16 Mar 06
Originally posted by TetsujinScotty is calling them slaves and I am disagreeing.
Are you guys even on the same page?
We accept that they're illegal immigrants.
Either give them some sort of visa/rights...
or...
send them back.
I dont think that its as simple as either sending them back or giving them rights. What I suspect is happing there is a simple symbiotic relationship than is beneficial to both parties . the US govt and economy needs the Mex immigrants but the govt cannot afford to regularise them, and probably does not want to set a bad precedent. The only loosers in this scanario are the US workers who compete for jobs at that level.
16 Mar 06
Originally posted by Rajk999Ahh, now, you see, you're adding things to my statement in order to try and misrepresent me.
I think most normal levelheaded people can spot a clear difference between girls smuggled against their will into prostitution etc, and an illegal immigrant voluntarily moving to greener pastures to better their lives. Can you?
Not from personal experience or anything mind you (although I did watch a documentary on it), but I'd imagine that a number of these young Chinese girls actually want to be smuggled in to the UK / US, thinking that they're going to have a better life, but subsequently being enslaved by people who plan to make a quick buck at their expense. You are implying that my Chinese example suggests abduction, when I did not indicate that to be the case.
16 Mar 06
Originally posted by Rajk999I agree with Tetsu, it's not that simple.
The immigrantmakes a rational decision to stay in the US, Mr Sharp. His 2 options are as follows ;
1. Stay in the US and work for $4.50 per hr, which with overtime will give him about $1400 per month. Out of that he will send $300 US back home to his hungry family.
2. Return to Mexico because of some pointless principle about medical and other benefits a ...[text shortened]... he is regularised and imports his family into the US. Would you rather the US open it borders ?
I would rather that everyone (US govt, esp) starts to act like grown-ups about it. Economic disparity does exist - there is no reason it shouldn't. Why doesn't the US government regulate the border control a bit better, allow these people to come in and work, [here's the important bit] actually do something to protect these guys from exploitation.
16 Mar 06
Originally posted by Rajk999Are you seriously saying that the US cannot regulate it's own borders? This is the richest planet in the world! This country, that complains about terrorist attacks, and the global threats to security cannot even guard one border?
Scotty is calling them slaves and I am disagreeing.
I dont think that its as simple as either sending them back or giving them rights. What I suspect is happing there is a simple symbiotic relationship than is beneficial to both parties . the US govt and economy needs the Mex immigrants but the govt cannot afford to regularise them, and probably does not ...[text shortened]... cedent. The only loosers in this scanario are the US workers who compete for jobs at that level.
Seriously.
16 Mar 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzBut its the same thing. If the end result - prostitution - is forced on the victim thats a kind of slavery. If its voluntary then its not.
Ahh, now, you see, you're adding things to my statement in order to try and misrepresent me.
Not from personal experience or anything mind you (although I did watch a documentary on it), but I'd imagine that a number of these young Chinese girls actually want to be smuggled in to the UK / US, thinking that they're going to have a better life, ...[text shortened]... ying that my Chinese example suggests abduction, when I did not indicate that to be the case.
16 Mar 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzSerioulsy. Im sure they can. But these decisions require a cost/benefit analysis. The cost of controlling a 2000 mile border, 24 hrs per day and keeping out Mexicans totally, may not be worth it. I stated earlier that there are benefits to allowing mex immigrants and turning a blind eye.
Are you seriously saying that the US cannot regulate it's own borders? This is the richest planet in the world! This country, that complains about terrorist attacks, and the global threats to security cannot even guard one border?
Seriously.
You need to get some rest Scotty ... " the richest planet in the world" ? Im trying figure that out !
16 Mar 06
Originally posted by Rajk999My point of the thread was not to discuss the technical definition of slavery. Although, despite being in full cogniscence of the problem the government fails to adress the problem, either by giving these people rights of some type, or by being more vigorous in their border defense / economic policies. Is it this lack of interest on the part of the government, that promotes the exploitation (better word?) of these Mexican workers?
