Absolute nonsense.

Making a "smart decision" about your life if you're a citizen of one of these countries is NOT to sneak into another country illegally.

No.

The smart thing is to come LEGALLY.

LIKE MANY OF THEM HAVE !!!!!!!!!

The "big fuck you" is to those who have COME HERE LEGALLY.

Lets try and keep it straight shall we ?

I'm on your side here M. Did you read what I said ?

In otherwords "the govt." are scumbags that are INVOLVED in this bullshit.

They continue ALLOWING it.

For a while now, I've seen this problem as being a clusterfuck caused by three conflicting interests and politicians pandering to them and able to get away with it. I'm talking about (1) Illegals able to find better paying jobs in the US regardless of the laws, (2) employers having a need for such labor and (3) minimum wage laws. I view the current system as illogical, personally.

That is, you tell employers that they must pay X dollars to any legal employee, and you have jobs for which the market demand is below X. In other countries, below X is perfectly acceptable and even beneficial. So, there is a great sucking sound of a vacuum waiting to be filled by illegals. Much like the inherent idiocy of the "War on Drugs" as long as you have a healthy supply and demand, there is going to be a black market for filling that demand.

I don't know that I view eliminating minimum wage as practical (I certainly view it as preferable) nor do I think it reasonable to expect the average wage in the countries these people hail from to increase to compare with ours any time soon. So, the practical reality is that illegal laborers are here for the long haul. The alternative here is to build border fences and enact policy to remove the illegals, but, like the War on Drugs, that will cost a lot of money with little to no appreciable positive effect.

In order to remove the supply/demand that creates the situation, I'd imagine the US would need to eliminate minimum wage and encourage corporations to employ people in banana republics for slave labor wages (If GM wants to pay Mexicans $2 per hour to assemble cars, there's no need to come here). I don't see the voting public supporting either of these things, and so, the demand for illegal labor will continue to create the supply.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

I agree in large part, however the process of becoming an American citizen is really difficult and expensive. When it's so easy to leapfrog there's little incentive to do it fair and square.

__________________
Is our children learning? -George W. Bush

"I think—tide turning—see, as I remember—I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of—it's easy to see a tide turn—did I say those words?"—Washington, D.C., June 14, 2006

"[T]he illiteracy level of our children are appalling."—Washington, D.C., Jan. 23, 2004

Yes, well it's not easy relocating to any other country legally.

If I wanted to relocate to another country I would do it legally though. My choices would be New Zealand or Australia. I very seriously doubt I'd be able to sneak into either country and work under the table (illegally) there and get free medical and other social aid.

I DEFINITELY don't expect I could sign into one of their colleges.

They're not foolish enough to allow it.

Ah, yes, "market demand." Let's consider what goes into that, shall we?

The prevailing market-set wage for a particular job is set by:

1) Demand for that type of work;
2) Number of people qualified to do it and seeking that kind of work; and
3) Collective bargaining strength of the workers.

But none of these three things are acts of God. All of them are human artifacts, influenced by government and/or by the corporations themselves. (This is something typically ignored by free-market libertarians, who seem to believe that market conditions are set by nature rather than by government.) Take farm labor for example.

1) The demand for farm labor is influenced in the negative by farm machinery.
2) Number of people qualified to do it and seeking that kind of work is influenced by immigration policy.
3) Collective bargaining strength of the workers is influenced by government policy towards unions.

It's the second two that we're mainly concerned with here. In the past, before the 1930s when government switched to a labor-friendly instead of capital-friendly stance, and when workers could be oppressed and exploited legally as well as shamelessly, the government often adopted a much more liberal immigration policy. Hence the hordes of downtrodden Irish and Chinese workers who built the railroads. Nowadays, though, that sort of thing has to happen under the table if it happens at all, so instead of a liberal immigration policy the government adopts a tight one and then deliberately (IMO) fails to enforce it.

Do minimum-wage laws even apply to agricultural workers? Regardless, the impact of unionization is much greater than the minimum wage. But an illegal immigrant can't do much in that direction, either, because his employer can fire him for it without even having a pretext. What's the illegal gonna do? Sue? Yeah, right . . .

The minimum wage is sort of like abortion: a last resort, something that props up wages when all else fails. Sensible, labor-friendly trade, immigration, education, and labor-union policies on the part of the government do much more to keep wages high, where they should be if our collectively-produced wealth is to be broadly distributed in a way that is both fair and healthy for the economy. Ideally, market wages should be kept high enough by this kind of policy that the minimum wage never need be invoked.

But WHY is that the case? Again, the attitude seems to exist that these things arise from nature like sea foam. They don't. They arise from government and corporate policy. If below X is "perfectly acceptable and even beneficial" in other countries, it's because people are so oppressed in those other countries that even shameless exploitation can seem to be an improvement.

That anyone could believe this to be a good thing, or even an acceptable thing, simply boggles the mind.

What we need to do is simply say no to our agricorps and others employing illegal immigrants, and stop the corrupt policies that allow the exploitation currently happening. You guys need more labor? Fine, we'll increase the immigration quota. Oh? You say you have to provide safe working conditions now? You say your employees are demanding a raise, and joining the UFW? They're threatening to strike?

Tough shit. That's the way the game's played. Live with it.

I think on a large scale we are all responsible, when the prices were low it was ok for all illegals to do the work nobody wanted to.We as a people established this country on immigrants and most of our heritage goes back to european ancestry. I believe everyone should be a citizen of the country they work and live in, however i also don't believe in using people for our benefit and then throw them to the wolves. Everybody desires a better standard of living so i don't blame them for trying, if you are aware close to 40% of the population has already changed, do you want hatred or promise for the future, these people helped build our economy, you can't use them and throw them away like we do with everything else these days.

Which is exactly what we're doing.

