News If East Germany Could Secure Their Border So Can America

[Barwick]

They work hard and send their money home to their families. Why can't they earn a shot a citizenship and bring their loved ones here?

They can earn a shot at permanent resident status. But being a citizen is not something people are guaranteed. As I said before, I suggest the following:

1) Everyone here must register with us by XYZ date. If they don't, anyone found here undocumented will be deported, period.
2) Grant permanent residency to those who registered, are already here being productive, and haven't committed felonies.
3) Nobody who is here illegally currently can *ever* become a citizen unless they immediately go back to their home country upon registration with us, and begin the process of citizenship like everyone else. Their alternative is remaining here as a permanent resident for life with no chance of citizenship (they did break a legitimate law).
4) The children of those permanent residents can become citizens upon turning 18, after going through the same process (but not the same quota limitations) as other immigrants wishing to become citizens.

 

[Desi_M]

Americans will do manual labor, I'm not suggesting that they won't. Trust me, I know many American citizens who jump on the chance. From what I've experienced, sometimes the will to work isn't enough to get them the job. Americans are not lazy, but Americans have to eat and provide for themselves and their families. People hire illegals because they will work for a lot less, it's not right and it's not fair, but that's what happens. Citizens pay taxes, have to pay for medical care, and illegal immigrants don't. Citizens have to pay the cost of living in the United States, illegal immigrants pay a lot less to live here. That is the reality. An illegal immigrant can live off what little they're getting paid, and American in most cases can't. And when it comes to hiring in El Paso, Laredo, and The Valley, there is a huge illegal immigrant population that will work for what ever their employers want to pay.

My father worked in construction and he is an American, but the truth is, it wasn't paying enough to get him out of his brother's house and back to the same city as his daughter, so he went back to school. Now he's a business owner, he hires US citizens, and they are a lot more expensive than the illegal that walks in the door who says, "I'll do anything."

 

[CRGreathouse]

People hire illegals because they will work for a lot less, it's not right and it's not fair, but that's what happens.

Why isn't it fair? If they're willing to do more work per dollar, why not hire them?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Why isn't it fair? If they're willing to do more work per dollar, why not hire them?

As a software engineer making six figures, I get nervous looking at the illegal alien sitting in the next cubicle getting less than minimum wage for the same work.

 

[Barwick]

Why isn't it fair? If they're willing to do more work per dollar, why not hire them?

Because that would take away a union job!

oops, did I say that? :)

Honestly? It's because of government protectionism that's artificially inflating wages in this country, and therefore artificially inflating the prices of every product we purchase. This in turn makes workers demand higher "minimum wage" (what a farce), which raises wages again, causing increases in price, and the cycle continues.

 

[CRGreathouse]

As a software engineer making six figures, I get nervous looking at the illegal alien sitting in the next cubicle getting less than minimum wage for the same work.

I do the same sort of work but make 1 digit less. Are you worried about me taking your job?

Presumably you're well-paid because you're good. I stopped worrying about competition from India when I saw the quality of the work done there. I'm sure over time it will rise, but so will (and have!) their salaries.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I do the same sort of work but make 1 digit less. Are you worried about me taking your job?

No, but I spoke with the other guy and he said he was worried that his job would be outsourced back to Mexico. If they build a fence he won't be able to get home.

 

[drankin]

No, but I spoke with the other guy and he said he was worried that his job would be outsourced back to Mexico. If they build a fence he won't be able to get home.

I'm pretty sure he can just walk through a border crossing. They don't seem to mind people going that direction.

 

[Evo]

I'm pretty sure he can just walk through a border crossing. They don't seem to mind people going that direction.

Reminds me of this article a member posted.

Illegal Immigrants Returning To Mexico For American Jobs

Still, the danger is very real. When 31-year-old illegal Arizona resident Ignacio Jimenez sought employment at an American plant in Mexico, he was shot at by Mexican border guards as he attempted to illegally enter the country of his citizenship, pursued by U.S. immigration officials who thought he might be entering the country illegally, and fired upon again by a second group of U.S. Border Patrol agents charged with keeping valuable table-busing and food-delivery personnel inside American borders.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/illegal-immigrants-returning-to-mexico-for-america,1951/

 

[drankin]

Reminds me of this article a member posted.



http://www.theonion.com/articles/illegal-immigrants-returning-to-mexico-for-america,1951/

Of course, one must cross at designated border crossings or risk being shot at.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Reminds me of this article a member posted.

I lift most of my material.

 

[turbo]

I lift most of my material.

Steal from the best and you'll do well.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Steal from the best and you'll do well.

I'll use that someday.

 

[CAC1001]

Reminds me of this article a member posted.



http://www.theonion.com/articles/illegal-immigrants-returning-to-mexico-for-america,1951/

I don't know if you guys are joking or think this link is serious, but if the latter, keep in mind that's The Onion

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I don't know if you guys are joking or think this link is serious, but if the latter, keep in mind that's The Onion

I was more worried that people were taking me seriously.

 

[skeptic2]

I lived near the border in Nogales, AZ and worked in Nogales, Sonora. Thousands of people cross the border every day from both sides. How does a fence stop them? How does a fence stop those who overstay their visas. Did the East Germans have to deal with those problems?

I propose we offer a work visa at the US Consulates that guarantee at least minimum wage to the holder.
* Income tax and FICA would have to be paid on earnings or the visa would not be renewed.
* By requiring the employers to pay at least minimum wage these workers would not be putting downward pressure on low wage jobs.
* By requiring them to pay taxes, they would be no more a burden on taxpayers than low wage earning Americans.
* Employers may be encouraged to hire Americans for jobs for which they formerly used illegals.
* Illegals who are already here may return to get a visa in order to raise their wages.

