HokieBird wrote:realjohnboy wrote:Usually. hokiebird, I try very hard to source my "facts" with sources from established news agencies. Forgive me if I am a bit slack here. It is my bedtime.
One version of the bill would allow 400,000 "guest" workers to come into to work on farms. Another version limits that to 200,000. These people, regardless of the number, are critically needed at harvest time.
Yes - against the wishes of the Administration, the number was slashed to 200,000 (proposal made by a Democrat - Bingaman, I think his name is).
Diane Feinstein assures us that this won't be a problem for farmers.
Those that don't want any guest workers are of course those who are in the pockets of the labor unions.
Otherwise, why establish a quota for 'guest' workers? We either need the labor or we don't. Why not allow American employers to bring in whatever workers they need in whatever quantities are needed? If the employers are obligated to ensure that the workers return home when the job is over and they certainly should be obligated to ensure that guest workers have access to adequate housing, medical care, and other necessities as well as minimum wage, it is a given that American workers will get first shot at those jobs if they want them.
Quote:Quote:Would they be replacing American workers?
Another Democrat (Dorgan, I think I read) says yes and also stated he would vote no on the bill unless the entire "guest worker" program was scrapped.
If an employer is obligated to pay minimum wage and provide decent working conditions, housing, etc. to guest workers, and is obligated to hire an American in lieu of a guest worker if the American wants the job, then no, the guest workers will not be taking jobs from Americans.
Quote:Quote:Are they getting paid and treated decently? If the crops are not picked, will the farms eventually be converted to subdivisions and we will get our food from elsewhere? Is that good?
These are ideological questions not addressed in the bill specifically, although I suppose we could find all kinds of opinions and commentary from both sides easily.
As previously stated, no guest workers program should allow any employer to exploit foreign workers. If the workers accept minimum wage or any higher wage offered, and are provided humane working conditions, then that's up to the worker whether s/he wants the job or not. That is one of themany problems I see with the plethora of illegals in the country now. Because they are in no position to complain, employers can exploit them unmercifully and, while the workers may choose and accept that--they shouldn't--that DOES come at a cost to American workers, depresses wages, and is a discentive to other employers to provide decent working conditions for American workers or foreign workers.
There was absolutely no justification for slavery when it was legal in America, but the truth is that some slave owners did treat their slaves humanely and with compassion. After emancipation, or in states that had already abolished slavery, in order to survive, many black people and/or former slaves were forced to work in factories etc. under conditions that should have been felonious. I would guess in some of these cases that the quality of life for some slaves was worse as freemen than as slaves.
Nobody with a conscience would condone going back to slavery in any form. But neither should we allow American employers to treat people even worse than that.
Quote:Quote:Will these 200,000-400,000 folks go home after the harvest?
Yes. They will be issued temporary visas to stay in the country for a period of 2 years and then will have to go home for one year. This can be repeated three times, according to the bill in its current form.
I'm still mulling over how I think the requirements for returning home should look. Right now I am of the opinion that the guest workers should go home when there is no more work and it should be the responsibility of the employer to see that this happens. An employer who wanted to keep the workers on until the next job would be required to pay them while they were waiting.
Quote:Quote:Whose responsible for ensuring that they are legitimate "guest" workers?
And that is just one portion of this Senate bill.
DHS with assistance from the FBI. (This is one of the 'triggers', in that the 'electronic verification system' has to be up and running before anything else is done and Michael Chertoff estimates that will be approximately 18 months or so). Two of the other triggers are building the fence and additional border patrol agents - with about the same time frame.
Electronic identification yes. Strict enforcement yes. The fence? I still don't like the idea of the fence. With a comprehensive guest worker program in place and making it nonproductive for workers to come under anything other than a legal system, I think the only ones still sneaking in will be the crooks, criminals, and worse. And I think the fence won't be a huge deterrant to those. A comprehensive guest worker program would make it a whole lot easier to identify, catch, deport and/or prosecute the bad guys though.
Anything that Congress accomplishes about this should not be done in haste and without thinking through all the ramifications this time and without working out as many bugs as possible before a system is signed into law. For the life of me, why should it take 18 months to produce and implement an electronic ID system? It isn't as if we don't know how to do that already. If Congress would just specifiy what they want done and turn it over to private enterprise to do, it would be a done deal in no time. (Example: the privately run DMV centers here in Albuquerque are about 10 times more efficient than the government run ones.)
One the system is up and running, the government should see that the provisions are enforced and shouldn't have to do a whole lot more than that.
You're a riot Foxy. The employer should guarantee housing and that they go home? Sure, why not? Hope you like eating at chain restaurants with a fence... or like the idea of NOTHING CHANGING without one. 
