bmattock
Veteran
JimG said:
Yes, there are, I agree.
I understand, and I don't know how to address that without addressing the entire issue. One might say that if they are here illegally, they should not have licenses, and should not be driving cars. Of course, this in turn affects us all, because they DO end up buying cars and driving without insurance, so I see both sides. When I lived in New Mexico, our insurance was rather high - they told us because 50% of the drivers had no insurance.
Now, not to be mean but to be fair - if *I* drive without insurance and get caught, *I* go to jail. Why should an illegal immigrant *not* go to jail for the same offense? My sympathy wanes when they break laws that I, as a citizen, would be punished for, and expect someone to understand their woes. Why should their car not be confiscated? Mine would be under the same circumstances, right?
Again, I hear you, and I agree we need to address these things. I must also add in fairness that the care which they are 'denied' is paid for by me.
What taxes are they paying? Sales tax? I don't think they're paying taxes on their wages, are they? If they are, I am ready to stand corrected.
Undocumented workers who are paid substandard wages under the table are not paying income taxes, to the best of my knowledge. I would guess that they would be under the legal limit to pay in any case, but still, I do not agree that they are paying for the services that they do get, let alone the services that they are denied.
It is not right that they are paid substandard wages - I hope we can fix that.
It is not right that they are needed by a nation that has no legal way to allow them in to do that which we require of them - it's just plain wrong.
But I have a little bit of a hard time doing any major hand-wringing when as far as I know, there *is* no 'right to health care' in this country. If I cannot pay and have no insurance, I get no services, either. Maybe that's something we all need to address, but I can't say an illegal immigrant should have what I do not.
Jim, I agree. I do my best to learn spanish, and I am part of our community's Hispanic Outreach program. We've recently recruited a member of the Hispanic leadership of our town into the Knights of Columbus (Catholic Men's Association) and we are working hard to make them full partners in our community. It takes mutual respect, hard work, determination not to let nationalism and racism get in the way.
We all have a right to dignity. We all have a right to be treated as human beings and not as animals. Do we all have a right to drive a car, get free medical treatment, and so on? That I'm not as sure about. But I'm willing to learn.
That does not mean I'm ready to hike my dress and take it like a lady, giving away services I don't get either, if I can't pay for them either.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
JimG
dogzen
Perhaps my experience was somewhat the exception. In order to be in the programs I worked with families were required to provide tax returns to prove eligibility. They all paid taxes regardless of their residency status. They mostly worked for fast food or other restaurants, hotels, agriculture, etc. Very few people are paid 'under the table' in the U.S. anymore due to employer liability laws. Someone gets hurt and the employer large or small can be liable for the rest of their lives, it happens.
bcs89
Contented Oly Owner
JimG said:
This guy I used to know hit some hard times a while back - through no fault of his own - but times were bad and he had a wife and newborn and was up against a wall, so to speak. Well, he did what he thought he had to do - he robbed a gas station. He had a gun, but it was not loaded (the last thing he wanted was to hurt someone) unfortunately for him a group of people walked in while he was trying to get the clerk to hand over the money and he had to high tail it out of there - with nothing, other than his image on the surveillance tape. Well, it did not take long to identify him, so he had to leave town. Now he lives out west - under a new name and false SS#. It is not fair. All he was trying to do was take care of his family. He did not hurt anyone. But now he no longer has the rights that most of us take for granted - he would be afraid to call the cops if he needed to, he pays taxes under his fake SS# but would not dare try to file a return. Basically he is screwed. He lives a productive life, does everything expected of a US citizen - but cant reap any of the rewards. It is just not fair, he only broke the law once.
bmattock
Veteran
JimG said:
OK, I wasn't aware of that. I live and work in Eastern NC, we have many migrant workers who pick backy, I was not aware that they got paid 'legally' and had taxes taken out. My bad, mea culpa.
If they pay taxes, then yes, by all means they should be able to partake of that which tax dollars buy. By that I mean they should be afforded the ability to purchase car and health insurance. With regard to the prenatal care thing - we could argue that every woman should have that regardless of insurance status, and I'd be hard-pressed to disagree with you. But as it stands now, non-emergency care requires health insurance - if I haven't got any, my wife doesn't get prenatal care (we're well past that age, but for argument sake). Why should illegal immigrants?
Again, however, I want to be certain that I'm not coming off as unsympathetic or not wanting to address the problems - I do. When it comes down to the services I get as a citizen, if I can't have those services (such as if I don't have insurance) then I would object to an illegal immigrant getting them either. Otherwise, I don't think we're too far off from each other's positions. I agree that the problem is serious, and ignoring is not likely to help.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
bmattock
Veteran
bcs89 said:
I think I follow your analogy. Well said.
It can also be said - really in fairness - that working in a country that actually wants you to work there, needs you to work there, and then denies you the legal status to enter and do what it is they need/want from you is not the same as robbing a gas station.
Ooh, I can do my Judge Dredd imitation "Da Lawwww is da lawwww." Which is true. But migrant workers are a 'make believe' crime in the sense that business absolutely requires them - and we consumers demand low priced farm goods and so on - and so they come. Banks don't ask to be robbed - the USA (in the form of private businesses) absolutely ask migrant workers to come here and work. If they all just didn't show up one harvest, we'd be in a world of hurt.
