What should be done about illegal immigration?

Fox, you don't know if a man can cook, until you
A. Taste his cooking.
B. See how he performs under pressure.
A resume is about as useful as his mother's word.

Who pays transportation from Mexico? If it's me; that's a crazy price to pay for a guy who may or may not be able to cook. If it's him; that's a hell of a price to pay for a job your may or may not keep a week. You obviously haven't thought this through.

As for providing bunkhouse quarters and denying citizenship, ever; I can ill imagine a step closer to slavery than that.

And exactly that was critised by the foreign press, saying, we went back to the Nazi-like foreign work forces.
Well, it wasn't much different.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Fox, you don't know if a man can cook, until you
A. Taste his cooking.
B. See how he performs under pressure.
A resume is about as useful as his mother's word.

Who pays transportation from Mexico? If it's me; that's a crazy price to pay for a guy who may or may not be able to cook. If it's him; that's a hell of a price to pay for a job your may or may not keep a week. You obviously haven't thought this through.

As for providing bunkhouse quarters and denying citizenship, ever; I can ill imagine a step closer to slavery than that.

We have any number of employers who are providing bunk houses or trailers or similar housing for their employees on farms, ranches, and other remote locations and the employees are in no way mistreated or reduced to 'slavery'. I'm sure a city boy wouldn't be aware of stuff like that, but its doable, practical, acceptable, and quite proper and humane.

We aren't talking about permanent folks here. We're talking about temporary foreign workers brought in to do a specific job. The operative word is temporary and it should come with obligations from the employer to make sure the invited worker is neither mistreated nor puts American workers (or other temporary workers) at a disadvantage. I didn't include transportation among the things that an employer would be required to furnish though I suspect many will provide that if they really need the workers.

If you don't know whether somebody can cook and you're not willing to take the chance, then don't bring in the guest worker. Offer a wage and benefits sufficient to attract an American to work on a trial basis.

Why not allow American employers to bring in whatever workers they need in whatever quantities are needed?

The vote on Tuesday was on a proposal by Senator Byron L. Dorgan, Democrat of North Dakota, to eliminate the temporary worker program. His amendment failed, 64-31.

Employers say they want to hire foreign workers because they cannot find Americans to fill all the jobs in hotels, restaurants, nursing homes, hospitals and the construction industry.

"How about paying a decent wage?" Dorgan asked on the Senate floor. "You would find plenty of people to take these jobs."

Under the bill, 400,000 to 600,000 temporary foreign workers could enter the United States each year on two-year visas.

Dorgan said the numbers in the bill understated the size of the program. Because workers could renew their visas, he said, the number could total 1.1 million in the third year and could grow to 3.6 million in the 10th year.

Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California, denounced the guest worker program, saying it would create a pool of "desperate low-wage workers" whom employers could easily exploit.

The Democrats voting to kill the guest worker program included the majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada; the majority whip, Durbin; Robert Byrd of West Virginia; and Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, who is seeking her party's presidential nomination.

Two other Democratic hopefuls, Senators Barack Obama of Illinois and Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, were absent. So was Senator John McCain of Arizona, who is seeking the Republican nomination.

The Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, defended the program, saying: "Temporary workers are obviously needed. We have almost full employment in this country."

Unions lobbied against the program. Linda Chavez-Thompson, executive vice president of the AFL-CIO, said the bill would provide employers with "a ready pool of labor that they can exploit to drive down wages, benefits, health and safety protections and other workplace standards."

Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, usually an ally of organized labor, rejected such criticism. Kennedy, the chief Democratic architect of the bill, said temporary foreign workers would "get the protections of the labor laws" and would be paid at least the local prevailing wages.

Kyl said the program could expand or shrink in response to the demand for labor.

"Wouldn't it be better to have a temporary worker program, where everybody is working within the law?" Kyl asked. "When we need temporary workers to build houses, for example, we would issue more of these two-year visas. When we don't need them, we would stop issuing the visas."

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/05/23/america/23immig.php?page=1

As an afterthought to my previous post, I see no reason that a 'path to citizenship' should even be a part of any guest worker program. I think these should be entirely separate issues.

Foxfyre wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Fox, you don't know if a man can cook, until you
A. Taste his cooking.
B. See how he performs under pressure.
A resume is about as useful as his mother's word.

Who pays transportation from Mexico? If it's me; that's a crazy price to pay for a guy who may or may not be able to cook. If it's him; that's a hell of a price to pay for a job your may or may not keep a week. You obviously haven't thought this through.

As for providing bunkhouse quarters and denying citizenship, ever; I can ill imagine a step closer to slavery than that.

We have any number of employers who are providing bunk houses or trailers or similar housing for their employees on farms, ranches, and other remote locations and the employees are in no way mistreated or reduced to 'slavery'. I'm sure a city boy wouldn't be aware of stuff like that, but its doable, practical, acceptable, and quite proper and humane.

We aren't talking about permanent folks here. We're talking about temporary foreign workers brought in to do a specific job. The operative word is temporary and it should come with obligations from the employer to make sure the invited worker is neither mistreated nor puts American workers (or other temporary workers) at a disadvantage. I didn't include transportation among the things that an employer would be required to furnish though I suspect many will provide that if they really need the workers.

If you don't know whether somebody can cook and you're not willing to take the chance, then don't bring in the guest worker. Offer a wage and benefits sufficient to attract an American to work on a trial basis.

