May I see your papers, citizen?

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

Those rules are in place to protect those who cannot demand them.

If "those who cannot demand them" are Americans, maybe. But if they're Mexicans, the rules don't give a ****. Then the rules happily send the workers back to Mexico, where they suffer even worse.

Drewdad wrote:

Basically, you're saying let's all jump in the water with the sharks, and those who are the toughest will survive. I'm saying let's shoot the sharks before we go swimming.

Once again, I disagree with the premise of your statement. Americans who employ Mexicans, legal or not, are not analogous to sharks. They are symbionts, not predators -- and their alleged prey proves this, day by day, in choosing to enter into a symbiosis with them and staying there.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

their alleged prey proves this, day by day, in choosing to enter into a symbiosis with them and staying there.

It seems to me that you're observing an absence of objection and interpreting this as consent. I would like to see some more evidence of this in lieu of just an interpretation of your observations.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Let me rephrase the question.

Do you think that ANY act involving" mutual consent" should be legal?

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

I believe there are behaviors that risk the well being of others, though, which although they do not always produce victims should nevertheless be restricted.

Drunk driving, for example. Do you believe people should be able to risk my safety by driving drunk, and only be punished if they actually harm someone?

No, I do think my fellow motorists have a right to reduce the risk I'm imposing on them. But how does that translate to the case where I sign up for work at some sweatshop in Austin, TX? What risk would that impose on you?

1 Reply

@Thomas,

They're not all symbionts, though. I'm sure there are plenty of venus fly traps in among the flowers that the worker bees pollinate.

(I'm sure the corn thinks it has a pretty good thing going, too, right until the harvester arrives.)

0 Replies

@Thomas,

I explained that. Illegal workers create environments where people are afraid to report their employers for infractions.

1 Reply

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

Thomas wrote:
their alleged prey proves this, day by day, in choosing to enter into a symbiosis with them and staying there.

It seems to me that you're observing an absence of objection and interpreting this as consent. I would like to see some more evidence of this in lieu of just an interpretation of your observations.

It's not just an absence of objection. It's a sustained, active effort to cross the border, incurring deadly risks because it's illegal, in seeking those jobs. And it's a sustained, active effort to keep the jobs, even though the alternative of going back home is readily available.

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

Let me rephrase the question.

Do you think that ANY act involving" mutual consent" should be legal?

Yes. Every act that all affected parties have consented to should be legal.

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

They're not all symbionts, though. I'm sure there are plenty of venus fly traps in among the flowers that the worker bees pollinate.

That's a separate issue. If the employer forces the employees not to quit, that's illegal imprisonment, and should be punished whatever the workers' nationality is. I understand there are prostitution rings who do that. I am only defending employment where the workers are free to quit.

DrewDad wrote:

I explained that. Illegal workers create environments where people are afraid to report their employers for infractions.

So quit your job and look for another employer.

3 Replies

@engineer,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Examples of leftist Republicans: Lowell Weicker and Jacob Javits.

engineer wrote:

You're proving the point here. Republicans like this can't exist today. [Good thing!]
Jacob Javits has been dead almost 25 years and Lowell Weicker went
independent 20 years ago and now leans Democratic.

U suggest that BOTH parties are supposed offer the SAME THING ??

In America, the GOP represents (at least, in theory) the orthodox, non-variant,
interpretation of the Constitution, whereas the Demos represent deviation therefrom, to favor the poor.

Democracy is subverted if both parties offer the same thing: no choice.

David

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Individual workers are not competent to judge safety standards on their own, especially in today's complex work situations. No one person can ensure that all the factors involved are safe. Thus the need for regulations.

This may be true in industrial jobs. On the other hand, I'd say the safety concerns of lawn-mowing, house-cleaning, and child-rearing are well understood by everyone -- including illegal immigrants.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Quote:

So quit your job and look for another employer.

I cannot agree with the amazingly callous disregard for the safety and well-being of workers displayed in this comment.

I would point out that there are a wide variety of health and safety issues for which an individual worker cannot, under any circumstances, be asked to be knowledgeable about. Just one example: does the paint in my office give off fumes which are toxic over the long run? How the hell should I know? Geez, maybe we should have someone who, yaknow, regulates my employer so I don't have to worry about that and can focus on my job!

The concept that Company and Worker play some sort of equal role in the transaction is farcical. They do not.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

It's not just an absence of objection. It's a sustained, active effort to cross the border, incurring deadly risks because it's illegal, in seeking those jobs. And it's a sustained, active effort to keep the jobs, even though the alternative of going back home is readily available.