 

[mugaliens]

I read the cost of securing our souther border is about $15 million per mile!

 

[mheslep]

Thousands of people cross the border every day from both sides. How does a fence stop them? How does a fence stop those who overstay their visas. [...]

Good point but a somewhat different problem. At least for visa busters identity and some background information is known, meaning, among other things, a visa violator can't exit the country and expect to easily re-enter the country again with another visa, ruling out its use for repeat narcotics traffickers, for example. Second, the US always has the option of ratcheting down visas if it chooses on a country by country basis, encouraging cooperation from host countries to send people likely to abide by the terms of the visa.

 

[Galteeth]

Ok, I know this is an unpopular view point but from a moral point of view- what gives the US the right to restrict people's freedom of movement? Would you want to live in Mexico? What gives you the right to be here but not the them? I understand that immigration is not a long term solution to the problem. But the US has created a situation, through NAFTA, the war on drugs, and currency hegemony where Mexico just keeps getting worse and worse. Since NAFTA, which was supposed to improve the Mexican economy, the amount of immigrants has exploded. The US feels it can exploit the world through neo-mercantilist economic domination, backed by its dollar hegemony, which is backed by its military, and reacts with shock to the consequences that people want to live inside the seat of the empire.

My solution to the border problem: Repeal NAFTA, end the war on drugs, end government entitlements that encourage people to come, and start buying domestically produced products

 

[CAC1001]

Ok, I know this is an unpopular view point but from a moral point of view- what gives the US the right to restrict people's freedom of movement? Would you want to live in Mexico? What gives you the right to be here but not the them?

Because we are a nation? What gives many of them the right to utilize the social services paid for by the American taxpayer without paying taxes?

I understand that immigration is not a long term solution to the problem. But the US has created a situation, through NAFTA, the war on drugs, and currency hegemony where Mexico just keeps getting worse and worse.

Mexico's problems are all America's fault? NAFTA allows free trade (or more free trade) which leads to job creation for both sides. As for "currency hegemony," I would think America having a stronger currency makes Mexican-produced goods more attractive to Americans, because they are cheaper to import. America having a weaker currency than Mexico would hurt Mexican exports to America.

Since NAFTA, which was supposed to improve the Mexican economy, the amount of immigrants has exploded. The US feels it can exploit the world through neo-mercantilist economic domination, backed by its dollar hegemony, which is backed by its military, and reacts with shock to the consequences that people want to live inside the seat of the empire.

How do you mean America seeks to "exploit" the world, and how is the dollar backed by the military. Last I checked, the dollar's strength is backed by the economy. and no one is shocked people want to live inside America, but we cannot as a nation have a situation where people just randomly cross the border either.

My solution to the border problem: Repeal NAFTA, end the war on drugs, end government entitlements that encourage people to come, and start buying domestically produced products

Agree on the entitlements, disagree on NAFTA, not sure on the War on Drugs, as for products, buy from whomever produces with the most quality and best price.

 

[Galteeth]

"Because we are a nation? What gives many of them the right to utilize the social services paid for by the American taxpayer without paying taxes?"

Nothing, but although we live in a world of nation-states, the idea that the physical location of one's birth entitles people to different rights is not morally justifiable.

"Mexico's problems are all America's fault? NAFTA allows free trade (or more free trade) which leads to job creation for both sides. As for "currency hegemony," I would think America having a stronger currency makes Mexican-produced goods more attractive to Americans, because they are cheaper to import. America having a weaker currency than Mexico would hurt Mexican exports to America."

Mexico's problems are not all the US's fault. I am pointing out that before NAFTA, the illegal immigration problem was a small fraction of what it currently is. America's stronger currency attracts Mexicans to work here. Mexicans send the money back to their families, where it's purchasing power is disproportionately strong (i.e., the same work in America can buy more Mexican goods then equivalent work in Mexico.) You are correct about the attractiveness of imports, but I believe this is in fact a common fallacy. When you think about it, what you are saying is that the currency imbalance makes it logical for Mexicans to produce things and give them to the US, while the US does not produce things that are sent to Mexico. I know this flies in the face of conventional economic thinking, but it is the reason why the US, despite having the strongest currency, is the materially wealthiest nation in the world.
"How do you mean America seeks to "exploit" the world, and how is the dollar backed by the military. Last I checked, the dollar's strength is backed by the economy. and no one is shocked people want to live inside America, but we cannot as a nation have a situation where people just randomly cross the border either."

I don't mean America seeks to per ce, but the American government creates and supports world economic policies (through "free trade", the IMF, the WTO, etc) that are designed to maintain a global economic order where America is the consumer nation with all the clout and directive economic political power, and the third world countries must structure their economies to service the needs of the first world. There is nothing remarkable about this; it is the way of nation states, but that doesn't mean it's morally correct.

The dollar's strength is backed by "the economy" but this a global economy where America can print the reserve currency of the world and expand its monetary base with little consequence. Other countries whose currencies are not backed by having their currency being the default standard could not simply create money like we do and maintain such huge debt levels without wreaking havoc on their domestic standard of living and material wealth. The reasons for the US having the world reserve currency are a consequence of America's military and economic position at the end of world war 2, and the ultimate reason it has been maintained is the continued dominance of America as the world's military superpower (this is something of a tangent but if you are interested I can go into more detail; it is a long discussion).
Agree on the entitlements, disagree on NAFTA, not sure on the War on Drugs, as for products, buy from whomever produces with the most quality and best price.[/QUOTE]

A question for you, If NAFTA was supposed to be the benefit of both countries, why has Mexico gone so downhill, and why did Mexicans only start leaving en mass after NAFTA came into effect?

