If the Feds Won't Do It...

So you have no problem with capital moving freely across borders but labor is another story Originally Posted by WTF

Capital does not move freely. It is regulated and controlled. Labor is too...just not enforced.

It's been my experience that first generation immigrants from anywhere work their asses off. I don't pay less for Mexicans, I just get more work for my money. The money withheld for their certainly fraudulent SS numbers will go into the general kitty.
It's fun to hear my homeboy cooks swear in Spanish.

Here's the real answer: The bit from you which I have bolded/italicized/colored is the key. Don't want illegal labor coming into the country? Don't hire them. Know somebody who is hiring them? Out them, immediately.

Personally, I like to call folks to the carpet who cry about undocumented laborers toiling away at the worst of our jobs for the shittiest of pay, and I do it by reminding them that without a need, there would have been no influx.

Slice it any way you please.

And lastly, I think immigrants should be welcomed. We need all the hardworking folks we can get. We also need our production base returned to US soil. And that, my friends--the loss of our production work--is a greater threat to our society than any number of illegal Mexicans. Undocumented Hispanic labor is largely a scapegoat. Corporatism fucked the US populace out of a living, not illegal workers.

Now, folks who come here and turn to lives of felonious criminal activity should be given the boot. A good thing that would be.

To me... this is the real question. Does illegal labor really reduce the "Total Cost" to me of the services?

For example, if we have an illegal family, and they are mowing my lawn, Then I am saving perhaps $5 a week. Yet they may not be paying taxes, as it is a self run business. They also show up at the local hospital and get free medical care on an emergency basis... of course it's not really free, as it increases the costs the rest of us pay for medical care.

Also consider the unemployment we are paying US citizens, as they cannot obtain employment due to artifically lowered wages due to competition with the illegal aliens.

So, when you factor in the cost of the taxes that many illegals don't pay, and the services they consume, and the services we pay citizens due to unemployment, it may be better for us to pay more upfront for our services by employing US citizens at a higher wage. It is possible that it could still be a net lower cost for us.

Has anyone ever seen a decent example of such a study? I'd be really interested in how this truly works out. My guess is that it might be pretty close. Even if it were a slightly net negative cost, I would be for it, just from the standpoint of supporting my fellow citizens. Originally Posted by 69er

And lastly, I think immigrants should be welcomed. We need all the hardworking folks we can get. We also need our production base returned to US soil. And that, my friends--the loss of our production work--is a greater threat to our society than any number of illegal Mexicans. Undocumented Hispanic labor is largely a scapegoat. Corporatism fucked the US populace out of a living, not illegal workers.

Now, folks who come here and turn to lives of felonious criminal activity should be given the boot. A good thing that would be. Originally Posted by Frank Zappatista

About the most truthful thing I've read lately. The blue collar industries that built America in the fifties have all but disappeared thanks to corporate greed sending labor overseas, corrupt unions, and quite frankly a loss of work ethic. Shit, even Mexico is losing production to overseas. We're a glutinous nation looking for anyone to blame.

Some like to blame the corporations for greed, but there is a lot more to it than that. For instance if our politicians didn't want to see the corporations move operations overseas, they wouldn't raise corporate taxes or regulate them out of existence. Lets go a step further; we don't like to see our domestic companies going to foreign investors, but the govt created CFIUS to facilitate those sells.

As we become a debtor nation with foreign investors holding our debt, selling domestic companies as a means of "pay back" may seem plausable to the politicians who live comfortably off of the tax payer. Most politicians live in a bubble created by their entitlement and they have foresaken the working class. When's the last time any of you haven't said to yourselves that they politicians "aren't listening, or have lost site of their constituencies?" Even GW said he lost site of his free market principles when signing TARP.

I'm suprised to see the BO crowd still hang on to their "mesiah" when he's not allowing the greedy corporations to fall when they have clearly failed by clinging to the "to big to fail" montra. What happened to the liberal hatred of big corporations and monoplies? Does having a liberal administration change the liberal ideology?

What happened to the liberal hatred of big corporations and monoplies? Does having a liberal administration change the liberal ideology? Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

PJ (yeah, PJ) said it well in some other thread on what was probably a completely different topic. Left, right, middle, it doesn't matter: Having to govern always changes things.

Capital does not move freely. It is regulated and controlled. Labor is too...just not enforced. Originally Posted by Rudyard K

LOL.....You will not get an arguement out of me that we have to many stupid regulations. But NAFTA open up trade but not labor movement. The problem is with to big to fail and its corresponding political influence. Both parties are guilty of it. .

Now lets comment on that study you were asking about. Cato is no liberal institute nor is the Texas Comptroller. Should we build a fence and no longer trade with others? If not...let me hire who I please, including my brothers and sisters to the south.

...Should we build a fence and no longer trade with others? ... Originally Posted by WTF

Does a fence mean we can't trade anymore? Oh my!!! A fence is a trade barrier... Not!!!

Bad Bad

Does a fence mean we can't trade anymore? Oh my!!! A fence is a trade barrier... Not!!! Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

I said AND.....meaning build a fence AND also shut down trade.

I did not mean to imply that building a fence would shut down trade.

But I did mean to imply that let's do both OR none.

Riddle me this....Why the fuc should capital get to move across border more freely than labor?

The problem as I see it is the Welfare State, not immigration. I have linked you studies where immigrants are a net plus to our $$$$. What more do you want?

WTF, what's up with the large font? I don't think there is anybody around here that has a problem seeing. Or are you yelling to help get your point across? I promise you that it won't help.

WTF, what's up with the large font? I don't think there is anybody around here that has a problem seeing. Or are you yelling to help get your point across? I promise you that it won't help. Originally Posted by Ansley

Maybe you should get a larger monitor. Attacking a man's font seems rather diversiva.

Maybe you should get a larger monitor. Attacking a man's font seems rather diversiva. Originally Posted by Sa_artman

And there is no need for you to worry about what I say to WTF.

And there is no need for you to worry about what I say to WTF. Originally Posted by Ansley

Public forum Ma'am. I may worry to my hearts content. Seriously, picking on fonts because you disagree with someone is rather petty. Rise above.

Bad Bad Originally Posted by pjorourke