Posted on 11/25/2007 7:48:35 PM PST by BGHater
“We are as dependent on illegal immigrants in our economy as we are on oil.”
Yea, that “Day without hispanics” sure ground our economy to a halt.
not.
Go back to post 155.
Go back to post 35....
It's not like the illegals stopped working, just a few mostly legal socialists in LA.
Hmmmm, those National Gas-outs don't seem to work either, but we are nonetheless dependent on oil....
I presume you meant "lettuce under $5 a head", since it's generally sold by the head.
As the current cost runs around a dollar a head, you're suggesting a competitive wage for legal lettuce-pickers would add $4 to a head of lettuce.
This means someone picking one head of lettuce per minute would be making $240 per hour; a more likely pace of one head every 15 seconds would work out to nearly $1000 per hour.
I would bet you many, many beers that long before the price got to that point that you'd have a line of Americans, wanting to pick lettuce, stretching over the horizon.
In actuality, you could probably increase the wage of lettuce pickers by a factor of ten and only add a quarter to the price of a head.
Funny thing about that claim is that it's the criminal alien advocates who usually end up hanging their hats on "more money in the treasury" at the end of the debate.
There are a few different ways to show this. The quickest way is by getting the criminal alien advocate to agree to the fallacy that "since businesses and jobs are good things, the more businesses and jobs in the US, the better". They will then make an exception by opposing more illegal brothels and drug cartels in the US on the basis that the treasury isn't benefiting from those illegal activities.
If you and I were to honestly debate this issue to it's conclusion, I believe it would proceed something like this:
OBL: We need the illegals or the price of an orange will skyrocket.
USA: Why don't they skyrocket the price of an orange while employing their illegals?
note: At this point you'll see the crimigrant advocate, who heretofore represented himself as a Laissez-faire type, start talking about "needs", as if producers base the price they charge for their products on anything other than supply and demand.
OBL: They will have to charge more because their labor costs will increase.
USA: But if they charge more, who will buy it? They don't grow bananas in the US and it's the most reasonably priced fruit at the grocery store. If they begin to grow bananas in the US and use citizen labor at the banana plantations, how could they skyrocket the price of bananas?
OBL: Banana plantations wouldn't be a feasible business venture in the US if they must use citizen labor
USA: How would it benefit US citizens if I started a domestic banana plantation ( genetically engineered to grow in US climate, if need be ) and hired illegal aliens to work at the plantation?
OBL: You'd be taxed and more money would go to the government.
The feasibility question is applicable to all plantations regardless of what is being grown there, be it a start up venture or a plantation that has been producing for 200 years. If you found any flaws in any of the reasoning in this debate, do tell.
Uh, they snuck in, we didn’t kidnap them. We can’t even keep them from sneaking in....
***********************
Guess it doesn’t bother you that the free-trader/open-border crowd makes the exact same arguement the pro-slavery guys made 150 years ago.
Good point, many have mainstreamed and are contributing to the economy, whether directly via the IRS or not. Should also note that those working in the fields and making beds are probably making so little that their IRS contribution would be negligible. Workplace enforcement in production environments where somebody else is getting fat off the displacement of domestic labor is what’s needed. Small farmers with a dozen illegals picking grapes aren’t the problem. Factories with 500 plucking chickens are.
Um, why are you fictitiously arguing about banana plantations with Osama Bin Laden? I'm not sure that is his area of expertise....
I somehow overlooked that post. And for that piece of sloppiness, I apologize.
Please allow me to address your remarks:
Europe imported Muslims to dodge the problem. Japan is limping along....
And if you recall the riots in France and (to a lesser extent) in Germany from that Muslim underclass in recent years, you no doubt realize how well that "solution" has worked...
[Invaders from south of the border] are taking the jobs now illegally and pay no federal taxes (or any taxes!). Once you start making them pay taxes, crossing the desert into the US looks less attractive and we are left with a labor shortage which drives the cost of labor, and thus goods and services up--'cuz we didn't have enough kids.
According to this logic, economic efficiency (and its first cousin, economic well-being) is a value that trumps our national sovereignty and the rule of law. But in my own hierarchy of values, precisely the opposite is the case.
Absent national sovereignty, America is not really a nation, in any meaningful sense of the word; it is merely a geogtaphical location that houses a collection of 300 million disparate individuals. And that is a thought that I find hugely unacceptable.
