0
   

What do u think of Bush proposing major immigration reform?

 
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Dec, 2003 02:47 pm
It probably didn't sound like it, edgar, but on this, we agree.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Dec, 2003 02:55 pm
roger, FYI: We count as members in our family English, German, Hispanic, black, Italian, Polynesian, Irish, and Chinese - as of last count. If my message on A2K is unclear, please ask for clarification. It's that simple. c.i.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Dec, 2003 03:43 pm
One of my sisters hated black people and Mexicans with a passion. But her hatred backfired. Her oldest daughter met a nice man of the black persuasion, married him, and they have a beautiful child. My sister can't let go of the hate; she calls the kid a zebra and refuses to see her daughter and grandchild. She is missing out on a wonderful experience.
_________________________________________

roger
I hope you don't think I referred to you earlier. It was a sort of generic remark.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Dec, 2003 06:09 pm
C.i. - speaking in lieu of roger - you simply stated that, "When a president wants to be reelected in a close race, he creates new citizens that will vote for him and his party." Roger pointed out rightly that that argument doesnt make sense - whatever the new law Bush will propose, it wont create new citizens in time to vote for Bush in 04. So your message wasnt so much "unclear", it was simply incorrect.

You know, if you posit stuff about stuff, you're gonna get called on it if its not right, thats all! I'm sure theres no malevolence intended - thats just how it works in a discussion.

Oh, and Au in the end did make the obvious point, of course - it's not about making new Hispanic-American citizens that will vote for Bush - its about doing something that will make existing Hispanic-American citizens more likely to vote Bush. Which I'm sure is more or less what you had wanted to say, in any case.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Dec, 2003 06:32 pm
nimh
Many many of these votes are already there. The problem for politicians is to get them to the voting booth. A smaller percentage of eligible Hispanics vote than for about any group. Possibly this is so because in the past they did not see that voting made much difference. Now that they are in ever growing numbers, they are a sleeping giant. Onece they become galvanized and assert themselves, they will become potential king makers.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Dec, 2003 07:32 pm
yes - what i'm saying above.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Dec, 2003 07:42 pm
nimh
So much of the thread is so far from that point I had forgotten.
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Dec, 2003 09:10 pm
I think its a good start. People who choose to be Americans should do so legally. We need to know who is here, and where they're coming from. I don't think this is too much to ask.

My area is full of Mexicans, and my community benefits from them immensely. They are also making more money than they could at home, and finding community services in every sphere of need. It is a win-win situation. Some change must be made to stop the illegal influx, though.

I really don't get Craven's Down on America diatribe. We are still more welcoming than many nations.

Anyway, I think the changes are a step in the right direction. It appears to be a compromise.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Dec, 2003 09:28 pm
nimh, You are right; my mistake. Revised my earlier post, because I ate my own words. c.i.
0 Replies
 
pistoff
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Dec, 2003 09:03 pm
Hispanics that are elegible to vote
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36355

The front-page story by Mike Allen describes a Bush initiative on "immigration reform." Seems that U.S. employers would post jobs and the wages that go with them on a Department of Labor website. If no Americans came forward to take the jobs, the employer would be allowed to bring Mexican temporary workers in legally, give them the jobs, and put them on a fast track to permanent residency and citizenship.

What would this mean? U.S. companies would offer pay at or near the minimum wage for jobs they had open in, say, construction.

In addition to bringing in millions of workers who would take jobs at a fraction of a living wage for American families, Bush will propose that 10 million aliens, who are in this country illegally, be made legal.

According to the Post, Rove & Co. "concluded that they needed a response to the large population of undocumented workers for the plan to be credible and for Bush to get credit from Hispanic voters.

Karle Rove is a dioblical genius behind Duby the dunce.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Dec, 2003 11:02 am
Re: Hispanics that are elegible to vote
pistoff wrote:
The front-page story by Mike Allen describes a Bush initiative on "immigration reform." Seems that U.S. employers would post jobs and the wages that go with them on a Department of Labor website. If no Americans came forward to take the jobs, the employer would be allowed to bring Mexican temporary workers in legally, give them the jobs, and put them on a fast track to permanent residency and citizenship.


Yep, thats pretty much the story this thread opened with. Sounds good to me. Extra opportunities for those who need it most.

pistoff wrote:
What would this mean? U.S. companies would offer pay at or near the minimum wage for jobs they had open in, say, construction [..] bringing in millions of workers who would take jobs at a fraction of a living wage for American families,


How is the minimum wage "a fraction of a living wage"? I'm all for having a minimum wage - and the concept behind the minimum wage is, I think, that it is a living wage. I think it'd be good to up the minimum wage, sure, cause it aint much, its too little - just compare it to Europe - but "a fraction of a living wage"?

And how so, "millions"? Under this scheme, they're only allowed to get people in on these temporary work/residency permits if no American will do the job for the money (which'll at least be "at or near the minimum wage" as you say). You think there are millions of jobs that no American worker will take on for a minimum wage? If that's true Americans apparently aren't quite as poor under Bush Jr, after all ...

pistoff wrote:
Bush will propose that 10 million aliens, who are in this country illegally, be made legal.


