Rubio's Ridiculous Immigration Plan: So Bad, It Might Sink Amnesty

[Sallow]

I agree. It always amazes me the level of greed exhibited by some business owners. Let's say a business owner is making $500,000 a year, and is looking at the possibility of making only $450,000 next year. He would be quick to lay off workers, and cut wages and hours to not only maintain the salary he was already making, but to increase his salary next year. To hell with the people he laid off who may not be able to support their families now. Every penny of profit counts. It's legal, and perfectly within the rights of the business owner, but it doesn't make it any less immoral.

What's ironic, and profoundly funny to me, is that those who cry the most about illegal immigrants are the same ones who support killing off unions.

I'm sure most of them were not in the work force 40 or 50 years ago, but those of us who were know we didn't have an illegal problem back then because the unions kept illegals out of their workspace. Oh, sure, we've always had illegals hired for seasonal farm work (except in California and south Florida where the "season" is year round), but illegal workers did not start moving into industrial and construction jobs until the 1980's, when Ronald Reagan began the assault on unions.

If you want to find the root cause of the massive invasion of illegals into just about every job category, you need look no further than the death of unions. Killing off the unions allowed business owners to cut pay and benefits to their workers, and maximize profit, and it didn't take them long to figure out that Mexican's would work even cheaper than non-union American's.

so you agree we have an "invasion of illegals".......?

so why don't the unions fight for protected borders, against amnesty, etc.....?

unions were fine in the early years when they addressed problems about safety issues etc.... but after that they became nothing more than a method to provide campaign funds for the Democrats....

You even fucking read what the post stated?

Unions allowed for higher wages and benefits by creating a method to deal with management. Part and parcel with that was closing the shop to non-union employment. That, stopped a huge incentive for people to leave their countries to seek employment in the US.

No guns, walls or bombs needed.

 

[Oldguy]

I agree. It always amazes me the level of greed exhibited by some business owners. Let's say a business owner is making $500,000 a year, and is looking at the possibility of making only $450,000 next year. He would be quick to lay off workers, and cut wages and hours to not only maintain the salary he was already making, but to increase his salary next year. To hell with the people he laid off who may not be able to support their families now. Every penny of profit counts. It's legal, and perfectly within the rights of the business owner, but it doesn't make it any less immoral.

What's ironic, and profoundly funny to me, is that those who cry the most about illegal immigrants are the same ones who support killing off unions.

I'm sure most of them were not in the work force 40 or 50 years ago, but those of us who were know we didn't have an illegal problem back then because the unions kept illegals out of their workspace. Oh, sure, we've always had illegals hired for seasonal farm work (except in California and south Florida where the "season" is year round), but illegal workers did not start moving into industrial and construction jobs until the 1980's, when Ronald Reagan began the assault on unions.

If you want to find the root cause of the massive invasion of illegals into just about every job category, you need look no further than the death of unions. Killing off the unions allowed business owners to cut pay and benefits to their workers, and maximize profit, and it didn't take them long to figure out that Mexican's would work even cheaper than non-union American's.

so you agree we have an "invasion of illegals".......?

so why don't the unions fight for protected borders, against amnesty, etc.....?

unions were fine in the early years when they addressed problems about safety issues etc.... but after that they became nothing more than a method to provide campaign funds for the Democrats....

Do we have an invasion of illegals? Yes...well, we DID have until recently. That flow has been reduced to a trickle and is even receding now.

But, most unions don't have any political power any more because political power is a factor of membership. Moreover, they have their hands full just keeping what they've got.

You last comment is awfully simplistic. Unions did much more than address safety issues, though they did that too. Their primary focus was to force the business owners to turn loose of some of that money. Go back to the end of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century to see what drove workers into collective action. They had no choice but to fight that fight unless they would consent to living as serfs for the rest of their lives.

