If the current illegal immigrants are given a way to become citizens...

AgaBoogaBoo

Lifer
Feb 16, 2003
26,107
4
81
then will there still be an advantage for employers to pick them because the labor is cheaper?

If they have to pay taxes, insurance, fees for citizenship, etc. and the employer also has to pay certain fees because they are employees, then will they still be cheaper to hire in the end?
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
It all depends on what wages they are willing to work for and/or how the wages are structured.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,421
6,085
126
We can make them all citizens then let them starve to death by bringing in 12 million more illegals. Then we can listen to them whine about us not upholding our own laws.
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
The answer to this whole dilemma is the same way our ancestors demanded their living wages from the upper class parasites looking to use people for slave labor -unions.


The people themselves are the best tool to fight against their own enslavement.

As the Presidential Medal of Freedom Recipient and Mexican-American Labor Leader Cesar Chavez said "Si se puede".

If you ever went to one of these immigrant rallys going on you would hear this phrase over and over, it is their hope for the future.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
Originally posted by: AgaBoogaBoo
then will there still be an advantage for employers to pick them because the labor is cheaper?

If they have to pay taxes, insurance, fees for citizenship, etc. and the employer also has to pay certain fees because they are employees, then will they still be cheaper to hire in the end?

If we make them legal and dont do something to close off the source you can expect another 12 million to come in an replace them and the current 12 million pissing and moaning about not being able to find a job because of illegals.

 

Braznor

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2005
4,497
349
126
Making them legal would lead to automatic increment in their wages.

Illegals usually have no political recourse even if they were being exploited in the workplace, no laws to protect their employee rights and so on.

Legalizing them would enable them to claim such rights and benefits. So that would increase employment costs to employers, unless they succeed in hiring more illegals, which then leads back to square one.

A more reasonable assesement would be that turing illegals into legal immigrants would stablize the wages downwards. Doing (giving illegals citizenship) so would increase more labour into the economy and thus decreasing wages all round for both legal as well as the newly legals and the same effect would make the cost of emplying the newly legals more expensive than when they were illegals.

But the most affected would be the current working tax paying citizen as his wages would decline due to increasing availibility of labour and also his taxes would be stretched further for paying the social costs to the newly legals.
 

phantom309

Platinum Member
Jan 30, 2002
2,065
1
0
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
The answer to this whole dilemma is the same way our ancestors demanded their living wages from the upper class parasites looking to use people for slave labor -unions.


The people themselves are the best tool to fight against their own enslavement.

As the Presidential Medal of Freedom Recipient and Mexican-American Labor Leader Cesar Chavez said "Si se puede".

If you ever went to one of these immigrant rallys going on you would hear this phrase over and over, it is their hope for the future.
No, this will just encourage millions more to come here illegally. The employers will hire them to work for starvation wages under substandard conditions, and otherwise exploit them. And they'll do nothing to stop it because they know the next Great Citizenship Giveaway is always just around the corner.

In the meantime, we'll have 12 million brand new citizens who don't speak the language or posess marketable skills, organizing into unions and demanding fair treatment for the jobs that only existed because they were willing to accept substandard treatment in the first place. They will of course demand to be taken care of, and we will take care of them because they're brown, and brown people are never wrong or illegal and us White Devils owe it to them.

All the while the upper-class parasites continue to get richer, because for them the situation will not have changed at all. They'll just be laughing a little harder at people like you.

 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
Until we beef up border security, I say we do nothing to help illegal immigrants. I am against amnesty, because it is a failure to enforce the law. The law has to be enforced. Amnesty is a way of rewarding criminals at the expense of people who immigrate legally. So whatever we do we should not have a program that rewards people for violating the law.

One problem we have with illegals, is they often procure fake Social Security Cards that are not theirs. So what happens when they get to the age where they should be able to get social security? If the employer is using a paper drill, then he is sending the SS money in to the US Government based on some SS#. So what happens to that money?? This is all basically fraud, so they are not entitled to any SS $$ when they retire, assuming they can retire. Either that or they are paid under the counter and the employer is also breaking the law and committing fraud when they file their taxes.