The war on drugs is a direct contributor, as the US's aggressive drug policy has dramatically increased the profits be had from the drug trade, which has lead to the rise of the Mexican cartels and Mexico's current undeclared civil war.

Another thing to be done to help the immigration problem would be to repeal minimum wage laws, with some caveats.

 

[Office_Shredder]

I am pointing out that before NAFTA, the illegal immigration problem was a small fraction of what it currently is. America's stronger currency attracts Mexicans to work here. Mexicans send the money back to their families, where it's purchasing power is disproportionately strong (i.e., the same work in America can buy more Mexican goods then equivalent work in Mexico.)

A strong currency isn't what makes the same job get paid more in America. It's the vast economic disparity that does it.

A question for you, If NAFTA was supposed to be the benefit of both countries, why has Mexico gone so downhill, and why did Mexicans only start leaving en mass after NAFTA came into effect?

The signing of NAFTA also coincided with the massive devaluation of the peso. I assume that was an American plot to help bolster the dollar vs the peso?

 

[CAC1001]

One thing, in order to quote what someone else has written, just write the word "quote" but with brackets ([ ]) around it at the start of the quoted passage, then write "/quote" in brackets at the end. Also, for whole posts, just click the "QUOTE" button in the bottom right-hand corner of a person's post.

Mexico's problems are not all the US's fault. I am pointing out that before NAFTA, the illegal immigration problem was a small fraction of what it currently is. America's stronger currency attracts Mexicans to work here.

America had a large illegal immigrant problem before NAFTA as well. Ronald Reagan granted millions of illegals amnesty.

Mexicans send the money back to their families, where it's purchasing power is disproportionately strong (i.e., the same work in America can buy more Mexican goods then equivalent work in Mexico.)

In that sense, America is helping Mexico through illegals, not hurting it. Illegals come to America to work or for freebies because life there is so terrible. That is also why the Mexican government is against stopping illegal immigration.

You are correct about the attractiveness of imports, but I believe this is in fact a common fallacy. When you think about it, what you are saying is that the currency imbalance makes it logical for Mexicans to produce things and give them to the US, while the US does not produce things that are sent to Mexico. I know this flies in the face of conventional economic thinking, but it is the reason why the US, despite having the strongest currency, is the materially wealthiest nation in the world.

The currency imbalance doesn't make it logical for Mexico to produce things and give them to the US, it makes it logical for Americans to buy things that are produced in Mexico if they are of good quality.

The US is the most materially wealthy nation because we produce more than anyone else and are more productive for the most part. We export more than anyone else as well.

I don't mean America seeks to per ce, but the American government creates and supports world economic policies (through "free trade", the IMF, the WTO, etc) that are designed to maintain a global economic order where America is the consumer nation with all the clout and directive economic political power, and the third world countries must structure their economies to service the needs of the first world. There is nothing remarkable about this; it is the way of nation states, but that doesn't mean it's morally correct.

I wouldn't say these institutions maintain any global economic order. By that standard, China, South Korea, etc...would still be Third World nations. Also, there wouldn't be efforts by the Third World nations to use things like global warming regulations to transfer wealth from nations like America to themselves.

The dollar's strength is backed by "the economy" but this a global economy where America can print the reserve currency of the world and expand its monetary base with little consequence. Other countries whose currencies are not backed by having their currency being the default standard could not simply create money like we do and maintain such huge debt levels without wreaking havoc on their domestic standard of living and material wealth.

Japan has a very level of debt. Italy as well (although Italy is near the breaking point).

The reasons for the US having the world reserve currency are a consequence of America's military and economic position at the end of world war 2, and the ultimate reason it has been maintained is the continued dominance of America as the world's military superpower (this is something of a tangent but if you are interested I can go into more detail; it is a long discussion).

The Soviet Union was a military superpower as well, but they were never any economic power.

A question for you, If NAFTA was supposed to be the benefit of both countries, why has Mexico gone so downhill, and why did Mexicans only start leaving en mass after NAFTA came into effect?

Because Mexico's government is so incredibly corrupt and because Mexico did nothing about the problem of the drug cartels which kept gaining and gaining in power to the point that now they're a major problem.

The war on drugs is a direct contributor, as the US's aggressive drug policy has dramatically increased the profits be had from the drug trade, which has lead to the rise of the Mexican cartels and Mexico's current undeclared civil war.

I don't know much about the connections between the U.S. drug policy and its influence on the drug trade, although that could be part of it.

Another thing to be done to help the immigration problem would be to repeal minimum wage laws, with some caveats.

Minimum wage laws help keep illegal immigrants out I would think, as their purpose is to protect unionize labor. Although I would say repeal them anyway on principle because I believe the minimum wage is a bad thing.

 

[skeptic2]

Another thing to be done to help the immigration problem would be to repeal minimum wage laws, with some caveats.

Minimum wage laws help keep illegal immigrants out I would think, as their purpose is to protect unionize labor. Although I would say repeal them anyway on principle because I believe the minimum wage is a bad thing.

Please explain. Minimum wage laws in the US encourage illegal immigration because in the illegals can work for less than a US worker yet make more than they could in Mexico. By providing the immigrant worker with a visa that guarantees him the same or higher minimum wage as US workers, their labor will put less downward pressure on workers' wages. Requiring that they pay taxes and social security will offset the social services they may require.

Minimum wage laws do not protect unionized labor and repealing them would not hurt unions. In fact it would give them a stronger reason to exist.

Why do you think minimum wage is a bad thing? Before minimum wage, companies could and did pay workers so little that they were trapped in their jobs. Companies loaned their workers money that they could never pay back making it illegal for the worker to leave the company no matter how bad the working conditions were.

