Jnyusa wrote:Ethel:
The most interesting thing in it is two staunch Republicans explaining that they employ illegal aliens (with false documents) because they cannot find anyone else to do the work. I think we discount that testimony at our peril.
Well, I'm going to discount that testimony and not worry about the peril.
Er, yes. I did not mean to strike fear into your heart, but rather to point out that this is a fairly widely held point of view, and that the opinions of such people are likely to influence the ultimate outcome of any immigration solution. That's all.
Jnyusa wrote:I bet those staunch Republicans worship the free market. I bet they want government to keep its nose out of their business. I bet they line up behind Bush I and Bush II in getting rid of environmental law and OSHA law, and in support of union busting.
No doubt. But like the rest of us, their opinions shade off into different territory when it comes to their own economic interests. They find that their illegal workers with false identities do a good job for less than they would have to pay native born Americans, therefore they see nothing wrong with the practice. They do not seem themselves as being part of the illegal immigration problem at all.
Jnyusa wrote:Here's what' supposed to happen in a free market. If you can't get people to do that job at the wage you are offering, you offer a higher wage (or better benefits) until people are willing to do that job.
Oops! Can't get anyone to buy your product at the higher prices this will require? Boo-hoo. You're supposed to go out of business. The economy does not want you. Not under the agreed-upon terms of our social contract.
Agreed, but in a globalized economy that will ususally mean your business will be lost to foreign competitors.
Jnyusa wrote:Republicans support a free market right up to the point where it requires their own extinction. Free markets routinely require the extinction of unwanted product. Demand changes. Live with it.
They're happy to give this advice to the people who lost their retirement savings in the Enron scandal or the IP bubble, or had their bank account drained by insider loans. Oops! Stock market adjustment. Too bad. It's a free market and you lose.
They're not so happy to take that advice themselves. If illegal immigrant labor is the only way to keep a business running, then that business should not exist. Not in a free market.
In my experience, Republicans - and a lot of Democrats too - support free markets for everyone's industry but their own. Their own industry, for very good reasons which they would be happy to explain to you at length, needs special protections, or tax benefits, or subsidies or whatever, in order to survive. But apart from that, they totally favor free trade.
Jude wrote:Ethel wrote:
A lot of clothing that claims to be "made in the USA" is also made offshore in the worst possible working conditions. There are a number of US territories in Asia - most notably the Marianas and Marshall Islands - where clothing is produced under third world conditions and labeled "Made in USA".
Citizenship is a Good Thing.
I didn't know this. I always look for "Made in Canada" for consumer goods, especially clothing. Even if it costs a little extra.
Does this mean I've been wasting my time?
As far as I know Canada does not have foreign possessions where Chinese workers can be forced to labor in near slavery so their work can be sold under the "Made in Canada" label as is the case with the Marianas and Marshall Islands. But a quick Google on "Canada sweatshop" demonstrates that Canada is by no means innocent of the practice of abusing garment workers.
In response to Cerin's earlier question about how illegal immigrants obtain social security numbers and so forth, I happened upon an eerily pertinent article just today. Short answer: identity theft. But the linked piece is well worth a read:
http://redtape.msnbc.com/2006/03/hidden_cost_of_.html
I thank nerdanel for the most interesting update on information gathering practices in San Francisco.
Primula_Baggins wrote:I firmly believe that the national i.d. system is coming. Because of immigration and security concerns, soon enough we will all have to be concerned that "our papers are in order" and be prepared to surrender them on demand.
I agree with this... and I'm not even sure it is a bad thing. I'm a great admirer of liberty, but it does seem to me in a modern economy where identity theft and illegal immigration are huge problems, a reliable way to identify people across state boundaries might not be such a bad thing. In the dark days after 9/11, I was working for Intel and flying often, and the airport experience was
hideous. It sometimes took every bit of 3 hours to get through security. After a few months of this I was ready to submit to retinal scans or DNA testing or
anything that would allow me to spend less time in airports.
Surely we cannot expect employers to verify that their employees are in the country legally if there is in fact no reliable way to verify this. (As, today, there is not.)
Yet I suspect there's something wrong with my thinking here. It seems such a huge step, and feels a bit totalitarian. I don't want to have to prove that my papers are in order! Tell me how I've gone off the rails, you clever people.