It is all a woven tapestry of lies and deceip!.

I wonder if I can sell my SS# so some Mexican can deposit funds in my SS Account so I can max out and quit paying?
 

EatSpam

Diamond Member
May 1, 2005
6,423
0
0
Originally posted by: AgaBoogaBoo
then will there still be an advantage for employers to pick them because the labor is cheaper?

If they have to pay taxes, insurance, fees for citizenship, etc. and the employer also has to pay certain fees because they are employees, then will they still be cheaper to hire in the end?

No. It will merely serve to entice further illegal immigration. If Bush and McCain's Amnesty passes, we'll be in the same boat in 20 years. Ronnie Reagan did the same thing in 1986 and it was supposed to solve all of our problems or something.
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Originally posted by: phantom309
No, this will just encourage millions more to come here illegally. The employers will hire them to work for starvation wages under substandard conditions, and otherwise exploit them. And they'll do nothing to stop it because they know the next Great Citizenship Giveaway is always just around the corner.

In the meantime, we'll have 12 million brand new citizens who don't speak the language or posess marketable skills, organizing into unions and demanding fair treatment for the jobs that only existed because they were willing to accept substandard treatment in the first place. They will of course demand to be taken care of, and we will take care of them because they're brown, and brown people are never wrong or illegal and us White Devils owe it to them.

All the while the upper-class parasites continue to get richer, because for them the situation will not have changed at all. They'll just be laughing a little harder at people like you.

And if companies hire low-wage scabs then they call the labor dept, much cheaper then having immigration chasing everyone down. And yes, quite a few DO speak english, we should have more classes though if they are granted amnesty, I was talking to a immigrant friend and she said english classes are always full.

But on the whole I could care less if they speak english if they are doing some starter job like washing dishes to start off.

The kids are going to school learning english, the adult immigrants rarely speak english good, and that is true for 100s of years.

IMO I could really care less if someone speaks english, but it is good for them to know it as they will be ripped off by scam artists on contracts etc.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
If they are willing to work for under $5/hour now, make them legal, continue giving them the wage they earned before (since they are happy with it), and no benefits. I wouldnt have a problem with that.
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Originally posted by: blackangst1
If they are willing to work for under $5/hour now, make them legal, continue giving them the wage they earned before (since they are happy with it), and no benefits. I wouldnt have a problem with that.


In other words change nothing.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Originally posted by: blackangst1
If they are willing to work for under $5/hour now, make them legal, continue giving them the wage they earned before (since they are happy with it), and no benefits. I wouldnt have a problem with that.


In other words change nothing.

You got it. --> SOMEONE <--- has to do those jobs, right? So why not the people already doing them?

 

sandmanwake

Golden Member
Feb 29, 2000
1,494
0
0
If they are made legal, would all the ones who are currently going through the process legally now also be made citizens at the same time or would they still have to go through the process they're currently going through? In otherwords, would the current illegal immigrants be given a "cut in line"? I would be pretty mad if I was going through the process legally and someone cut ahead of me.
 
Jan 31, 2006
167
0
0
Originally posted by: piasabird
I am against amnesty, because it is a failure to enforce the law.

Couldn't have said that better myself. <insert clap> (not THAT clap)

If they get amnesty they gain rights under current labor laws right? That makes them no longer cost effective, so what's the answer? You've got your head in the sand if you think there aren't going to be people coming here to work those jobs and not go through the documentation proccess. In other words, they are rallying themselfs into unemplyment.

 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
Originally posted by: sling
Originally posted by: piasabird
I am against amnesty, because it is a failure to enforce the law.

Couldn't have said that better myself. <insert clap> (not THAT clap)

If they get amnesty they gain rights under current labor laws right? That makes them no longer cost effective, so what's the answer? You've got your head in the sand if you thing there aren't going to be people coming here to work those jobs and not go through the documentation proccess. In other words, they are rallying themselfs into unemplyment.

Well at least they'll be "legally" draining the system : /
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
62,867
11,267
136
Reagan shoved an "amnesty" down our throats 20 yrs ago. The flood of illegals kept on coming...Nothing changed, except perhaps to get worse...
 