 

[JonF]

Please explain. Minimum wage laws in the US encourage illegal immigration because in the illegals can work for less than a US worker yet make more than they could in Mexico. By providing the immigrant worker with a visa that guarantees him the same or higher minimum wage as US workers, their labor will put less downward pressure on workers' wages. Requiring that they pay taxes and social security will offset the social services they may require.

I agree with you, what would be the point of foreign labor then? Typically people go with foreign labor because it’s cheaper. If you give foreign labor all the benefits of being a citizen there is no point. In my opinion a work visa program that makes sense would be the best solution. Give immigrants a viable option to come here and work legally in a way that is mutually beneficial to both the employer and the immigrant in certain industries, like agriculture or landscaping. As long as the worker’s standard of living and discretionary income is higher than it would be in Mexico’s everyone should be happy.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Legally permitting immigrants to work for less than minimum wage defeats the entire purpose of minimum wage. If you allow immigrants only to work for less than minimum wage then you are putting Americans at a disadvantage economically because they can't apply for some jobs anymore

 

[CAC1001]

Please explain. Minimum wage laws in the US encourage illegal immigration because in the illegals can work for less than a US worker yet make more than they could in Mexico. By providing the immigrant worker with a visa that guarantees him the same or higher minimum wage as US workers, their labor will put less downward pressure on workers' wages. Requiring that they pay taxes and social security will offset the social services they may require.

Maybe I'm wrong on illegals, because they are illegal, however if all those illegals are, say, granted amnesty, but are willing to work for far cheaper than the average American worker still, minimum wage laws protect unionized labor. They do this by pricing cheaper workers out of the market.

Why do you think minimum wage is a bad thing? Before minimum wage, companies could and did pay workers so little that they were trapped in their jobs.

A minimum wage is a price control. It artificially increases the cost of workers to a business. When you increase the price of something, what happens? People and businesses buy less of it. In the case of the minimum wage, it tends to artificially increase the unemployment rate because businesses hire fewer workers. It in particular will hurt small businesses because they cannot absorb the costs as easily as big businesses. This is of course not exact, I mean the price of gas can go up and businesses and people absorb the cost, raise the price too much though, and people and businesses start using less. Same with employers hiring workers.

An economy like America's can thus withstand a minimum wage to a degree and still maintain full employment, but there is a limit (and historically it seems the unemployment rate has had a very bad effect on the teenage unemployment rate).

Regarding unions, the minimum wage was actually used to protect white unionized labor against minorities throughout the early 20th century, because minorities such as blacks were willing to work for less money. By having a price control on the price of labor that makes it illegal to pay workers less than a minimum wage, it eliminated the ability of minorities to work for less.

Companies loaned their workers money that they could never pay back making it illegal for the worker to leave the company no matter how bad the working conditions were.

Those were the days before labor laws and their enforcement. Companies cannot do that kind of stuff anymore.

 

[Vanadium 50]

By requiring the employers to pay at least minimum wage these workers would not be putting downward pressure on low wage jobs.

How do you figure that? If the prevailing wage for a laborer is $10/hr and now someone will do it at $7.25/hr, how can it not put downward pressure on wages?

 

[skeptic2]

How do you figure that? If the prevailing wage for a laborer is $10/hr and now someone will do it at $7.25/hr, how can it not put downward pressure on wages?

Because $10/hr is above the minimum wage, anyone can offer to work $7.25/hr, even US citizens, and if enough applicants did, the going rate would be $7.25 instead of $10/hr. One assumes that if $10/hr is the going rate, it is the equilibrium point between what workers are willing to work for and what employers are willing to pay.

That is not true for those offering to work for less than minimum wage. If a US citizen were to offer to work for less than minimum wage the employer may well be suspicious because the worker could report him. Not so with illegals. If the illegal reports the employer he gets deported. A visa that guarantees minimum wage would give the immigrant the same power as a citizen to report employers that pay less than minimum wage.

I wish there were a way to guarantee immigrant workers the going rate for jobs, but I can't figure out how that might be done. That said, for jobs that offer over the minimum wage, yes, immigrant workers could still depress wages.

 

[JaredJames]

Does minimum wage only apply to citizens of the US then?

In the UK, it doesn't matter whether you are a citizen, a national or a legal immigrant. The law says you are to be paid at least the minimum wage.

You can't compare illegals working for less than MW to those legally working. It is an unfair comparison. If there were no more illegals (let's imagine they don't exist), the going rate would be determined by what people want to be paid vs what the employer wants to pay, your equilibrium point. But it would always be at least the minimum wage.

Illegals don't lower the going rate for legal workers in legitimate and legal companies. If a company is employing illegals it is breaking the law and so you can't apply the wage structuring to it in the same way you would a legit company.

 

[skeptic2]

Maybe I'm wrong on illegals, because they are illegal, however if all those illegals are, say, granted amnesty, but are willing to work for far cheaper than the average American worker still, minimum wage laws protect unionized labor. They do this by pricing cheaper workers out of the market.

I am not advocating amnesty for illegal workers. However, once granted amnesty, why would they be willing to work cheaper than non-immigrant workers?

A minimum wage is a price control. It artificially increases the cost of workers to a business. When you increase the price of something, what happens? People and businesses buy less of it. In the case of the minimum wage, it tends to artificially increase the unemployment rate because businesses hire fewer workers. It in particular will hurt small businesses because they cannot absorb the costs as easily as big businesses. This is of course not exact, I mean the price of gas can go up and businesses and people absorb the cost, raise the price too much though, and people and businesses start using less. Same with employers hiring workers.

While I don't agree that in general a minimum wage hurts small businesses more than large ones I do agree with much of what you wrote. However we can't think only of the businesses. Some consideration must be given to the workers too and there comes a point below which the low wages hurt the workers more than they help the company.

