PDA

View Full Version : DOJ vs AZ: The Discussion



Pages : 1 [2]

nihilist
30th July 10, 11:49 PM
However, the air of impropriety upon the largest of the company could potentially be crippling.

the smaller subs could appeal from the standpoint of "we needed to cut costs to make the bid so our business could stay open an not lose jobs for our workers. the larger contractor wanted to maximized profits and was constantly trying to undercut."

the larger contractor would always wind up the villain.


There is absolutely no impropriety on the part of the general contractor in that case. Not legally, morally or otherwise.

nihilist
30th July 10, 11:52 PM
Yeah, but would it still be a crime if I did it using a corporation chartered in Mexico, and paid the employees in Pesos? They wouldn't need a green card in that case, just a limited visa. Right?

I don't know of any law against bringing in workers as long as they have work visas.

BadUglyMagic
31st July 10, 10:46 AM
Visas would make them too expensive.

nihilist
31st July 10, 10:52 AM
Yeah, why pay to bring them here when they come over, under and around fences to get to you?

BadUglyMagic
31st July 10, 11:12 AM
Yeah, why pay to bring them here when they come over, under and around fences to get to you?


Sort of. The other eeason is that a person with a visa they can work under (not sposored by an employer) can go wherever. They have the expectation and ability to earn a higher wage.

People w/o papers have fewer choices.

Spade: The Real Snake
31st July 10, 11:45 AM
There is absolutely no impropriety on the part of the general contractor in that case. Not legally, morally or otherwise.

If the general is responsible for hiring the subs and the subs are rinky-dinky fly-by-night operations, the Feds will hold someone accountable and will levy the fines against whomever can pay, essentially the General Contractor's insurance, for failure to properly vet out his subcontractors.

Within my business we do business for government agencies and within the framework of the contracts they expect us to have sufficient liability coverage AND provide indemnification for the government agency from their own actions.

Truculent Sheep
31st July 10, 11:58 AM
The immigration debate in the US is built on a vast pile of hypocrisy and bullshit. For all the laws against illegals that are already on the statute books, you've have at least 3-4 decades of nudge-nudge, wink-wink encouragement of cheap labour to skip over the border and help make rich white people even richer. Then, once the money's made, places like Arizona suddenly decide now's the time to start leaning on the navvies (parallels between 19th century cheapo Irish labour and 21st century cheapo Latino labour are very valid) because they can get away with it. (Or not, as the case may be, seeing how much of the state's economy depends on illegals.)

If these twats were serious about the issue, they'd make sure local low-paid workers got more for shit shovelling than they could on welfare, or rationalise the torturous Green Card system, or even encourage investment south of the border allowing Mexico and Central America to develop and so not have so many people needing to go over the border. But no. They want their skivvies and they also want the right to shit on them afterwards.

This masks the real issue, namely the possibility that the Mexican drug wars (and all that implies) may spill over into the US, if they haven't already. When that shit-storm hits, the good people of Tuscon may find themselves reminiscing over the good old days when poor brown people did what they were told and you could pay them nickles and dimes for cleaning your toilet.

nihilist
31st July 10, 12:57 PM
If the general is responsible for hiring the subs and the subs are rinky-dinky fly-by-night operations, the Feds will hold someone accountable and will levy the fines against whomever can pay, essentially the General Contractor's insurance, for failure to properly vet out his subcontractors.

Within my business we do business for government agencies and within the framework of the contracts they expect us to have sufficient liability coverage AND provide indemnification for the government agency from their own actions.

You were talking about impropriety in hiring and now you are talking about who can be sued for whatever went wrong with a given job. You are all over the road.

BadUglyMagic
31st July 10, 05:07 PM
The immigration debate in the US is built on a vast pile of hypocrisy and bullshit. For all the laws against illegals that are already on the statute books, you've have at least 3-4 decades of nudge-nudge, wink-wink encouragement of cheap labour to skip over the border and help make rich white people even richer. Then, once the money's made, places like Arizona suddenly decide now's the time to start leaning on the navvies

(parallels between 19th century cheapo Irish labour and 21st century cheapo Latino labour are very valid)

because they can get away with it. (Or not, as the case may be, seeing how much of the state's economy depends on illegals.)

.



Please educate us as to the parallels. The causes of the migrations would be a good place to start.


This is getting us off topic, maybe a mod can move it.

Truculent Sheep
31st July 10, 06:43 PM
Please educate us as to the parallels. The causes of the migrations would be a good place to start.

The main difference between the two movements was the Irish Potato Famine of 1845-52. However, what was the case is that before, during and after this event (way back into the 17th century), Britain received large numbers of Irish economic migrants who were accused of driving down wages and were seen as an alien, Catholic presence in a predominantly protestant country in transition. (Remind you of anything?) They were also 'just over the water', much as Mexicans are 'just over the border' and were seen as criminal, overly fecund and backward.

They also were certainly seen as competing directly and economically with other communities. As Henry Mayhew's London Labour & The London Poor - 1851:

The Irishmen who are in this trade are also very poor; and I learned that both Irishmen and Irishwomen left the occupation now and then, and took to begging, as a more profitable calling, often going begging this month and fruit-selling the next. This is one of the causes which prompt the London costermongers' dislike of the Irish. "They'll beg themselves into a meal, and work us out of one," said an English coster to me. Some of them are, however, less "poverty-struck" (a word in common use among the costermongers); but these for the most part are men who have been in the trade for some years, and have got regular " pitches."

And so on.

Ajamil
31st July 10, 09:24 PM
What immigrant ethnicity hasn't come over with that stigma? Most immigrant waves started at the bottom, with all the hatred that takes. Except the Indians, for some reason; they've been coming into more management positions cuz techies and hotels.

Truculent Sheep
1st August 10, 09:35 AM
In reply, I'll go back to Mayhew - he also covered the Jewish community in London at the time and there were clear differences between how the Irish and the Jews were treated but also how they fitted in to the London economy. There was less animus between the costermongers/cockneys and the Jews than there was between the former and the Irish for example.

You should also bear in mind that there are strong paralells between the Irish/Latino question, right down to the way they are or were both stigmatised and defended in the media and political sphere. I'd say the Irish question has barely been resolved after centuries. How the US deals with its Latino question is a process that's not even begun

Cullion
1st August 10, 09:44 AM
What immigrant ethnicity hasn't come over with that stigma?

In the UK ?

Hong Kong Chinese, Jews from Holland and Eastern Europe, Indian Hindus, Gurkhas.


Most immigrant waves started at the bottom

Varies enormously by ethnicity.

One of the main differences between the immigrations grievances of today and those of the 19th century is that this time around the incumbent workforce are being made to substantially subsidise their competition via the tax system.

Truculent Sheep
1st August 10, 10:38 AM
One of the main differences between the immigrations grievances of today and those of the 19th century is that this time around the incumbent workforce are being made to substantially subsidise their competition via the tax system.

Nonetheless, the circumstances remain the same. We have competing groups who are or who perceive themselves to be of low economic status, after all. Not to mention all sorts of nasty ethnic and religious/cultural conflicts going on under the surface.

Shotgun Christening
2nd August 10, 05:42 AM
The immigration debate in the US is built on a vast pile of hypocrisy and bullshit. For all the laws against illegals that are already on the statute books, you've have at least 3-4 decades of nudge-nudge, wink-wink encouragement of cheap labour to skip over the border and help make rich white people even richer.

I wouldnt use the white people reference since not just whites used them but the rest is spot on.



Then, once the money's made, places like Arizona suddenly decide now's the time to start leaning on the navvies (parallels between 19th century cheapo Irish labour and 21st century cheapo Latino labour are very valid) because they can get away with it. (Or not, as the case may be, seeing how much of the state's economy depends on illegals.)

I think they are leaning on them because the average person who doesnt hire illegals has had enough of the garbage that they bring with them.



If these twats were serious about the issue, they'd make sure local low-paid workers got more for shit shovelling than they could on welfare, or rationalise the torturous Green Card system, or even encourage investment south of the border allowing Mexico and Central America to develop and so not have so many people needing to go over the border. But no. They want their skivvies and they also want the right to shit on them afterwards.

It doesnt matter what you pay locals. The illegals are going to do it for less. The cheaper you can do it the more people are going to use your company. You can make minimum wage $20 a minute and it still wont help.

Investment south of the border? Clinton tried that with NAFTA. The climate of corruption in Mexico puts our Wall Street thieves to shame. Besides, why is it our problem that they havent come into the 20th century? Why do we need to help them develop? Mexico has worse immigration laws than we do.



This masks the real issue, namely the possibility that the Mexican drug wars (and all that implies) may spill over into the US, if they haven't already.

May is the month after April. They HAVE spillled over.



When that shit-storm hits, the good people of Tuscon may find themselves reminiscing over the good old days when poor brown people did what they were told and you could pay them nickles and dimes for cleaning your toilet.

From my understanding this is why they are wanting something done.

BadUglyMagic
2nd August 10, 08:34 AM
The main difference between the two movements was the Irish Potato Famine of 1845-52.
However, what was the case is that before, during and after this event (way back into the 17th century), Britain received large numbers of Irish economic migrants who were accused of driving down wages and were seen as an alien, Catholic presence in a predominantly protestant country in transition. (Remind you of anything?) They were also 'just over the water', much as Mexicans are 'just over the border' and were seen as criminal, overly fecund and backward.