As to the rule of law, remember: It is not only the south-of-the-border invaders who are flouting American law, but American businesspeople also. And since the rule of law is the bedrock of any stable nation--laws that are deemed unjust or unwise should be changed, not defied, so as not to subvert this very important principle--the widespread employment of illegals strikes at the very foundation on which our country rests.
In other posts, you have compared those of us who take principled positions with leftists who deplore the profits made by Big Oil. But I think the much more accurate comparison is between leftists who establish "sanctuary cities" and businesspeople who knowingly hire illegals in order to increase net profits (and, tangentially, keep down prices). Both can argue that they are serving some "greater good" by not allowing a mere technicality (a.k.a the law) to get in the way.
Yes, we wouldn't have to import our scarce labor [if there had not been a "baby bust"], there would be a labor surplus which would drive wages, and the resulting cost of goods and services, down. But the real kicker is that there would be a big enough tax base to support the boomers' retirements and benefits making the lower wages, with resulting cheaper goods and services, a higher Real Wage. Maybe even moms could stay home and take care of kids!
Again, the problem with this logic is that it places economic considerations above all else in the pantheon of values. And this is a view with which I have considerable difficulty.
"open borders lunatics" ( or "lobby" if you prefer ). The letters aren't really relevant to the debate though, feel free to change them.
I'll make it easier for you though. If I wanted to start a lettuce plantation on the basis that I can hire illegal aliens to pick the lettuce, how would this new criminal business venture of mine benefit US citizens?
The banana example was to prove the point that reasonably priced produce isn't incumbent on the use of illegal aliens. If your answer to the lettuce example would differ from your answer to the banana example, please explain why.
I'm not advocating it. I'm not in favor of open boarders. I'm no friend of illegals.
I'm stating a series of facts:
1) The boomers didn't have enough kids to support their standard of living.
2)Instead of suffering the economic toll that comes with a 'baby bust', this country chose to turn a blind eye to cheap labor sneaking in.
3) Now that they are here and integrated into our unskilled labor, if not our society, 'fixing' the problem of illegal immigration carries economic pain.
4) You can't sell economic pain with 'social decay', racial or cultural arguments--it's unpalatable.
5) You can't have more kids retroactively, but maybe you can automate labor intensive jobs.
I'm describing what is, not what I'd like it to be. We are in a helluva fix.....
'Cuz American farmers grow lettuce and grapes and citrus right now and there aren't enough unskilled American laborers to do it cheaply enough.
You wanna offshore all labor-intensive farming?
If we were concerned about a baby bust we sure wouldn’t have a problem legally bringing in a diverse group of educated immigrants with the desire to become Americans.
You can't move farm land offshore so I guess you are asking me if I'd prefer the illegal aliens to be picking crops in their home countries instead of here. Yes, I'd very much prefer that.
Usually when folks debate shipping jobs offshore, they are referring to US citizens' jobs.
"a diverse group of educated immigrants with the desire to become Americans" to pick green beans for cheap.... Riiiiight.
We have temporary visas for unskilled people. They have to be tested and get immunizations for diseases. As it is now we have Illegal Aliens coming in and doing the jobs temporary legal immigrants should be doing. Illegals bring in diseases that have been eradicated in the U.S. Diseased Illegal Aliens are picking, preparing and serving us our food.
Then why shouldn't those farmers who can't make a go of it just go out of business?
If you can justify illegal alien workers and seasonal migrant workers to prop up an already existing plantation, why can't you justify those same workers for a new plantation whose business plan relies on that kind of worker to make the venture feasible? Why the favoritism for plantation owners who have already made their millions over prospective plantation owners who want to make their millions?
not from the viewpoint of the ones condoning either, but yes there is a huge difference to the force in the fields. I bring that up when people say it is OK to have an underclass that has no citizenship, no social security number and pays no taxes. They are willing to turn a blind eye to whatever happens to the illegals and whatever damage they incur (which we must assume is not in their ((the defenders of illegals)) neighborhoods. The end result is the same rationalizing the existence of an underclass that does all our labor so we can sit on our pedestal of citizenship. If you doubt the effects of this, I suggest you look into the fall of the Roman Empire.
Really? Show me where someone has backpeddled. Because slavery has nothing to do with slaves running to the plantation and desperately trying to get there. Nothing to do with being free of leg irons and chains. Nothing to do with being paid a wage.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.