I'm hoping our collective congress isn't as ignorant as you about business. You are describing a crushing blow to the U.S. economy.

As an afterthought to my previous post, I see no reason that a 'path to citizenship' should even be a part of any guest worker program. I think these should be entirely separate issues.

As far as I can tell from reading the bill, it's not. The guest worker program is separate from the path-to-citizenship proposed for the 12 million already in the country.

The guest worker program would allow temporary visas to be issued for a period of 2 years with provisions for the immigrant's family to join him during that time. At the end of 2 years, he would go home for one year and this process could be repeated 3 times. Anyone caught overstaying the visa period would be deported and banned from ever re-entering this country.

The guest worker program was meant to match workers to a specific job that could not be filled by American citizens at a fair rate of pay. It should be the responsibility of the employer to transport and assure that the worker is provided all the necessities of life or a wage adequate to provide himself with those necessities. If not we are importing only what can at best be called slave labor. Good old Abe would be turning over in his gave.

Why not instead of importing slave labor pay an adequate living wage. Yes, Bill even for cooks and dish washers.

I'm hoping our collective congress isn't as ignorant as you about business.

If an employer brings in qualified workers with special skills for a specific job that takes longer than 2 years, it seems there should be a way to extend the temporary work Visa. Then again the time limit would require the employer to again open the jobs to homegrown workers who might be available for the second wave.

This one I'm going to have to think about more.

Foxfyre wrote:

If an employer brings in qualified workers with special skills for a specific job that takes longer than 2 years, it seems there should be a way to extend the temporary work Visa. Then again the time limit would require the employer to again open the jobs to homegrown workers who might be available for the second wave.

This one I'm going to have to think about more.

I'm thinking I saw something in the bill about "extradinary circumstances" (in reference to your thought of extension). This bill is not that easy to read, but I'll see if I can find it.

Quote:

I'm hoping our collective congress isn't as ignorant as you about business.

Is this necessary? Look, we all know who is in charge here - pretty much your side. The Dems control both houses and we know that. We also know (at least I do and I'm pretty sure Foxfyre would agree) that the hardliners in the GOP need to sit down and frickin' listen (in other words, COMPROMISE) if we're ever going to meet in the middle.

It took years to get to where we are in this mess. And it is both parties who are at fault - not one or the other. That doesn't mean the people of this country shouldn't be made aware of every aspect of this bill (open debate) and allowed to voice opinions and decide what to keep and what to throw out. So there will be many who aren't for wide open borders and many who are - so what? Let's let everyone have their say without being called ignorant or bigots or racist or idiots. That gets us absolutely nowhere.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Fox, you don't know if a man can cook, until you
A. Taste his cooking.
B. See how he performs under pressure.
A resume is about as useful as his mother's word.

Who pays transportation from Mexico? If it's me; that's a crazy price to pay for a guy who may or may not be able to cook. If it's him; that's a hell of a price to pay for a job your may or may not keep a week. You obviously haven't thought this through.

As for providing bunkhouse quarters and denying citizenship, ever; I can ill imagine a step closer to slavery than that.

We have any number of employers who are providing bunk houses or trailers or similar housing for their employees on farms, ranches, and other remote locations and the employees are in no way mistreated or reduced to 'slavery'. I'm sure a city boy wouldn't be aware of stuff like that, but its doable, practical, acceptable, and quite proper and humane.

We aren't talking about permanent folks here. We're talking about temporary foreign workers brought in to do a specific job. The operative word is temporary and it should come with obligations from the employer to make sure the invited worker is neither mistreated nor puts American workers (or other temporary workers) at a disadvantage. I didn't include transportation among the things that an employer would be required to furnish though I suspect many will provide that if they really need the workers.

If you don't know whether somebody can cook and you're not willing to take the chance, then don't bring in the guest worker. Offer a wage and benefits sufficient to attract an American to work on a trial basis.

I'm hoping our collective congress isn't as ignorant as you about business. You are describing a crushing blow to the U.S. economy.

Okay explain why my proposal would be a 'crushing blow to the U.S. economy'. (P.S. You're back to being personally insulting again. Why is it that some--primarily liberals--seem unable to argue a point of view any other way? Are they that insecure about the rightness of their position?)

The guest worker program would allow temporary visas to be issued for a period of 2 years with provisions for the immigrant's family to join him during that time. At the end of 2 years, he would go home for one year and this process could be repeated 3 times. Anyone caught overstaying the visa period would be deported and banned from ever reentering this country.

Why not instead of importing slave labor pay an adequate living wage. Yes, Bill even for cooks and dish washers.

The plan you are describing would drive the price of Kitchen labor through the ceiling. I'd wager 15 to 25% (more than usual) restaurants would fold within a couple of years... including Mom and Pops and even some chains. It is widely believed that the spike in gas prices whaled on the industry last year, and that was A LOT less expensive. If mom and pop are making $100,000; they are employing $300,000 (lots of payroll tax) and Sales Tax on something close to $1,000,000. Jobs, Taxes, decrease in 30 different purveyors takes as well. This is before you factor in the decreased number of patrons who can afford the higher prices. This is just one industry. I'm too ignorant to comment on most others that will be affected... but I can tell you that the businesses that serve restaurants are already taking a beating too