They also were certainly seen as competing directly and economically with other communities. As Henry Mayhew's London Labour & The London Poor - 1851:

The Irishmen who are in this trade are also very poor; and I learned that both Irishmen and Irishwomen left the occupation now and then, and took to begging, as a more profitable calling, often going begging this month and fruit-selling the next. This is one of the causes which prompt the London costermongers' dislike of the Irish. "They'll beg themselves into a meal, and work us out of one," said an English coster to me. Some of them are, however, less "poverty-struck" (a word in common use among the costermongers); but these for the most part are men who have been in the trade for some years, and have got regular " pitches."

And so on.




Ireland
1. An English occupied territory
2. Famine
3. Work programs run/administered by English occupiers rather than a food aid program.
4. Heavy local taxation to make the Irish pay for the work programs.
5. English restrictions on trade and grains causing much of the land previously employed in farming to be converted to pasture.
6. English requests to foreign powers to decrease or stop donations to Ireland.

There is more but for the sake of brevity, the subsequesnt destruction of the economy and of Ireland and the resulting emigration to the US were the result of English political actions.


Mexico - Any of the above?


Where in the UK are you?


The quotation does not identify any parallels in the migrations of the two populations. Naming ethic prejudices is not the same.

Truculent Sheep
2nd August 10, 08:48 AM
Differences for populations groups:

Ireland
1. An English occupied territory
2. Famine
3. Work programs run/administered by English occupiers rather than a food aid program.
4. Heavy local taxation to make the Irish pay for the work programs.
5. English restrictions on trade and grains cuasing much land previously employed in farming to be converted to pasture.
6. English requests to foreign powers to decrease or stop donations to Ireland.

There is more but for the sake of brevity, the subsequesnt destruction of the eceonomy of Ireland and the resulting emigration were the result of English political actions.


Where in the UK are you?


The quatation does not identify any parallels in the migrations of the two populations. Naming ethic prejudices is not the same.

I'm afraid I have to disagree. Both Mexico now and Ireland then were/are undeveloped, predominantly agrarian/low skilled labour countries/areas under the influence or aegis of a richer, more powerful neighbour. Your focus on specific differences ignore the general similarities and parallels. Ireland and Mexico both had/have large populations in search of work and also had an adversarial relationship with the nearest port of call. And if you didn't understand how the prejudice towards Mexicans and Irish aren't in effect read from the same script, by the same type of people, then I can't really help you.

EDIT: If you can't see the difference between illegal labour and workhouses then, once more, I don't know what to say.

Truculent Sheep
2nd August 10, 08:54 AM
I think they are leaning on them because the average person who doesnt hire illegals has had enough of the garbage that they bring with them.

The 'average' person has benefitted from low inflation, prices and cheap services. They have plenty of garbage of their own.


It doesnt matter what you pay locals. The illegals are going to do it for less. The cheaper you can do it the more people are going to use your company. You can make minimum wage $20 a minute and it still wont help.

Yes it will. If you make work pay, more local people will do that work and you won't need to get cheapo illegals to do it.


Investment south of the border? Clinton tried that with NAFTA. The climate of corruption in Mexico puts our Wall Street thieves to shame. Besides, why is it our problem that they havent come into the 20th century? Why do we need to help them develop? Mexico has worse immigration laws than we do.

'IT'S ALL MEXICO'S FAULT!!!' - err, no it isn't, as a study of its history will demonstrate.


May is the month after April. They HAVE spillled over.

Not yet. You'll know when they have.


From my understanding this is why they are wanting something done.

Because, of course, all Mexicans are involved in drugs. Thanks for that revelation.

BadUglyMagic
2nd August 10, 09:37 AM
I'm afraid I have to disagree. Both Mexico now and Ireland then were/are undeveloped, predominantly agrarian/low skilled labour countries/areas under the influence or aegis of a richer, more powerful neighbour. Your focus on specific differences ignore the general similarities and parallels. Ireland and Mexico both had/have large populations in search of work and also had an adversarial relationship with the nearest port of call. And if you didn't understand how the prejudice towards Mexicans and Irish aren't in effect read from the same script, by the same type of people, then I can't really help you.

EDIT: If you can't see the difference between illegal labour and workhouses then, once more, I don't know what to say.




Profiling populations and making generalizations does not prove your point. You have not identified the parallels and merely, by your own admission made generalist statements.


Ireland was an occupied country that was completely politically and economically controlled. Its lands were mostly owned by absentee landlords. The issues behind the ensuing emigration were almost entirely within English control.

The US does not occupy Mexico. Mexico is run by a government that recognizes it is easier to encourage its population to emigrate/invade its neighbor and let them remit those earnings than it is to build the infrastructure necessary to provide a similar opportunity in Mexico.

Truculent Sheep
2nd August 10, 10:00 AM
Profiling populations and making generalizations does not prove your point. You have not identified the parallels and merely, by your own admission made generalist statements.

No - I hVE established the terms of my parallels. You, however, focus on the inevitable variations between the two areas being compared which only states the obvious.



Ireland was an occupied country that was completely politically and economically controlled. Its lands were mostly owned by absentee landlords. The issues behind the ensuing emigration were almost entirely within English control.

The US does not occupy Mexico. Mexico is run by a government that recognizes it is easier to encourage its population to emigrate/invade its neighbor and let them remit those earnings than it is to build the infrastructure necessary to provide a similar opportunity in Mexico.

I would argue that Mexico has and continues to be under US influence and is dependent on it in many ways. Again, your trying to focus on specifics gets in the way of the real parallels. Nor was Irish immigration any more controlled than Mexican immigration is - there were not anything like the levels of border contrls that we have today, which have their roots in World War One.

BadUglyMagic
2nd August 10, 10:42 AM
No - I hVE established the terms of my parallels. You, however, focus on the inevitable variations between the two areas being compared which only states the obvious.



I would argue that Mexico has and continues to be under US influence and is dependent on it in many ways. Again, your trying to focus on specifics gets in the way of the real parallels. Nor was Irish immigration any more controlled than Mexican immigration is - there were not anything like the levels of border contrls that we have today, which have their roots in World War One.


No. You made general statements about the populations and some statements about ethnic and racists perceptions and beliefs about Irish and Mexican immigrants.

The parallels would be the specifics which caused the migrations. They would Not be the characteristics of, or perceptions of the migrant populations.




EDIT: If you can't see the difference between illegal labour and workhouses then, once more, I don't know what to say.



The workhouses were where the government required the Irish to go to receive the benefits. They were paid less than what was required to buy enough food to survive. They starved as they worked themselves to death. Estimates are that one million Irish died. Many died in the workhouses. The economic and political policies of the occupying power made it happen.

Mexicans come looking for a better job because their gov't is unwilling to build the necessary infrastructure to make prosperity happen for the masses.


If by the "terms" of your parallels you mean "Groups of poor people go to America."? Other than that, no parallels.


For clarity, please identify each set of parallels side by side.

BadUglyMagic
2nd August 10, 10:51 AM
Originally Posted by oldman34

Ireland was an occupied country that was completely politically and economically controlled. Its lands were mostly owned by absentee landlords. The issues behind the ensuing emigration were almost entirely within English control.

The US does not occupy Mexico. Mexico is run by a government that recognizes it is easier to encourage its population to emigrate/invade its neighbor and let them remit those earnings than it is to build the infrastructure necessary to provide a similar opportunity in Mexico.


I would argue that Mexico has and continues to be under US influence and is dependent on it in many ways. Again, your trying to focus on specifics gets in the way of the real parallels. Nor was Irish immigration any more controlled than Mexican immigration is - there were not anything like the levels of border contrls that we have today, which have their roots in World War One.


Your quote above incorrectly has oldman34 as the author.

The Irish immigrants for the most part came here legally. The Mexicans did/do not.

"real parallels". Thanks for the smile.

You did not say where in the UK you are or are from.

Truculent Sheep
2nd August 10, 12:05 PM
No. You made general statements about the populations and some statements about ethnic and racists perceptions and beliefs about Irish and Mexican immigrants.

The parallels would be the specifics which caused the migrations. They would Not be the characteristics of, or perceptions of the migrant populations.

The specifics are quite clear. Stop trying to ad hominem the debate by using 'generalising' as a code word to dismiss something you don't like.



The workhouses were where the government required the Irish to go to receive the benefits. They were paid less than what was required to buy enough food to survive. They starved as they worked themselves to death. Estimates are that one million Irish died. Many died in the workhouses. The economic and political policies of the occupying power made it happen.

Sounds a lot like a sweatshop to me.



The Irish came looking for a better job because their gov't was unwilling to build the necessary infrastructure to make prosperity happen for the masses.

Fixed for you.



If by the "terms" of your parallels you mean "Groups of poor people go to America."? Other than that, no parallels.

Nonsense. As I have argued.



For clarity, please identify each set of parallels side by side.

Why not just read my posts?

Truculent Sheep
2nd August 10, 12:08 PM
Your quote above incorrectly has oldman34 as the author.

And?


The Irish immigrants for the most part came here legally. The Mexicans did/do not.

Legal migration is a relatively modern concept. Don't muddy the waters.


"real parallels". Thanks for the smile.

I smile at your ignorance. And yes, there are real parallels.


You did not say where in the UK you are or are from.

I didn't answer because it isn't relevant.

