It's mind boggling to me that the liberal answer to localized labor shortages is to import scab labor from out of the country, paid under the table with no benefits, and if they get lippy, just call ICE on them. Americans will do those jobs if you allow the wage rates to reach what would be their normal, natural level. And if you're worried about it getting too high, something else will happen. Machines take place of migrants as berry harvest booms I know you won't read the article...but I think you can get the idea from the title.
Impressive. One farmer? I still maintain that Americans do not like these jobs, and won't perform them with gusto, with exceptions.
Please stop calling me a liberal, because it ain't so, Ollie. Machines will take the place of workers across the spectrum.
Only when it's economically feasible to do so, we had the technology to automate anything back in the 1980s if money was no object .
I don't agree with the situation; however, foreigners are willing to do the work for less and be more productive. If the Mexican was not working a low wage job here, what would they do in Mexico? Work in the drug trade? Would their nation become so poor, poverty stricken and disease / crime ridden that we had to bail them out at our expense? If I personally want blackberries, I would grow them. Sometimes it's not about me. It's about the fact that there are people growing crops, people willing to buy at a given price, and people willing to work. If the government prevents that, there should be some damn good reason. People won't buy the blackberries due to the cost. So, the crops rot in the field. What is it about this equation that escapes you?
It seems to me that the people that make a religion out of the immigration issue call everyone that isn't left or right a liberal. If you don't toe the line and chant the mantra, they think you're a lefty. REALITY CHECK: Twenty years ago, the immigration religionists were the liberals.
I read his link, but you have to remember I'm the guy who can only pay $25 an hour for handymen and no Americans will take the jobs. So, I let Mexicans work for me or lose my home. And right now I'm rehabbing from major surgery, so I really cannot pay surgeon wages for people to do handyman work around the house.
>>>MOD EDIT Off Topic Removed<<< So... ONE garlic farm raises wages and has a thriving business. Grape growers are probably doing just fine as well. But, that don't translate to the same economic situation across the board no more than comparing the income of bus lines versus taxis. In Georgia, a tv reporter went to one of those places that raises berries (I don't recall what kind.) He spent a few days there. The farmer advertised on the Internet, with the state Dept. of Labor, and in the local newspaper. He also offered incentives for people who worked the previous year to bring a new employee. He fell really short due to the draconian enforcement of immigration laws. Only four Americans showed up and two of those were gone before noon. The best pickers were averaging $11 to $12 an hour. But, the bottom line is, Americans are not taking those jobs. And I don't understand why we're talking a "living wage" when scores of Americans work in the food and retail business for far less than what the farmers are offering. In my defense I am the only person on this board with a plan to put Americans back to work and increase wages. The problem is, since those solutions don't include building a wall around America, mining the desert with explosives and killing people for taking advantage of jobs willingly offered, we will not be considering that plan on this board.
In the 80's money was the stopper. Today it is a different story, and the robots are more advanced and smaller.
A living wage is about $50,000 a year today. the cost of an apple would be $5.00, and they would be extinct before long.
Well here is another "hit and run comment" The TV reporter in Georgia should have asked the berry farmer (or whatever he was) why he didn't avail himself to H-2A temporary agricultural visas. I think the answer would have been enlightening.
And who are they going to hire when they need help?? You see the problem? Doesn't really seem like a sustainable solution when you step back and analyze it. In the overall bigger picture, you're trying to help the poor by bringing in people who are even poorer. But there's a base to this pyramid, and there aren't cheap workers to help those at the very bottom. So you still end up with a huge segment of population who can't afford things. This doesn't sound like an ideal version of society.
I'm not sure you can explain your theory of economics to us in one paragraph; most people won't read beyond three sentences for mine. It's easy to sling skeet and criticize people you don't know and lack the information necessary to draw any conclusions. My view is simple: Foreigners are here because it is profitable. Legal, illegal... all of that is meaningless cow dung to me. Our nation is bass ackwards. We put quotas on workers, but none on how many people can become citizens. Do you think I give a rat's fanny about whether or not the foreigner has human registration papers and pays the income tax (which is unconstitutional in the first place AND a plank out of the Communist Manifesto in the second place?) National Socialists have the right obsessed with the border and so-called "illegal aliens" while they play the most dishonest games known to God or man and become pawns in the game, allowing the puppet masters to take control of America on the installment plan. I play the hand that is dealt to me and the anti-immigrant lobby wants to cry crocodile tears and make the most ridiculous, baseless and idiotic allegations while the organizations selling the snake oil are demanding we chant the mantra and give up every single Liberty our forefathers fought, bled, and died in order to establish. I realize you probably believe you have a monopoly on understanding the issue, but Hell I only have four decades experience - including six years working IN immigration law. BTW, I went to work in immigration based upon the swill that was being fed to me by the people who have made a religion out of the immigration issue and demanding that adherents chant a mantra and never challenge the infallibility of the proposed "solutions" that were dreamed up by the left years ago. The puppet masters used a slick political trick to get the right worked into an uproar. It works like this: Thesis + Antithesis = Synthesis Now, let me put this into English for you. 1) The Puppet masters create the problem (Thesis) 2) The Puppet masters then generate the opposition to this problem (Antithesis) 3) Finally the Puppet masters allow you to choose from THEIR pre planned solutions that they designed to get you to do what they wanted in the first place. There IS an immigration problem. It is NOT about profitability. I don't like playing the devil's advocate on that side of the issue, but you don't have a case. Foreigners pay taxes, work at jobs for lower wages, and are much more productive. They create jobs as well. AND they create wealth. One real issue is that multiculturalism destroys civilizations. But, the root of the problem is that the posterity of the founders of this country have locked themselves out of the job market. Many, if not all, the silly quick fixes aimed at foreigners have victimized more Americans than they have penalized foreigners! Yet, we refuse to take responsibility. Many ignorant Americans erroneously believe that if you get rid of the so-called "illegal alien," you somehow create jobs for Americans. That is absolute and utter B.S. It does not address the 780,000 plus people that will become "legal" (sic) citizens, disenfranchising Americans. Neither do the so - called "solutions" on the table address the MILLIONS of Americans who have been locked out of the job market by the anti-immigrant lobby. You seem to live in a state of denial about the laziness of scores of the American people. Businesses would leave for China if somebody don't oppose the idiotic crap being spewed by the anti- immigrant religionists. A lot of dishonest political propaganda prostitutes try to misrepresent economists like Milton Friedman by employing weak non sequiturs they attribute to the left. Friedman once said, "You cannot have open borders and a welfare state." So, the National Socialists got the right fixated on the border (at a cost to the Liberties of Americans) and conned them into a religion of worshipping the fantasy of a militarized border. They completely ignore the realities of our times and don't want to consider what Friedman said because it's easier to blame dissention on the left - which is so morally reprehensible that calling such tactics a lie is an insult to the word lie. The left has no dog in that fight. The left is all about the Nanny State. The left loves welfare. But, you know what both sides have in common? The immigration religionists AND the left ignore the welfare state. You want your problem to go away? End the welfare state, put Americans to work, and get over the NEW WORLD ORDER AGENDA that the left put into the heads of the immigration religionists. That is easier and faster with a lower cost and no threat to your Liberties. You can curb immigration without the POLICE STATE.
