• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Immigrants being dropped off? PUT THEM TO WORK, Dumb-Dumb!

What should be done about all the new immigrant arrivals in major U.S. cities?

  • Put them to work, or let employers hire them.

    Votes: 5 62.5%
  • Keep shipping them around from one city to another.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Crack down on independent contractors.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Raise the minimum wage to $20/hour

    Votes: 3 37.5%
  • Pass more labor laws to crack down on employers.

    Votes: 1 12.5%
  • Lock up all employers who hire an "illegal" immigrant.

    Votes: 2 25.0%
  • Shut down all the sweatshops.

    Votes: 1 12.5%
  • Call a general strike. Shut down major industries.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Elect Donald Trump.

    Votes: 1 12.5%
  • Re-elect Joe Biden to continue the present policies.

    Votes: 2 25.0%

  • Total voters
    8

Lumpenproletariat

Veteran Member
Joined
May 9, 2014
Messages
2,570
Basic Beliefs
---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
Is this "crisis" really so bad? Yes it's a "problem" -- sort of, but
There's a also good side:

Lower-cost labor is a benefit to the economy.


NPR and Sean Hannity agree on something: the number of migrants has greatly increased, showing up, being dropped off in major cities across the country, and it's a "crisis" -- all bad, a disaster. The mayor of New York and others are begging Pres. Biden/Congress to loosen the work restrictions, allow permits to these migrants. But Congress won't listen to these pleas, refuses to take up any idea of letting the new arrivals work. Because the Demos and Repubs both are worried about letting "these damn foreigners steal jobs from Red-Blooded Americans" (though they're not allowed to speak those words which express what they really think).


What's the matter with us? Why should we let all that low-cost labor go to waste? There's plenty of jobs already going vacant because American crybabies have to be paid more than they're worth. So,

Let employers hire them. Dummy! You can't figure that out?

Stop making it illegal to hire immigrants. Grant universal work permits to ALL immigrants. Probably a million, even 2 million would get hired immediately.

But that's not enough. Hire more of them, at half minimum wage or lower, to build shelters, some kind of low-cost housing.

America should have been doing this already, decades ago.

Instead of excluding them (or trying to), take them in, put them to work in many places where they're needed, in food production, construction, driving trucks. How about teaching jobs, especially language, teaching English. Even teaching Spanish to the African immigrants, etc., also to English-speakers/citizens who can't afford a Spanish course.

There are literally MILLIONS who could be put to work doing what's necessary. Much of the work would be in the logistics or survival needs to accommodate more immigrants. The general change that's needed, most of all, is to start using these immigrants themselves to do the work, to process in the further immigrants arriving, getting them to where they're needed. First, get them into their shelter -- that will take a day or 2 -- and then put them into a work program to help take care of the ones coming after them. Have some of them work for free, in return for their accommodations, pay others half minimum wage for more difficult work, and also allow all of them to seek employment in the regular market anywhere in the country.

There's no lack of space where to put them. 99.9% of the space throughout the country is unoccupied, so don't say there's no place to put them.


Why won't anything be done?

For the same reason we already haven't done it. Because of the Left-wing Economics philosophy of labor, the labor unions, the Progressives, who insist that:

No work is allowed
unless the wage is minimum $15/hour plus expensive benefits -- it's the God-Damn Employers who are to blame for everything! Raise the MW to $20/hour and every evil will go away. And work is prohibited unless all the crybaby wage-earners have job security and protection against any competition, against anyone who would offer to do the job for less. And protection from any foreign competition!

This is why the U.S. (and Britain and France and a few other crybaby nations) won't ever solve its immigration "problem" -- which is really not a problem in the first place. It's not a "problem" that we have extra people who want to work, who will work for less, and will keep coming unless we build walls and other barriers and impose laws making it illegal for employers to hire them. Which is both the Left- and Right-wing solution, The Biden and the Trump solution, the "Progressive" and the Fascist-Right solution, of excluding immigrants so they won't threaten "our jobs" by competing in the economy.

All this phoniness of the "Progressive" and Right-wing anti-immigrant philosophy, all the problems it causes and has caused for 100+ years -- it's solved by the simple basic Free-Market philosophy, based on the Law of Supply-and-Demand: Let producers make their own individual free choices, let all buyers and sellers, employers and wage-earners be free to choose individually instead of having the terms dictated to them by others. Let the free market work, and

let COMPETITION do its function of serving all consumers.


