Trump Unveils Overhaul On 'Legal' Immigration... Bring Skills, Speak English...

a reply to: luthier

No. I think you've got it wrong.

I think you'd rather we continued to do something inherently wrong than to actually fix the system.

Every other developed country out there more or less picks and chooses who they will let in based on what skills they need. We shouldn't have to be any different.

And we have plenty of our own poor who have low sills who need to find work. It is unfair to them to force them to compete against those who can be hired illegally because you would prefer to have an illegal class to undercut them instead of actually doing what's right.

How much in taxes do we get fleeced for every year supporting the legal low wage workers who cannot find work because of the system you would rather prop up? How much in taxes do we spend supporting the illegal workers who cannot support themselves on their low wages? How much of their wages which aren't taxed do they send to other economies in other countries instead of keeping those dollars here to help support our own?

I think you aren't calculating all of that into your equation.

a reply to: ketsuko

First off one more time..

I don't think it should stay as it is.

Second the cost to you is negligible compared to what would happen with a quick change in the structure of the economy and entire industries like construction.

Are you going to force people to work? Force people to roof your house? Their were voids before the illegals.

I think it comes down to are you willing to look at the problem in reality or read a script from your party. It looks like you are choosing the party.

When was the last balanced budget? How have they been paying for deficits?

How do they control consumer costs and the dollar strength?

Again I don't advocate for the federal Reserve but I also don't pretend it doesn't exist.

I think it could be solved in months if trump wanted to be really tough. He could seize all the employers he sends out tasks forces to assess for breaking the law and exploiting workers and use that money to expand courts to at least deal with his increase of arrests.

Lots of logical things to do if you want to stop illegals for real and not make a gimmick.

originally posted by: luthier

Eta immigration needs should reflect the actual labor market not a social engineering project. The market is supposed to be king not social planning how is this difference to than liberals deciding what an economy needs?

The market is a myth.

It's all social engineering.

a reply to: AMPTAH

Not really advocating positions a little devils advocate here and there to point out some fallacy but I will survive no matter what. Why because I don't pin all fears and failures on some scapegoat. I just do my best.

The market is an idea not really a myth but it is used like a myth by a good deal of conservatives.

a reply to: luthier

I'm not the only one choosing party line if anyone is doing so.

You haven't offered any solution either. And I've already pointed out where amnesty is not one because amnesty only makes all those illegals, legal, low-skilled Americans. They would then have the same problems our own low-skilled workers now have - they're too expensive, per your own theory, to hire.

So an amnesty only creates another void to bring in more sob-story illegals.

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: luthier

Eta immigration needs should reflect the actual labor market not a social engineering project. The market is supposed to be king not social planning how is this difference to than liberals deciding what an economy needs?

The market is a myth.

It's all social engineering.

What do you think a market is? Just curious because I visit one on the weekends where all the local small farmers sell their produce and goods. It is what I've always thought of as a market.

a reply to: ketsuko

It's not a theory. And my solutions are pretty clear.


When you advocate against raising min wage how is this different?

Accept in this case it's doubling the cost for employers.

The problem is your unwilling to look at reality you want a scapegoat and it's the people who have been giving consumers low prices rather than their employers. In fact you once said you hire illegals so there is that.


The solution is to Crack down and seize assets of employers, a mass exodus would happen, Visa program from seasonal work, and a pathway for those who own homes and meet conditions. Could even have a long grace period where they can be expelled for unemployment of you want.

The point is to talk about the real problems that arise not how bad Mexicans are.

And stop printing money so we have to keep wages so low to check inflation!

a reply to: seasonal



I agree with this, I live in LA and the amount of people who live here and don't speak English is staggering and not just Hispanic people. I do have to say, I am not so sure how it is now, but I am pretty sure that in the past, people who wanted to be citizens in the U.S. had to take the constitution test in English. The also had to know basic English. I am not sure how these people have gotten in even legally without the basics.

a reply to: ketsuko

Also just curious why do you think I am for this system?

I am not. A cost increase however is inevitable. The market lords have been playing make believe for a long time and this is one area that will raise cost.

