culture festival, although I am down with that. But wouldn't it be just the coolest if we all could be "Burning" in the sense that we ignite the compassion, love, passion, integrity, and imagination within ourselves, getting together day after day to throw one continuous and beautiful party celebrating the very blessing of being alive in human bodies? I mean, damn, if we could do that, we wouldn't have to think up borders that keep some special people in heaven, looking down at the other poor slobs, very dramatically weighing the options of letting them in vs. keeping them out.

Pray to burn.


Peace,
Pathless


PS A thread on economies of barter and local trade goods would be most welcome by me, if anyone would like to start it up.

 

That is actually a very good point. Once I've read the actual publication (I'm seriously pressed for free time these days), which cyberpi was kind enough to link to, hopefully I'll have some sort of response for you.

 

cyberpi, I want to do you the courtesy of reading the articles you've linked before responding to your post, and as I mentioned, I am seriously pressed for free time these days, so it may take a bit. (I hope this thread hasn't died before I get there.)

But until then....

My purpose, since you ask, was to raise discussion (in that respect, I guess I've succeeded admirably) and to present a different point of view than the one I usually hear - i.e., that Mexican immigration is bad bad bad, period, end of discussion, and when is that fence gonna be finished?

I would never try to convince "Americans" of anything - I don't have enough hubris to believe that either I, or this site, have the kind of influence that can stretch across the whole country and reach every single citizen. But you are right at least in that salary is not the only thing this American concerns herself with. Yes, I'm an American too, born and raised. Tut tut, shouldn't make assumptions.

And how many times do I have to ask you to go back and read what I've actually written? In this case, to my first post on page two:

So to answer your question, YES, you can take it that I agree that ILLEGAL immigration is a problem. Can we please move on now? Or shall I say it again?

 

Scarlet,
My purpose, since you ask, was to raise discussion (in that respect, I guess I've succeeded admirably) and to present a different point of view than the one I usually hear - i.e., that Mexican immigration is bad bad bad, period, end of discussion, and when is that fence gonna be finished?
Thank you for raising it.

I would never try to convince "Americans" of anything - I don't have enough hubris to believe that either I, or this site, have the kind of influence that can stretch across the whole country and reach every single citizen.
I submit that it is important to struggle with others for what you think is right. Maybe it is your parents, spouse, children, neighbor, friends, fellow citizen, or fellow Earthian... but it is definitely American to vote, lobby, campaign, and otherwise struggle with fellow Americans.

Tut tut, shouldn't make assumptions.
I don't think I made one. Your location says otherwise but I suspected you were American.

So to answer your question, YES, you can take it that I agree that ILLEGAL immigration is a problem. Can we please move on now? Or shall I say it again
Ah, sorry for not seeing it. I believe China Cat was referring to an effect of illegal immigration. I am uncertain though what your recommendation is for illegal immigration.

In skimming through some PPIC data, I see that one issue is those having children born in America which are then considered American. If the law is publicly strengthened against the business or farmer who hires illegals, as I recommend, the doors will have to be open wide for the already established to become legal... should they choose.

 

Here you are defining iniquity as a conflict between two nations.
No, I said individuals. You are repeatedly generalizing conflicts by race, nations, and ethnicities... not me.

This puzzles me because I wonder, since it takes two groups of people (in this case, or perhaps two individuals in another) to disagree, which is the one in iniquity? Or is it both? It seems to me only to be fair that in this case the state of iniquity would be a phenomenon that both sides of the disagreement would find themselves in.
Yes, the worker for iniquity opposes the joint agreement or law between individuals.

Instead of looking for a solution, instead of looking for a win-win situation, the situation is more likely to degenerate into the poisonous "us against them" attitude and then even further into a "might makes right" solution.
I wish you well in your struggle with anyone inflicted by the "US vs THEM" attitude and the related "WE" attitude, but it seems like a number of your arguments are based on generalizations too. I am an individual, but an individual submitting to relationships and law with others.