An economy like America's can thus withstand a minimum wage to a degree and still maintain full employment, but there is a limit (and historically it seems the unemployment rate has had a very bad effect on the teenage unemployment rate).

If lower wages were the solution to unemployment I think we would be seeing that now. Someone who has been out of work for 6 or 9 months certainly may be willing to take a job at a cut in pay, but that doesn't seem to be happening. It seems to me that there are fewer jobs being offered to new grads but the offers that are made are made at attractive salaries.

Regarding unions, the minimum wage was actually used to protect white unionized labor against minorities throughout the early 20th century, because minorities such as blacks were willing to work for less money. By having a price control on the price of labor that makes it illegal to pay workers less than a minimum wage, it eliminated the ability of minorities to work for less.

Do you think that is still the case? (if it ever was)

Those were the days before labor laws and their enforcement. Companies cannot do that kind of stuff anymore.

Yes and one of the labor laws that ended that practice was minimum wage.

 

[skeptic2]

Does minimum wage only apply to citizens of the US then?

In the UK, it doesn't matter whether you are a citizen, a national or a legal immigrant. The law says you are to be paid at least the minimum wage.

It's the same in the US. The employers are breaking the law by hiring illegals and by paying them less than MW. Who's going to report them though?

You can't compare illegals working for less than MW to those legally working. It is an unfair comparison. If there were no more illegals (let's imagine they don't exist), the going rate would be determined by what people want to be paid vs what the employer wants to pay, your equilibrium point. But it would always be at least the minimum wage.

Illegals don't lower the going rate for legal workers in legitimate and legal companies. If a company is employing illegals it is breaking the law and so you can't apply the wage structuring to it in the same way you would a legit company.

You seem to be contradicting yourself. You say illegals don't lower the going rate for legal workers but also that without illegals the going rate would be determined by what people want to be paid vs what the employer wants to pay.

 

[JaredJames]

You seem to be contradicting yourself. You say illegals don't lower the going rate for legal workers but also that without illegals the going rate would be determined by what people want to be paid vs what the employer wants to pay.

Legal workers in legitimate and legal companies. As in companies not hiring illegal workers. They will get at least minimum wage if that is what the job dictates it should earn.

I can picture what I want to say in my head perfectly but just can't get it out into words.

 

[Galteeth]

The signing of NAFTA also coincided with the massive devaluation of the peso. I assume that was an American plot to help bolster the dollar vs the peso?

Read this paper.

http://www.epi.org/page/-/old/briefingpapers/1997_bp_nafta.pdf

 

[mheslep]

Ok, I know this is an unpopular view point but from a moral point of view- what gives the US the right to restrict people's freedom of movement? Would you want to live in Mexico?
What gives you the right to be here but not the them?

If that's really a curiosity, then ask yourself why don't I have the right to enter your domicile at will, or the domicile of your family.

I understand that immigration is not a long term solution to the problem. But the US has created a situation, through NAFTA, the war on drugs, and currency hegemony where Mexico just keeps getting worse and worse. Since NAFTA, which was supposed to improve the Mexican economy,

NAFTA clearly improved both the Mexican, Canadian, and US economies.

the amount of immigrants has exploded. The US feels it can exploit the world through neo-mercantilist economic domination, backed by its dollar hegemony, which is backed by its military, and reacts with shock to the consequences that people want to live inside the seat of the empire.

My solution to the border problem: Repeal NAFTA, end the war on drugs, end government entitlements that encourage people to come, and start buying domestically produced products

Though I credit the drug problem as part of the immigration problem, for the most part I see deep seated racial and class divisions as the main economic problem in Mexico. After all, there are not waves of Canadians sneaking into the US to perform farm labor.

 

[Galteeth]

A strong currency isn't what makes the same job get paid more in America. It's the vast economic disparity that does it.

But the American dollar can purchase more in Mexico. A Mexican working in America is usually not earning enough to have a high standard of living, in America.. But when they send their American dollars back to their families in Mexico, it does earn them a high standard of living. I have spoken to many illegal immigrants about this topic, and a lot of them hate the long hours and demeaning work they do in America, but they explain that their families back home are wealthy by local standards. Of course this is not the case for all illegal immigrants, but it does seem to be a common trend.

 

[JaredJames]

But the American dollar can purchase more in Mexico. A Mexican working in America is usually not earning enough to have a high standard of living, in America.. But when they send their American dollars back to their families in Mexico, it does earn them a high standard of living. I have spoken to many illegal immigrants about this topic, and a lot of them hate the long hours and demeaning work they do in America, but they explain that their families back home are wealthy by local standards. Of course this is not the case for all illegal immigrants, but it does seem to be a common trend.

A lot of illegals in Britain work for little more than food and board. They can earn as little as £10 a day.

 

[Galteeth]

If that's really a curiosity, then ask yourself why don't I have the right to enter your domicile at will, or the domicile of your family.

NAFTA clearly improved both the Mexican, Canadian, and US economies.Though I credit the drug problem is part if the immigration problem, for the most part I see deep seated racial and class divisions as the main economic problem in Mexico. After all, there are not waves of Canadians sneaking into the US to perform farm labor.

On the second point, I'd like to see some proof. On the first, there is a clear difference between someone's private living space, which it is generally recognized should not be trespassed upon, and movement in general (people are allowed to walk down the sidewalk in front of your house, or buy or rent the house next to yours, or build their own home near yours.) Of course, I suppose you do have the right to enter my domicile in the sense that I don't think it's ok to use violence to prevent you if you are being non-violent, but it's rude.

 

[skeptic2]

I go to Mexico fairly regularly, the last time was Aug. 2010 and I am surprised at how expensive things are in Mexico. The cheapest things are things that are labor intensive such as houses and car repair. Anything that is imported such as electronics, even if it is from China, is more expensive than in the US. Even food and gasoline aren't as cheap as one would expect. I think this may be because when there is an export market for an item, the export market also determines the domestic price.

