|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Something I read in the News
On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 at 10:18:29 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 at 1:56:23 AM UTC-5, John B. Slocomb wrote: I wonder why the U.S. doesn't follow Thailand in matter of illegal immigrants. Here the only individuals that qualify for government assistance of any sort are citizens , or, in some cases, legal workers who pay taxes. Illegal immigrants are liable to jail terms but are usually just extradited to their home country. AND, those who employ illegal workers are liable to a 1 year jail term and a large fine. I'm not sure about it but Thai law usually assigns one penalty per crime committed, i.e., two illegal workers equals two years and double fine, etc. While finding that one will be hanged in a fortnight is said to concentrates the mind wonderfully I also find that "no food unless you earn it" tends to ensure that most people will be gainfully employed. Well, I think this issue is extremely complex. Some salient points: First, the U.S. is a nation of immigrants. During most of its history it needed to actively import people to make use of the huge amount of virgin land, to do farm work, to build railroads, to keep the factories running. That's how and why my grandparents came here. It's still true that lots of businesses - agriculture and everything else, from lawn care to manufacturing - want cheap labor. There must be thousands of businesses owned by people all across the political spectrum who depend on people with questionable papers who are willing to work for less. And I think for most of those people, it's not a question of "no work so no food" policies chasing them home. They work and work hard. I read a couple articles last year about tomatoes rotting in fields because the people who used to pick them were now too afraid to work. The farm owner said he couldn't get "regular Americans" to do the work. They wouldn't put up with the job for more than one day. There's also the bit about asylum. I once helped a foreign guy get asylum, albeit unwittingly. (He asked me to write him a letter inviting him to visit. When he landed, he applied for and received asylum.) Because of its history, the US has laws allowing people to seek asylum. I suppose some might want to go back in time and stop those laws from being written. But odds are they were logical when written, and are probably fairly logical now. The big influx from Central America certainly contains many people who are literally fleeing for their lives. From what I've read, some of that is precipitated by past U.S. policies in Central America. And I'll note that one relative of mine works for an agency that supports refugees in some ways. There are horrible stories to hear. Also, I think there's little comparison between U.S. and Thailand. This is a huge country with an enormous economy and lots of prosperity. There's a long, long land border with Mexico, a much poorer country. That means there's a lot of motivation to sneak across that border and serious difficulty preventing the crossings. Which is not to say Trump's wall would really work. It would stop those walking across, probably a small percentage. Until, perhaps, the ladder was invented. Overall, it's a complicated problem. America is filled with know- nothings who think every problem is easy. But this problem would be tricky even if millions of people didn't make millions of dollars by hiring illegal immigrants. Those people - many of whom are well connected politically - will stand in the way of any fierce enforcement against firms that employ these people. And it's not even necessarily big firms. When you need your grass cut and you check the bulletin board at the grocery store, you call around for the best price. You don't say "Oh, and let me see your citizenship papers." Hell, it recently came out that Trump has had (and probably still has) illegal immigrants working for him. - Frank Krygowski It certainly is enlightening to have an actual teacher with his stupid socialist point of view blithering away at the open air. No country can survive an entrance of so many immigrants that they cannot become assimilated and that in general takes at least three generations. More if they are forced to live in their own little towns like the Chinatowns or black projects. Expecting open borders to so anything in America than what it did to ancient Greece or Rome or the middle east shows that your education is sadly lacking. Even China built the Great Wall and kept their civilization until the onslaught of communism which almost destroyed the nation as Mao slaughtered people because he could. So now we get the socialist ignorance from a teacher. Who is surprised? Tell us one civilization that survived unlimited immigration. Tell us one country that survived socialism. |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Something I read in the News
