any business associated with illegal workers will be hard hit and will have an increase in payroll by paying a legal to do some of the same work an in turn will add the additional cost to the final price for consumers...is everyone willing to spend more?
I thought that it has already been established that illegal workers make the same amount or more money than legal workers.
not in all areas,,,,,alot of business will take an illegale worker for the simple fact they are more fluent in another language here in houston, the demand for spanish speakers is pretty high and thus get paid more but this is not the case in all business'
My father turned me on to this article. The bolded portion details the easiest way to completely solve the illegal immigration "crisis." http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/34256/ Immigration 101 By Molly Ivins, AlterNet. Posted March 30, 2006. Racists seem to think that illegal workers -- the hardest-working, poorest people in the US -- are getting away with something. In 1983, I was a judge at the Terlingua Chili Cookoff, and my memory of the events may not be perfect -- for example, for years I've been claiming Jimmy Carter was president at the time, but that's the kind of detail one often loses track of in Terlingua. Anyway, it was '83 or some year right around there when we held The Fence climbing contest. See, people talked about building The Fence back then, too. The Fence along the Mexican border. To keep Them out. At the time, the proposal was quite specific -- a 17-foot cyclone fence with bob wire at the top. So a test fence was built at Terlingua, and the First-Ever Terlingua Memorial Over, Under or Through Mexican Fence Climbing Contest took place. Prize: a case of Lone Star beer. Winning time: 30 seconds. I tell this story to make the one single point about the border and immigration we know to be true: The Fence will not work. No fence will work. The Great darn Wall of China will not work. Do not build a fence. It will not work. They will come anyway. Over, under or through. Some of you think a fence will work because Israel has one. Israel is a very small country. Anyone who says a fence can fix this problem is a demagogue and an ass. Numero Two-o, should you actually want to stop Mexicans and OTMs (other than Mexicans) from coming to the United States, here is how to do it: Find an illegal worker at a large corporation. This is not difficult -- brooms and mops are big tip-offs. Then put the CEO of that corporation in prison for two or more years for violating the law against hiring illegal workers. Got it? You can also imprison the corporate official who actually hired the illegal and, just to make sure, put some Betty Sue Billups -- housewife, preferably one with blonde hair in a flip -- in the joint for a two-year stretch for hiring a Mexican gardener. Thus Americans are reminded that the law says it is illegal to hire illegal workers and that anyone who hires one is responsible for verifying whether or not his or her papers are in order. If you get fooled and one slips by you, too bad, you go to jail anyway. When there are no jobs for illegal workers, they do not come. Got it? Of course, this has been proposed before, because there is nothing new in the immigration debate. As the current issue of Texas Monthly reminds us, the old bracero program dating from World War II was actually amended in 1952 to pass the "Texas proviso," shielding employers of illegal workers from criminal penalties. They got the exemption because Texas growers flat refused to pay the required bracero wage of 30 cents an hour. Instead of punishing Texas growers for breaking the law, Congress rewarded them. In 1986, the Reagan administration took a shot at immigration reform and reinstated penalties on employers. They weren't enforced worth a darn, of course. In 2004, only three American companies were threatened with fines for hiring illegal workers. Doesn't work if you don't enforce it. This brings us to the great Republican divide on the issue. Conservatives, in general, are anti-immigrant for the same reasons they have always been anti-immigrant -- a proud tradition in our nation of immigrants going back to the days of the Founders, when Ben Franklin thought we were going to be overrun by Germans. But Business likes illegal workers. The Chamber of Commerce lobbies for them. They're lobbying now for a new bracero program. What a bonanza for Bidness. Old-fashioned anti-immigrant prejudice always brings out some old-fashioned racists. This time around, they have started claiming that Mexicans can't assimilate. A sillier idea I've never heard. Why don't they come to Texas and meet up with Lars Gonzales, Erin Rodriguez and Bubba at the bowling alley. They can drink some Lone Star, listen to some conjunto and chill. Racists seem obsessed by the idea that illegal workers -- the hardest-working, poorest people in America -- are somehow getting away with something, sneaking goodies that should be for Americans. You can always avoid this problem by having no social services. This is the refreshing Texas model, and it works a treat. Aren't y'all grateful that we're down here doing exactly nothing for the people of our state, legal or illegal? Think what a terrible message it would send if you swapped Texas with Vermont, and they all got health care. In Texas, we never worry about illegals taking advantage of social benefits provided by our taxpayers. Incredibly clever, no? One nice thing about the benefit of long experience with la frontera is that we in Texas don't have to run around getting all hysterical about immigrants. The border is porous. When you want cheap labor, you open it up; when you don't, you shut it down. It works to our benefit -- it always has.
which doesn't answer the question of whether this would increase the costs of basic goods and services that are based primarily on the labor of illegal immigrants. All that article says is that there is a legal mechanism in place to deter illegal immigration by holding corporate officials accountable. Fine, but he's arguing that illegal immigration isn't necessarily bad and that consumers may not be willing to deal with the higher costs resulting from such a move.
i'm just glad it takes a little more than an assinine (and quite sophomoric) chain email to get me "thinking" about important issues in this country.