One more choice for the poll (but beyond the number allowed) -- what to do about the immigrants:

Send Trump and the Proud Boys to the border, give them a free hand to solve the problem. That will satisfy the Progressives (who want a magic wand to make the immigrants disappear), Biden voters, Demos and also the Right-Wing anti-immigrant Trumpists. Make everyone happy.
 
Last edited:
Whoops!

Is this "crisis" really so bad? Yes it's a "problem" -- sort of, but
There's a also good side:

correction:

Is this "crisis" really so bad? Yes it's a "problem" -- sort of, but
There's also a good side:


Low-cost labor is good for the economy, etc.
 
The US did this with African "Immigrants" back in the 1700s. Terrible idea.

I'm sure it would fly in some right wing circles.
 
President Biden should sigh an executive order making it illegal to ship undocumented migrants to a different without prior approval from the target state.
 
How about an executive order making it illegal to ship illegals in from Mexico without approval from the target state?
 
How about an executive order making it illegal to ship illegals in from Mexico without approval from the target state?
What makes you think these people are "illegals"? It's not illegal to come to this country and request asylum.

And who is doing this "shipping in"?
 
Crybaby Economics 1A
Hate Economics 101

The US did this with African "Immigrants" back in the 1700s. Terrible idea.
Must be a very good idea, when the only argument against it is a falsehood like this. It's obviously false to say that today's immigrants, showing up in some cities, are in the same category as the "African 'immigrants'" 200-300 years ago.

Why would someone tell such a falsehood? They know it's false, but they use this kind of hyperbole in order to conceal their hate for today's immigrants.

Many Americans today do hate the immigrants and want them to disappear, somehow. In their hate, they fabricate lies like this, implying that today's immigrants (true immigrants/refugees/asylum-seekers) are the same as those Africans shipped to the U.S. involuntarily 200-300 years ago, and that accommodating today's true immigrants is the same as what was done back then to those Africans brought to the U.S.

You know when they stoop this low in order to prove it's a bad idea, it's probably a good idea. Because if it's really a bad idea (putting today's immigrants to work), one should be able to give an honest reason why it's a bad idea, rather than having to regurgitate low-class hyperbole like this falsehood (hiring low-cost labor = "slavery").

There are probably some economists who would give some kind of legitimate economics argument, about a limit on hiring immigrant labor. But it's probably a pretty bad argument, contradicting the law of supply-and-demand, even if still an honest attempt at reasoning about economics. But to equate hiring immigrants with abducting and shipping someone into forced-labor slavery -- this indicates how far down in the gutter today's "Progressive" labor economic theory has deteriorated -- "If you hire someone who might end up competing with me, that's slavery!"


Crybaby Economics: "My job is my God-given right. You can't let someone/something compete with me doing the same at lower cost."

Hate Economics: "Those scumbags don't belong here, stealin' our jobs, competing with us native-borns."
 
Last edited:
As I have said before. It's fucking karma for the way we treated their countries for the last 130 years. We brock it we should help fix it.
 
Crybaby Economics 1A
Hate Economics 101

The US did this with African "Immigrants" back in the 1700s. Terrible idea.
Must be a very good idea, when the only argument against it is a falsehood like this. It's obviously false to say that today's immigrants, showing up in some cities, are in the same category as the "African 'immigrants'" 200-300 years ago.

Why would someone tell such a falsehood? They know it's false, but they use this kind of hyperbole in order to conceal their hate for today's immigrants.

Many Americans today do hate the immigrants and want them to disappear, somehow. In their hate, they fabricate lies like this, implying that today's immigrants (true immigrants/refugees/asylum-seekers) are the same as those Africans shipped to the U.S. involuntarily 200-300 years ago, and that accommodating today's true immigrants is the same as what was done back then to those Africans brought to the U.S.

You know when they stoop this low in order to prove it's a bad idea, it's probably a good idea. Because if it's really a bad idea (putting today's immigrants to work), one should be able to give an honest reason why it's a bad idea, rather than having to regurgitate low-class hyperbole like this falsehood (hiring low-cost labor = "slavery").

There are probably some economists who would give some kind of legitimate economics argument, about a limit on hiring immigrant labor. But it's probably a pretty bad argument, contradicting the law of supply-and-demand, even if still an honest attempt at reasoning about economics. But to equate hiring immigrants with abducting and shipping someone into forced-labor slavery -- this indicates how far down in the gutter today's "Progressive" labor economic theory has deteriorated -- "If you hire someone who might end up competing with me, that's slavery!"