Even though slavery was abolished long long ago.

Doesn't matter.

We have a NEW slave.

This comes from our govt.

In case you wondered why I called them all scumbags (our govt.). They have earned NONE of my respect. I'll give them none.

Well, you're right we can't. That's why this has grown, and continues to grow, into such a big issue/problem.

Our govt. is promoting an illegal activity and has been for YEARS. Many years. The social, economic and human costs continue to rise.

It continues though. We still have open borders and pay people to come to America to work illegally.

Will the scummy lowlifes that "run America" EVER take any action ?

What do you think the answer to THAT question is ? Look at what they've BEEN doing for the last 50 years for the answer to that.

If they're coming here to work, then why the fuck should we let them go to school?

Absolutely.

That help should come in the form of a lift back to our border, so they can commence the process of entering our country legally...

I'm not all too concerned about the "opportunity" that illegal scumbags have. They can come here legally, and they'll be welcomed with open arms...

So breaking the law is making a smart decision?

Oh, I can;t fuckin' wait to hear how this one makes sense...

Hey, too bad.

They're here illegally.

They should not get to go to college.

They should not be given jobs.

They should not be given medical care.

They should not be given public assistance.

The only thing they should be given is a ride to the border...

Fuck 'em.

They can try the right way, or they can try the wrong way.

They chose the wrong way...

I have no use for them...

So you're arguing that the government can manipulate the parameters for suppliers (and thus price) of labor, but chooses not to? I wouldn't dispute either, but so what? I don't really view the idea that the government can control the prevailing wage for a job to be of any real importance - it can and could always have done this. Whether there is some kind of demand imposed "by nature" or whether it is the result of legislation and technological considerations doesn't alter the reality of the current situation which is that illegal immigrants will work for wages that would be employers are not interested in paying above a minimum wage. If you cut this off, demand for mechanized replacement of manual labor would likely create a supply of such a thing and the jobs would go away.

I found this link about agriculture and minimum wage: http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/whd/whdfs12.pdf

One of my biggest issues with the minimum wage coupled with tasking the government with ensuring that everyone receives what we might call a "decent wage" is the possibility for people being paid to do things that are essentially useless or technologically backward. If we were guaranteed by the government that letter carriers on horseback received a decent wage (regardless of the actual demand for such a service), then you'd essentially have tax payers funding a deprecated and unused service. I realize the example is fatuous, but I'm being a little tongue in cheek to (hopefully) make my point clearer. In a more realistic sense, how do you see this sort of legislation as not being stagnating - providing an interest in status quo over natural motivation for advancement (even though such painful things as job elimination via obsolescence).

I'm not sure if you're referring to me, but I'm simply pointing out the reality without passing judgment on that reality one way or the other. However indignant we might decide to be about it won't change it.

Ah, you seem to be addressing the employers and not me, so disregard what I said above. Yes, I have no issue with that. Forcing current employers of illegals to play ball without exploiting seems like a good step, though I doubt that it will happen anytime soon as this is not in the political interest of either major party. The Democrats don't want to piss of Hispanic voters and the Republicans don't want to piss off the people employing them at slave labor rates.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

I also meant to include that I'm not talking specifically and only about migrant/agricultural workers. For instance, there are lots of illegal immigrants where I live, and they are largely employed as landscapers, busboys, construction workers, etc. All things that would be and are subject to a minimum wage and this minimum wage is probably relevant rather frequently, as Illinois has a significantly higher one than the federal government demands.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

No, I'm actually arguing that it does, must, and cannot avoid this; the only variable is on whose behalf (and hence in what ways) it does. The government has to set trade policy, and it has to set immigration policy. It can do these things in one way, and tip the labor/capital dispute in favor of capital; it can do it another way, and tip it in favor of labor; what it cannot do, ever, is simply keep its hands off.

In fact, the market itself is a product of government policy. It wouldn't even EXIST without the government, or, well, to be more precise, some kind of market would exist, but it would be based on barter, and all merchants would need to hire guards to protect their wares from looters. The idea that the government has an option NOT to regulate the economy, arises solely from the error in thinking that many elements of the economy are natural when in fact they are not.

Well, obviously the minimum wage doesn't do that; if anything, it encourages job elimination via obsolescence. Right now, we have the potential to automate our manufacturing a lot more than we're doing, but our companies don't do that because it's cheaper to hire oppressed foreigners, either in the foreign countries or here in the form of illegal immigrants. If they were required to pay U.S. wages, we would see more automation.

And that would be a good thing. The problem here is not that we are losing manufacturing jobs per se, but that we are losing manufacturing jobs and replacing them with jobs that don't pay as well. If we were to lose those jobs to automation rather than to oppressed foreigners, productivity would skyrocket, available wealth would increase, and the new jobs created in the service sector would pay a lot more than they do, just as happened when agricultural jobs were lost to automation and replaced by industrial jobs.

Exploitation and oppression of the working class hurts the entire economy. It hurts everyone.

Well, let's not speak so quickly. The reason we have the current policy without enforcing it effectively is because we have a higher need for immigrant labor than our immigration quotas can meet. Would the Hispanic community really be pissed off if the quotas were raised, and many of the people who are now here illegally could instead be here legally? Honestly, I can't see why.

I would say, rather, that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans want to piss off the unscrupulous employers, because those guys have been contributing financially to the campaigns of both parties. If anything's going to change that, it's the newer Internet-based system of mass-market campaign financing. We will see.

(1) Lovely.

(2) Or you can make it easy for them to stay in a country. Nobody voluntarily chooses the precarious, dangerous wrong way over the more secure right way. They don't choose it because they're feckless and it's so much fun.

(3) Yes, you do. If all the illegals left the US it would collapse. Your country is built on immigration. Like I said, make it easy for them to come in.