Thatd be a good thing, IMO - even if only to avoid exactly the thing you are denouncing. See, currently, many of those construction businesses you're talking about are employing those illegals - at what really is "a fraction of a living wage". With this program in place, they would have no excuse for that anymore, and the practice of hiring illegals could be more easily marginalised.

If the government follows up this program with a clampdown on employers who still hire illegals, anyway, its good news for American workers too, as it creates at least a level playing field. After all, what legalising illegal workers and facilitating legal labour migration does, is push employers to adhere to legal standards for the jobs they now hire illegals for. Its not as good a news for American workers as a clampdown on employers per se - without alternative legal immigration program - would be, but it does help, plus it benefits a lot of (would-be) immigrants who really need it, too.

pistoff wrote:
According to the Post, Rove & Co. "concluded that they needed a response to the large population of undocumented workers for the plan to be credible and for Bush to get credit from Hispanic voters.

Karle Rove is a dioblical genius behind Duby the dunce.


Well, if I get it right, your alternative is to keep those poor Mexicans out of the country, so that American workers can better negotiate higher wages for themselves. I'm all for standing up for workers, but basically, those Mexicans need the money even more than the American workers. So if one really wants to 'stand up for the downtrodden', it's them one needs to think of, as well ... unless you only want to stand up for our downtrodden ;-).

I mean - its clear to me that Bush does this primarily to benefit business interests and his own electoral gains. But fact is, that programs like these would substantially improve the conditions both for the poorest people in the US now - the illegal immigrants who are striving to forge a better life for themselves away from the poverty at home - and some of those still in poverty at home, who would like to do the very same thing, legally. Thats good, in my book.
0 Replies
 
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Dec, 2003 11:11 am
It looks like Bush who wanted to make all the illegal aliens in the United States citizens automatically is finally going to get his way after all. This will mean an influx of aliens of major proportions. More social security and medicare obligations that are already breaking the system acording to the politicians.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Dec, 2003 11:12 am
Sofia wrote:

I really don't get Craven's Down on America diatribe. We are still more welcoming than many nations.


It's because it was not a "down on America" diatribe. I think you put way too much emphasis on blame and such and are far too sensitive to any criticism of the US. What other nations do does not reflect in any way on whether our position is right.

We were talking about US immigration. I therefore referenced US immigration. Were we speaking of Australian immigration issues or Holland's for example, I would have had just as scathing criticism. In Australia's case even more. I no longer like Australia and a big reason is their idiotic policies on immigration.

Yes, there are plenty of other nations with more insane immigration attitudes than in America.

But to call America "welcoming" is to say that because a warden might say "Good day" a jail is a fun place to live.

America has set the xenophobic standard that all other nations follow. We have a rich history of racial discrimination through our immigration laws.

That other nations are also now caught up in a wave of xenophobia is not any justification for our policies.

As an aside it's damn tiresome to have you incessantly call any criticism of America such labels. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Dec, 2003 11:19 am
Craven de Kere wrote:
But to call America "welcoming" is to say that because a warden might say "Good day" a jail is a fun place to live.


Laughing (cleaning spewed coffee off my monitor)
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Dec, 2003 11:24 am
To clarify:

It's not "down on America" because I do not believe xenophobia is inherently American.

There are plenty of people who hate xenophobia in America. I'm one of them and I will always speak out against xenophobia.

What so irritating about your labels, Sofia, is that I am directly criticizing certain attitudes and policies with with I disagree. I am not criticizing America, which is just a few lines in the sand to me.

Your immediate reaction is to give it the ole "America hating" labels.

It's like calling anyone who criticizes any human a misanthrope.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Dec, 2003 11:35 am
Nimh, for what it's worth, the federal minimum wage in the US is 5.15 per hour. Minimum payroll deduction for social security and medicare is .39, leaving 4.76 per hour. European minimum wages may equal a 'living wage' but ours does not.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Dec, 2003 11:41 am
roger, Most states also impose unemployment insurance on all wages up to some ceiling.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Dec, 2003 11:48 am
Bush will do anything to pine for votes. Any other motivation is dubious at best.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Dec, 2003 01:26 pm
ooops. It's not unemployment insurance taxes that employees pay, it's State Disability Insurance or SDI. In California, it's 1.18% up to $68,829 for 2004. For minimum wage earners, they'll pay the 1.18% on their total wages. $5.15 X 2080 (annual hours) = $10,712. 1.18% of $10,712 = $126.40. 7.57% of $10,712 = $811.20. Total tax withholding for the California worker earning minimum wage will be $937.60. Net income will be $9,774.40. I'm not sure how anybody can survive on minimum wage income in this country - do you? Our monthly net paper gain in our retirement investments for December is over $10,000 as of yesterday.
0 Replies
 
pistoff
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Dec, 2003 06:46 pm
workers
Many now have to have two jobs or the family gets together and everyone pools their money. Something that hasn't been talked about is the huge Temp. workers pool. If trends keep going the Middle Class will be the Working Poor.

I truely believe that the goal of the Plutocracy is to decimate the Middle Class and destroy Labor Unions. The concept is a world labor pool to suit the needs of the Super Multi-corps.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/20/2019 at 01:41:19