By denying them any kind of legal status, we save ourselves a lot of money - but we also force them to live under assumed names, ssn's, etc, as your hypothetical gas station robber does. If they get robbed, they're afraid to call the police. If they get hurt, they may not be able to afford hospital care - and no workman's comp, no mandatory minimum insurance.
I try really hard to see both sides. Sometimes it is quite the balancing act.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
bcs89
Contented Oly Owner
To be honest Bill what really pisses me off is when the people who reap the rewards of the cheap labor say "no one else would do this job" (example : picking lettuce) that is BS. If they payed a fair wage - it would be picked. Would we pay more for a head of lettuce? Of course we would - but not the $5 a head they would like us to believe, it would balance out between supply and demand. With most of the balancing coming out of the growers profits. When they say "there are no Americans willing to do the job" what they are really saying is "there are no Americans willing to do the job at what we want to pay" The lettuce will get picked one way or another - and people will pay what it is worth. People wont stop eating lettuce - but the growers will have to make some adjustments in their business/profit model. As a footnote here, I know that illegal immigrants do more than pick lettuce - it is just the example I am using right now.
bmattock
Veteran
bcs89 said:
I agree with you until the "out of the grower's profits" part. They're going to pass on added costs to the consumer. That's what any company does, unless restrained by law. I don't know what a head of lettuce would end up costing, but the consumer would be forced to pay it. It might make imported produce more attractive, though, which in turn would hurt the US farmer.
Sure, I follow you. I just don't think that there is a nice pad of profit in between the pickers and the consumer, just waiting to be made more efficient by squeezing out excess profit. Those efficiencies have already been made, the small farmer is gone. They over-fertilize the land and have reached the point of maximum yield per acre in many countries. In short, I don't tend to believe that there is profit to be cut and therefore prices to be balanced. I think that increased labor costs would be passed more or less directly on to the consumer.
That may be what has to happen - but again, it just sets off a spiral of wage/price hikes until equilibrium is reached again. If the worker's life-standards incur a permanent change, then that has to come from our pockets in a permanent lowering of our standard of life.
That's my theory, anyway. I'm not married to it, but it seems logical to me at the moment.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
Andy K
Well-known
Reading all the comments in this thread it seems to me the root of the problem is slack employment law in the US.
If minimum wage was rigidly enforced, if employers were prosecuted harshly for breaking those employment laws (ie hiring illegal immigrants), the problem would not be so bad.
If minimum wage was rigidly enforced, if employers were prosecuted harshly for breaking those employment laws (ie hiring illegal immigrants), the problem would not be so bad.
jrong
Too many cameras
That happens in the UK too and the authorities turn a blind eye to it. The cockle pickers would have continued to work under slave-labour conditions had that fateful night not happened. Everywhere, in restaurants etc. in "ethnic areas", there are people working 12 hour shifts without a break. Nothing is really done (apart from the occasional token raid) because people want cheap goods, be it food or whatever.
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
I have followed this thread with interest. There is a similar problem in Canada and just as complicated an issue as in the USA. Being of immigrant stock I have mixed feelings on the subject similar to Bill's. I guess that there are no easy and fair solutions for all involved. It is a credit to everyone who has replied so far that the topic has been treated in a level headed/civil way.
Nikon Bob
Nikon Bob
bmattock
Veteran
Andy K said:
That is the simple answer, and of course you're right as far as that goes. It *is* the root of the problem.
However, the problem would be VERY bad if we did just exactly that in many other ways. When we say that "the problem would not be so bad" we have also ask "for whom?" It would not be so bad for the immigrants themselves of course, not at first anyway.
I suspect that many people think that the companies that use migrant or illegal labor have a huge sack of money in the form of ill-gotten profits that they can just dip into in order to pay real wages and benefits, and that they will not pass those costs on to consumers of whatever it is that they make.
Perhaps that is true, but I tend to doubt it - competition is fierce, and markets are generally seen as efficient. That means that profit margins are at a level required to sustain the companies in business, but not much higher. If they were, their competitors would simply lower prices and take their market share. So if I am correct, then there *is no* sack of money to dip into. That means that the costs of these legal wages and benefits would have to be paid for by the consumer.
Just look at fuel costs in the US. I realize our gasoline is cheap compared to most other countries - agreed; but the recent increase has been a shock to the system. My utility bills are now $600 per month - they were $200. I can't really absorb that increase. And now I pay $50 to fill up my car - I was paying $35. We have seen price increase announcements from both Kodak and Fuji now, both blaming rising costs of fuel, silver, and so on. Add into that mix the costs associated with paying migrant workers decent wages, and you've got a middle-class squeeze that can cause massive runaway inflation, followed by recession and perhaps even economic depression.
Rising costs to consumers eventually ends in higher wage demands, which raises prices even higher, and so on - until a new equilibrium is reached.