I completely disagree. It is rightful for a group to enforce a standard? Who says? And enforce upon whom? I could possibly acknowledge that a social group has the right/responsibility to enforce standards of goodness and morality within the group, yet I am a hippy dippy shiny happy person who likes to believe that even this kind of enforcement is unnecessary when people are free to make their own decisions, express themselves fully, and fulfill their potential.
I was born into a family that had its own standards. The school, classroom, and teacher had standards. The neighborhood, city, state, and country I live in have standards. Each business, store, organization, university, church, institution all have standards. Friends, individuals, employer, employee, and groups of friends, unions, all have their own standards. This website has some standards. Religious groups have a standard. But more importantly, God presents standards. I am using a word similar to an agreement or law because they require communication. The standard is the communication, like a sign posted on a road for people to see. A person can disagree with a standard and not conform or obey it, but I submit that the group of individuals that does agree to a standard has a right to defend it.

I imagine though that you refer to enforcing standards in the context of immigration, although that's not quite clear. I'm really not sure what you mean... perhaps you would elaborate?
It is a standard in my neighborhood that even visitors can only drive their cars less than 30mph. If a person comes through at 60 mph I am going to help apprehend the person, arrest him, testify against him, and help to get his license revoked until he learns to obey the law. The sign that says "speed limit 25 mph" is the standard, which people in my neighborhood agree to. If an outsider does not agree to the standard it is not a right to willingly disobey it. I care that the outsider learns the value of laws and I care that children are safe from accidents. For immigration, maybe the standard is a background check internationally on whether the person is a wanted criminal, or maybe a blood test and fingerprints in place of a missing birth certificate, or maybe it is an oath to obey the constitution or laws.

This next part delves into an elitist concept of heaven which is very, very, very, very, very, very far from my heart:
Maybe you are very far from heaven.

It not only sounds oppressive, it sounds entirely dysfunctional. Here your description of heaven sounds like a very exclusive, uppity, militaristic, condescending society that I want no part of. If that's heaven, point me to the highway to hell, please.
To learn what is known about heaven I would recommend studying one of the Abrahamic religions, probably starting with the words from Jesus in gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John... but if you insist on hell then here is a path: Anarchy Cookbook Free Download

The implication here is that all is well because there are provisions for impeachment and redress of grievances in US government.
That is your implication... mine is that at least every 2 or 4 years someone can get thrown out by the VOTE of the people.

I've never been either, but have heard of it, and this aspect of real trade for real goods, rather than just cash exchange, is really exciting to me and, unlike an apatheid, Berlin-Wall brandishing version of heaven, is very close to my heart.
Despite your ability to exagerate a group's right to enforce their agreed upon standards, the "burning man" has some standards of its own that you will have to follow.

But wouldn't it be just the coolest if we all could be "Burning" in the sense that we ignite the compassion, love, passion, integrity, and imagination within ourselves, getting together day after day to throw one continuous and beautiful party celebrating the very blessing of being alive in human bodies? I mean, damn, if we could do that, we wouldn't have to think up borders that keep some special people in heaven, looking down at the other poor slobs, very dramatically weighing the options of letting them in vs. keeping them out.
Your argument is between you and God then... take it up with him.

 

Folks - cool it. Please review the code of conduct - discuss & dispute ideas, sure, but this is really edging over into personal attacks - which is not acceptable. Tone it down, please.

 

Namaste wil,

thank you for the post.

if they are illegally in the country they are not registered with the federal government to pay their fair share of the taxes. there is no possible method that they could pay their share unless they are participants in the system, let alone paying "more than their share".

who is "they"? this is a federal crime, you know.

so.. is it your view that there is no issue with illegal immigration provided that the consumer is satisfied? you are not concerned with the rights violations, the crimes and other injustices which are visted upon people outside the protection of the law?

metta,

~v

 

An employer is obligated to have employees fill out the appropriate required government forms and send them on, they verify info by SS# and Drivers Licenses...once doing that they've completed the process as required. If the information is falsified the documents are forged, one cannot determine this.

