Trump says let guest workers into the country

LMAO, just been looking into the whole H-2A thing and us Brits can do it as well.
No Brits want to do farm work here either, but a season somewhere hot sounds a temptation.
Not for me, but a few years younger...

EDIT
If I'd known this in my twenties I'd be settled somewhere warm there now [/sigh]

originally posted by: MiddleInsite
a reply to: Byrd

If, when these welcome immigrants come in for a job, and if some of them commit a crime, lets hope that Fox puts it on the front page like they do now, and blame Trump for it, like they blame the Dems now. OK.

That's the problem. Read the local newspapers and you'll see stories where someone was fixing a flat tyre while on the road, and some drunk illegal worker without insurance drove straight into them on a clear Sunny day.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: rickymouse
I see no problem with letting people from Mexico come here in work if they get the proper documentation and follow the rules of the agreement. I am against people sneaking in and causing problems, the good people should be able to come in if they do it legally and are not criminals.

I think the numbers of these people should be regulated though.

You should research the current difficulty of US farmers legally having Mexican workers.

Something needs to change.

Most farms these days are corporate rather than family farms.
We had no problem in the past harvesting our own food until corporate farms ran the family farms out of business.

originally posted by: jacobe001

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: rickymouse
I see no problem with letting people from Mexico come here in work if they get the proper documentation and follow the rules of the agreement. I am against people sneaking in and causing problems, the good people should be able to come in if they do it legally and are not criminals.

I think the numbers of these people should be regulated though.

You should research the current difficulty of US farmers legally having Mexican workers.

Something needs to change.

Most farms these days are corporate rather than family farms.
We had no problem in the past harvesting our own food until corporate farms ran the family farms out of business.

That really has nothing to do with migrant field workers.

a reply to: jacobe001

Got a family farm next to (well, really surrounding) me here, from another side of the family. They don't seem to need migrant workers, and they farm several thousand acres.

It is incorporated (LLC, I think), but it's run by the family. They do pretty well for themselves.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: jacobe001

Got a family farm next to (well, really surrounding) me here, from another side of the family. They don't seem to need migrant workers, and they farm several thousand acres.

It is incorporated (LLC, I think), but it's run by the family. They do pretty well for themselves.

TheRedneck

What crops & how are they harvested?

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Byrd

In all fairness, I don't believe Trump has said that he was against guest workers or guest worker programs.The problem I have is that he does not seem to be advocating for ideas that make the process easier or more efficient.

He has ideas. He laid them out on his campaign website. The trick is getting congress to actually do something, one way or the other.

a reply to: Annee

They rotate... cotton, corn, soybeans, wheat... and they use equipment for harvesting. They also employ a crew of workers... all American.

Does that make a difference?

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Annee

They rotate... cotton, corn, soybeans, wheat... and they use equipment for harvesting. They also employ a crew of workers... all American.

Does that make a difference?

TheRedneck

Yes, machines are being built or improved to harvest almost anything. I think its broccoli that's being "engineered" to have longer/taller stems - - to make it more efficient to harvest by machine (other crops too, most likely).

Whether or not the "all Americans" - - are or that they have legal papers is always questionable.

Businesses are only required to accept legal paperwork - - they are not required to do extensive background checks - - as far as I know.

I worked at a meat processing plant - - way back when they did the last Amnesty program. They all had legal paperwork. But, the Amnesty program revealed about 99% of them had fraudulent paperwork.

a reply to: Byrd

As most other posters have pointed out he has never been against immigration. He is against illegal immigration as most people are.

I can tell you in Florida there is no shortage of jobs but many people will not do them. What was once considered by many as 'Hispanic' jobs in the fields are now being shunned by the 2nd and 3rd generations born in this country. They want XBoxes not being in fields all day.

So the job market shifts. Many in Florida thought the recent influx from PR would help but they are not trying to get those jobs left open.

If there is a job and a market and a need why not have legal foreign workers?

a reply to: Byrd

Contrary to the propaganda put out about Trump and his views on foreigners he merely wants current laws to be enforced and to prevent tax dollars from going to individual who are here illegally. At no time has Trump ever pushed to end al foreign travel / immigration to the US. He wants a fair deal instead of the US always taking the punch to the kidneys.

a reply to: Annee

Whether or not the "all Americans" - - are or that they have legal papers is always questionable.

Annee, this is my extended family we're talking about. I know them well, 50+ years of well, and have met pretty much everyone that works for them. No, it's not questionable when all of them speak with a pronounced Southern accent and have families here that go back several generations.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Byrd

As most other posters have pointed out he has never been against immigration. He is against illegal immigration as most people are.