BadUglyMagic
2nd August 10, 01:09 PM
The immigration debate in the US is built on a vast pile of hypocrisy and bullshit. For all the laws against illegals that are already on the statute books, you've have at least 3-4 decades of nudge-nudge, wink-wink encouragement of cheap labour to skip over the border and help make rich white people even richer.

Then, once the money's made, places like Arizona suddenly decide now's the time to start leaning on the navvies (parallels between 19th century cheapo Irish labour and 21st century cheapo Latino labour are very valid) because they can get away with it. (Or not, as the case may be, seeing how much of the state's economy depends on illegals.)

If these twats were serious about the issue, they'd make sure local low-paid workers got more for shit shovelling than they could on welfare, or rationalise the torturous Green Card system, or even encourage investment south of the border allowing Mexico and Central America to develop and so not have so many people needing to go over the border. But no. They want their skivvies and they also want the right to shit on them afterwards.

This masks the real issue, namely the possibility that the Mexican drug wars (and all that implies) may spill over into the US, if they haven't already. When that shit-storm hits, the good people of Tuscon may find themselves reminiscing over the good old days when poor brown people did what they were told and you could pay them nickles and dimes for cleaning your toilet.


The above is the text of the op we have been discussing. The above and your responses to the requests to show the parallels show what appears to be a remarkable ignorance of history and current affairs. Since you seem to be reasonable intelligent and list yourself as a Research Student/Lecturer, I will assume you are trolling.

Truculent Sheep
2nd August 10, 01:28 PM
The above is the text of the op we have been discussing. The above and your responses to the requests to show the parallels show what appears to be a remarkable ignorance of history and current affairs. Since you seem to be reasonably intelligent and list yourself as a Research Student/Lecturer, I will assume you are trolling.

Nope, but you're the one guilty of ignorance here, or perhaps have your own axe to grind.

Shotgun Christening
2nd August 10, 03:05 PM
The 'average' person has benefitted from low inflation, prices and cheap services. They have plenty of garbage of their own.

This is a strawman.



Yes it will. If you make work pay, more local people will do that work and you won't need to get cheapo illegals to do it.

No, it wont. If I offer a house cleaning service and pay my people 10 and hour then I have to charge at least 10 an hour for my services.
If a guy hires illegals or anyone else for that matter and pays them 8 dollars then he can charge less for the service.
Do you pay more for something if you dont have to? If you could buy jeans for $30 instead of $35 would you? Of course you would. Same thing applies here.

If you can get your yard cut for $30 instead of $35 will you pay more?



'IT'S ALL MEXICO'S FAULT!!!' - err, no it isn't, as a study of its history will demonstrate.

Please enlighten me.



Not yet. You'll know when they have.

The local law enforcement in Arizona seems to think it already has. I guess you are more familiar with the situation than they are?



Because, of course, all Mexicans are involved in drugs. Thanks for that revelation.

Not what I said at all. If you want to troll then find someone else. If you want to discuss something, put your strawmen away.

Truculent Sheep
2nd August 10, 05:36 PM
This is a strawman.

No it's not.


No, it wont. If I offer a house cleaning service and pay my people 10 and hour then I have to charge at least 10 an hour for my services.
If a guy hires illegals or anyone else for that matter and pays them 8 dollars then he can charge less for the service.
Do you pay more for something if you dont have to? If you could buy jeans for $30 instead of $35 would you? Of course you would. Same thing applies here.

If you can get your yard cut for $30 instead of $35 will you pay more?

You've got the issue back to front. If you institute a minimum wage and enforce it, you will not only encourage the 'natives' (and in a place like Arizona, I use the term loosely unless you're an Apache or a Yuma etc.) to take jobs they wouldn't otherwise, ending the labour shortage and so the need to recruit illegals in the first place, but you also square the cost of labour with its intrinsic value.


Please enlighten me.

You know where the library and Internet is.


The local law enforcement in Arizona seems to think it already has. I guess you are more familiar with the situation than they are?

They're not the most reliable sources for a wide range of reasons. That todger Arpaio leaps to mind.


Not what I said at all. If you want to troll then find someone else. If you want to discuss something, put your strawmen away.

Speak for yourself!

Ajamil
2nd August 10, 06:09 PM
You've got the issue back to front. If you institute a minimum wage and enforce it, you will not only encourage the 'natives' (and in a place like Arizona, I use the term loosely unless you're an Apache or a Yuma etc.) to take jobs they wouldn't otherwise, ending the labour shortage and so the need to recruit illegals in the first place, but you also square the cost of labour with its intrinsic value.So you're saying the reason illegal immigrants are hired at sub-minimum wage levels is because there is a labor shortage in certain fields due to the fact that no-one will work for minimum wage in those fields?

Truculent Sheep
2nd August 10, 06:14 PM
So you're saying the reason illegal immigrants are hired at sub-minimum wage levels is because there is a labor shortage in certain fields due to the fact that no-one will work for minimum wage in those fields?

Yes. This is a common problem in most post-industrial countries - the standard and cost of living is high, whereas the cost of unskilled and semi-skilled labour remains low (in part because of the potential knock-on for inflation).

I know people who are too qualified to get any low-paid jobs, and other people who refuse to work their arses off for crap wages - this leaves a lot of jobs waiting to be filled. And where there is demand, supply comes along in one form or another.

Hilarity ensues.

HappyOldGuy
2nd August 10, 09:14 PM
The Irish immigrants for the most part came here legally. The Mexicans did/do not.


I'm glad you remember that this is about brown people.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/22/mccain-irish/

BadUglyMagic
2nd August 10, 10:56 PM
I'm glad you remember that this is about brown people.



Oh stop it. There are many hispanic/latino and Mexican people with blond hair and blue or blueish eyes, you rapscallion you.

In fact, there are many Mexicans with Irish, Chinese, Japanese, French and especially Spanish bloodlines. Not to mention the different indian tribal genetics.

However, the more money you come from, the lighter the skin tone seems to be.

HappyOldGuy
2nd August 10, 11:15 PM
Oh stop it. There are many hispanic/latino and Mexican people with blond hair and blue or blueish eyes, you rapscallion you.

Did you even read the link?

There are a bunch of valid concerns about immigration, legal and otherwise and US border security.

But if you think this debate isn't largely about race you are fucking blind.

BadUglyMagic
2nd August 10, 11:29 PM
Did you even read the link?

There are a bunch of valid concerns about immigration, legal and otherwise and US border security.

But if you think this debate isn't largely about race you are fucking blind.



I read the post. Did not see the parts about immigration and border security. Did not watch the video.

I don't recall any of the Irish receiving an amnesty. Did they? Another promise from someone running for office. That 2008 post seems (to me) to be just another politician soliciting votes from a voting population. Political whorism in a presidential race.


The US census does not allow hispanic or latino as a race. They are all white. So there, nyah nyah nyah nyah.

Is it racial or more about differences of language, cultural and ethnic values and mores. That and they terk thur jaabs! ! !

elipson
3rd August 10, 12:27 AM
If you institute a minimum wage and enforce it, you will not only encourage the 'natives' (and in a place like Arizona, I use the term loosely unless you're an Apache or a Yuma etc.) to take jobs they wouldn't otherwise, ending the labour shortage and so the need to recruit illegals in the first place, but you also square the cost of labour with its intrinsic value.

You do realize you are missing one fairly important step there right? If the wages are suddendly increased then the costs of those goods also increase, decreasing the spending power of the rest of society and giving all income levels less disposable income, which will ultimately hurt lower income persons disproportionately.

The labour shortage you create won't be solved when rich white kids decide to go slumming on the farms for a summer. Instead you will have reduced production and excess capacity, combined with higher prices. You'll have less food and it will be more expensive. Great solution.

nihilist
3rd August 10, 12:31 AM
The US census does not allow hispanic or latino as a race. They are all white. So there, nyah nyah nyah nyah.



What? (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100317195907AAS8nxT)

nihilist
3rd August 10, 12:35 AM
They specifically ask if the person is Latino, Spanish or Hispanic.

Spade: The Real Snake
3rd August 10, 01:03 AM
They specifically ask if the person is Latino, Spanish or Hispanic.
here they are considered "White" and ask if they are of Hispanic Origin, and if so, which country of nationality.

Shotgun Christening
3rd August 10, 05:24 AM
here they are considered "White" and ask if they are of Hispanic Origin, and if so, which country of nationality.


Why does the country of origin matter?

Truculent Sheep
3rd August 10, 05:29 AM
You do realize you are missing one fairly important step there right? If the wages are suddendly increased then the costs of those goods also increase, decreasing the spending power of the rest of society and giving all income levels less disposable income, which will ultimately hurt lower income persons disproportionately.

The labour shortage you create won't be solved when rich white kids decide to go slumming on the farms for a summer. Instead you will have reduced production and excess capacity, combined with higher prices. You'll have less food and it will be more expensive. Great solution.

The only advantage of a low income economy is reduced inflation, which benefits the already better off even more. Conversely, a minimum wage system would be the lesser of two evils and spread the benefit wider.

Shotgun Christening
3rd August 10, 05:35 AM
You've got the issue back to front. If you institute a minimum wage and enforce it, you will not only encourage the 'natives' (and in a place like Arizona, I use the term loosely unless you're an Apache or a Yuma etc.) to take jobs they wouldn't otherwise, ending the labour shortage and so the need to recruit illegals in the first place, but you also square the cost of labour with its intrinsic value.


