What do u think of Bush proposing major immigration reform?

And what would that accomplish? Why would these conglomerates do such a thing? To make more money? From who? If everyone is poor who will be buying the product or services? Why would people keep working for a company that makes them poor? You are misguided in your thoughts about the future of the US.

The Working Poor
People will still buy goods and services. The goods will be cheaper but the profits won't be trickling down. Large corporations want to drive down the price of goods and the cost of labor. Many corps no longer consider their companies of having any nationality. They call themselves global. The USA is a Plutocracy. The goal is to establish a cheap labor pool everywhere. The only problems seem to be the Health, Education, Welfare and Infra-structure. With expanding anti-environmental regs. the corps are hoping to bring up their profit margins. The present regime is open to all bidders. It's an American fire sale.

Suprisingly, maybe, NM takes no payroll taxes from the employee other than state income tax, so maybe we're getting progressive in at least one area. Problems arise when, as pist mentions, a person works more than one job and at year end has a tax liability, with no offsetting payroll deductions. With an income like that, saving for year end taxes, or anything else, isn't even a bad joke anymore.

So far as corporations worrying about who is going to buy their stuff, that is still a bad joke. The farsighted boards-of-directors are concerned with their annual report. The others are sweating the quarterlies.

mark

Actually, $5.15 an hour is pretty much the minimum wage here in Holland, too, at least it was last time I earned it ;-)

(Thats like three years ago - and of course i'm overlooking the current lopsided exchange rates. "Normally" a dollar is about a Euro, and that would make the Dutch minimum wage something like 5-6 dollars an hour. But - thats after taxes.)

Main difference, of course, is that cost of living here is a lot lower than in (urban) america - so relatively minimum wage is a lot higher here.

No, I mean, yeh - US minimum wage is too darn low, no question about it. But "a fraction of a living wage" was overstating it a tad ... especially considering the illegals - who the reforms would be intended to legalize - really do earn a fraction of a living wage. Gotta keep perspective here.

As long as Germans think they have the greatest nation in history but consider those willing to do anything to go there to be criminals there will be a problem.

The solution to not "rewarding" illegal behavior is to not make inevitable and innocuous behavior illegal.

I think reform is sorely needed, but I doubt much will change. In Germany, they insult visitors and tourists so much that nations reciprocate.

Just to visit Germany many have to provide officials with information on their job and salary and are often rejected for no reason other than mere suspicion of immigration.

I know countless well to do foreigners who merely wanted to visit Octoberfest but were rejected entry into Germany because they come from a poor country.

The situation is absurd. Germans lose sight of humanity through selfish xenophobia.

Being born a German is a pretty good bit of luck. And the ignorance and selfishness is such that they want those who wish for a better life and a piece of the pie to be classified as criminals.

It's attitudes like that that make me think many of us do not deserve the privilidge of being born a German.

The sense of entitlement those lucky enough to be born in good circumstances exhibit and the measures they take to try to keep the good life out of the hands of others saddens me.

It makes more sense to criminalize such pigish behavior.

Did you have a point there or are you still not over the fact that we are discussing America?

Bush's immigration reforms have nothing to do with Germany, the topic was AMERICAN immigration policy.

A parody of a prior post, of course.

Yes, I know. And a continuation of a prior complaint that I was "America bashing".

nimh already noted that European policy about immigration can be as bad or worse, I ceded that there are many nations with worse policy and that my comments about American policy were due to the fact that this whole discussion is about American policy.

It obviously isn't enough for Sofia and she's still not over the fact that this discussion isn't about other countries.

And it's damn tedious to have her raise accusations of "America bashing" when American policy is criticized.

She made her point that there are other nations that have similar imigration policies, I agreed with her but she's still not over it.

That's why I ask: what is her point? Other than hyper-sensitivity about America.

Sofia, when did you move from Jawjuh?

sofia's response isn't unusual, we see a fair bit of it here from a number of folks, and I find it quite interesting.

It's a defensive posture, and suggests that there is some threat to be managed, some enemy who waits just off in the wings and who might bring down the republic.

How curious the inconsistency between that sense of fragility and, on the other hand, the claims of unmatchable power and goodness.

hobit, Won't you ever learn to spell? It's Jojyah.

Ah do declayuh..Ah apolojahze!

That's much bettah, suh.

This is an untrue statement. Though quotation marks were used, I never said this.


Craven's statement that America has set some type of xenophobic standard is bullshit. If we have set a standard about immigration--it is an improvement on most other nations'. They are still 'checking blood percentages' in some countries.

Some countries check blood percentages of what, exactly, Sofia?

Craven said: "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."

Sadly, neither do I. Actually, I wish we would even get as good as this possible maybe perhaps proposal from Bush.

back to your regular program....

Here in Canada, our immigration policies have traditionally been, and remain, quite liberal, and my neighborhood and city certainly reflect this. Vancouver (and surrounding areas) show a present population which is nearly 50% of Asian origin, for example. Evesdropping at any of the outdoor cafes on my street is far less fun than it might be, what with the myriad languages spoken. We retain, laudably, a particular openness regarding immigrants escaping situations of serious human and civil rights abuses.

Though there certainly are xenophobic or racist voices, they have not (in my lifetime, at least) been numerous enough, nor has their message been resonant enough with the general population, to significantly influence policy.

A recent change in the make-up of one of our parties may well have negative consequences however. Canada at the federal level has traditionally had two parties - Liberals and Conservatives. A further left party, the New Democrats (NDP, earlier the CCF) have been influential only at the provincial level, but not federally (and our French-speaking population in Quebec has evolved local political parties too). The Conservative party was pretty much decimated a decade ago and have, in order to challenge the Liberal Party dominance, just recently amalgamated with our farthest right Alliance party (which has not previously been influential at all). Whatever xenophobes were running for office here could pretty much all be found in the Alliance memberships, and this group and their constituency will almost surely push the new amalgamated party in that direction.

Ha - Canada is very hard to get inro - at least for Ozzians...

It's your spelling. I think it can be tough for Brits and Europeans too, and I'm not sure why that is so. Also, as the stats below show, it's tougher to get in from the US than from Africa or South America. Sorry if I gave the impression of rah rah above. I'd personally arrange things with a bias towards those who are worst off in the world, so I am a fan of that tendency in our policies. But it does seem that we have shifted towards the Asian community recently, and I suspect that is related to matters of education and wealth. Practical perhaps, but not terribly humanitarian.

Place of Birth Number of Immigrants % of Total
Africa and the Middle East 40,779 18.0
Asia and Pacific 120,491 53.2
South and Central America 16,939 7.5
United States 5,809 2.6
Europe and the United Kingdom 42,875 18.9

That's from 2000.