Defender of My Waterpark wrote:BillHahn
Quote:
I want jobs to stay in America. That some of them go to illegal aliens is not my preferred choice, but I see it as a neccesary evil.
Why is it neccesary that American jobs go to illegal imigrants? I don't want an answer to any other question but this one. Why is it neccesary that jobs, for which American citizens are qualified and eligible, go to an migrant who's mere presence on our soil is a crime?
.
bk3k wrote: That being said Bill - the reason I intentionally did not underline your use of "Whitey" etc is that you probably should substitute the term "legal citizen" to me more accurate. It has nothing to do with race, but that problem aside, you are right on. Some people don't get it, and here is the disconnect - as I mentioned above.
bk3k wrote:It just doesn't work that way in the real world. Sure, you believe it. Most economists do not. Even life-time Conservative economic guru Alan Greenspan(which I linked above) is calling for the expiration of the very tax cuts he himself helped usher in. He has publicly said that he regrets ever pushing for them in the first place. But you think YOU know better?Greenspan may be an economic guru, but I don't trust him. Quite frankly, I believe he's part of the elitist political sphere.
Defender of My Waterpark wrote:Quote:
I want jobs to stay in America. That some of them go to illegal aliens is not my preferred choice, but I see it as a neccesary evil.
Why is it neccesary that American jobs go to illegal imigrants? I don't want an answer to any other question but this one. Why is it neccesary that jobs, for which American citizens are qualified and eligible, go to an migrant who's mere presence on our soil is a crime?
Defender of My Waterpark wrote:Why limit them to the tomato fields? Why not let them build houses, wire electrical, set up plumbing etc. They'd probably do it for $3 per hour right? Other than the trade unions, who'd complain?
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Defender of My Waterpark wrote:Why limit them to the tomato fields? Why not let them build houses, wire electrical, set up plumbing etc. They'd probably do it for $3 per hour right? Other than the trade unions, who'd complain?
Would you do your job for $3 per hr?
Defender of My Waterpark wrote:No. I wouldn't. I'd do it by the pound or bushel or whatever. This is the USA, and Americans don't work for $3 per hour doing anything.
If you think its ok to allow illegals to work for less than the minimum wage, then by that same mindset, you'd support corporations shipping jobs overseas where people will work for $3.00 per day. Same thing. Side note: where are the liberal feelgooders defending these underpaid darlings that work in such deplorable conditions?
I'd feel the same way if the 'cans were harvesting tomatoes for $20 lb. It isn't what kind of work they are doing, whether they are good people, etc. The fact is, they broke the law the minute they crawled through the drainpipe and stood up on US soil.
.
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Defender of My Waterpark wrote:No. I wouldn't. I'd do it by the pound or bushel or whatever. This is the USA, and Americans don't work for $3 per hour doing anything.
If you think its ok to allow illegals to work for less than the minimum wage, then by that same mindset, you'd support corporations shipping jobs overseas where people will work for $3.00 per day. Same thing. Side note: where are the liberal feelgooders defending these underpaid darlings that work in such deplorable conditions?
I'd feel the same way if the 'cans were harvesting tomatoes for $20 lb. It isn't what kind of work they are doing, whether they are good people, etc. The fact is, they broke the law the minute they crawled through the drainpipe and stood up on US soil.
.
But, doing so creates more jobs Scotty. I mean your employer could hire more because he/she does not have to pay you that generous salary, right? Minimum wage and raising it? That systems just kills employers and corporations just like a "living wage" right? C'mon sacrifice for the greater good of the company Scotty.
Whats-a-matter Scotty, suddenly you don't like being in the position that millions in this nations have to deal everyday?
Defender of My Waterpark wrote:I don't care if they are being paid a dollar per day, or $500 per hour. The fact that they are here at all illegally, is the issue.
If they were to get work visas, legal resident status etc, they could voluntarily work all day for a bowl of gruel and a lollipop....and I wouldn't care. I don't believe in a mandatory minimum wage, safe working conditions yes, but not mandating that employer pay an employee a certain amount.
You sound frustrated goodwrench. You will always be about this issue.
Defender of My Waterpark wrote:I don't care if they are being paid a dollar per day, or $500 per hour. The fact that they are here at all illegally, is the issue.
If they were to get work visas, legal resident status etc, they could voluntarily work all day for a bowl of gruel and a lollipop....and I wouldn't care. I don't believe in a mandatory minimum wage, safe working conditions yes, but not mandating that employer pay an employee a certain amount.
You sound frustrated goodwrench. You will always be about this issue.
R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:LOL. I laugh at your arguments that it's somehow foolish to argue something just because "well, it's just always been that way". There are things going on about it right now, and debate about it has to do with current events, not how long things have been that way.
R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:LOL. I laugh at your arguments that it's somehow foolish to argue something just because "well, it's just always been that way". There are things going on about it right now, and debate about it has to do with current events, not how long things have been that way.
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:But, doing so creates more jobs Scotty. I mean your employer could hire more because he/she does not have to pay you that generous salary, right?LOL. I'd love to hear how the company that employs illegal workers would hire more legal workers with the money they saved, rather than just hire more illegals at the sub-par wages. You contradict yourself like crazy. In one thread you'll claim that companies won't hire because they're greedy, yet in this thread you're claiming that a company saving money by hiring illegal workers would spend the money on legal workers. Priceless.
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:With that exactly being said and being that it is long standing, suddenly it is an issue? Why not bring this up 4, 7,10 years ago. People bring up issues today as if the problem just started. Case-in-point, the Tea-party and their BS rant that government today is spending to much money. Yes, and where were you when your party was doing just the same? You can't complain on one and ignore the other, right? Two way street here.It has been brought up multiple times over the years, and it's always the same debate. However, right now a state has decided in light of the Fed's lack of progress in taking care of the problem, they would do something. This has escalated the debate. FYI, there have been immigration reform bills proposed repeatedly. It just never gets passed.
This is just that; ALWAYS was an issue... and guess what.... it will ALWAYS not get resolved.
R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:But, doing so creates more jobs Scotty. I mean your employer could hire more because he/she does not have to pay you that generous salary, right?LOL. I'd love to hear how the company that employs illegal workers would hire more legal workers with the money they saved, rather than just hire more illegals at the sub-par wages. You contradict yourself like crazy. In one thread you'll claim that companies won't hire because they're greedy, yet in this thread you're claiming that a company saving money by hiring illegal workers would spend the money on legal workers. Priceless.
R.W.E of the J.B.O wrote:Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:With that exactly being said and being that it is long standing, suddenly it is an issue? Why not bring this up 4, 7,10 years ago. People bring up issues today as if the problem just started. Case-in-point, the Tea-party and their BS rant that government today is spending to much money. Yes, and where were you when your party was doing just the same? You can't complain on one and ignore the other, right? Two way street here.It has been brought up multiple times over the years, and it's always the same debate. However, right now a state has decided in light of the Fed's lack of progress in taking care of the problem, they would do something. This has escalated the debate. FYI, there have been immigration reform bills proposed repeatedly. It just never gets passed.
This is just that; ALWAYS was an issue... and guess what.... it will ALWAYS not get resolved.
R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:LOL. That's all you've got? Well I shouldn't be suprised. "Can't expect to much from you any how."