But its the same thing. If the end result - prostitution - is forced on the victim thats a kind of slavery. If its voluntary then its not.
16 Mar 06
Originally posted by Rajk999Lol, yeah, you're right - I'm pretty burned out!
Serioulsy. Im sure they can. But these decisions require a cost/benefit analysis. The cost of controlling a 2000 mile border, 24 hrs per day and keeping out Mexicans totally, may not be worth it. I stated earlier that there are benefits to allowing mex immigrants and turning a blind eye.
You need to get some rest Scotty ... " the richest planet in the world" ? Im trying figure that out !
16 Mar 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzEverybody turns a blind eye on this thing.
My point of the thread was not to discuss the technical definition of slavery. Although, despite being in full cogniscence of the problem the government fails to adress the problem, either by giving these people rights of some type, or by being more vigorous in their border defense / economic policies. Is it this lack of interest on the part of the government, that promotes the exploitation (better word?) of these Mexican workers?
(i) It works as it is for the U.S. {politically & economically}, (ii) the rotten MX government maintains sort of a social peace thanks to the dollars sent back home.
The only ones suffering {racism and being exploited} are the immigrants and... and... that's it. I doubt the U.S. workers suffer, though; illegal aliens do jobs an American would never do, after all.
The U.S. is a sovereign country and has the right to make decisions about the borders {some of them extremely offensive and stupid but, hey, the right lies in the White House}... the only thing that bothers me is racism and mistreatment. Of course the Mexicans go on their will to the U.S. but we cannot turn a blind eye on the complicity of U.S. businesspersons and authorities in this shame, PLUS the U.S. political and economic intervention in ALL Latin America. They should share the blame for a lot of the continental problems like poverty, i.e.
P.S. What drives me mad is the government {and the racists and brainwashed}, not the people. We are neighbors after all and cannot hate each other at the individual level.
16 Mar 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzAmerica is not unique in this many first world countries rely quite heavily on cheap immigrant labour. Mixed world countries, like where I live, rely on thier own cheap labour. The question of slavery comes in when you ask, is the government or other entities intentionally keeping the immigrant labour poor (and illegal) in order to benefit themselves.
So, is this America's new slave labour?
I am an immigrant labourer though hardly a slave and totally legal. In fact part of the requirement to get a work permit in South Africa is to show that your employer is not exploiting you. However just moving to South Africa did increase my income 5 fold dispite working for a South African company back in Zambia. The roots of poverty back home in Zambia (and probably in Mexico) are complex and not all the responsibility of the 1st world countries. However there are distinct signs that there is intentional attempts to ensure that some countries remain poor in order to keep the rich countries in supply of cheap goods and labour.
16 Mar 06
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt is slavery because the illegal immigrant is chained to the process once he takes the plunge. Assuming you had a town where every night all the cafes closed but left all their surplus food and drink out on their sidewalk tables, unattended but well lit and totally inviting. Assuming also you had a homeless minority that lived on the outskirts of that town who after a while would secretly enter the town and help themselves to having a good feed every night. The proprietors dont mind because its food that they would have to pay someone to cart away anyway, and for some they feel a little better about themselves for at least helping out those that they can see in front of them.
..The question of slavery comes in when you ask, is the government or other entities intentionally keeping the immigrant labour poor (and illegal) in order to benefit themselves.... The roots of poverty back home in Zambia (and probably in Mexico) are complex and not all the responsibility of the 1st world countries. However there are distinct signs that ...[text shortened]... e countries remain poor in order to keep the rich countries in supply of cheap goods and labour.
But some overzealous misanthrope, convinced of the evils of welfare dependence and not without some influence in the town, learns of this cosy symbiotic relationship and then succesfully lobbies local government and the sherrifs department to lock up any vagrant seen walking about after dark in the vicinity of the tables.