I think the main reason dollars go a lot further in Mexico than in the US is that most Mexicans don't have insurance on their houses, cars, health or lives. Even income tax is either low or non-existent for most Mexicans. They do have a hefty IVA or added value tax in addition to their sales tax. For those who favor a flat tax over an income tax, Mexico would be a good place to study to get an idea of how well (or not) it works.

 

[mheslep]

On the first, there is a clear difference between someone's private living space, which it is generally recognized should not be trespassed upon, and movement in general (people are allowed to walk down the sidewalk in front of your house, or buy or rent the house next to yours, or build their own home near yours.)

The distinction you draw there is an arbitrary one of geography, with arbitrary rules: "generally recognized", "should not", "are allowed", etc. By the laws of the US, not all people are allowed to walk down the sidewalk in front of my house. Only people with clothes on, for instance, and only those legally resident in the country may do so. I'd likely object to Kim Jong-il walking down the street.

Of course, I suppose you do have the right to enter my domicile in the sense [...]

I do not have any such right, not in the US, any more than I have a right to grab your wallet or conscript your labor for my nefarious ends. Nor do you have any right or leave to act similarly on me. In the US, we hold that all have the right to life, liberty, etc. None of those rights can be preserved without the rule of law, and by extension borders are required within which the law can be enacted and applied by the consent of the governed. No borders, then no rule of law, no rights.

 

[Office_Shredder]

But the American dollar can purchase more in Mexico. A Mexican working in America is usually not earning enough to have a high standard of living, in America.. But when they send their American dollars back to their families in Mexico, it does earn them a high standard of living. I have spoken to many illegal immigrants about this topic, and a lot of them hate the long hours and demeaning work they do in America, but they explain that their families back home are wealthy by local standards. Of course this is not the case for all illegal immigrants, but it does seem to be a common trend.

Again, this isn't because of the strength of the American dollar vs the peso. It's because America is far wealthier as a nation so people get paid more here

 

[CAC1001]

I am not advocating amnesty for illegal workers. However, once granted amnesty, why would they be willing to work cheaper than non-immigrant workers?

Historically immigrants have always been willing to work for less. The Irish and the blacks and other ethnic groups used to have riots where they battled one another over this.

While I don't agree that in general a minimum wage hurts small businesses more than large ones I do agree with much of what you wrote.

A small business cannot absorb the higher costs from a minimum wage in the way a big business can. Same thing with regulations. Sometimes big businesses in an industry will push for heavy regulations because the compliance costs will wipe out their competitors.

I'm not saying create a minimum wage and all small businesses go kaput, that isn't the case, but any kind of extra costs added will hurt smaller businesses moeso.

However we can't think only of the businesses. Some consideration must be given to the workers too and there comes a point below which the low wages hurt the workers more than they help the company.

How is not having a minimum wage "thinking of the businesses" though? The market sets the actual minimum wage, and it is the price of the labor offered by the workers versus what the employers will pay. It isn't the businesses' fault if the wage is set very low for particular forms of labor.

If lower wages were the solution to unemployment I think we would be seeing that now. Someone who has been out of work for 6 or 9 months certainly may be willing to take a job at a cut in pay, but that doesn't seem to be happening. It seems to me that there are fewer jobs being offered to new grads but the offers that are made are made at attractive salaries.

Wages are not being held artificially high right now. They tried this during the Great Depression and it is believed to have held unemployment higher than what it would have been.

Do you think that is still the case? (if it ever was)

If illegals are granted amnesty, and are willing to work for less than current wages, I most certainly think that the unions want the minimum wage in order to price them out of the market. And yes it was the case, read up on the New Deal in particular regarding this.

Yes and one of the labor laws that ended that practice was minimum wage.

What ended that were laws demanding safe working environments, laws giving weekends, laws preventing corporations from demanding you work an assembly line sixteen hours a day with no bathroom breaks even, for seven days a week, etc...

 

[Jasongreat]

CAC1001- Historically immigrants have always been willing to work for less. The Irish and the blacks and other ethnic groups used to have riots where they battled one another over this.

IMO, this is not because of their ethinticity, but because they are still used to, or are willing and capable to live at the lower standard of living they had in the countries they emmigrated from. A law that forces immigrants to assimilate to our culture quicker, would do more to raise their wages, than a law that you have to pay them a certain amount, since they would need to make more money to maintain their higher living standards and therefore would demand higher pay themselves, they would also learn the most important part of the equation in getting a raise is they need more skills, making their labor more valuable to their employer and would concentrate on learning those skills needed for advancement instead of blaming others for their willingness to work cheaper.

A small business cannot absorb the higher costs from a minimum wage in the way a big business can. Same thing with regulations. Sometimes big businesses in an industry will push for heavy regulations because the compliance costs will wipe out their competitors.

I don't think any buisiness, big or small, can absorb higher labor costs without hurting their bottom line. Any product can only support a certain level of overhead before the cost of that product needs to increase and any product can only go to a certain level before it will start to lose sales. I do completely agree with your point about regulation though.

How is not having a minimum wage "thinking of the businesses" though? The market sets the actual minimum wage, and it is the price of the labor offered by the workers versus what the employers will pay. It isn't the businesses' fault if the wage is set very low for particular forms of labor.

I think it could be argued that having a minimum wage arbitrarilly increased hurts the workers more than the buisinesses. Say you have a hourly budget for labor of 20 dollars for your product. At a minimum wage of 5$ you can hire 4 workers, if the government, or a union, comes in and says that you need to raise the wage to 6$, you can only afford to pay three workers, or you have to raise the price of your product. If the market will only support the original price you either lose money and go out of buisiness and all workers get hurt, or one worker has to go find another job, if they can.