And sadly, that new equilibrium simply moves the bar upwards for everything. If you were starving on $3 per hour before, now you're starving on $9 per hour, because the costs of everything go up to match. The real pain occurs because they don't go up in lockstep, but costs rise first and wages follow much later. The middle classes get the squeeze the most for quite some time.
I may be wrong, but I suspect that if the answers to this problem were simple, they'd have been applied already.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
bmattock
Veteran
jrong said:
Very seldom do we as societies point to ourselves and say "We're the problem, ultimately." We do want cheap goods and services, and having had them, it would change the economic balance in a rather drastic way to try to make changes in that system.
Like toxic waste - everyone wants it disposed of, nobody wants it in their backyard.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
Andy K
Well-known
bmattock said:
We introduced a minimum wage here a few years ago, around the time BLiar came to power. All the doomsayers said exactly as you have, that it would cause runaway inflation, higher costs, higher unemployment etc. etc.
It hasn't happened. The doomsayers were wrong. We have the most stable economy in Europe (probably also partly due to us not being dumb enough to join the Euro) and one of the lowest rates of inflation in the world.
So what if consumers have to pay a little more? If everyone is earning decent wages then everyone can afford a little more.
Last edited:
bmattock
Veteran
Andy K said:
You could be right. I don't know enough about your situation in the UK to know how it is different or the same as the situation here. We don't have national health care here, for example - so an employer who suddenly has to deal with newly-legalized labor that must be paid the minimum wage PLUS all the benefits, such as unemployment, social security, health insurance, and so on MIGHT have more of an impact than just a simple raise in wages.
We've had minimum wage increases here over the years. As you say, the overall effects have been rather minimal. I think that is different than instituting a wage & benefits system where none currently exists.
I do know that money does not come from nowhere - higher wages have to be paid by someone, and it is normally passed on to the consumer directly in the form of product price increases.
I hope I'm not a doomsayer. I could well be wrong, but it is logical to assume that paying workers more for what they produce means raising prices for those goods and services.
I am doing ok, making a good wage, but with higher home heating costs, I am currently depleting savings each month. So I am not in a position to 'pay a little more'. Enough 'little mores' and I'm bankrupt. And I'm in a lot better shape than many of my fellow middle-class citizens.
Even if I could afford to 'pay a little more', people are essentially selfish. We want to help others, but not if it affects our take-home pay in a significant and permanent way. That's just human nature, and although it sucks, we have to account for it when trying to find solutions that work, or the solutions won't work or won't be adopted.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
jrong
Too many cameras
I am not sure those people who are "off the radar" were even paid the minimum wage. Having said that, they certainly did not comply with the EU working directive as far as working hours are concerned. 
I have personally spoken to restaurant workers who habitually work 12 hours a day, 7 days a week without a break (voluntarily too, I must add). It has been going on for years and a fair number of them entered the UK on "student visas". I'd say the Home Office is turning a blind eye to it... and now they're too busy trying to hunt down those foreign criminals that they failed to deport...
I have personally spoken to restaurant workers who habitually work 12 hours a day, 7 days a week without a break (voluntarily too, I must add). It has been going on for years and a fair number of them entered the UK on "student visas". I'd say the Home Office is turning a blind eye to it... and now they're too busy trying to hunt down those foreign criminals that they failed to deport...
bmattock
Veteran
memphis said:
I respect your opinion, and it is hard to say I condone law-breaking. I have to ask who will do the work that undocumented workers do if they are not here to do so. Will it be me? Will it be you? If so, will we work for the pay that they make, give up the benefits that most of us currently enjoy?
And if those who currently employ these men and women now should begin to pay 'real' wages and benefits to attract citizens, what will happen to the prices that their goods and services cost the consumer? When an orange from Florida is more expensive than an orange from Brazil, will we buy the Florida orange or the Brazillian orange?
There are so many questions. I have to believe that just deporting everyone and locking down our borders will not solve our problems.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
Andy K
Well-known
memphis said:
I'd like to see the same photo but with a Native American holding the placard.
memphis said:
Maybe if there wasn't an accepted culture of exploitation of the disadvantaged and paying illegally low wages in the US there wouldn't be a 'chronically poor uneducated' underclass, there wouldn't be ghettos.
Still, you are entitled to your opinion, no matter how abhorrent. So go ahead 'deport' the poor (how? In cattle trucks to destinations 'unknown'?), and once you have carried out your final solution who will do those low paid jobs? Or do you think the produce you consume appears in the shops by magic?
If you want to get rid of the poor you have to provide high quality education for everyone and not just those who can pay for it. Until that happens there will always be a 'chronically poor' underclass.
Last edited:
jrong
Too many cameras
Wow. Fine, "deport" the criminal classes... to where?
Another case of the first world dumping their "trash" onto the developing world?
Another case of the first world dumping their "trash" onto the developing world?
ywenz
Veteran
memphis said:
What are you saying? All hispanics are good? Lets be a little bit more realistic okay? Ever heard of MS-13? Who are you incenuating that this "other" criminal class is?
are you like a hispanic yourself?
Last edited:
Andy K
Well-known
memphis said:
Wow!
Are you including white criminals in all this? Also people like the board of Enron?