Any reasonable person would say for heavens sake just remove the food when you lock up for the night please, but the shopkeepers are reluctant to pay someone to dispose of the food, plus it wold mean extra work come closing time to bag every thing up and hell they were quite happy with their cosy relationship and why not let a few starving people have a little bit of something to eat at night anyway. The food would just go to waste!
Isnt the whole point that regardless of whether you call it slavery or not it definitely constitutes a new form of serfdom.
If the statistics of illegal immigrants working the orchads of southern California are true and if the reality is that a majority of service industry jobs in neighbouring border states are stacked by either american citizens of mexican descent but predominantly illegals of the same, then surely the quickest way to target the influx is to target the employer. The only part of the chain with something real to lose(ie;capital in a capitalist system), as well as the capacity to foot the bill for any law enforcement costs incurred by the county to keep its workplaces legal are the employers.
That government is unwilling to do that, shows either a lack of political will or ideological kahunas, such that the people who are targeted are not those who create the treadmill and maze, but the poor saps who are goaded by dreams of unobtainable wealth in their own back yard and rush headlong over every obstacle much like drug mules do.
If there was any skerrick of morality in governmental policy, the self evident truth would be that the absence of opportunity to engage in work, through government agencies enforcing employers to uphold the checking of references and verifying that prospective employees are in possession of legitimate social security numbers(at a high penalty to those businesses who defy those regulations), would ultimately dry up the incentive for illegals to just try their luck.
Locking up the Mexicans or spending millions on building a 12 ft fence would be as effective as trying to quarantine alcoholics from bars, by replacing the standard entrance doors with child proof gates.
Ask yourself. Why are illegal mexicans working in america. Because americans employ them. What would be the most effective way to make that stop. Lock up the mexican or fine the crap out of the american, and if he persists after three strikes lock up the american.
16 Mar 06
Originally posted by kmax87Friend, it's not a conclusive issue and it's definitely heated -extremely important for both countries.
Ask yourself. Why are illegal mexicans working in america. Because americans employ them. What would be the most effective way to make that stop. Lock up the mexican or fine the crap out of the american, and if he persists after three strikes lock up the american.
Although I concur with many of the reasoning you provide, I think getting the mexicans locked would prove to be a really high cost measure, impacting the American tax payer, don't you think?
16 Mar 06
Originally posted by kmax87Say What Kmax ?? !!
It is slavery because the illegal immigrant is chained to the process once he takes the plunge. .
A man voluntarily breaks accross barriers, voluntarily takes a job, voluntarily accepts the work conditions, has the right to return to his homeland .... and he is chained ? How ?
By that definition we are all slaves.
16 Mar 06
Originally posted by Rajk999"voluntarily breaks across barriers" I am thankful to not be put in that situation but if I were I think I might break across the barriers in the hope of 'the American dream'. If I thought that by breaking across the barrier I could live a better life and send more money home to ensure my child got a better education and life then I think I might.
Say What Kmax ?? !!
A man voluntarily breaks accross barriers, voluntarily takes a job, voluntarily accepts the work conditions, has the right to return to his homeland .... and he is chained ? How ?
By that definition we are all slaves.
"voluntarily takes a job" Are you suggesting that they shouldn't take the job and starve, and not be able to sent the money home for the kids medicine/education. They have to take the job that they are offered its a Catch-22 situation both ways they lose.
"voluntarily accepts the work conditions" What is he going to do if he reports it they will find he is working illegally. Then he will lose the job and be deported. They are not going to double his wages and give him paid leave if he reports them its going to make his life worse.
"By that definition we are all slaves" well in a way we are its hard to get by without a job, without paying tax. You can but if you don't your in a different boat a drifter, a nobody. There are some places where if you lose your job and know you are not going to get another with the pay you are a slave to the job, ok sure you can lave it but if you leave it you might have to put your kids in a worse school, have a worse healthcare there are different chains but they are still there.