Minimum wage is $7.25/hour. What would you raise it too? Oh and LOL at enforcing it. The people that will hire illegals are already breaking the law, why would they care about something as petty as minimum wage? Who is going to complain, the guy who is in the country illegally?


worker: "axcoose mee senior poleecmans thees mans deed not pay mee thee meeneemum wages for my work toodayyy. "

authorities:"Sure, we'll look into it, can you fill out this form and start by listing your name and address?"

worker: "ummmmmm"

authorities:"Mind if we take a look at your ID?"

Yeah, thats gonna happen.

Shotgun Christening
3rd August 10, 05:36 AM
The only advantage of a low income economy is reduced inflation, which benefits the already better off even more. Conversely, a minimum wage system would be the lesser of two evils and spread the benefit wider.


We have a minimum wage system already. Gues who doesnt make it? Thaaaats right. Illegals.

Truculent Sheep
3rd August 10, 05:38 AM
Minimum wage is $7.25/hour. What would you raise it too? Oh and LOL at enforcing it. The people that will hire illegals are already breaking the law, why would they care about something as petty as minimum wage? Who is going to complain, the guy who is in the country illegally?


worker: "axcoose mee senior poleecmans thees mans deed not pay mee thee meeneemum wages for my work toodayyy. "

authorities:"Sure, we'll look into it, can you fill out this form and start by listing your name and address?"

worker: "ummmmmm"

authorities:"Mind if we take a look at your ID?"

Yeah, thats gonna happen.

Well... That's what happens when you encourage a low wage economy, creating a need for cheap labour that your local area can't or won't provide or sustain. In other words, you can either have cheap labour and someone to be racist to or you have have well-paid labour and a better social settlement.

Shotgun Christening
3rd August 10, 05:41 AM
Well... That's what happens when you encourage a low wage economy, creating a need for cheap labour that your local area can't or won't provide or sustain. In other words, you can either have cheap labour and someone to be racist to or you have have well-paid labour and a better social settlement.


So paying more will stop racism? HAHAHAHAHAHA

Of course its also what happens when you dont enforce immigration laws. If they werent here illegally then this wouldnt be a problem.

Oh and THIS is what happens when you encourage a high wage economy


If the wages are suddendly increased then the costs of those goods also increase, decreasing the spending power of the rest of society and giving all income levels less disposable income, which will ultimately hurt lower income persons disproportionately.



We cant all be rich. We cant all be equal. Sorry. Thats life.

Truculent Sheep
3rd August 10, 05:56 AM
So paying more will stop racism? HAHAHAHAHAHA

Of course its also what happens when you dont enforce immigration laws. If they werent here illegally then this wouldnt be a problem.

If there wasn't a demand, they wouldn't be there. If they weren't in fact encourage by the same patricians who rant publicly against them they wouldn't be there. Or if you had a realistic view of the situation, you'd have a green card system that was functional rather than xenophobic; an understanding that labour, like ideas, needs to be able to move freely; and an approach to Mexico that would help it develop. God only knows, they're already motivated.


Oh and THIS is what happens when you encourage a high wage economy

Already answered this one. Use your own arguments.


We cant all be rich. We cant all be equal. Sorry. Thats life.

We don't need to be rich, we just need to be able to make a decent living. And all men are created equal - weren't you taught that at High School? A fair, equal society is in everyone's interests, and the key to that is transparency and an equitable approach.

Shotgun Christening
3rd August 10, 06:35 AM
If there wasn't a demand, they wouldn't be there.

I have already stated why there is a demand



If they weren't in fact encourage by the same patricians who rant publicly against them they wouldn't be there.

I think encouraged is the wrong wording. Its more like they werent discouraged.



Or if you had a realistic view of the situation,

Yeah because a guy living in the UK is more familiar with the situation than I am. Do you work in a field where you encounter them on a daily basis? I do. Sorry, you fail.



you'd have a green card system that was functional rather than xenophobic;

Such as?



an understanding that labour, like ideas, needs to be able to move freely;

strawman. This cant be substantiated by tangbile facts



and an approach to Mexico that would help it develop. God only knows, they're already motivated.

Why is it the US's problem about Mexicos development? Are we holding them back? Are the US taxpayers supposed to foot the bill for Mexicos ( another sovereign country BTW) infrastructure? No.



Already answered this one. Use your own arguments.

I quoted it for truth.



We don't need to be rich, we just need to be able to make a decent living.

Gee, thats EXACTLY what the people who say that illegals are taking their jobs for substandard wages are saying too. How progressive of you.



And all men are created equal

With these rights

Freedom of Speech, Press, Religion and Petition
1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

2
Right to keep and bear arms

A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

3
Conditions for quarters of soldiers

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

4
Right of search and seizure regulated

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

5
Provisons concerning prosecution

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

6
Right to a speedy trial, witnesses, etc.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

7
Right to a trial by jury

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

8
Excessive bail, cruel punishment

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

9
Rule of construction of Constitution

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

10
Rights of the States under Constitution

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


I dont recall anywhere in the constitution it saying that they have the RIGHT to be economically equal.


A fair, equal society is in everyone's interests, and the key to that is transparency and an equitable approach.

How so?

nihilist
3rd August 10, 07:51 AM
here they are considered "White" ...

Yes, of course the little brown ppl are considered white, that's why the benevolent government officials specifically ask if they are Spantinos.

Truculent Sheep
3rd August 10, 08:19 AM
I have already stated why there is a demand

No, I did.


I think encouraged is the wrong wording. Its more like they werent discouraged.

i.e., Encouraged.


Yeah because a guy living in the UK is more familiar with the situation than I am. Do you work in a field where you encounter them on a daily basis? I do. Sorry, you fail.

Appealing to authority, are we? Turds are no experts on sewers.


Such as?

What I said.


strawman. This cant be substantiated by tangbile facts

Speak for yourself.


Why is it the US's problem about Mexicos development? Are we holding them back? Are the US taxpayers supposed to foot the bill for Mexicos ( another sovereign country BTW) infrastructure? No.

Either you lend a hand one way or you'll lend it another, not least considering how your histories are interlinked. Pouring money into China alone was not a good idea.


I quoted it for truth.

I quoted it because it was wrong.


Gee, thats EXACTLY what the people who say that illegals are taking their jobs for substandard wages are saying too. How progressive of you.

Well, if they got a minimum wage, they wouldn't be so poor. Also, 'they're taking our jobs!' is an emotive, over-simplistic argument. Try harder


With these rights...

...I dont recall anywhere in the constitution it saying that they have the RIGHT to be economically equal.

Poverty or low economic status makes rights meaningless. Don't you know your history?


How so?

If I need to explain, then you're either not listening or too silly to understand.

Spade: The Real Snake
3rd August 10, 08:57 AM
Yes, of course the little brown ppl are considered white, that's why the benevolent government officials specifically ask if they are Spantinos.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg_notice_15/


To provide flexibility, it is preferable to collect data on race and ethnicity separately. If separate race and ethnic categories are used, the minimum designations are:
a. Race:
- American Indian or Alaskan Native
- Asian or Pacific Islander
- Black
- White

b. Ethnicity:
- Hispanic origin
- Not of Hispanic origin
When race and ethnicity are collected separately, the number of White and Black persons who are Hispanic must be identifiable, and capable of being reported in that category.
If a combined format is used to collect racial and ethnic data, the minimum acceptable categories are:
American Indian or Alaskan Native
Asian or Pacific Islander
Black, not of Hispanic origin
Hispanic
White, not of Hispanic origin. The category which most closely reflects the individual's recognition in his community should be used for purposes of reporting on persons who are of mixed racial and/or ethnic origins.

BadUglyMagic
3rd August 10, 12:28 PM
A little off topic but there has been some discussion of the census classifications as regarding all latinos not of African, Chinese, Japanese descent, etc, being classified as white a possible attempt to prevent participation in affirmative action type programs. Preferential treatment for scholarships, promotions, bids set asides, etc.

elipson
3rd August 10, 02:25 PM
The only advantage of a low income economy is reduced inflation, which benefits the already better off even more. Conversely, a minimum wage system would be the lesser of two evils and spread the benefit wider. Most decent economists from the last 20 years completely disagree with you on this. Cranking up the minimum wage will force a big chunk of people out of work so that a small chunk of people can make slightly more money. And on top of that things in society become more expensive for everyone, decreasing the overall wealth of the people. Great idea.

It won't help the Mexicans who are now out of work. It won't help the small farm owners who now can't afford to hire decent labour without raising their prices and selling less. It won't help the poor families buying food who now have to pay more for their produce. The only people it will help are a handful of legal farm hands who are too proud to work for less and too lazy to get their asses into school and find a better life for themselves. And don't give me the "poor people can't go to school" bullshit. I'm walking proof you can. You just got quit bitching and work a little harder than the rich kids.

Spade: The Real Snake
3rd August 10, 03:17 PM
It won't help the Mexicans who are now out of work. It won't help the small farm owners who now can't afford to hire decent labour without raising their prices and selling less. It won't help the poor families buying food who now have to pay more for their produce. The only people it will help are a handful of legal farm hands who are too proud to work for less and too lazy to get their asses into school and find a better life for themselves. And don't give me the "poor people can't go to school" bullshit. I'm walking proof you can. You just got quit bitching and work a little harder than the rich kids.
USDA Farm Subsidies.

elipson
3rd August 10, 04:24 PM
I guess America does have a lot of money it can spend, right?