I would say the consumers have a choice. Deal with higher prices resulting from higher wages or figure out how to make currently illegal immigrants legal. So many people are clamoring for illegals to go back to Mexico, but they don't seem to consider the consequences.
From his website: http://www.kinkyfriedman.com/issues/faq.html Q: Are our border problems important to Kinky? A: Extremely. Kinky believes the border issue is one of the biggest problems facing Texas today, and it can no longer be ignored. Texas policy under Governor Rick Perry has been "give us your tired, your weak, your poor, your criminals, your drug dealers and your terrorists—welcome to Texas". Kinky supports the legislation passed in March 2006 by the Senate Judiciary Committee, which includes the legalization of the country's 11 million illegal immigrants who hold jobs, pass background checks, and pay fines and taxes. Kinky also supports a guest worker program which would allow approximately 400,000 new guest workers per year. In fact, Kinky has been calling for a Bracero-sized work program since he first announced his candidacy for governor in February 2005. He is the only candidate to have done so. If elected, Kinky would meet with Governors Bill Richardson (New Mexico) and Janet Napolitano (Arizona) to develop a coordinated border state plan to supplement federal efforts at stemming the tide of illegal immigration. To date, Governor Perry, a Republican, has not met with Democrats Richardson or Napolitano. Batman...where is that wall thingie again?
If it means my countrymen will stop exploiting people (well, exploit people less than before, I guess), then yes.
He removed it from his website some months ago, but to the best of my knowledge he has not disavowed the idea or changed his mind. If you have his ear, I'd love for you to ask him about it and report back.
I would want to hear that as well, but from his policy position on his website currently, putting a wall up together with implementing the items he mentioned on the website wouldn't be a bad policy. It would legalize those who are here illegally and contributing, it would increase the number of workers coming in, and give them all a chance at workers' rights, healthcare, wages, etc. If it is doing all of that, it really doesn't matter if there is a wall built or not. If that is where Kinky's mindset is then it sounds good to me. But even more importantly his views on education are superior and represent a real change from any candidate from the major parties. In addition is views on the environment, animal protection, and gay marriage are all things that I would agree with, and from other posts you have made, you would agree with them too. Even if you still don't like him or his ideas, he is far from Republican in the issues I listed above. Of all of those issues the one's that the governor has the most control over is education, and possibly gay marriage.
I disagree with you entirely that a wall wouldn't be a bad thing. I agree with Kinky on several issues and you're wrong that I don't like him personally. I've been a fan of his for more than twenty years, going back to when I first read about his involvement in the Rolling Thunder Revue. I do appreciate his position on gay marriage even if it is, to date, no more than a single one-liner, repeated ad nauseum, and even if he couldn't manage to vote against the incredibly bigoted gay marriage amendment. He is still the best candidate of the four on this issue. But he is the worst of the four on immigration and I am also deeply troubled by his support of school prayer. I am also troubled that he voted for Bush. That indicates to me that he either basically agreed with Bush's platform and performance in office or he wasn't paying attention. Either one is pretty scary in a candidate for governor. To be clear, I'm not advocating a vote for Bell instead. I think he's awful, the worst sort of stand-for-nothing, cynical politician. And I don't think either of the Republicans would be better. I'm pretty well convinced that no matter who wins that race, Texas will lose.
To me the most troubling thing about Kinky is not voting for things like the gay marriage amendment, and his vote for Bush. I think he voted for Bush because he put some things above politics, like presenting a cowboy image of Texas. I disagree with him on that strongly, but as a governor I don't think it would really matter. The reason why I believe the wall wouldn't matter is that if the illegal immigrants who are working here, are given citizenship and more workers are allowed to come here legally then having a wall doesn't seem like it would make a difference one way or the other. I'm not in favor of a wall, or against a wall as long as the other issues are dealt with first. If a wall is put up as a solution to illegal immigration then I am against it. If illegal immigration is dealt with and the majority of immigrants who want a part of the American dream are allowed to participate, then a wall just doesn't seem like a big deal to me.
No knock on you blade, but that's a stupid reason for someone to vote for president. And regards to a wall. That's just not who we as Americans are. America should be about tearing down walls! Spiritually, economically, socially. At least that's what I think the best of America should be about.
I agree with you that it is a stupid reason to vote for a president. I certainly don't justify the vote, and that might not be why Kinky cast his ballot for Bush. I'm just guessing. I think in a perfect world there would be no wall, but that is minor compared to the plight of real human beings who are here contributing to our nation.