You might be surprised to find that the work place conditions which compelled the birth of unions are PRECISELY the very conditions the GOP would recreate today if they had their way.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

What's ironic, and profoundly funny to me, is that those who cry the most about illegal immigrants are the same ones who support killing off unions.

I'm sure most of them were not in the work force 40 or 50 years ago, but those of us who were know we didn't have an illegal problem back then because the unions kept illegals out of their workspace. Oh, sure, we've always had illegals hired for seasonal farm work (except in California and south Florida where the "season" is year round), but illegal workers did not start moving into industrial and construction jobs until the 1980's, when Ronald Reagan began the assault on unions.

If you want to find the root cause of the massive invasion of illegals into just about every job category, you need look no further than the death of unions. Killing off the unions allowed business owners to cut pay and benefits to their workers, and maximize profit, and it didn't take them long to figure out that Mexican's would work even cheaper than non-union American's.

so you agree we have an "invasion of illegals".......?

so why don't the unions fight for protected borders, against amnesty, etc.....?

unions were fine in the early years when they addressed problems about safety issues etc.... but after that they became nothing more than a method to provide campaign funds for the Democrats....

You even fucking read what the post stated?

Unions allowed for higher wages and benefits by creating a method to deal with management. Part and parcel with that was closing the shop to non-union employment. That, stopped a huge incentive for people to leave their countries to seek employment in the US.

No guns, walls or bombs needed.

yet they shot themselves in the foot by providing the incentive to bust unions....

 

[ScreamingEagle]

What's ironic, and profoundly funny to me, is that those who cry the most about illegal immigrants are the same ones who support killing off unions.

I'm sure most of them were not in the work force 40 or 50 years ago, but those of us who were know we didn't have an illegal problem back then because the unions kept illegals out of their workspace. Oh, sure, we've always had illegals hired for seasonal farm work (except in California and south Florida where the "season" is year round), but illegal workers did not start moving into industrial and construction jobs until the 1980's, when Ronald Reagan began the assault on unions.

If you want to find the root cause of the massive invasion of illegals into just about every job category, you need look no further than the death of unions. Killing off the unions allowed business owners to cut pay and benefits to their workers, and maximize profit, and it didn't take them long to figure out that Mexican's would work even cheaper than non-union American's.

so you agree we have an "invasion of illegals".......?

so why don't the unions fight for protected borders, against amnesty, etc.....?

unions were fine in the early years when they addressed problems about safety issues etc.... but after that they became nothing more than a method to provide campaign funds for the Democrats....

Do we have an invasion of illegals? Yes...well, we DID have until recently. That flow has been reduced to a trickle and is even receding now.

But, most unions don't have any political power any more because political power is a factor of membership. Moreover, they have their hands full just keeping what they've got.

You last comment is awfully simplistic. Unions did much more than address safety issues, though they did that too. Their primary focus was to force the business owners to turn loose of some of that money. Go back to the end of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century to see what drove workers into collective action. They had no choice but to fight that fight unless they would consent to living as serfs for the rest of their lives.

You might be surprised to find that the work place conditions which compelled the birth of unions are PRECISELY the very conditions the GOP would recreate today if they had their way.

"turn loose some of that money"......? yes they did that.... until they became fat parasites and destroyed the host......"collective action" works for awhile but then can turn into a force that corrupts and exceeds its original usefulness....

latest example......Hostess.....

 

[Seawytch]

latest example......Hostess.....

Your latest example is false. Unions are not responsible for what happened at Hostess.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

But illegals are, as the saying goes, “undocumented”—so it is almost impossible to prove how long they’ve been in the country. (Anyway, why reward some people for breaking our laws longer than others?) Similarly, because illegals are usually paid under the table, it will be nearly impossible to prove that they owe taxes.

Clearly this ‘concern’ with regard to undocumented immigration has little or nothing to do with laws being violated or the integrity of our borders; it has only to do with the hate and ignorance exhibited by racists opposed to more brown people who speak Spanish coming to America.

Clearly.

