Re: Free-trade and Offshoring of jobs argument

From: Tiny Human Ferret (ixnayamspay_klaatu_at_earthops.net)
Date: 10/29/04 

Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 09:36:20 -0400

alexy wrote:
> Tiny Human Ferret <ixnayamspay_klaatu@earthops.net> wrote:
>
>
>>alexy wrote:
>>
>>>Tiny Human Ferret <ixnayamspay_klaatu@earthops.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>alexy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"H. Reader" <history.reader@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"alexy" <nospam@asbry.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:l4bon0l83srpnjge0mb3jtf1em3ipdoh9d@4ax.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>One way to get control over immigration is to stop or drastically
>>>>>>>reduce the influx of illegal aliens. Can you see the difference
>>>>>>>between that and getting rid of all 8-11 million illegal aliens, which
>>>>>>>anyone can see would be impossible without a police state. This "vote"
>>>>>>>was on a rather obvious point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What the hell are you talking about? It wouldn't take a police
>>>>>>state to rid this country of illegals. That's just wildly nonsensical.
>>>>>>We could rid this country of illegals in a few short days, simply
>>>>>>by announcing that employer sanctions would be enforced,
>>>>>>that illegals would be sought out and departed, and that anyone
>>>>>>attempting to enter the country illegally would be considered
>>>>>>a hostile and would be fired upon. Simply publicizing these
>>>>>>intentions would send illegals scrambling out of the country.
>>>>>>President Eisenhower proved what a bit of publicity could
>>>>>>do to rid the country of illegal back in the mid-1950s, when
>>>>>>a million and a half of them left because they didn't want
>>>>>>to be arrested and deported.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Those steps would drastically reduce the number of illegals, but not
>>>>>eliminate them. The cash economy will support some number, who can't
>>>>>be gotten rid of without giving police powers that make the Patriot
>>>>>Act look like an ACLU program.
>>>>
>>>>Just because it's prohibitive in terms of both economic and social costs
>>>>to remove _all_ of the illegals, is not reason to try to remove _most_
>>>>of the illegals, or even some significant percentage of them.
>>>
>>>
>>>No question. And that is a distinction that I think the members of the
>>>subcommittee were capable of making, thus explaining their vote.
>>
>>I think I made an error in that posting, please allow me to rephrase. I
>>shouldn't try to do complex aphorisms before the second cup of coffee.
>>
>>Thus:
>>
>>It might be nearly impossible, and prohibitive in costs, both financial
>>and social/economic costs, to try to remove _all_ illegals. But this is
>>no reason to make no efforts to remove all that can be removed, even if
>>only on an as-encountered basis.
>>
>>The "chokepoint" in that last statement is this, if you make it
>>necessary to present a secure and verifiable ID as a prerequisite to
>>employment, you make sure that "encountered" happens everytime one of
>>those cards is verified.
>
>
> But you are not going to eliminate the underground economy without
> more "police state" tactics than most Americans are willing to accept.
> I don't plan on asking the person who cuts my lawn or baby sits to
> provide documentation, and I sure as hell wouldn't welcome the kind of
> environment where enforcers come around to your house to see who might
> be working in it and requiring you to show that you checked that
> person's documentation. I'm afraid some of the absolutists equate
> good-faith efforts to try to control illegal immigration with "getting
> rid of all illegal immigrants. The subcommittee did not suffer from
> that confusion. Whether they are in favor of strong enough measures is
> another matter altogether.

I have probably been through this before, with you, but maybe not...
here's something I have had to say so many times that I am almost
tempted to just write a 'bot macro so I can just push F12 and have it
reposted.

Basically you cannot entirely remove the underground economy, nor would
one want to, the costs are too high in terms of social disruption. Even
if you succeeded in getting all of the illegals removed, all you've done
is create a situation where local teenagers can't cut your lawn because
of all of the regulation.

However, there can be, and should be, more checking of authorization in
terms of easily-verified documentation as a pre-requisite to employment
in the trades that "traditionally" attract illegals. This would include
fast-food, any major corporate employment in meat processing, etc. This
alone would make an industry segment presently employing probably one ro
two million illegals.

The same sort of document checking should be required when applying for
a loan, for a federally-insured mortgage, a federally-insured bank
account, on any encounter whatsoever with State and local governments, etc.

Will this have the effect of severely marginalizing the illegals?
Certainly: and that's the idea. Since they are coming to America --
illegally dontcha know -- because it's an immense and highly-profitable
step up from life in their homelands, make it less of a step up, and
more of a case of swapping one hellhole for another, one where not
everybody speaks their language.

Of course, there has to be some sort of commensurate compensation in
making the process and experience of Legal immigration to be much less
troublesome and time-consuming.

Right now, the rewards are all stacked in favor of sneaking across the
border and then finding yourself "on Easy Street". It's simply time to
adjust the balances of reward and effort to deter illegal immigration
and to reward doing things the right way, legally. 

-- 
The incapacity of a weak and distracted government may
often assume the appearance, and produce the effects,
of a treasonable correspondence with the public enemy.
                   --Gibbon, "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire"

Relevant Pages

  • Re: What makes CNN so great? Answer: the on air personalities.
    ... My assumption is that, since the interview did not include a request for documentation, that any suspected illegal was not reported. ... Were a research company to be known to be reporting people, they would never be allowed to work in the community ever again. ... Then, I would suggest that knowing this, and having not objected, that, by your complicity, you do encourage illegals' participation in ratings. ...
    (rec.radio.shortwave)
  • Re: Ive seen things you people wouldnt believe...
    ... receiving Medicaid in Waterloo, Dubuque or anywhere else in Iowa" ... Unless illegals are radically different than other people, ... demand too much documentation of illegals since otherwise they'll scare ...
    (rec.arts.sf.fandom)
  • Re: What makes CNN so great? Answer: the on air personalities.
    ... documentation, that any suspected illegal was not reported. ... Were a research company to be known to be reporting people, ... you do encourage illegals' participation in ratings. ... How would doing a response rate study encourage illegals to participate? ...
    (rec.radio.shortwave)
  • Re: Paul Krugman: No more illegal immigrants
    ... Their shape up centers are well known in each community, and if they aren't, I'm certain there are enough good citizens to inform INS of where they are. ... All that needs be done is have an INS vehicle at each shape up street corner on a given morning and you can clean out an entire community of illegals in a morning. ... No doubt that some find regular employment. ... In point of fact, this Administration has outwardly REFUSED to enforce current laws, as evidenced by it's 'catch and release policy.' ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: OT: Drivers licenses for illegals - just to bizarre
    ... food that passes through illegal hands. ... just dealing with the employment problem would be a big ... employed illegals to help the illegals live. ... I have lived surrounded by immigrants all my life. ...
    (rec.bicycles.tech)