If the IRS determines that the SS# and name don't match they instruct the employer to modify the withholding until such a time as the employee corrects the error

My statements are in regard to reality as I have witnessed them. And were in regard to statements that indicated that the illegals present an overall burden on the taxpayer. If I had not observed what I have observed I would agree, but since I know there are a percentage of illegals that provide services to employers that would not be accomplished without them and a percentage that pay higher taxes than the average citizen and support our tax base .

More importantly since I am aware our Government the IRS and INS tend to look the other way at some instances yet take a stand in others..it seems clear to me there is more here than meets the eye.

So while I don't have the answer, I don't believe they are the burden on our society that is claimed...I don't know if the scales are evenly balanced or even what the overall actual net is...but they do provide to both our tax system and our economy at some level...and if they were gone they would be missed by both...

 

Namaste Wil,

thank you for the post.

if this is so, then it can never reasonably be determined if any particular illegal alien has contributed their share.

did you know that there are many, many construction contractors that use "day labor" and do *not* check any documentation nor withold the appropriate taxes? are they the minority in this or the majority? there really isn't any way to tell, is there?

i would tend to agree that the first place of change in the immigration system should be in how the employers are able to hire and the documentation required, if that is the point you are alluding to.

how does one correct the fact that one is using an illegal social security ID?

i am unaware of a single job that would not be fulfilled by an American employee were the pay sufficient. that others would take less pay for the same work is a friction that has existed throughout human history and i doubt that we'll solve it any time soon.

i would be curious to review your source for the information that some illegal aliens have a higher tax bracket than any legal citizen.

that seems like a spurious argument. slaves provided something to the tax system and the economy yet we all agree, i hope, that slavery is an abomination and should never be condoned.

of course, slavery still exists today in many parts of the world.. but, in another sense, it still exists in the industrialized world as well. the new slaves are the illegal immigrants who have no rights, no protections and no assurance of fair treatment under the law whom are exploited to keep the price of blueberries at $1 per pound since the consumer doesn't want to pay more.

the discussion is, of course, quite broad, complex and varied and there are many aspects and points to take into consideration. it seems to me, in my simplistic worldview, that if a being likes a country or way of life in said country, that said being would attempt to adhere to the laws which have created the country or way of life which they appreciate.. to disregard those laws seems to betray the oft expressed notion that illegal immigrants like the culture into which they are immigrating.

a few tangents, if i may.

have ever seen Mexico's immigration policy?

Article 43 of the Mexican General Law of Population states that

“The admission to the country of a foreigner obliges him to strictly comply with the conditions established for him in the entrance permit and the dispositions established by the respective laws.”​

FrontPage magazine.com :: Immigration Policy in Mexico and the U.S. by Allan Wall


as for Burningman..let me say this about that...

i've attended the event since 1998 and have volunteered in the infrastructure staff... there are, definite, standards of conduct which the group requires and failure to adhere to them results in a revocation of the ticket and explusion from the event. whilst it is true that money is not permitted to be exchanged, there are, in fact, several exceptions to this rule, namely.. coffee and ice. for the ice, at least, the money is donated to the local school disctrict at the conclusion of the event. the coffee proceeds are for the Burningman, LLC. which have offices and a full time, year round staff.

yes, most of the art is burned during the event.. there are a group of volunteers that continue to visit the site for 6 months after the event to clean it up and repair it.. the main ethic at Burningman is "Leave No Trace". this has been somewhat problematic as burning that much wood tends to leave carbon scoring on the alkali salt... and, of course, there are historic wagon train trails that run through the northen part of the Black Rock Desert where Burningman is held.

the interested reader is directed here for more information:
The Burning Man Project :: Welcome Home

metta,

~v

 

you are exactly right...there is also no way to determine how many legals and how many citizens are also in the day labor lines or how many citizens live and work under the radar.... I can't speak to now, but I can to in the early 80's when I was a piece work carpenter, I used to pick up day labor to assist me...and they were mostly citizens at that time...