Wages are not being held artificially high right now. They tried this during the Great Depression and it is believed to have held unemployment higher than what it would have been.

Imo, wages are both being held artificially high and at the same time being held artificially low, through governmental intrusion. For low or unskilled workers the minimum wage is artificially raising their wage above market value, since if the market could naturally support those wages there would be no need for the minimum wage in the first place. For higher skilled workers their wages are being reduced artificially through things like social security, health benefit requirements, unemployment insurance and the like. Employers would not pay more than what an employee is worth to them, so everything in their pay package that is mandated reduces the wage the skilled employee can negotiate.

If illegals are granted amnesty, and are willing to work for less than current wages, I most certainly think that the unions want the minimum wage in order to price them out of the market. And yes it was the case, read up on the New Deal in particular regarding this.

Some of the largest beneficaries of illegals' labor are unions, in my experience unions really don't care if it is an american paying dues or an illegal as long as they get those dues. When I worked in SoCal, the laborers where pretty upfront about their union having a buisiness agent who would help them get fake documents and then send them out to jobs. Unions also have another trick up their sleeve, it is called prevailing wage. It is explained as a wonderful, unselfish thing they do to help non-union workers, the only problem with that explanation, is that without prevailing wage laws, unions would be priced out of the market.

What ended that were laws demanding safe working environments, laws giving weekends, laws preventing corporations from demanding you work an assembly line sixteen hours a day with no bathroom breaks even, for seven days a week, etc...

I am glad you said laws demanding, and not laws creating safe working enviroments. I am not a fan of oversight, since imo, while sounds good it makes matters worse. The best way to regulate anything is undersight. As a worker in a pretty dangerous field, I have noticed that most safety rules(oversight) make workers less safe, whereas having the worker watch out for themselves make them far safer(undersight). One such rule states that overhead powerlines need to have markers to warn workers of the hazard, and I have seen a quite a few different pieces of equipment run into lines because someone or something(wind) had moved the markers, whereas if an employee is taught to watch out for the powerlines and not the markers, accidents are far less likely to happen. Undersight would also work for any market as well. Making the consumer responsible for controlling prices for example, would go a long way to prevent boom and bust housing markets for example. Teaching people to watch out for hazards(like overpriced housing), succeeds far better than trying to eliminate the hazards through oversight and regulation because the world is a dangerous place and no matter how many rules there are hazards still exist. Education allows free choice, oversight does not. I know lots of people that choose to work long hours, to work 7 days a week so they can make more money to buy everything they want, on the otherhand I prefer to keep my expenses as low as possible so I can have all the free time I can possibly afford. Let's leave life choices, employment choices, wage choices up to the individual, not some bureacrat or groups of bureacrats who think they know better what we want or need.

 

[skeptic2]

How is not having a minimum wage "thinking of the businesses" though? The market sets the actual minimum wage, and it is the price of the labor offered by the workers versus what the employers will pay. It isn't the businesses' fault if the wage is set very low for particular forms of labor.

In cosmopolitan areas where there are many businesses and workers are free to migrate between employers there probably wouldn't be a problem. But there are many situations where there is one major employer in a town and the residents either work for that employer or they don’t work. In situations like these the corporation may gradually lower wages and as they do so, the employees become more dependent on those minuscule wages. With lower wages the employees become less able to drive 30 miles to the next town for a different job. The same company in areas where there is more competition may pay its workers double or more than it does in small towns. Is this what you call the market setting the actual minimum wage? Is this what you mean when you say it isn’t the businesses’ fault if the wage is set very low for particular forms of labor?

 

[skeptic2]

I think it could be argued that having a minimum wage arbitrarilly increased hurts the workers more than the buisinesses. Say you have a hourly budget for labor of 20 dollars for your product. At a minimum wage of 5$ you can hire 4 workers, if the government, or a union, comes in and says that you need to raise the wage to 6$, you can only afford to pay three workers, or you have to raise the price of your product. If the market will only support the original price you either lose money and go out of buisiness and all workers get hurt, or one worker has to go find another job, if they can.

If a McDonalds restaurant substantially raises the wages it pays and increases its prices to cover the increase in wages, some customers may start going to Burger King. If however Burger King also has to raise its wages by the same amount as well, the increase probably won’t have much if any affect on sales. Since there are many other factors in the cost of a burger beside wages, the price of the burger won’t have to increase by the same percentage as the percent increase in wages. This means that by virtue of the increase in the minimum wage, someone who formerly couldn’t afford to eat at McDonalds or Burger King now may be able to.

No I’m not suggesting we can legislate wealth by raising the minimum wage but I am suggesting that minimum wage increases cut both ways and only looking at one side is neither fair nor honest.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Read this paper.

http://www.epi.org/page/-/old/briefingpapers/1997_bp_nafta.pdf

Fact: The devalued peso made it easier for Mexico to import to the US under Nafta. I won't disagree with that.

The claim is that this was intentionally done for the purposes of letting the US buy cheap goods is made, but not proven in this. The author says that it was politics that let the peso get high, acknowledging that it was going to crash regardless of the effect of NAFTA. The only alleged role that NAFTA plays is that the author claims the peso was held to a high level so that NAFTA could be passed in the US. Overall the paper does little to nothing to support the claim that NAFTA is the difference between whether or not a peso collapse occurs

As a counterpoint
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj17n3-14.html

A peer reviewed article as opposed to a briefing paper describing how Mexico's credit boom collapse was the cause of the peso devaluation with analogies to other countries which had similar problems. The role that NAFTA plays is simply being part of a politically uncertain situation in 1994 which helped trigger the inevitable collapse

 

[CAC1001]

IMO, this is not because of their ethinticity, but because they are still used to, or are willing and capable to live at the lower standard of living they had in the countries they emmigrated from. A law that forces immigrants to assimilate to our culture quicker, would do more to raise their wages, than a law that you have to pay them a certain amount, since they would need to make more money to maintain their higher living standards and therefore would demand higher pay themselves, they would also learn the most important part of the equation in getting a raise is they need more skills, making their labor more valuable to their employer and would concentrate on learning those skills needed for advancement instead of blaming others for their willingness to work cheaper.