"The H2A visa can bring as many H2A workers to agricultural businesses as they need because there is no annual limit on the number of visas that the Department of State will issue under the H2A program. This means that you can obtain as many seasonal agricultural workers as your business needs."
You like to focus on H2A visas, but the reality is, most jobs are not in that sector. How many different kinds of jobs do you think have been created in the United States in the last fifty years? How many different scenarios do you think we've created that are not anticipated? Most workers are in the H2B category. You seem to gloss over the caps and ignore it from the employer's perspective: "Petitions of employers determined to have an ongoing or continuing need for the H-2 services sought will be denied." It's a great deflection, that has absolutely NOTHING to do with my previous post. But, you know I have your number. So let's change the subject.
The poster. kazenatsu wanted an answer and he got it. It will now be the job of those whose religion is immigration to bury the response. The religion of anti immigration / militarized borders demands that you believe in that and only that. You must chant the proper mantra or you will be pursued as if you committed the act of heresy.
America only needs an agricultural reset. Part of my family farms and they do it largely with machines. They have farmed for over 200 years as far as I know. Their spirit of independence say "our family can do it". When I say America needs a reset, I'm saying we need an attitude adjustment here. There are those that should be doing the work but instead get government assistance while working under the table in a variety of unethical vocations. If we use foreign labor, they need to be documented and few.
I can't blame you either for trying to change the subject to subtly make a case for the POLICE STATE mentality espoused by those who have made a religion out of immigration. So far, we are two for two with people wanting to bury my relevant post... and that don't include the fact that the poster criticizing me hasn't responded yet.
Since we've been specifically discussing agricultural workers, I'm unclear why we shouldn't be talking about H-2A visas...that's what we're discussing! But fine, you want to switch to non agricultural jobs, tell me why the H-2B visa is unacceptable to you and we have to open the country to millions more illegals.
LilMike wants to ask emotionally charged questions like: "...tell me why the H-2B visa is unacceptable to you and we have to open the country to millions more illegals." MOST jobs are not temporary agricultural jobs. LilMike cannot understand that. And, IF an employer can avail themselves of foreign labor, the opportunity must, by law, apply to all employers. If you want to claim you want the law enforced, then the laws must be enforced equally. Those people who have made a religion out of the immigration issue are all about the enforcement of the law until you point out that by denying to some employers the equal opportunity to hire foreigners you are violating the Constitution; therefore, you are not enforcing the law get their boxers in a bunch. It's monotonous for me to have to keep coming back and facing dishonest criticisms simply because some people refuse to allow me an opinion not in line with the chant the mantra religionists who worship "immigration laws" even at the exclusion of all other laws - including the Constitution. I do not believe that the 14th and 16th Amendments pass constitutional muster. AND I say so. Therefore, at the end of the day, I don't care whether or not an employer gets to hire a foreigner or not. The point is, IF my critics want to be consistent, then let's enforce ALL the laws, not just the ones that benefit them. That way, if we do that, they can understand the balance of what I'm saying. Unable to understand that the Puppet masters have given the anti-immigrant lobby some pre - planned "solutions," they are unable to follow the the ramifications of their actions to their final conclusion. This is the United States of America. I do not want to adopt the laws of Mexico, Canada, Australia, or China. I want us to return to the America of our forefathers. With that in mind, the question of who should be invited into any state is, under a our de jure / constitutional laws, the state. The word immigration isn't even IN the Constitution. So, I'm opposed to the 14th Amendment (and BTW, if you had no 14th Amendment, you'd never had a political case for so - called "anchor babies.) Likewise, the Kennedy Immigration Laws, to which you make such a pretext of enforcing, were put into place to disenfranchise the white people. They rate as much with me as does the 14th Amendment. And, so, in order to convey to you my theory of law, I will do a separate posting regarding the position of even the United States Supreme Court
The United States Supreme Court opined: "The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows: The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted. Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . . A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it. — Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256) Once you understand that, you might begin to see where the real solution to the immigration debacle lies.