Truculent Sheep
3rd August 10, 05:09 PM
Most decent economists from the last 20 years completely disagree with you on this. Cranking up the minimum wage will force a big chunk of people out of work so that a small chunk of people can make slightly more money. And on top of that things in society become more expensive for everyone, decreasing the overall wealth of the people. Great idea.

It won't help the Mexicans who are now out of work. It won't help the small farm owners who now can't afford to hire decent labour without raising their prices and selling less. It won't help the poor families buying food who now have to pay more for their produce. The only people it will help are a handful of legal farm hands who are too proud to work for less and too lazy to get their asses into school and find a better life for themselves. And don't give me the "poor people can't go to school" bullshit. I'm walking proof you can. You just got quit bitching and work a little harder than the rich kids.

So on the one hand, you're in favour of keeping people poor and on the other blaming them for being poor? Gotcha.

elipson
3rd August 10, 05:59 PM
Hahahaha. I love the hypocrisy here.

So you support poor people, but think all those poor mexicans should be kicked out of their low paying jobs and go back to their NO paying jobs?

Being underpaid is better than NOT BEING PAID.

And yes, it is an either/or situation.

elipson
3rd August 10, 06:04 PM
I worked at a farm when i was entering college. At the same time, the provincial government increased the minumum wage. You know what happened on the farm? PEOPLE GOT LAID OFF! I'm sure the people that got laid off really appreciated the minimum wage hike.

Truculent Sheep
3rd August 10, 06:06 PM
Hahahaha. I love the hypocrisy here.

So you support poor people, but think all those poor mexicans should be kicked out of their low paying jobs and go back to their NO paying jobs?

Being underpaid is better than NOT BEING PAID.

And yes, it is an either/or situation.

No it's not. And your logic is that of the workhouse.

Truculent Sheep
3rd August 10, 06:10 PM
I worked at a farm when i was entering college. At the same time, the provincial government increased the minumum wage. You know what happened on the farm? PEOPLE GOT LAID OFF! I'm sure the people that got laid off really appreciated the minimum wage hike.

That's more an indictment of your boss, and indeed that kind of boss, than the minimum wage.

HappyOldGuy
3rd August 10, 07:57 PM
here they are considered "White" and ask if they are of Hispanic Origin, and if so, which country of nationality.
Since I actually have had to code the standard many times, it is two variables, race and ethnicity, so it is possible to be hispanic+black, hispanic+white, and even hispanic+asian. All of which are actually meaningful descriptors if you care about such things. But it is not actually possible to chose is hispanic+mestizo.



I think encouraged is the wrong wording. Its more like they werent discouraged.


You are fucking delusional. There are ads in every paper in mexico and busses at border towns.



And yes, it is an either/or situation.

You're just plain delusional. Not even Cullion would state it that baldly.

elipson
3rd August 10, 08:22 PM
That's more an indictment of your boss, and indeed that kind of boss, than the minimum wage.

No it's not. It's indicative of what happens when a small business can no longer afford to employ people. They reduce production and decrease their labour.

SFGOON
3rd August 10, 08:28 PM
Remember to frame all references to me as 2-4 SPIT ROAST! until the mods get off their asses and change it.

Truculent Sheep
4th August 10, 04:43 AM
No it's not. It's indicative of what happens when a small business can no longer afford to employ people. They reduce production and decrease their labour.

No, it's what happens when bosses run their businesses badly and expect people to work for peanuts. (Then recruit some easily intimidated illegals to do it instead.)

Shotgun Christening
4th August 10, 05:27 AM
You are fucking delusional. There are ads in every paper in mexico and busses at border towns.

I was refering to our politicians not business'.

Oh, and who is delusional? Is she hot? I dont recall fucking anyone in the last 20 years but MOM34 but maybe one night when I was Thailand......shrug

Shotgun Christening
4th August 10, 05:31 AM
I worked at a farm when i was entering college. At the same time, the provincial government increased the minumum wage. You know what happened on the farm? PEOPLE GOT LAID OFF! I'm sure the people that got laid off really appreciated the minimum wage hike.


Damn you are such a glass half empty kind of guy. The other workers made more though. Maybe if the people that got laid off were willing to work harder and werent so lazy and inefficient then they would still have their jobs.

They could have gone to their boss on the side and said "hey, keep paying me what you are paying me and you can keep the rest, just dont lay me off. Im willing to work for less" of course no one would ever offer to make less money just to keep/get a job. Thats ludicrous to the extreme. Nope, no evidence of that ever happening. Nope.


Serious note. This is actually happening at my company. We just got a raise (3%) and now the owner is talking about cutting benefits or possibly laying someone off. Thank god we got that 3% raise though.

elipson
4th August 10, 12:07 PM
No, it's what happens when bosses run their businesses badly and expect people to work for peanuts. (Then recruit some easily intimidated illegals to do it instead.)

Do you know anything about running a business?


It's simple fucking math.

If you're costs go up, then you have to balance your budget somehow. You either decrease your costs or increase your sales/prices. People get laid off out of necessity. It's what happens when you have a business running just fine and then suddenly impose an increase in its costs on it. You gotta make up the difference somewhere.

You REALLY don't know anything about this do you?

Truculent Sheep
4th August 10, 12:41 PM
Do you know anything about running a business?

It's simple fucking math.

If you're costs go up, then you have to balance your budget somehow. You either decrease your costs or increase your sales/prices. People get laid off out of necessity. It's what happens when you have a business running just fine and then suddenly impose an increase in its costs on it. You gotta make up the difference somewhere.

You REALLY don't know anything about this do you?

Well, I know what false economies are, and also the dangers of short-termism. Even Adam Smith argued that free market economics should have a human quality, and that self-interest without social responsibility would do more harm than good in the end.

BadUglyMagic
4th August 10, 02:10 PM
No it's not. And your logic is that of the workhouse.


Please Trollecent Sheep share your great wisdom and logic on the similarities between the workhouses of the Irish Potato Famine and the illegal Mexican aliens in the US.

lant3rn
4th August 10, 02:10 PM
Do you know anything about running a business?


It's simple fucking math.

If you're costs go up, then you have to balance your budget somehow. You either decrease your costs or increase your sales/prices. People get laid off out of necessity. It's what happens when you have a business running just fine and then suddenly impose an increase in its costs on it. You gotta make up the difference somewhere.

You REALLY don't know anything about this do you?

Or If you still remain profitable. you don't need to do a thing.

Truculent Sheep
4th August 10, 02:13 PM
Please Trollecent Sheep share your great wisdom on the similarities between the workhouses of the Irish Potato Famine and the illegal Mexican aliens in the US.

If I need to explain to you, then you are an idiot.

BadUglyMagic
4th August 10, 02:23 PM
If I need to explain to you, then you are an idiot.


The fact that you can't make a rationally logical explanation is because there is not one.

How do you compare an occupied nation ruled under laws that prevent or diminsh outside assistance to a country in famine to illegal Mixican laborers?

How do you rationalize the workhouses that paid less than enough to let the worker buy enough food nutritin to replace his daily calorie s burned to illegal Mexican laborers?

How do you compare the struggles of an occupied nation governed under laws that turned farmland into pasture so they could not feed themselves to illegal Mexican laborers?

Illegal Mexiccan laborers of any kind remitted $25 billion dollars in 2008 to Mexico. How do you compare the plight of those illegal Mexican laborers to the Irish Potato Famine workhouses? You know, the workhouses where people died of starvation as they worked to death.

Truculent Sheep
4th August 10, 02:57 PM
The fact that you can't make a rationally logical explanation is because there is not one.

How do you compare an occupied nation ruled under laws that prevent or diminsh outside assistance to a country in famine to illegal Mixican laborers?

How do you rationalize the workhouses that paid less than enough to let the worker buy enough food nutritin to replace his daily calorie s burned to illegal Mexican laborers?

How do you compare the struggles of an occupied nation governed under laws that turned farmland into pasture so they could not feed themselves to illegal Mexican laborers?

Illegal Mexiccan laborers of any kind remitted $25 billion dollars in 2008 to Mexico. How do you compare the plight of those illegal Mexican laborers to the Irish Potato Famine workhouses? You know, the workhouses where people died of starvation as they worked to death.

You're just repeating yourself now. And race-trolling.

EuropIan
4th August 10, 02:59 PM
BUM, I think Truculent is mostly focusing on the "dey took ur jerbs"-aspect of both cases. A parallel can certainly be drawn by that merit.

Truculent Sheep
4th August 10, 03:02 PM
There are other parallels too, but I've already outlined them. Bad Ugly Magic is either trolling, taking umbrage that I'm not onside with his views or perhaps is offended by me comparing the Irish to another shat-on group of people despite the obvious similarities. Whatever.

EuropIan
4th August 10, 03:17 PM
But the Irish did take jobs...

any jobs..

even in America...

Hell they built most of NOLA


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f4/Nina3.jpg

Truculent Sheep
4th August 10, 03:29 PM
Indeed, much as Mexican labour will do anything and has propped up the US economy in recent decades.

EuropIan
4th August 10, 03:32 PM
Still..There are differences in motivation and where the money ends up.

e.g. I would assume that the Irish didn't wire their money home. while working in England.

Cullion
4th August 10, 03:58 PM
If I need to explain to you, then you are an idiot.

