Dave, why would they hire someone who makes no output?
You’re not making any sense.
Dave, why would they hire someone who makes no output?
You’re not making any sense.
It can’t come first, because you broke the damn system first. And Barry Goldwater predicted everything we’ve experienced since.
1964. Either fix the damn mistake we made then, or nothing changes. Not amnesty, an actual damn fix.
No, this has not been tried, at all, quit ******* around old dog.
You want history lessons? Look at Congressional promises of the past to secure the border and build a wall after amnesty. Fool me once…
I know you won’t answer the following question because you can’t. You’ll deflect and obfuscate.
What is the point of reforming our immigration system if we cannot actually control who comes in?
And don’t give me that crap about a wall it won’t work because of visa overstays etc. That is a separate issue and if they get a visa, at least we know who entered and something about them.
Who said “makes no output?” YOU are the one claiming that they produce 10x more than they consume and I STILL call BS on a shingle.
Not to mention the fairy tale that these illegals are taking farm jobs, it is just lies stacked upon lies for as long as we have been buying votes with the Welfare State.
Barry Goldwater predicted every piece of this… so what is the argument, exactly?
You’re not proving his approach wrong; he didn’t want amnesty.
What’s happening is easy to frame as a business compliance issue; the immigrants who were coming here under bracero in the early 60s, would be illegals today, and that’s a fact. Because the law after 1964 was made next to impossible to comply with. Particularly, if labor was something you as a business were dependent upon, yet the process took too long to go through.
The law forced the choice on business of either operating under the table, or go out of business. The result of that kind of dilemma is positively predictable. People will choose their livelihoods over arbitrary law, who the hell wouldn’t?
To fix this, we need a remembrace of Joseph Swing’s policy:
“If there is any employer who cannot get legal labor all he has to do is let either the Department of Labor or Immigration know and we will see that he gets it … I am quite emphatic about this because I know I am going to run into some opposition in Southern Texas.”
– '50s INS Director, Joseph Swing
You can only control the border if don’t try to do the impossible with it, to reference Hennessy.
You cannot work upstream of labor demand, you have to satiate that demand first. Joseph Swing realized this, hence his actions.
He literally justified the I-100 program this way.
There is no reason for border enforcement, and labor demand, to be at cross purposes. Forcing them to be, guarantees that the law will fail. Because, old dog, you’re not fighting an army, you’re fighting an economy that is made up of more money and resources than the agencies you’re throwing at it.
The ONLY reason that there’s a “demand” for illegal immigrants is because employers are unwilling to pay what it takes for LEGAL workers to be attracted to their industries…period. There’s no other reason. It is “the economy” that drives this…and the greed of industries intent on profit. In that, AS is correct. When BOTH people in a marriage are FORCED to work in order to pay for the obscene taxes levied on them…one to pay those taxes on BOTH incomes and the other to provide the food and fiber necessary for a family to live and thrive…something is wrong. What’s WRONG is that government spends ‘WAY too much and therefore DEMANDS ‘way too much of citizens’ property. This started 100 years ago or so with the rise of “progressivism.” The government decided that only IT could solve peoples’ economic problems and started getting involved in issues that the founders never intended for it to interfere in…health care, education, energy policy, housing, agriculture. They USED an obscure part of the Constitution to justify sticking the governments noses into those issues–without opposition from anyone–including the SCOTUS.
Because they compete with farmers in Turkey and Baja California for market share, who pay their workers $10 a day.
Either they get workers at the price they can afford, or they have to pull the crop, and move onto something else.
That’s the simple reality.
BS. I know THOUSANDS of “consumers” who’d rather buy American-produced foods at ANY price rather than the stuff that comes in form Turkey and especially Mexico! That’s a LAME excuse.
If you don’t have borders you don’t have a country. I’m surprised anyone would suggest not defending it for any reason.
Consumer demands in the marketplace don’t reflect this.
Your assurances mean nothing to the farmer whose pulling crops for want of labor.
And I’ll be blunt here Dave, the farmers know the consequences better than you do:
You have your experiment right there Dave; when the labor isn’t there, they don’t have a harvest. You can’t argue with results.
Again, BS. The most telling thing about your article was “We might get 5 workers one day and 20 the next.”…or words to that effect. That tells us that lots of “immigrants” are content to suck on the government’s teat rather than work full time. Also, that these people are nowhere NEAR as “hard-working” and reliable as you open borders types have been claiming.
This is not an immigration problem. The marketplace will find an equilibrium point for wages, profit margin and commodity pricing.
“An estimated $13 million of strawberries, broccoli, leafy greens, and other unharvested produce were plowed under last year, up from five years ago when losses amounted to an estimated $4.4 million, according to the region’s Grower-Shipper Association.”
facts are facts, either they don’t have the labor, or American labor is too expensive to substitute.
There’s no other reason for them to take losses like that.
And as to your quote, you only half read it:
“Five years ago, when Santa Ynez Valley grower Cindy Douglas put a call out for farmworkers on Spanish radio, she got flooded. Not anymore. Now, farmers might have a crew of five one day, and a crew of 20 the next.”
So the number of immigrants have diminished, leading to the shortage we see. And it’s not the only place we see experiencing this:
Kansas, Washington, North Carolina, they’re all facing worker shortages.
Also, the workforce is getting older (avg age is 58), because my generation, isn’t interested in this work:
You’re squeezing farmers, and you keep pretending that their problems aren’t real?
I’m sorry, but whose lying here, again?
Yes it is; we sell commodities over the border, that creates distortions in their economy. We’ve put farmers there out of business, so they come here, looking to work for the people who did that.
Guatemala, no longer grows its own corn because of us. In a place where the tortilla is a staple of their diet.
They need work, we need workers; this is how the economy handles the issue, and you’re blocking it from reaching equilibrium.
Nonsense. If those growers were to put out the word that they were willing to pay $20/hour, I suspect they’d have to beat off applicants for those jobs. Yes, that might cut into their profits a bit, but they couldn’t then claim to have “lost” $13 million by plowing their crops under. Which do YOU prefer; paying enough that you would lose SOME–or even ALL–of your anticipated profits, or losing $13 million by plowing your crops under? I know which one I’D prefer.
No you’re not analyzing this right.
$13 million is a complete loss; if they willing to do that, either the labor doesn’t exist, or it’s too expensive for them to hire the labor who can.
That’s not cutting into profits; if you let your crops rot, they’re are no profits. By definition.
It’s now just the measure of your losses, and apparently, they took less losses, just letting them rot.
That’s the state of the market. Either they get the labor at the price they can afford, or the crop doesn’t make money.
And it goes overseas. To places who pay workers $10/a day.
BS. How on Earth can plowing under $13 million-worth of crops be more “cost effective” than hiring people at a wage that might COST them some of their profits? That’s idiotic.
Because it’s not profitable. The market won’t bear their product at the price they’d have to charge.
Thus, farmers are pulling crops, permanently. Ceding the market to foreign competition.
“This year, Turkey is expected to surpass the Golden state as the world’s leading producer of raisins”
The more you make labor costs go up, the more this will happen. Welcome to the real world Dave.
The ONLY reason to “permanently pull crops” has nothing whatsoever to do with “losing money.” How much money do you “lose” by NOT growing your crop in the first place? That’s idiotic. These growers aren’t ceasing to grow crops “permanently.” Certainly not because they can’t SELL them. Welcome to reality yourself, AS.