Just saying those of you who think it will balance out the math isn't there orbit wouldn't be the way it is. Since an economy is not an actual machine and you can't predict things accurately with massive changes anything that changes this massive revalue machine is dangerous. So careful planning over rhetoric and personal ideas is key. It should be America's plan, created to benefit and not exploit Americans of every kind.

originally posted by: kurthall
a reply to: seasonal



I agree with this, I live in LA and the amount of people who live here and don't speak English is staggering and not just Hispanic people. I do have to say, I am not so sure how it is now, but I am pretty sure that in the past, people who wanted to be citizens in the U.S. had to take the constitution test in English. The also had to know basic English. I am not sure how these people have gotten in even legally without the basics.

That is a valid point and one I argue against liberals all the time with. Why would a person living here not learn English in a school in the US?

It certainly helps keep people in certain neighborhoods. Probably a compromise from the parties.

I think part of the seized money from the employers the doj sends to audit should be used to pay for their back round check and English class if they are a worthy citizen. ..

Seems crazy I know.

a reply to: kurthall

Agreed.

The social costs to having people of lottery allowed in is a far worse idea than a skilled based entry.

And the social costs are not included in the cost of a tomato or a dry wall job.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: 200Plus
Your increase in wage travels to the consumer.

Agreed, but in the end, many, many less people will be treated like pack mules and horses, only good for back-breaking manual labor and paid not much more than the livestock. I'll take a 5%-10% (conjecture on my end) increase in goods and services to know that we're not one step away as a country from basically advocating human exploitation.

My personal opinion is a push for backround checke and naturalization should happen for a period while you arrest and seize assets of employers to pay for some of this and after the grace period you deport hard and fast with bipartisan support.

I'm concerned about your apparent excitement over asset forfeiture via the federal government. Also, your comment about "bipartisan support" is comical, especially concerning deportation of illegal immigrants.

Use the military to survey the boarder with modern equiptment, and make the punishment for employers mandatory asset seizure.

I agree with that use of the military, but only after we leave the perpetual war that is the Middle East and bring our guys home. Again, though, your penchant for asset forfeiture is bothersome to me.

In the end, I think that much of what America spends its money on are, relatively speaking, luxury items, and we could use a reminder via possibly slightly higher costs in goods and services that human dignity is more important than saving a few bucks at the register.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Personally I agree the cost of goods would be absorbable for most, a lot of working people would feel the cost in food and housing.

The asset seizing is a shock and awe to show corps want to be people you want Jeff sessions well there you go. These are serious bad guys in cases of poultry plants having hundreds or thoudands?

Or is it not that serious. Cause if not let's not get hysterical and solve it. You give libs a form of amnesty you will get a form of deportation and workplace enforcement.

If it's a serious crime to come here buy a house and live silently for 20 years is damn well better be a crime to hire a thousand.

So let's not seize people's money and let trials play out. But again if they made those investments with money gained from illegals and skirting taxes a court should be able to enforce a fine.

Frankly it's gross to me so it makes me a little more bothered than usual.

originally posted by: stormcell


If a company like Walmart can make billions on stock option dividends, yet their staff qualify for food-stamps and are subsidized by the government then something is wrong.

I have been screaming this for years in the UK, tesco, Asda, Sainsburys and lots of other massive corporations whom all make millions of pounds in profit, YET the UK Government has to subsidise a low paid employee with "working tax credits"

I really dont get why these companies are allowed to continue this practice

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: kurthall

Agreed.

The social costs to having people of lottery allowed in is a far worse idea than a skilled based entry.

And the social costs are not included in the cost of a tomato or a dry wall job.

It would be nice though to hear that told by the President rather than" I am hoping by radically changing several segments of the economy everyone gets a humpback whale".

Maybe it's going to be a tough few years but worth it.

Otherwise it feels like a long con.

a reply to: UpIsNowDown

Ahh the "swamp" that Trump is going to drain...??

These corps are so powerful that they eclipse the fed govt.


I contend that it is going to take a "untouchable" approach like the one that broke the Mob in the early 20th century to bust this new corporatism up. The repubs just showed us their genitals like a scared dog on health care- and they ain't afraid of the voters.
With out some serious concentrated efforts to stop this, we will be (more) sorry.

a reply to: luthier

True, leaders lead-Trump should do a status report from the Oval office every other month or so.

An informed public is an enemy of the "swamp".

a reply to: seasonal

Great, can we get rid of "press one for English, press two for Spanish" next??

oh great, we finally joined the rest of the entire planet in some common sense thinking

It an undocumented Mexican becomes a "Born Again" Christian in the US, can't he just use his "new birth place" to claim US Citizen by Birth?