The main differences between illegal immigrant labour today, and migrant labour back then are simple and twofold:-

i) The illegality. People are quite understandably concerned about the prospect of somebody being in their country who's already demonstrated themselves to be a scofflaw. Read Fes' posts on this subject. They are absolutely pertinent, and the Irish and Jewish immigrants of the East End circa 1900 arrived perfectly legally.

ii) Due to the extremely expensive nature of modern welfare, healthcare and educational provision in most Western countries, compared to the pre-WWII era, modern low-skilled migrants are in most cases effectively being subsidised by the incumbent population's taxes.

People are literally being made to pay to import people to compete with them and drive their own wages down. The costs are socialised, whilst the benefits are privatised to the business owners who employ them. Irish navies and Jewish tailors and shopkeepers of the old east end weren't costing more in taxes than they generated, by and large.

This is not a racial/ethnic issue any more than the mainstream media portrays it as one, this is a form of economic class war.

Truculent Sheep
4th August 10, 04:33 PM
The main differences between illegal immigrant labour today, and migrant labour back then are simple and twofold:-

i) The illegality. People are quite understandably concerned about the prospect of somebody being in their country who's already demonstrated themselves to be a scofflaw. Read Fes' posts on this subject. They are absolutely pertinent, and the Irish and Jewish immigrants of the East End circa 1900 arrived perfectly legally.

That's true, but took place fairly late in the day. Remember that throughout most of the history of the Irish diaspora (starting from the 17th century), modern notions of border control were unknown. We only got passports during World War One, for example.


ii) Due to the extremely expensive nature of modern welfare, healthcare and educational provision in most Western countries, compared to the pre-WWII era, modern low-skilled migrants are in most cases effectively being subsidised by the incumbent population's taxes.

As I pointed out, the invisible (and hypocritical) benefits of illegal labour has in turn benefited those taxpayers. We can't gauge how intertwined the legal and illegal sectors now are financially.


People are literally being made to pay to import people to compete with them and drive their own wages down. The costs are socialised, whilst the benefits are privatised to the business owners who employ them. Irish navies and Jewish tailors and shopkeepers of the old east end weren't costing more in taxes than they generated, by and large.

No, because as I said earlier, there were socio-economic pressures back in those days too, and a lot of ethnic tensions ensued. Fagin was, for example, a populist sop to audiences who feared and disliked the relatively exotic (and financially competitive) Jewish population in their midst. While stereotypes about the Irish and their habits (and threat to wage levels) dates back to the (English) Civil War. They may have not access to our welfare systems but neither did we (because they didn't exist yet), so the conflicts were much more immediate.


This is not a racial/ethnic issue any more than the mainstream media portrays it as one, this is a form of economic class war.

I am in agreement with you on this one, but who to blame is something we're probably going to disagree on.

Shotgun Christening
4th August 10, 04:39 PM
Or If you still remain profitable. you don't need to do a thing.


Fail.

Business' like to run whats called a profit margin. Lets say that margin is 10%. Well if costs go up then that margin drops a bit. Yeah they still made money but they didnt make what they wanted too. So to maintain that 10% they cut costs or raise prices to the client.

I have oversimplified it but you get the idea.

True story. The Trane company (Memphis HVAC Division) projected that in 1998 they would make 4.3 million in net profits. They made 3.1 million. We had a BIG meeting where they told us they LOST 1.2 million net that year. They didnt LOSE anything, they just didnt make projection.

Shotgun Christening
4th August 10, 04:43 PM
I am in agreement with you on this one, but who to blame is something we're probably going to disagree on.


Blame those who enter illegally.
Blame those who are supposed to prevent it yet turned a blind eye.

They dont want to assimilate. They want to change this country into their country. Try going through certain areas of Chicago. NOTHING is in English. NOTHING.
Same in certain areas of Memphis. No bilingual shit there. Spanish (their version of it) ONLY.

lant3rn
4th August 10, 05:01 PM
Fail.

Business' like to run whats called a profit margin. Lets say that margin is 10%. Well if costs go up then that margin drops a bit. Yeah they still made money but they didnt make what they wanted too. So to maintain that 10% they cut costs or raise prices to the client.

I have oversimplified it but you get the idea.

True story. The Trane company (Memphis HVAC Division) projected that in 1998 they would make 4.3 million in net profits. They made 3.1 million. We had a BIG meeting where they told us they LOST 1.2 million net that year. They didnt LOSE anything, they just didnt make projection.

Yah... and?

Maybe you don't get the point I'm making

Maximizing profits is all well and good but shouldn't come at the cost of a business' social responsibility. Those projections are often disingenuous attempts to keep share holders happy, I'd rather they kept their workers happy while still making a competitive net profit.

after expenses, 3.1 millions left over isn't that bad in my book.
(was that for the quarter or the year?)

Truculent Sheep
4th August 10, 06:59 PM
Blame those who enter illegally.
Blame those who are supposed to prevent it yet turned a blind eye.

They dont want to assimilate. They want to change this country into their country. Try going through certain areas of Chicago. NOTHING is in English. NOTHING.
Same in certain areas of Memphis. No bilingual shit there. Spanish (their version of it) ONLY.

Thank you for that stock reply, Racism-Bot.

Anyway, just to muddy the waters...

http://ics.leeds.ac.uk/papers/vp01.cfm?outfit=ids&requesttimeout=500&folder=160&paper=162

EuropIan
4th August 10, 07:08 PM
Blame those who enter illegally.
Blame those who are supposed to prevent it yet turned a blind eye.

They dont want to assimilate. They want to change this country into their country. Try going through certain areas of Chicago. NOTHING is in English. NOTHING.
Same in certain areas of Memphis. No bilingual shit there. Spanish (their version of it) ONLY.

http://blog.blazingangles.net/soapbox/images/pia-nosejob.jpg

Truculent Sheep
4th August 10, 07:09 PM
Approves:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/norfolk/content/images/2005/03/15/davros_dalek_resurrection_terry_malloy_400_400x300 .jpg

BadUglyMagic
4th August 10, 10:38 PM
You're just repeating yourself now. And race-trolling.


Trollecent Sheep, you have yet to make your logical case comparing the Irish workhouses to the plight of the illegal Mexican laborer.


Mexican is not a race. Neither is latino or hispanic. As I mentioned earlier the population of Mexico has a broad mix of racial identities including mixed racial identities. Japanese, chinese, latin european, causcasian european, and african, and indian are in circulation in the population Mexican population.

You don't seem to be aware of the countries and people you are making claims about.

HappyOldGuy
5th August 10, 12:55 AM
Mexican is not a race. Neither is latino or hispanic. As I mentioned earlier the population of Mexico has a broad mix of racial identities including mixed racial identities. Japanese, chinese, latin european, causcasian european, and african, and indian are in circulation in the population Mexican population.

You don't seem to be aware of the countries and people you are making claims about.

Which is entirely fucking irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I suppose you prefer to be called an "ethnic bigot" but we don't care.

Shotgun Christening
5th August 10, 05:02 AM
Which is entirely fucking irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I suppose you prefer to be called an "ethnic bigot" but we don't care.


Actually I think he was replying to this...


Since I actually have had to code the standard many times, it is two variables, race and ethnicity, so it is possible to be hispanic+black, hispanic+white, and even hispanic+asian. All of which are actually meaningful descriptors if you care about such things. But it is not actually possible to chose is hispanic+mestizo.


So I think this is a pretty relevant response..


Mexican is not a race. Neither is latino or hispanic.

I posted this for you since I didnt know if its because you take a personal umbrage to people that disagree with you, or because you say so much shit that you forget what you post from day to day.

Im wondering though....does your comment make you an ethnic biggot too?

Shotgun Christening
5th August 10, 05:08 AM
Yah... and?

Maybe you don't get the point I'm making

Maximizing profits is all well and good but shouldn't come at the cost of a business' social responsibility. Those projections are often disingenuous attempts to keep share holders happy, I'd rather they kept their workers happy while still making a competitive net profit.

after expenses, 3.1 millions left over isn't that bad in my book.
(was that for the quarter or the year?)


It was for the year. Im glad you see my point.

I understood what you were saying quite well.
So you dont think that in order to keep the shareholders happy someone wouldnt hire illegals to do a job simply because they CAN pay them less. Even a dollar less an hour and no benefits makes a ton of difference to the bottom line.

Workers arent happy if they arent working.

Truculent Sheep
5th August 10, 05:43 AM
Trollecent Sheep, you have yet to make your logical case comparing the Irish workhouses to the plight of the illegal Mexican laborer.

Yes I have. Unlike you, I don't like repeating myself ad infinitum.


Mexican is not a race. Neither is latino or hispanic. As I mentioned earlier the population of Mexico has a broad mix of racial identities including mixed racial identities. Japanese, chinese, latin european, causcasian european, and african, and indian are in circulation in the population Mexican population.

You don't seem to be aware of the countries and people you are making claims about.

Speak for yourself. Your grip of history is rubbish and all you have left are strawmen. Did you read that link?

BadUglyMagic
5th August 10, 09:37 AM
Yes I have. Unlike you, I don't like repeating myself ad infinitum.



Speak for yourself. Your grip of history is rubbish and all you have left are strawmen. Did you read that link?


Which post number?

Wow. Are you claiming the Irish Potato Famine history is incorrect or that Mexicans are all aboriginal poor brown people exploited by racist rich white Americans?

You are trolling.

Truculent Sheep
5th August 10, 09:45 AM
Which post number?

Next you'll be asking me how to use a computer.


Wow. Are you claiming the Irish Potato Famine history is incorrect or that Mexicans are all aboriginal poor brown people exploited by racist rich white Americans?