I mean, what is the alternative? Continue the futile case by case witchhunt until all 12 million are found and deported?

Whether some people want to admit it or not, the illegals living in our country play an integral part of our economy.

Granting them amnesty and then tightening the borders is the only logical step.

That goes to the irrational nature of racism, the notion of tracking down every undocumented immigrant and deporting him, failing to take into account the requirement of due process, the expense, and the time to adjudicate so many deportation cases.

It’s idiocy.

The plan proposed by GWB and echoed by the president is perfectly appropriate, it is not ‘amnesty,’ and it will allow millions of undocumented immigrants, many of whom have lived here most of their lives, to realize citizenship.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

latest example......Hostess.....

Your latest example is false. Unions are not responsible for what happened at Hostess.

read this...

On January 10, 2012 (2012-01-10), Hostess Brands filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy for the second time. In a statement in its filing, the company said it "is not competitive, primarily due to legacy pension and medical benefit obligations and restrictive work rules."

Hostess Brands - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Seawytch]

latest example......Hostess.....

Your latest example is false. Unions are not responsible for what happened at Hostess.

read this...

On January 10, 2012 (2012-01-10), Hostess Brands filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy for the second time. In a statement in its filing, the company said it "is not competitive, primarily due to legacy pension and medical benefit obligations and restrictive work rules."

Hostess Brands - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The company was lying.

Vulture capitalism — not unions — killed Twinkies

 

[Sallow]

so you agree we have an "invasion of illegals".......?

so why don't the unions fight for protected borders, against amnesty, etc.....?

unions were fine in the early years when they addressed problems about safety issues etc.... but after that they became nothing more than a method to provide campaign funds for the Democrats....

You even fucking read what the post stated?

Unions allowed for higher wages and benefits by creating a method to deal with management. Part and parcel with that was closing the shop to non-union employment. That, stopped a huge incentive for people to leave their countries to seek employment in the US.

No guns, walls or bombs needed.

yet they shot themselves in the foot by providing the incentive to bust unions....

The "incentive" to bust Unions is Maximum profit for owners and executives.

Because of the "bust" the ratio of compensation of management:labor is 400:1.

All that new money didn't do squat to help the country at large..and did flow into the pockets of a very few people.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

You even fucking read what the post stated?

Unions allowed for higher wages and benefits by creating a method to deal with management. Part and parcel with that was closing the shop to non-union employment. That, stopped a huge incentive for people to leave their countries to seek employment in the US.

No guns, walls or bombs needed.

yet they shot themselves in the foot by providing the incentive to bust unions....

The "incentive" to bust Unions is Maximum profit for owners and executives.

Because of the "bust" the ratio of compensation of management:labor is 400:1.

All that new money didn't do squat to help the country at large..and did flow into the pockets of a very few people.

those who risk THEIR money and THEIR time and THEIR talent to establish and grow a business deserve what they earn....labor deserves what they agree on for wages....

 

[RoadVirus]

Here are some uncomfortable facts for the bigots who rant and rave about illegal immigrants:

So because we are against illegal immigration, that makes us bigots?

Liberals *shakes head*

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Here are some uncomfortable facts for the bigots who rant and rave about illegal immigrants:

With the same number of immigrants we have now, if not more, unemployment before the Wall Street derivatives bubble crashed was as close to zero at it gets.

Immigrants do not cause unemployment. The banks did that.

Immigrants do not steal jobs. We are a nation of immigrants, and that scares the bejeesus out of people who get night sweats over "multiculturalism" (a favored word of White Nationalists everywhere).

What those numbers tell us is that the labor demand is not being met with an adequate labor supply. And what does free market economics tell us will happen in such a situation?

That's right. An illegal supply will rise to meet the unmet demand.

Rather than read someone else's biased opinion on Rubio's plan, why not read it at the source?

Here: The Weekend Interview with Marco Rubio: Riding to the Immigration Rescue - WSJ.com


He makes a lot of sense.