one never does...and since one never does they continue to pay taxes at the higher rate until they quit, are fired, or depported (in my observation that is the likelihood of the potential order of events)

since the percentage of illegals in this country exceeds the percentage of unemployed and since the papers are still full of job ads and since the day labor lines are still used....I'd say there are millions of jobs that American employees wouldn't do. In addition to this many unions which have benefits and decent wages are looking for people to fill positions on a regular basis...finding skilled workers is not easy

math...any american gets deductions for their children, themselves and the 'married rate' and illegal (one whose SS doesn't match the name) has witholdings at zero dependents and the higher single rate and doesn't file for a refund!! I'm assuming that would change most of our tax structure...and cost us significantly more than we pay now.

Agreed, and it is currently a form of voluntary slavery....but so is giving your entire first 5 months wages to the government....we are all volunteer slaves, paying th piper for our right to be here...and so are they

again, absolutely agree

again, absolutely agree, we simply run our ship differently over here....we establish laws and regulations and then choose to enforce and follow as we see fit...hmmm maybe not so differently

 

Pathless: I mean, damn, if we could do that, we wouldn't have to think up borders that keep some special people in heaven, looking down at the other poor slobs, very dramatically weighing the options of letting them in vs. keeping them out.

Cyberpi: Your argument is between you and God then... take it up with him.

Brucegdc: Folks - cool it. Please review the code of conduct - discuss & dispute ideas, sure, but this is really edging over into personal attacks - which is not acceptable. Tone it down, please.

The argument is between every person and someone else's code of conduct... take it up with whoever defends it.

 

There is no malice behind any of my statements... only food for thought if a person dares to try it. Pathless I appreciated your interest and arguments relative to iniquity beyond anyone I have seen dare to approach it. Perhaps you might agree with me that is better to not personally accept a standard without a reason than to accept one without one.

I thought finding skilled workers was as easy as paying more for their service. Is that not the justification for every sport player's salary, the Hollywood star's salary, and most every CEO's salary and benefits? Or are those propped up for other reasons?

There is a fair bit of business dependent on illegal immigrants now that stands to suffer by a correction. The US trade barriers and subsidized farming is another unseen wall that has also helped elevate farming and other industries, which helps cause pressure on the border. If those were dropped then most of the disparity for farm workers across the border would disappear, albeit to the dismay of American farmers and agriculture.

In defense of Pathless' points... I submit that a way to dissolve a border is to eliminate the fictitious 'we' and look for ways to elevate agreement between individuals in populations, especially across the border. That is not to degrade 'We a people', or circumvent one for the other, but to rally for greater public power in trade and political agreements between individuals of independent countries. For example, I oppose this trade barrier on Brazillian ethanol... but what influence do I have over the government on it, or motivation to concern myself with farmers who are all for it? In some ways anyone who has multiple languages, such as many immigrants, accomplishes communication across a language barrier that out-strips government and facilitates cultural transfer. However, I have personally witnessed in LA some hidden race discriminated events with individuals demanding 'respect' for themselves based on race or ethnicity, that led me to realize tensions underneath the surface that are not disclosed... within the alleged 'WE'. Like an earthquake, those tension are subject to erupt. So the 'WE' is shaky too, and illegal immigration causes another divide. If the divides were less hidden to any party, then more action to lessen the internal divides could be made. I submit that if individuals were somehow with greater responsibility over any issue in law, perhaps with more ratifying voting power within a city, a state, or a country, then an individual would be more interested in shining a spotlight on the tensions. The thing is, most people across a border feel as if they are legitimately on different ships. It is not their individual concern. That notion is being challenged in many ways around the world.

Sorry wil... I do have neurons that go off when I see 'we'. I see 'we' being challenged within California in many fashions. I am a proponent of what makes the 'we'... not the hidden one born out of propaganda and a flag, but the one born out of individual power over the law that serves them. It is easy for two cells to divide... what brings two cells together?