Crybaby Economics: "My job is my God-given right. You can't let someone/something compete with me doing the same at lower cost."

Hate Economics: "Those scumbags don't belong here, stealin' our jobs, competing with us native-borns."
The idea of “putting” migrants to work for less than minimum wage is just another term for enslavement. it’s inhumane.
 
https://wapo.st/46ry2mx
Form the link:
"The Biden administration said Wednesday it will offer temporary legal status to more than 470,000 Venezuelan migrants in the United States, announcing the move as U.S. authorities struggle to contend with a border influx in Texas that has stretched holding capacity to the brink.


Biden officials told reporters that Venezuelans who had entered the United States by July 31 would be eligible for temporary protected status, a designation that will shield them from deportation and speed up their ability to obtain U.S. work permits. The announcement was the largest expansion of temporary protected status to date, and more Venezuelans have received the designation than any other nationality, government data shows.

Officials in New York, Chicago and other northern U.S. cities where migrants have strained shelter capacity and social services have been urging Biden to expedite the work permits so newcomers can better support themselves."

Good idea. Nobody is suggesting these immigrants shouldn't be paid the same as American citizens. That's bullshit. There are countless job openings and this way these immigrants will be able to work and support themselves. Big cities seem pleased with this and I really don't care about the xenophobes who will object. These people are desperate, and their country is close to a collapsed state. These are exactly the type of people we need to improve our economy and help keep our Social programs intact. And, it's a temporary measure, allowing them to work prior to pleading their cases for asylum. Naturally, the haters on the right will use this as ammunition against Biden but they can fuck themselves or they can try to actually do something to keep the government running and if they are so concerned about the border, what exactly is their effective plan?
 
The idea of “putting” migrants to work for less than minimum wage is just another term for enslavement. it’s inhumane.
The cruelty is not a bug, it's a feature. I mean, look at the OP proposal. If they're brown and come from a poor country, automatically treat them as inferior. Hell, OP literally proposes slavery as part of the solution:

Have some of them work for free, in return for their accommodations

Also note some of the other language. They aren't to be given opportunities...no, they are to be "put to work." For those who don't get conscripted into chattel slavery, they must be forced to work "where they're needed" for their fellow sub-humans, being paid a pittance and being shipped to wherever the camps are being built. And who are they "needed" by? American industry! Construction companies! Food service! Factory farming operations! Have a big corporate agribusiness? No worries! We can enrich your already rich shareholders by getting them a cheap and desperate work force! Don't worry about where they're from, we'll round 'em up and ship 'em to your facility! Don't have housing for them? That's where the other, even more desperate people come in! We'll send you a bunch of them for free, and you can work them and the cheap ones as hard as you want, because we'll relax what little regulations are left on your industry! It's a win-win!

Funny thing is, this has already been done. After those pesky Yankees went and freed the slaves, 'Murica needed a cheap work force to expand rail service to the exciting new lands we'd conquered discovered out west. Well lordy, lordy look what else we found...people of a different color from a different land! Round up a bunch of them and put 'em to work on the railroads! Don't have to pay them all that much (and much less than white folks), they're disposable (don't care how many die), and why...I hear tell there's millions of 'em over there in oriental-land just waiting to get on a boat!

Then a funny thing happened. Despite all the challenges and exploitation they suffered, these people managed to flourish...building communities within cities with their own thriving shops, restaurants, and other businesses. Pretty soon, those railroad jobs might not be good enough for 'em. Hey - said 'Murica - let's pass Chinese Exclusion Acts! Explicitly racist policies designed to strangle these potentially successful immigrant communities before they get anywhere! Simultaneously, look around for another group of "others" to exploit. Maybe some of those people who come from that country that used to call the southwestern states "Mexico." Or how 'bout them other orientals who live on them islands. Let's invade that country, turn them into a colony, and exploit them!

Yes, friends, the solution to the immigration problem is to go back to the good old days of the latter half of the 19th Century! We could even bring back "company towns!"


Or maybe...just maybe...