What in the name of God does being for a sensible immigration strategy have to do with bigotry?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Here are some uncomfortable facts for the bigots who rant and rave about illegal immigrants:

So because we are against illegal immigration, that makes us bigots?

Liberals *shakes head*

That means they have nothing... so.... I'll call you a racist.

 

[Oldguy]

so you agree we have an "invasion of illegals".......?

so why don't the unions fight for protected borders, against amnesty, etc.....?

unions were fine in the early years when they addressed problems about safety issues etc.... but after that they became nothing more than a method to provide campaign funds for the Democrats....

Do we have an invasion of illegals? Yes...well, we DID have until recently. That flow has been reduced to a trickle and is even receding now.

But, most unions don't have any political power any more because political power is a factor of membership. Moreover, they have their hands full just keeping what they've got.

You last comment is awfully simplistic. Unions did much more than address safety issues, though they did that too. Their primary focus was to force the business owners to turn loose of some of that money. Go back to the end of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century to see what drove workers into collective action. They had no choice but to fight that fight unless they would consent to living as serfs for the rest of their lives.

You might be surprised to find that the work place conditions which compelled the birth of unions are PRECISELY the very conditions the GOP would recreate today if they had their way.

"turn loose some of that money"......? yes they did that.... until they became fat parasites and destroyed the host......"collective action" works for awhile but then can turn into a force that corrupts and exceeds its original usefulness....

latest example......Hostess.....

If you've kept up with things beyond listening to Rush, watching FOX or reading World Nut Daily and Newsmax, you'd know that the biggest problems Hostess faced was not their unions. It was myopic management which failed to see the turn away from "junk food" by their customers and their soliciting help from vulture capitalist's to buy time.

Unions were just their excuse.

 

[Oldguy]

yet they shot themselves in the foot by providing the incentive to bust unions....

The "incentive" to bust Unions is Maximum profit for owners and executives.

Because of the "bust" the ratio of compensation of management:labor is 400:1.

All that new money didn't do squat to help the country at large..and did flow into the pockets of a very few people.

those who risk THEIR money and THEIR time and THEIR talent to establish and grow a business deserve what they earn....labor deserves what they agree on for wages....

So...labor doesn't invest their time and talents into making a business profitable?

Do tell.

 

[Katzndogz]

Rubio's family got in no questions asked so I'm always amazed that he has the nerve to talk about hoops for others to jump through.

Cubans are treated differently than any other illegal immigrant. If they make land, they get to stay.

Rubio's family came here legally. The disparate treatment of Cubans didn't start until Clinton's wet foot dry foot program.

 

[Sarah G]

Why would they give this to an idiot like Rubio? Because he's Cuban?

This guy is Rick Perry stupid..

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Your latest example is false. Unions are not responsible for what happened at Hostess.

read this...

On January 10, 2012 (2012-01-10), Hostess Brands filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy for the second time. In a statement in its filing, the company said it "is not competitive, primarily due to legacy pension and medical benefit obligations and restrictive work rules."

Hostess Brands - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The company was lying.

Vulture capitalism — not unions — killed Twinkies

what does that article prove....that the union was finally willing to take pay cuts when faced with bankruptcy.....?

yes i agree there were other problems.....but the pension debt was one of the big ones....

it seems to me you guys want to blame it all on Management and not at all on the union.....

but if a WHOLE COMPANY can tank just because of Management......why is it you libs whine so damn much about Management getting paid so much....?

 

[GoneBezerk]

It's strange left-leaning European countries like Germany crack down on illegals coming to their country, while liberals here who talk up Europe being the model for this and that....ignore what Europeans are doing in regards to illegals from Turkey, Africa and eastern Europe sneaking into their countries.

FYI...the reason why countries like Germany crack down on illegals being in their country is the drain on their welfare system. The illegals from eastern Europe, Africa and Turkey plop themselves inside Germany then starting getting the "FREE" stuff paid for with HIGH taxes on working Germans.