Ronstang

Lifer
Jul 8, 2000
12,493
18
81
If the illegals become citizens then their wages will almost certainly have to rise. If this is the case the advantage of them being in our economy diminishes. If this is the case then shouldn't they be deported and the increased wages paid to people who are already citizens or those that choose to immigrate legally since our economy is going to be affected anyway? Citizens of the US don't refuse to do the jobs illegals do.....they refuse to work for slave wages. Rewarding illegals with an increased wage that would go with citizenship is a slap in the face to all current citizens who would work the same jobs at a higher wage. The economy would have to readjust either way, I would rather it adjust while benefiting law abiding citizens rather than illegal invaders.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
Originally posted by: BoomerD
Reagan shoved an "amnesty" down our throats 20 yrs ago. The flood of illegals kept on coming...Nothing changed, except perhaps to get worse...

Unfortunately, Boomer, people like STeeplerot and others who support ILLEGAL immigration ignore history. Er, I should say, they pull out of it what they want. Reagan's amnesty program was the second such attempt, and yes, you are right, each time it gets worse. Too bad people cant learn from our past mistakes, eh?

My definition of insanity is doing the same thing expecting different results :)
 

Ronstang

Lifer
Jul 8, 2000
12,493
18
81
Originally posted by: BoomerD
Reagan shoved an "amnesty" down our throats 20 yrs ago. The flood of illegals kept on coming...Nothing changed, except perhaps to get worse...


Actually the Democratically controlled House and Senate shoved it down our throats and for political expediency Reagan agreed and did not veto it.....but none of the conditions of the amnesty proposed by said Congressmen were ever followed so it had little affect except to buy the Democrats more votes while selling this country further down the drain by increasing the incentive to border hop.
 
Jan 31, 2006
167
0
0
Originally posted by: Ronstang
Originally posted by: BoomerD
Reagan shoved an "amnesty" down our throats 20 yrs ago. The flood of illegals kept on coming...Nothing changed, except perhaps to get worse...


Actually the Democratically controlled House and Senate shoved it down our throats and for political expediency Reagan agreed and did not veto it.....but none of the conditions of the amnesty proposed by said Congressmen were ever followed so it had little affect except to buy the Democrats more votes while selling this country further down the drain by increasing the incentive to border hop.

Bravo.

 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
62,867
11,267
136
Actually, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 was a Republican sponsored bill. AKA the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli Immigration Reform and Control Act,
"Senator Alan Simpson, R-Wyoming and Representative Romano Mazzoli, D-Kentucky, recognized that illegal immigration could not be stopped entirely at the borders of our nation and proposed a different approach to curbing the problem. The Simpson-Mazzoli Act imposed sanctions on employers who knowingly hired illegal aliens. It also offered legal amnesty to immigrants who could prove that they had been living continuously in the U.S. since 1982, a concession to the reality that illegal immigrants who had been living in the U.S. for a long period of time had submerged in society and would remain difficult to identify."

And from Fox news:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,122297,00.html
"Reagan also left his mark on America?s immigration policy. The country has spent much of the last week looking back upon Reagan?s two administrations, and it?s worth looking back at what has happened to the nation's immigration policy since the historic immigration reforms Reagan signed into law in 1986. As well-intentioned and rational as they were, the 1986 immigration reforms?and what has happened since they became law?show just how damaging another illegal immigration amnesty (search) would be to our country.

In 1986, there were about 2.5 million illegal aliens in the U.S. who Congress and the Reagan administration regarded as being ?safe? ? that is, not having committed serious crimes or otherwise being dangerous, and having sufficient ties to American life to be allowed to remain here. Many members of Congress, chiefly Democratic members, regarded the amnesty of these illegal aliens a sine qua non of any attempt to reform our immigration laws. Reagan recognized this, and, being the optimist that he was, saw something humane and profitable in affording this relatively small group of illegal aliens legal status.
In exchange for legal status for the group, Reagan insisted that the magnet attracting illegal aliens to the United States be removed by extinguishing any incentive for U.S. employers to hire illegal aliens. In tandem with the amnesty, Reagan campaigned for employer sanctions for hiring illegal aliens, sanctions so stringent that many at the time regarded them as draconian.