Reform our current immigration system, Simplify and expand the legal immigration process so people don't need to walk across the desert to come here. Give immigrants opportunities beyond "here's some shit jobs we don't want to do" and see what they do. If employers insist on hiring the ones who come here without going through the process, then sanction them rather than punishing the exploited workers. Strengthen worker protections for non-citizens and citizens alike, invest in education in communities where immigrants are landing, offer affordable housing and equal access to services, and put them on a footing where they can become successful and productive.
 
I didn't vote, because I don't know the best answer. There are various conflicting issues; and the objective is unclear: lax immigration tends to help the overall U.S. economy, and the immigrants themselves. But MAY be bad for unskilled native labor.

The Bracero program was started during WW II because of labor shortage and didn't end until 1964. (Some doctors served for free at migrant worker clinics. My mother assisted at these clinics voluntarily, and took a very young Swammi along for menial tasks!)

The Wikipedia article suggests that H-2A visas are a partial replacement for the old Bracero program. Something else in the Wikipedia article interested me:
The only way to communicate [Braceros'] plans for their families' futures was through mail in letters sent to their women. These letters went through the US postal system and originally they were inspected before being posted for anything written by the men indicating any complaints about unfair working conditions. However, once it became known that men were actively sending for their families to permanently reside in the US, they were often intercepted, and many men were left with no responses from their women. Permanent settlement of bracero families was feared by the US, as the program was originally designed as a temporary work force which would be sent back to Mexico eventually.

- - - - - -

The idea of “putting” migrants to work for less than minimum wage is just another term for enslavement. it’s inhumane.

Words are useful tools for discussion. Using a word, e.g. "enslavement," with non-standard meaning degrades discussion.
 
It's amazing how quick many are to dehumanize people who live on the other side of an imaginary line and who speak a different form of the same language. It's pure paranoia and fear.

Immigration needs to be dealt with intelligently, but ultimately humanely.
 
Sure they should be allowed to work. Though I don't see why they should get paid less than the guy working next to them. And twenty dollars minimum should be just that, the bare minimum. The minimum for living in the cities with the lowest cost of living. From there, wages should be adjusted upwards. Just like the federal government does for its employees with their "locality pay" and the military does with their "housing allowance". The maps and charts are already made and updated each year. All we have to do now is shove it down the throats of corporate America. Should someone in Los Angeles make the same amount for the same McJob in Youngstown? Of course not.

Why should an employer benefit financially because of someone's immigration status? All that's going to do is create more stagnate wealth for a few select individuals. Let that money go to work in the hands of the 78% of people living paycheck to paycheck.
 
Sure they should be allowed to work. Though I don't see why they should get paid less than the guy working next to them.
This is pretty normal in the US, especially for migrant workers. Slavery or near-slavery produces a lot of our nation's material value, whether through the prison industrial complex, various other industries that foster "exceptions" to the minimum wage, and/or under-the-table coercion by illicit parties arranging transit into the country on terms of indenture. I do not see this as a "solution" to anything, however. The moral cost of such practices is opprobrious, and creates generational social strife, while being difficult to economically rationalize.
 
I am sure many of the undocumented adults would leap at the opportunity to support themselves and their households. Allowing them to work (instead of putting them to work) at a legal market wage is an excellent idea.
 
Nearly all of the individuals we're talking about are documented, actually. They tend to document you as they cram you onto a bus and ship you to New York, and indeed asylum seekers and other legal immigrants are some of the most excessively (and invasively) monitored populations in the ccountry. Don't be fooled by the papers using familiar words like "swarm" and "horde" and "flood" to semantically connect this issue with the unrelated but familiar question of illegal immigration.

Another thing I've been noticing with regard to the reporting on this issue is that there's a lot side-talk making the implicit assumption "women's work" is valueless, and that therefore an immigrant mother from Caracas or Guat City who arrives with a family in tow is de facto "worthless" to the economy, even though she is likely working not only some part time job but also raising several children - a full time and inherently useful job that we actually very much need done. Even if the only work you value is stamping iron or selling stocks for trust fund babies or whatever constitutes "real" work to a corporate stooge, if the whole point of seeking asylum was to find a better future for her children, her contribution in saving their lives and caring for them until they can stand on their own is necessary in order for those children to become "valuable" workers somewhere down the line. Even in strictly economic terms, hate speech against single mothers is irrational and unjustifiable, but sadly normalized in our media.
 
Sure, let them vote too, why not. Actually, is there anything preventing them from voting? Probably not.
 
Back
Top Bottom