That's rather difficult to reconcile with his policies on immigration, including his attempt to restrict travel and immigration from Muslim countries he deemed undesirables (one of his first acts in office.) Add to that, his attempts to cut Syrian refugee applicants, his proposals to make it hard for asylum seekers to enter the US (and so forth), it's difficult to him as a proponent any sort of immigration.

And that's all legal immigration. This does make it appear as though he's against legal immigration.

At best, the policies are not even-handed.

I don't see how you can frame him as anything but against immigration in many forms. Or are you perhaps considering policies that I haven't noticed yet? I do not hold him to his speeches since he's verbally reversed position many times.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Byrd

Contrary to the propaganda put out about Trump and his views on foreigners he merely wants current laws to be enforced and to prevent tax dollars from going to individual who are here illegally. At no time has Trump ever pushed to end al foreign travel / immigration to the US. He wants a fair deal instead of the US always taking the punch to the kidneys.

That is also hard to reconcile. His first act (which caused a huge uproar) was not enforcing current laws but attempting to put a mass travel ban against Muslim countries. You might not remember the flap, but people I know were caught up in it. He's kicking the Dreamers out (or trying to use them as a negotiating point) and his scattershot policies have caused confusion among the agents (who can't decide how to uniformly apply it) and have fractured families and even deported immigrants who joined our armed forces and fought for us.

So it looks like he's expanding the laws and not simply enforcing the laws that exist (which we were already doing.)

So what's your case for the reverse notion?

originally posted by: Byrd
That is also hard to reconcile. His first act (which caused a huge uproar) was not enforcing current laws but attempting to put a mass travel ban against Muslim countries. You might not remember the flap, but people I know were caught up in it. He's kicking the Dreamers out (or trying to use them as a negotiating point) and his scattershot policies have caused confusion among the agents (who can't decide how to uniformly apply it) and have fractured families and even deported immigrants who joined our armed forces and fought for us.

So it looks like he's expanding the laws and not simply enforcing the laws that exist (which we were already doing.)

So what's your case for the reverse notion?

Mass travel ban against Muslim countries? N. Korea is not Muslim. Venezuela is not Muslim. Indonesia was not on the list and neither were the 20 other some odd countries with Muslim majorities not on the list. The countries on the list with Muslim majorities make up only 8% of the total Muslim global population.

It was not a ban. It was a temporary halt for 180 days to re-evaluate the screening process and to make changes that were ignored under Obama - like social media, which under Obama it was forbidden for immigration officials to look at or consider.

Trump did not kick DACA out. The US Supreme Court did when it ruled DAPA was unconstitutional. Since you seem to be unaware DACA was an Obama executive order. He bypassed Congress when they refused to give him the actions he wanted. Since its an EO Trump can change it any time he chooses.

Trump has not expanded any laws. What he has done is reevaluate our immigration programs and the criteria we use to review people who wish to enter this country.

As for the people you know who were affected - Why did they come here illegally? If they were here for more than a year then why didnt they go thru the process to make their presence legal?

Why are you so bent out of shape on only this "travel ban" but not the others? A bulk of Islamic countries refuse to allow Israeli into their countries.

Dont want a fragmented family? Then dont bring your kids along when you decide to violate the law.

So if you actually understood what was going on, what SCOTUS said about DAPA and understand the fact DAPA is exactly the same as DACA except it focuses on the parents whose kids are lawfully present.

His policies are clear. Only the left and their intentional judge shopping caused the chaos when federal districts courts massively violated their authority with their rulings. Even a US appeals circuit cannot issue an order that applies to the entire country. It only applies to the appeals circuit and the states within. Federal district courts are restricted to their districts and that's it. They actually always maintained that until Trump took office where the left once again demonstrates its ignorance for the Constitution and their role within it.

Scotus is hearing arguments right now for this topic. Lets see what happens. My prediction is Trumps actions are lawful and constitutional and the Supreme Court will, once again, assert the standard that when it comes to national security second guessing the President and trying to inhibit his Constitutional authority is a nonstarter.

That prediction is based on the line of questioning by several of the Justices, specifically Kennedy and Roberts, who are considered swing votes.

NYT -Key Justices Seem Skeptical of Challenge to Trump’s Travel Ban

WASHINGTON — A 15-month legal battle over President Trump’s efforts to impose a ban on travel to the United States from several predominantly Muslim countries reached a final stage on Wednesday at the Supreme Court, with its five-member conservative majority signaling it was ready to approve a revised version of the president’s plan.

The justices appeared ready to discount Mr. Trump’s campaign promises to impose what he repeatedly described as a “Muslim ban,” while giving him the benefit of the doubt traditionally afforded to presidents. Some expressed worry about second-guessing executive branch determinations about who should be allowed to enter the United States.