True. I just meant that historically (at least as far as I know), immigrant labor has always been willing to do more work for less money, until they did become assimilated into society.

I think it could be argued that having a minimum wage arbitrarilly increased hurts the workers more than the buisinesses. Say you have a hourly budget for labor of 20 dollars for your product. At a minimum wage of 5$ you can hire 4 workers, if the government, or a union, comes in and says that you need to raise the wage to 6$, you can only afford to pay three workers, or you have to raise the price of your product. If the market will only support the original price you either lose money and go out of buisiness and all workers get hurt, or one worker has to go find another job, if they can.

Yup, exactly, but this also hurts the business as well if they have to give up employees or raise prices.

Imo, wages are both being held artificially high and at the same time being held artificially low, through governmental intrusion. For low or unskilled workers the minimum wage is artificially raising their wage above market value, since if the market could naturally support those wages there would be no need for the minimum wage in the first place. For higher skilled workers their wages are being reduced artificially through things like social security, health benefit requirements, unemployment insurance and the like. Employers would not pay more than what an employee is worth to them, so everything in their pay package that is mandated reduces the wage the skilled employee can negotiate.

Yup. That is why wages can be declining while incomes can be increasing. I believe part of the reason for declining wages with rising per capita incomes lately as been the rising costs of healthcare.

Some of the largest beneficaries of illegals' labor are unions, in my experience unions really don't care if it is an american paying dues or an illegal as long as they get those dues. When I worked in SoCal, the laborers where pretty upfront about their union having a buisiness agent who would help them get fake documents and then send them out to jobs. Unions also have another trick up their sleeve, it is called prevailing wage. It is explained as a wonderful, unselfish thing they do to help non-union workers, the only problem with that explanation, is that without prevailing wage laws, unions would be priced out of the market.

I see.

I am glad you said laws demanding, and not laws creating safe working enviroments. I am not a fan of oversight, since imo, while sounds good it makes matters worse. The best way to regulate anything is undersight. As a worker in a pretty dangerous field, I have noticed that most safety rules(oversight) make workers less safe, whereas having the worker watch out for themselves make them far safer(undersight). One such rule states that overhead powerlines need to have markers to warn workers of the hazard, and I have seen a quite a few different pieces of equipment run into lines because someone or something(wind) had moved the markers, whereas if an employee is taught to watch out for the powerlines and not the markers, accidents are far less likely to happen. Undersight would also work for any market as well. Making the consumer responsible for controlling prices for example, would go a long way to prevent boom and bust housing markets for example. Teaching people to watch out for hazards(like overpriced housing), succeeds far better than trying to eliminate the hazards through oversight and regulation because the world is a dangerous place and no matter how many rules there are hazards still exist. Education allows free choice, oversight does not. I know lots of people that choose to work long hours, to work 7 days a week so they can make more money to buy everything they want, on the otherhand I prefer to keep my expenses as low as possible so I can have all the free time I can possibly afford. Let's leave life choices, employment choices, wage choices up to the individual, not some bureacrat or groups of bureacrats who think they know better what we want or need.

I agree, although I think certain areas do need regulation, just keep it as light and efficient as possible. But for example we need regulation to make sure toys are not made with lead paint.

 

[mheslep]

[...]But for example we need regulation to make sure toys are not made with lead paint.

I don't know that regulation is the only way to insure that. To my mind what's needed is information about harm, not necessarily prevention by a far removed third party.

 

[Galteeth]

Again, this isn't because of the strength of the American dollar vs the peso. It's because America is far wealthier as a nation so people get paid more here

"Paid more" is the same thing. A low end job by American standards is a high end job by Mexican standards. These jobs can possibly afford more material wealth in America then they could in Mexico, but the real difference in "paid more" comes when you compare a mexican working in america and spending his money in mexico versus a mexican working in mexioc and spending his money in mexico. A mexican working in america and spending his money in america is still poor (I am referring to material wealth here.)

 

[Galteeth]

The distinction you draw there is an arbitrary one of geography, with arbitrary rules: "generally recognized", "should not", "are allowed", etc. By the laws of the US, not all people are allowed to walk down the sidewalk in front of my house. Only people with clothes on, for instance, and only those legally resident in the country may do so. I'd likely object to Kim Jong-il walking down the street.

I do not have any such right, not in the US, any more than I have a right to grab your wallet or conscript your labor for my nefarious ends. Nor do you have any right or leave to act similarly on me. In the US, we hold that all have the right to life, liberty, etc. None of those rights can be preserved without the rule of law, and by extension borders are required within which the law can be enacted and applied by the consent of the governed. No borders, then no rule of law, no rights.

I was referring to the moral basis; obviously I understand the legal basis. The distinction is not arbitrary. One is private space, the other is public. These distinctions are the creation of human values, and I anticipate you will say so are nation states. When I refer to rights, i am obviously talking about my own moral views, not the laws of the US.
The basis for private space is human conception of ownership of place. You can say the people of the US own their country. But the point is that the determination of who is a person of the United states is arbitrary. It is about location of birth. It has nothing to do with value as people, or work done to claim ownership in the lockean sense.