Reagan reasoned that if an employer were fined for hiring an illegal alien (as much as $1 million in the worst cases), any payroll savings achieved by the hiring would be wiped out by the fine. In effect, it would be more expensive to hire illegal aliens than to hire Americans or lawful permanent residents. The few illegal aliens who continued to take the gamble and cross the border would be intercepted by a robust and more generously funded Border Patrol.

While Reagan?s 1986 immigration reforms (search) can at least be called rational, they were a failure. Today, there are between 8 million and 11 million illegal aliens in the United States. The majority of them crossed our southern border and has found employment ? illegal employment, but employment nonetheless. This is attributed to Sen. Ted Kennedy?s eventual gutting of the enforcement mechanism for Reagan's employer sanctions, and successive administrations refusing to give our Border Patrol the resources it needs to achieve its mission.

In 1986, though, President Reagan showed a clear recognition between wrong and right. If U.S. employers were to gain from the employment of people whose very presence in our country was a crime, then they would at least have to pay for it.



 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
Originally posted by: BoomerD
Actually, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 was a Republican sponsored bill. AKA the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli Immigration Reform and Control Act,
"Senator Alan Simpson, R-Wyoming and Representative Romano Mazzoli, D-Kentucky, recognized that illegal immigration could not be stopped entirely at the borders of our nation and proposed a different approach to curbing the problem. The Simpson-Mazzoli Act imposed sanctions on employers who knowingly hired illegal aliens. It also offered legal amnesty to immigrants who could prove that they had been living continuously in the U.S. since 1982, a concession to the reality that illegal immigrants who had been living in the U.S. for a long period of time had submerged in society and would remain difficult to identify."

And from Fox news:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,122297,00.html
"Reagan also left his mark on America?s immigration policy. The country has spent much of the last week looking back upon Reagan?s two administrations, and it?s worth looking back at what has happened to the nation's immigration policy since the historic immigration reforms Reagan signed into law in 1986. As well-intentioned and rational as they were, the 1986 immigration reforms?and what has happened since they became law?show just how damaging another illegal immigration amnesty (search) would be to our country.

In 1986, there were about 2.5 million illegal aliens in the U.S. who Congress and the Reagan administration regarded as being ?safe? ? that is, not having committed serious crimes or otherwise being dangerous, and having sufficient ties to American life to be allowed to remain here. Many members of Congress, chiefly Democratic members, regarded the amnesty of these illegal aliens a sine qua non of any attempt to reform our immigration laws. Reagan recognized this, and, being the optimist that he was, saw something humane and profitable in affording this relatively small group of illegal aliens legal status.
In exchange for legal status for the group, Reagan insisted that the magnet attracting illegal aliens to the United States be removed by extinguishing any incentive for U.S. employers to hire illegal aliens. In tandem with the amnesty, Reagan campaigned for employer sanctions for hiring illegal aliens, sanctions so stringent that many at the time regarded them as draconian.

Reagan reasoned that if an employer were fined for hiring an illegal alien (as much as $1 million in the worst cases), any payroll savings achieved by the hiring would be wiped out by the fine. In effect, it would be more expensive to hire illegal aliens than to hire Americans or lawful permanent residents. The few illegal aliens who continued to take the gamble and cross the border would be intercepted by a robust and more generously funded Border Patrol.

While Reagan?s 1986 immigration reforms (search) can at least be called rational, they were a failure. Today, there are between 8 million and 11 million illegal aliens in the United States. The majority of them crossed our southern border and has found employment ? illegal employment, but employment nonetheless. This is attributed to Sen. Ted Kennedy?s eventual gutting of the enforcement mechanism for Reagan's employer sanctions, and successive administrations refusing to give our Border Patrol the resources it needs to achieve its mission.

In 1986, though, President Reagan showed a clear recognition between wrong and right. If U.S. employers were to gain from the employment of people whose very presence in our country was a crime, then they would at least have to pay for it.

*sigh* If only we would enforce current law.