You are trolling.

Oh Man of Straw, speak for yourself.

BadUglyMagic
5th August 10, 12:52 PM
Next you'll be asking me how to use a computer.



Oh Man of Straw, speak for yourself.


Can't name the post because there is no post.


Troll.

Truculent Sheep
5th August 10, 01:26 PM
Can't name the post because there is no post.

Can't name the post because you can't be arsed to find it.


Troll.

Bigot and idiot.

Cullion
5th August 10, 01:47 PM
That's true, but took place fairly late in the day. Remember that throughout most of the history of the Irish diaspora (starting from the 17th century), modern notions of border control were unknown. We only got passports during World War One, for example.

I know this, the key point is whether or not you want to encourage scofflaws.
Fes' posts about being a legal immigrant from the Philippines and how she feels about people who break the rules make this point better than I ever could.




As I pointed out, the invisible (and hypocritical) benefits of illegal labour has in turn benefited those taxpayers.

I don't believe it has. I think that the wage suppression and the additional tax burden incurred make the segment of the population who have to compete with the migrants suffer, on balance. The people who benefit economically are the employers, in the main.



No, because as I said earlier, there were socio-economic pressures back in those days too, and a lot of ethnic tensions ensued. Fagin was, for example, a populist sop to audiences who feared and disliked the relatively exotic (and financially competitive) Jewish population in their midst. While stereotypes about the Irish and their habits (and threat to wage levels) dates back to the (English) Civil War. They may have not access to our welfare systems but neither did we (because they didn't exist yet), so the conflicts were much more immediate.

I'm not dismissing bad feeling and rivalry suffered by Jewish and Irish immigrants in those days, I just think that the added dimension of modern government spending makes the tension worse than it would otherwise be. It adds a pot of money to fight over.



I am in agreement with you on this one, but who to blame is something we're probably going to disagree on.

Well, I should be clear I'm not blaming the immigrants. They're just poor people trying to make a living, in the main. I'm blaming corporate power for succesfully lobbying our lawmakers to socialise the costs of importing vigorous, driven workers with low wage expectation, whilst privatising the profits. And smearing anybody who criticises this arrangement as some kind of neonazi.

Truculent Sheep
5th August 10, 02:01 PM
I know this, the key point is whether or not you want to encourage scofflaws.

Well, I'll get those either way, so who gives a damn?


Fes' posts about being a legal immigrant from the Philippines and how she feels about people who break the rules make this point better than I ever could.

No, it was a simple appeal to emotion, ignoring the real issues we have already discussed.



I don't believe it has. I think that the wage suppression and the additional tax burden incurred make the segment of the population who have to compete with the migrants suffer, on balance. The people who benefit economically are the employers, in the main.

They think they've suffered, but that's not the same thing.



I'm not dismissing bad feeling and rivalry suffered by Jewish and Irish immigrants in those days, I just think that the added dimension of modern government spending makes the tension worse than it would otherwise be. It adds a pot of money to fight over.

It's still the same pot of money, only the system has changed. It all comes down to a perceived clash over resources and opportunities.

In 200 years time, we will have right wing descendents of illegals repeating the same arguments (in essence) about all those backward alien lifeforms coming to Earth to steal their jobs, with embattled low income earners (all with Latino surnames) joining in the chorus.


Well, I should be clear I'm not blaming the immigrants. They're just poor people trying to make a living, in the main. I'm blaming corporate power for succesfully lobbying our lawmakers to socialise the costs of importing vigorous, driven workers with low wage expectation, whilst privatising the profits.

Again, I am 100% in agreement with this.


And smearing anybody who criticises this arrangement as some kind of neonazi.

But remember that the same arseholes who encouraged this also benefit politically from railing against it now.

HappyOldGuy
5th August 10, 07:30 PM
But remember that the same arseholes who encouraged this also benefit politically from railing against it now.

And are using it to keep those folks working for sub legal wages.

Truculent Sheep
5th August 10, 07:36 PM
Then we are at least in some agreement here.

HappyOldGuy
6th August 10, 07:27 PM
Kindof an interesting article on some of the politics behind it all.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/08/02/20100802arizona-immigration-law-tolerance-of-immigrants.html

Truculent Sheep
6th August 10, 07:35 PM
It certainly identifies some of the factors - actual and supposed - behind the current backlash, but leaves out probably one big motivator here: The lurch to radicalism and populism on the part of the Republicans in response to Obama winning the presidency, and the crisis in identity for the right which followed.

HappyOldGuy
6th August 10, 07:57 PM
It certainly identifies some of the factors - actual and supposed - behind the current backlash, but leaves out probably one big motivator here: The lurch to radicalism and populism on the part of the Republicans in response to Obama winning the presidency, and the crisis in identity for the right which followed.

I don't know AZ politics well enough, but there hasn't been any notable shift to the right in the California pubs. It may be because they have always been pretty far to the right, but our state party is actually playing even a little dirty to put up more centrist candidates.

Truculent Sheep
6th August 10, 09:07 PM
True, but the national picture echoes how the UK Labour party went looney left (Militant and the Tea Baggers are another eery parallel) after Thatcher won in 1979. The Republicans may yet need a Kinnock to decontaminate the brand after a few necessary defeats.

In Arizona, meanwhile, you do have a strong tea party movement getting behind the immigration act, and Republican lawmakers trying to get a birther bill passed [link (http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/dpp/news/politics/state_politics/house-oks-birther-bill-4-19-2010)], which suggests we need to frame this debate within a wider political context too.

lant3rn
6th August 10, 09:37 PM
I thought i would add this in to the topic

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100803/ap_on_go_co/us_republicans_birthright_citizenship

The move of the republican party to amend the 14th amendment so stop the children of illegal aliens born in america from attaining citizenship... (or try to get Obama taken out of office)



the vitriol is so thick, i can kinda understand how they can't see their own bigotry

nihilist
6th August 10, 11:38 PM
Repugs just trying to milk out a few extra votes from the Palinites.

EuropIan
7th August 10, 07:49 AM
I don't know AZ politics well enough, but there hasn't been any notable shift to the right in the California pubs. It may be because they have always been pretty far to the right, but our state party is actually playing even a little dirty to put up more centrist candidates.
ever gone out to the countryside?

It's hick city in rural Cali

HappyOldGuy
7th August 10, 11:48 AM
ever gone out to the countryside?

It's hick city in rural Cali

I grew up in rural cali, whatcher point?

Cullion
7th August 10, 03:46 PM
Well, I'll get those either way, so who gives a damn?

It's a question of percentages, not absolutes. If you aren't filtering newcomers based on their willingness to comply with the immigration rules, you are likely to end up with a higher proportion of them being willing to flout other laws.



No, it was a simple appeal to emotion, ignoring the real issues we have already discussed.

Well, it was written emotively because it's a subject close to her heart. She's made a detailed and emotional 'anti-scofflaw' argument from the perspective of the kind of law abiding and self-sufficient immigrant which any sane immigration programme should give preference to.



They think they've suffered, but that's not the same thing.

Well, they have in the UK. They're facing competition for jobs from people who they were often taxed in order to expedite their entry to the labour market.



It's still the same pot of money, only the system has changed. It all comes down to a perceived clash over resources and opportunities.

It's a much larger pot of money. That's the difference between now and 1900 in the UK. In 1900, the settled cockney population weren't being taxed to assist the Irish and Jewish immigrants with housing, or have public documentation translated into other languages etc.. More resources have been thrown into the pot to fight over.



In 200 years time, we will have right wing descendents of illegals repeating the same arguments (in essence) about all those backward alien lifeforms coming to Earth to steal their jobs, with embattled low income earners (all with Latino surnames) joining in the chorus.

And if they're being taxed to build refrigerated methane pools and provide 'outreach' jobs for a huge surplus of social science graduates, they'll be right, too.



But remember that the same arseholes who encouraged this also benefit politically from railing against it now.

I know that, but that doesn't mean that I should approve of allowing marginal income workers to be economically burdened with supporting international labour market 'flexibility' for the profit of the ruling class. 'The enemy of my enemy' is often a fairly dangerous form of political reasoning.

Truculent Sheep
8th August 10, 08:26 AM
It's a question of percentages, not absolutes. If you aren't filtering newcomers based on their willingness to comply with the immigration rules, you are likely to end up with a higher proportion of them being willing to flout other laws.

Not necessarily, as you're implying a pro quid pro that isn't there. Plenty of crooks have immigrated to the US without a problem as they have avoided being convicted back home. What has changed is the escalation of the Mexican drug wars which will impact Arizona and other neighbouring states regardless of their xenophobia.



Well, it was written emotively because it's a subject close to her heart. She's made a detailed and emotional 'anti-scofflaw' argument from the perspective of the kind of law abiding and self-sufficient immigrant which any sane immigration programme should give preference to.

The heart is more easily engaged than the brain, but the brain is the higher organ.

Also, legal immigration into the US takes the piss:

http://reason.org/files/a87d1550853898a9b306ef458f116079.pdf



Well, they have in the UK. They're facing competition for jobs from people who they were often taxed in order to expedite their entry to the labour market.

It's more complicated than that, and you know it. Next you'll be accusing them of eating swans.


It's a much larger pot of money. That's the difference between now and 1900 in the UK. In 1900, the settled cockney population weren't being taxed to assist the Irish and Jewish immigrants with housing, or have public documentation translated into other languages etc.. More resources have been thrown into the pot to fight over.