 

Namaste wil,

thank you for the post.

wil, our discussion is not about legal citizens it is about illegal non-citizens and i would prefer if we could avoid addition of external elements to facilitate our conversation.

these illegal non-citizens are not contributing to the system and their employers are not doing so for them either.

yet, you haven't explained how a being can contribute to a system of taxation without being part of the system of taxation. do you believe that the theft of ones Social Security number is a victimless crime? it seems that, in your argument, the possession of an invalid SSN is something of a justification for continued criminal activity.

i would be pleased to see a source for this statistic.

the operative term is missed in your argument.. "for the same wage." the illegal non-citizens will perform work for less money than legal citizens because they have no other option, they cannot gain legal employment. this is a disaster for the working class person and i'm rather surprised that you would be in support of such.

it seems that if one offers the appropriate pay scale then gaining skilled workers is not much of an issue. if, however, you are making an argument that there are not enough skilled workers on the planet, then i would tend to agree with you.. though, we must be clear, we are speaking of skilled in a very narrow sense.

so you have no source for this information?

you see... you cannot have a "tax bracket" if you are not part of the taxation system.. and without a valid Social Security Number and/or legal citizenship, one is not part of the system and ipso facto is not in any tax bracket.

it seems, and correct me if i am wrong here, that you are focusing on the national income tax and forgetting about the local community and state taxes which pay for all of our services and without equal contribution from all members that use the services, the services are degraded for us all.

i would encourage you to reconsider this view as that is nothing close to slavery nor to the extra legal situation that illegal non-citizens find themselves in. it is, it seems, a bit of red herring.

metta,

~v

 

all tip of the iceberg...the amero

it is quite simple...you find your numbes for the number of unemployed in America...and find your numbers for the estimated number of illegals... which is larger? The number of unemployed in America rarely drops below 5%, not because we can't employ them, but because of laws of economy and numbers of unemployables...My father worked for Dept of Labor as a stastistician...I was raised around the dinner table with economics of labor...

as for the illegals paying taxes...I've seen it, I've described it, it is all quite simple and our gov't condones it...sorry I can't describe it clearer...without simply yelling louder...look at your deductions, ask your employer what it would look like if you were single and zero...and then imagine getting no refund...that is what they pay.

movie stars and sports figures are not paid on their abilities but the gullibility of the american public, buying tshirts, hats, tickets, supporting commercials at the rate of 2.5 million dollars for 30 seconds!... As long as we go to the marketing trough and buy what Ed McMahon feeds us...they will continue to do so and collect millions for their efforts. Are they worth it, yes because they make their owners money.

raise the wages to living wages so people will want the jobs...

are you ready to pay one dollar per radish? ten dollars a tomato? twenty dollars for an artichoke? Where will you earn the money to pay that?

oops you need a raise?? ok well we'll have to raise the cost of housing and insurance and trucking, and cars, so we can cover your raise....ooops we need to raise the price for migrant workers again...

I don't say I have a solution...But Bush has been meeting with Canada and Mexico to eliminate the borders and setup the North American Union...problem solved....the highway from Mexico to Canada is being funded right now...I know some folks in Indiana who lobbied their congressman to get it to go through their farm..and an exit right on their property...it'll save them from hiring illegals..the millions they'll make on selling the land to the feds...and then the tax breaks....and then when the lease the intersection to the oil companies and hoteliers....happy days are here again..

Complain enough about it...the gov't will solve it...how many Amero's will it cost for a litre of biodesiel...I don't know...but the guy harvesting the corn to make it will have a work permit!

 

The last figures I saw, and this was right after Katrina, showed that the effect of illegal immigrant labor, overall, was an 8% decrease in the wage earning potential of working class citizens. They don't just pick lettuce and clean toilets. They also take skilled, and semi-skilled construction work, and since they'll work for less, and there's plenty of them, they depress wages in the trades. This is not work that Americans won't do, but employers like the cheaper workers, and they know they'll never organize or file a workman's comp. claim or file for unemployment.

I don't blame anyone for wanting a better life. But if we need lower wage workers so badly let's make citizens out of them so they don't become a permanent underclass of marginalized peons for big corp. to take advantage of and then discard.

Chris