Immigrant rights groups had hoped that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. or Justice Anthony M. Kennedy would join the court’s four-member liberal wing to oppose the ban as unconstitutionally discriminatory against Muslims. But their questioning was almost uniformly hostile to the ban’s opponents.

At one point in the oral arguments, Chief Justice Roberts asked whether Mr. Trump will forever be unable to address immigration in light of his campaign statements. “Is there a statute of limitations on that?” the chief justice asked.

Solicitor General Noel J. Francisco, representing the administration, said the latest travel ban, issued in September as a presidential proclamation, was not directed at Muslims.

“This is not a so-called Muslim ban,” he said. “If it were, it would be the most ineffective Muslim ban that one could possibly imagine.” It excluded, he said, “the vast majority of the Muslim world.”

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. added his own statistics.

“I think there are 50 predominantly Muslim countries in the world,” he said. “Five predominantly Muslim countries are on this list. The population of the predominantly Muslim countries on this list make up about 8 percent of the world’s Muslim population. If you looked at the 10 countries with the most Muslims, exactly one, Iran, would be on that list of the top 10.”

click link for entire article...

The nail in the coffin came at the end with Chief Justice Roberts -

The chief justice then asked whether Mr. Trump could immunize his order from constitutional challenge simply by disclaiming his earlier statements. “If tomorrow he issues a proclamation saying he’s disavowing all those statements,” the chief justice asked, “then the next day he can re-enter this proclamation?”

Mr. Katyal said yes.

In his rebuttal argument, Mr. Francisco pursued the point. Mr. Trump, he said, has already made clear that “he had no intention of imposing the Muslim ban.”

“He has made crystal clear that Muslims in this country are great Americans and there are many, many Muslim countries who love this country, and he has praised Islam,” Mr. Francisco said. “This proclamation is about what it says it’s about: foreign policy and national security.”

The left claims Trumps comments about a Muslim ban during the campaign should be considered. If Trump were to declare tomorrow the ban is not directed at Muslims would he have an argument here? - She answered yes.

Justice Kennedy noted that the latest travel ban was longer and more detailed than proclamations issued by earlier presidents. He also appeared to speak approvingly of a part of the proclamation that called for periodic reports.

So if Trump disavows his Muslim ban comments made during the election his travel ban would be legal. The problem here, as the solicitor general pointed out, is Trump has already done this.

originally posted by: Byrd
I'm not sure what the current impact of the trade spat with China is on farmers. My sources say they're concerned and that some crops have been left to rot due to a number of factors. However, I don't have solid data here.

My understanding on the China issue is that there's not much of one. It's only been very recently that beef has even been allowed into China from the US so the market never had time to grow and take hold. Instead it's just being delayed in being developed.

I'm not sure about other food products, but from the farmers I talked to, they're not too worried about it right now. They're more concerned with tax reform that wasn't kind to them and keeping workers to work their fields.

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

Politics aside does the US not have a problem attracting it's citizens to work on farms like the UK does?
Major problem here, crops would wither without foreign workers.

EDIT
Open question to anyone really, I'm just interested if it's the same over there.

It's a huge problem in the US. Some states have passed very harsh laws that stopped the agriculture industry from hiring illegals. It was very successful in doing so, but then no one worked the fields and the industry in those states nearly went bankrupt when all the produce rotted in the field.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

Politics aside does the US not have a problem attracting it's citizens to work on farms like the UK does?
Major problem here, crops would wither without foreign workers.

EDIT
Open question to anyone really, I'm just interested if it's the same over there.

It's a huge problem in the US. Some states have passed very harsh laws that stopped the agriculture industry from hiring illegals. It was very successful in doing so, but then no one worked the fields and the industry in those states nearly went bankrupt when all the produce rotted in the field.

Wow that's exactly what would happen if we lost our foreign workers as well. The industry here is genuinely worried about what is going to happen after we leave the EU, but I imagine work visas will continue in another solely UK system. The government knows the country and economy would collapse without the backs of immigrants to support it.
Thanks for the reply, I'll do some reading about it for a talking point with friends when discussing the need for foreign workers on our farms.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

It happened in Georgia here. They salvaged the situation by bussing in unpaid convict labor and essentially used slavery for two years (still legal in the US in the case of prison labor) while the state reversed the laws and bought time for the farmers to start bringing people back in.

This was after the farmers tried taking the states first suggestion which was to pay the field workers more. They were offering $30 and in some cases more per hour to anyone, and still had over 75% of positions going unfilled.

The farmers like the current situation much more. They were able to leverage prisoners for 2 years of unpaid labor, and then go back to offering migrants minimum wage.

I don't get it. One minute some of you folks are applauding Trump for keeping out these illegal immigrants since they're taking our jobs, then the next you're applauding Trump for letting migrant workers in to take our jobs....