Of course, stupid fuck liberals here claim 10 million illegals aren't going to drain our system once they can really come to the table to eat some of the free goodies being promised by obamination and being paid for by working Americans.

Stupid fucks....

A personal story about illegals in Europe....while I was visiting Barcelona a few years ago, I was constantly harrassed during the day and at night on the "main tourist" street in the city by African women and men dressed as women. They were demanding the tourists buy drugs or sex from them right in front of the police. I asked the police to stop them and they said they would be in jail for a night then released then repeat and rinse. They knew they were illegals from Africa doing crimes right under their noses, but their socialist society has created laws and a welcome mat for the scum bothering tourists and locals trying to see the sites.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I already created a thread on this yesterday afternoon, but since the OP didn't bother to check I'll just rehash what I said in that one.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/immig...-s-common-sense-immigration-reform-ideas.html

Rubio has a very sensible plan to deal with current illegal immigrants and future immigration in general. It's a proposal that both parties should be able to come together on and support. The question is whether or not the Republicans will continue to be their own worst enemy.

Any overhaul, he says, needs to "modernize" legal immigration. America caps the number of visas for skilled workers and favors the relatives of people already here. "I'm a big believer in family-based immigration," he says. "But I don't think that in the 21st century we can continue to have an immigration system where only 6.5% of people who come here, come here based on labor and skill. We have to move toward merit and skill-based immigration."

He says the U.S. can either change the ratio of preferences for family-based immigration or raise the hard cap on people who bring investment or skills into the country. He prefers the latter, noting that the U.S. doesn't produce enough science, math and engineering graduates to fill the open posts in high-tech. He says this number can be adjusted to demand: "I don't think there's a lot of concern in this country that we'll somehow get overrun by Ph.D.s and entrepreneurs."

At the other end of the skill and wage scale, most of the 1.6 million agricultural laborers in America are Hispanics, the bulk of them illegal immigrants. American produce couldn't be picked without them. The number and type of visas provided through a guest-worker program would have to be sufficient to address this pressing need. From Georgia to Washington state in recent seasons, unpicked fruits and vegetables have rotted in the fields. He'd look to increase the number of visas for permanent or seasonal farm workers.

"The goal is to give American agriculture a reliable work force and to give protection to these workers as well," Mr. Rubio says. "When someone is [undocumented] they're vulnerable to being exploited."

Initially, the illegal migrants now in the U.S. would mostly "avail themselves" of the guest-worker system, says Mr. Rubio. "Just the process to come here to legally work in agriculture is very difficult and very expensive. It doesn't work well. So that alone encourages illegal immigration."

Lest anyone take Mr. Rubio for an immigration softy, he has co-sponsored Senate enforcement legislation championed by restrictionists. The E-Verify law, which has been adopted in several states, would if passed oblige employers to check the legal status of prospective workers against a federal database. Detractors say the database is faulty and error-prone, and the law turns workplace bosses into immigration agents and merely pushes illegal workers further into the shadows, making them more vulnerable to abuse.

Mr. Rubio stands by workplace enforcement as an essential component of any immigration reform. If the guest-worker and expanded high-tech visa programs are adopted, he says, "you want to protect those folks that are coming here . . . and the value of their visa and the decision they've made. You're not protecting them if you allow their wages and their status to be undermined by further illegal immigration in the future."

He says that modern technology—whether E-Verify or something else—ought to let employers easily check whether their hires are in the country legally. Enforcement is meant not to "punish" but to provide employers "safe haven," he says.

As for the border, "we know what we need to do to gain more operational control," which he says is to invest in people and infrastructure. Unlike many Republicans, Mr. Rubio doesn't say that improved enforcement is a precondition for immigration reform. Such reform would, by his argument, ensure that fewer people will need or want to risk an arduous border crossing.

The Weekend Interview with Marco Rubio: Riding to the Immigration Rescue - WSJ.com