The conflict is still over resources and the discourse remains the same. You're just focussing on irrelevant details. They didn't have DVD players in the 1860s, nor do we have widespread Cholera nowadays (in the UK, anyway). This is all missing the point.


And if they're being taxed to build refrigerated methane pools and provide 'outreach' jobs for a huge surplus of social science graduates, they'll be right, too.

This is less an argument and more a Daily Mail editorial.


I know that, but that doesn't mean that I should approve of allowing marginal income workers to be economically burdened with supporting international labour market 'flexibility' for the profit of the ruling class. 'The enemy of my enemy' is often a fairly dangerous form of political reasoning.

Firstly, you're entering dangerous territory here as you are purporting to speak for the 'working man'. Well, I'm from that background too and what I do know is that this whole 'them's takin' ur jurbs!' narrative gets in the way of the bigger issue, that social mobility has slowed to a standstill and the socio-economic model of the UK (absurd house prices, falling standards of living, an over-reliance on staples) is a bigger underlying problem than swarms of 'wogs'.

Cullion
8th August 10, 02:39 PM
Not necessarily, as you're implying a pro quid pro that isn't there. Plenty of crooks have immigrated to the US without a problem as they have avoided being convicted back home. What has changed is the escalation of the Mexican drug wars which will impact Arizona and other neighbouring states regardless of their xenophobia.

Do you really believe that if you filter out people who've already broken your laws, you won't reduce the criminality of a population ?



It's more complicated than that, and you know it. Next you'll be accusing them of eating swans.

'It's more complicated than that' is true, but also not a counter.



The conflict is still over resources and the discourse remains the same. You're just focussing on irrelevant details. They didn't have DVD players in the 1860s, nor do we have widespread Cholera nowadays (in the UK, anyway). This is all missing the point.

The amount of money involved isn't an irrelevant detail. People are being made to support the import of their labour-market competition in a way they never were before. That really is a contributing factor to how people feel about those newcomers.



This is less an argument and more a Daily Mail editorial.

I'm glad you liked it.



Firstly, you're entering dangerous territory here as you are purporting to speak for the 'working man'. Well, I'm from that background too and what I do know is that this whole 'them's takin' ur jurbs!' narrative gets in the way of the bigger issue, that social mobility has slowed to a standstill and the socio-economic model of the UK (absurd house prices, falling standards of living, an over-reliance on staples) is a bigger underlying problem than swarms of 'wogs'.

'We've got other more serious problems' isn't really an argument in favour of the kind of immigration policy we saw under Labour. I'm not claiming that mass immigration is the UK's biggest problem (or even that it would be a problem at all given a saner economic setup), it's just that immigration is the subject of this thread.

HappyOldGuy
8th August 10, 02:54 PM
Do you really believe that if you filter out people who've already broken your laws, you won't reduce the criminality of a population ?
Do you actually think there is a single person in a population who obeys all the laws?

Bear in mind that contrary to the rhetoric, immigration offenses are not actually criminal.

There are issues with criminality on the border. But it is pretty much all about drugs and guns.

Hedley LaMarr
8th August 10, 02:54 PM
I thought i would add this in to the topic

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100803/ap_on_go_co/us_republicans_birthright_citizenship

The move of the republican party to amend the 14th amendment so stop the children of illegal aliens born in america from attaining citizenship... (or try to get Obama taken out of office)



the vitriol is so thick, i can kinda understand how they can't see their own bigotry
So there is a movement (I'm going on a limb and saying "Tea Party") that wants to amend one of the most important pieces of legislation in American history to attempt to stem the tide of illegal immigration? Nevermind this will do dick all to stop illegal immigration, I think what really boggles my mind about this is that there are Tea Partiers out there who are under the impression that Mexicans not only read the Constitution of the United States but make it the deciding factor in their decision-making process in coming to this country illegally.

Unless of course the idea behind this movement is not to stem the tide of immigration but instead is some kind of passive-aggressive scheme to bog down INS and child services in this country on biblical proportions.

Truculent Sheep
8th August 10, 09:47 PM
Do you really believe that if you filter out people who've already broken your laws, you won't reduce the criminality of a population ?

That's based on a very simplistic view of things.


'It's more complicated than that' is true, but also not a counter.

But it is when it undermines the original argument.



The amount of money involved isn't an irrelevant detail. People are being made to support the import of their labour-market competition in a way they never were before. That really is a contributing factor to how people feel about those newcomers.

Again, I get a feeling we're in Daily Mail territory here. Also, as I have said, immigration can bring benefits as well as problems, so the 'poor taxpayers being fleeced by swarthy wogs' narrative is a flawed one.


I'm glad you liked it.

If I actually read the Daily Mail, I'd probably get a free DVD and a special readers' offer on gardening gloves, so no, I didn't.


'We've got other more serious problems' isn't really an argument in favour of the kind of immigration policy we saw under Labour.

Strawman. My reply was not in 'favour' of anything.


I'm not claiming that mass immigration is the UK's biggest problem (or even that it would be a problem at all given a saner economic setup), it's just that immigration is the subject of this thread.

And so, something of a red herring.

SifuAbel
8th August 10, 10:49 PM
Who hear has actually met, know enough Spanish to talk to, and gotten to know a Mexican immigrant?

Oh and "limpia esto" doesn't count as a conversation.

nihilist
8th August 10, 11:52 PM
I have met many and only one I consider a good friend.

SifuAbel
9th August 10, 12:50 AM
It only takes one.

Adouglasmhor
9th August 10, 01:11 AM
how would a wall cut a city in half?

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~german/graphics/BerlinerMauer.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_jwuOAwhrMjg/SaaQ6WSoE-I/AAAAAAAAAUI/dhir6pcN2qU/s400/20030408-Belfast-PeaceLine.jpg

nihilist
9th August 10, 01:17 AM
Fuckin walls: How do those work?

Ajamil
9th August 10, 04:46 AM
Who hear has actually met, know enough Spanish to talk to, and gotten to know a Mexican immigrant? A number. We had a fence runner at the temple who wanted to learn how to start his own place back home. I got to hear about him hiding under the brush when the choppers flew by.

nihilist
9th August 10, 04:47 AM
That's just sad.

Cullion
9th August 10, 09:05 AM
That's based on a very simplistic view of things.


But it is when it undermines the original argument.

'Yeah but it's not that simple' isn't a rebuttal until you explain what you think the other factors at work are and explain why they render the original points irrelevant.



Again, I get a feeling we're in Daily Mail territory here. Also, as I have said, immigration can bring benefits as well as problems, so the 'poor taxpayers being fleeced by swarthy wogs' narrative is a flawed one.

Explain the benefits of taxpayer subsidised immigrant labour to a recently unemployed person who is trying to get a job in a food plant, or a building site.

Truculent Sheep
9th August 10, 09:12 AM
Cullion, you keep trying to trip people up rather than argue with them, which is, in a roundabout way, an admission of defeat.

Cullion
9th August 10, 09:18 AM
TS, you're trying to rebut things by just saying 'that's Daily Mail that is' and 'it's not that simple' without explaining why you think the things you do.

Asking you to explain an assertion you make isn't 'trying to trip you up'.

Truculent Sheep
9th August 10, 09:19 AM
I'm getting deja vu here, Cullion.

Cullion
9th August 10, 09:20 AM
Well, if you can't explain what the benefits are to the kind of people I'm talking about, then I don't believe they exist.

Truculent Sheep
9th August 10, 09:22 AM
I could explain, but then you'd try to make it sound like I said something else, or just rephrase your original point and try to pass it off as a reply. Let's do the timewarp again.

Cullion
9th August 10, 09:24 AM
You're in one of those moods today, and I'm not biting.

Truculent Sheep
9th August 10, 09:25 AM
You didn't answer that one either.

Cullion
9th August 10, 09:29 AM
L3C_9df-1RM

BadUglyMagic
9th August 10, 09:45 AM
Who hear has actually met, know enough Spanish to talk to, and gotten to know a Mexican immigrant?

Oh and "limpia esto" doesn't count as a conversation.


My spanish is not very good. However, I know and interact/meet with a large number of latino/hispanic and mexican immigrants on a regular basis. They range from manual labor (mostly mexican) to professionals medical, legal, accounting etc, (mainly central and south american).

Since mass immigration (illegal and legal) is a visible mainly at the regional or local level, if you are not in the middle of it, you are mentally constrained by the picture of your own localized community.

Spade: The Real Snake
9th August 10, 12:24 PM
Who hear has actually met, know enough Spanish to talk to, and gotten to know a Mexican immigrant?

Oh and "limpia esto" doesn't count as a conversation.
me.

Spade: The Real Snake
9th August 10, 12:25 PM
http://www.dartmouth.edu/%7Egerman/graphics/BerlinerMauer.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_jwuOAwhrMjg/SaaQ6WSoE-I/AAAAAAAAAUI/dhir6pcN2qU/s400/20030408-Belfast-PeaceLine.jpg
GODWIN!

Ajamil
9th August 10, 03:56 PM
That's just sad.Why? Man was braved an illegal crossing to follow his dream. Also, I have mentioned that there's only three non-Mexicans including me working at my cafe, yes? No idea how many (other than my 1st gen US citizen manager) are legal, but it never really mattered to me. Also, even if it did, what would I do about it?

"So Jose, Enrique, Miguel - you guys got SS#s or what? Can I have them? Just - you know - to check something."