It's not just the absence of objection, it's also the fact you're interpreting this sustained, active effort as decisions of well informed agents in a free market to choose between two situations. This, too, seems to me to be interpretation rather than purely evidence-based. I have not much reason to believe that people who sell over their lives to human traffickers are always making this kind of well informed decision, and I have not much reason to believe that people who end up in a highly exploitative work environment as a result are free to decide to simply walk away from this situation.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Individual workers are not competent to judge safety standards on their own, especially in today's complex work situations. No one person can ensure that all the factors involved are safe. Thus the need for regulations.

This may be true in industrial jobs. On the other hand, I'd say the safety concerns of lawn-mowing, house-cleaning, and child-rearing are well understood by everyone -- including illegal immigrants.

I think you purely and 100% incorrect. And Lawn-mowing is an industrial job - workers work outdoors, in the heat, with sharp implements and gasoline engines and potentially explosive chemicals. What about that says to you 'let this situation go unregulated?'

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The concept that Company and Worker play some sort of equal role in the transaction is farcical. They do not.

Then I guess you're right: we cannot agree.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
The concept that Company and Worker play some sort of equal role in the transaction is farcical. They do not.

Then I guess you're right: we cannot agree.

I'm going to go farther than 'we can't agree,' to go ahead and assert that you are incorrect, and it's not just a matter of opinion. You are factually (or perhaps just logically) misrepresenting the situation.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

It's not just the absence of objection, it's also the fact you're interpreting this sustained, active effort as decisions of well informed agents in a free market to choose between two situations. This, too, seems to me to be interpretation rather than purely evidence-based.

In case you haven't observed any Mexicans recently -- they tend to have cell phones, and tend to call home a lot with them. As a result, I expect that people in Mexico are fairly well informed about how their relatives in the States are doing.

But even if their decision to come to the States wasn't well-informed, their decision to stay in the States most certainly is. Once they are working in their US jobs, they know the work conditions here, remember the work conditions back home, and can decide competently which they like better.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You are factually (or perhaps just logically) misrepresenting the situation.

I repeat: We cannot agree.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

OmSigDavid, and Rockhead:

I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree. As I said already, stopping illegal immigration
is of the same urgency to me as stopping illegal voting by women
or illegal sitting in the wrong part of a segregated bus.

If employers hire immigrants without asking for their work permissions,
that's between them and the law. As far as I am concerned, more power to them!

Well, it saddens me that we do not have your support, Thomas,
because as I have indicated, tho we disagree, I very ofen admire
your dispassionate powers of reason and insight.

For the nonce, I must be satisfied that we have won,
or we have made some progress, represented by Arizona's SB1070, in defending from the Mexican invasion.

I wish that the Founders had the presence of mind
to enact in the Constitution that the progeny of illegal aliens woud NOT have American citizenship,
but as an orthodox Republican, I can 't pretend that it says that.

What disturbs me more than anything else,
is the apprehension that the following generation of Mexicans
will be able to vote and will drag the electorate toward the left,
ending America as being the Land of the Free
and the Home of the Brave, replaced by a welfare state of docile citizens.

David

2 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

In case you haven't observed any Mexicans recently -- they tend to have cell phones, and tend to call home a lot with them. As a result, I expect that people in Mexico are fairly well informed about how their relatives in the States are doing.

I have. I have seen immigrants from Latin American countries in the States (and Europe, for that matter), and I've seen the other side in Latin America - their families, and people who were 'visiting' their home towns from various countries were they were working illegally. I just don't know how those anecdotes are supposed to support sweeping generalizations. Unless I see better evidence for that claim, I have no reason to believe that a highly visible fraction of the immigrant population is representative of 100% of illegal immigration into the United States.

Thomas wrote:

But even if their decision to come to the States wasn't well-informed, their decision to stay in the States most certainly is. Once they are working in their US jobs, they know the work conditions here, remember the work conditions back home, and can decide competently which they like better.

How do you know that? How large is the number of illegal immigrants working in house keeping, gardening and baby sitting versus the number of illegal immigrants who are working in exploitative situations, under the threat of use of force or coercion?

I realize that you don't support forced labor, but without knowledge about what percentage of illegal employment in the United States is due to forced labor, how do you argue that all illegal employment is the result of a well-informed decision on part of an illegal immigrant not to terminate that work relationship?

1 Reply

May I see your papers, citizen?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know