On 12/18/2018 6:07 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2018 09:16:54 -0600, AMuzi wrote: On 12/18/2018 1:36 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Mon, 17 Dec 2018 21:11:04 -0800 (PST), " wrote: On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 8:58:15 PM UTC-6, John B. Slocomb wrote: Today's Bangkok Post had an article entitled "US careens towards government shutdown". From reading the article it seems that the President wants a 5 billion dollar budget for the Mexican Wall and Congress doesn't want to give it to him. 5,000,000,000 divided by 1,954 miles is what? $25,588,536.33 a mile (that may be wrong as I'm not used to working with really big numbers) but even for the largest economy in the world that seems a tiny bit expensive, doesn't it? cheers, John B. What Jeff said. $2.5 million per mile of fencing. Not $25. Given the cost of everything the government buys, $2.5 million for a mile of fence doesn't really sound too extreme. We pay $10-20-30-40-50 Billion for every airplane or boat we buy for the military. So $2.5 million per mile is change we could find in the couch. Of course the fence could just be a single strand of electric fence with a stake stuck in the ground every 100 yards. All put up by some Mexican illegal immigrants paid below minimum wage. And the contractor could be laughing at how he made out like a bandit stealing money from the government as he jets off to Hawaii for vacation. That sounds far more reasonable. And of course this crook will make a $2.5 million donation to the Republican party and his buddies. Yes, as I said, I don't work well with really large numbers but then... there are such things a "cost overruns". The San Francisco bridge was originally estimates at $250 million and actual costs were about $6.5 billion. At that rate the 5 billion might just be a drop in the bucket. Re the $10-20-30-40-50 Billion. President Eisenhower, in his farewell address warned about the potential influence of the "military - industrial complex". Did anyone listen? cheers, John B. Here's how things don't work out here in the real world: https://www.constructiondive.com/new...poor-p/542635/ We once bid a job to construct a oil gathering station in a rather remote area in S. Sumatra. This included the station, living quarters, roads in and out and several pipelines. We were awarded the contract and then because of the Indonesian Government the project was delayed for several months and by the time that we were given the go ahead the rainy season had started. You can't build roads and pipeline right or ways through swamps in the rainy season and you can't do major earth works in the rainy season so all major construction was delayed and our "cost overruns" were up something in the neighborhood of a million dollars on that project. We attempted to get compensation for what we termed an act of God (it rained) but in those days all oil projects were a joint venture with the Indonesian government and they argued that as the terms in the contract were clear, Acts of God were spelled out and didn't include rain, that we had no claim. Ever try to sue a national government? No but I did fight City Hall. Predictably, I lost. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Something I read in the News
On Tue, 18 Dec 2018 10:18:27 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
wrote: On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 at 1:56:23 AM UTC-5, John B. Slocomb wrote: I wonder why the U.S. doesn't follow Thailand in matter of illegal immigrants. Here the only individuals that qualify for government assistance of any sort are citizens , or, in some cases, legal workers who pay taxes. Illegal immigrants are liable to jail terms but are usually just extradited to their home country. AND, those who employ illegal workers are liable to a 1 year jail term and a large fine. I'm not sure about it but Thai law usually assigns one penalty per crime committed, i.e., two illegal workers equals two years and double fine, etc. While finding that one will be hanged in a fortnight is said to concentrates the mind wonderfully I also find that "no food unless you earn it" tends to ensure that most people will be gainfully employed. Well, I think this issue is extremely complex. Some salient points: First, the U.S. is a nation of immigrants. During most of its history it needed to actively import people to make use of the huge amount of virgin land, to do farm work, to build railroads, to keep the factories running. That's how and why my grandparents came here. Yes, that is certainly true. BUT your ancestors didn't believe that they could come to the "New World" and go immediately into government funded housing, get essentially free medical case and even receive money "for not working"? For what it is worth, my ancestors (on my father's side) paid their way to the "New World" by agreeing to work some years as indentured workers. It's still true that lots of businesses - agriculture and everything else, from lawn care to manufacturing - want cheap labor. There must be thousands of businesses owned by people all across the political spectrum who depend on people with questionable papers who are willing to work for less. At one time Mexican workers has some sort of "green card" that allowed them to enter the U.S. and work as seasonal workers. And I think for most of those people, it's not a question of "no work so no food" policies chasing them home. They work and work hard. I read a couple articles last year about tomatoes rotting in fields because the people who used to pick them were now too afraid to work. The farm owner said he couldn't get "regular Americans" to do the work. They wouldn't put up with the job for more than one day. As above, when I lived in California, there was some sort of hurrah about seasonal workers and although they had some sort of papers to legally enter the U.S. to work in the harvests this practice was halted and the newspaper said that USians who were on relief would harvest the crops. Again, according to the newspaper, on the first day there was a pretty good turn out, on the second day about half as many showed up and by the third practically nobody came. The Paper pointed out that the difference in income between working and being on relief was something like $2 a day more to pick lettuce, or whatever.... In the hot sun? All day? There's also the bit about asylum. I once helped a foreign guy get asylum, albeit unwittingly. (He asked me to write him a letter inviting him to visit. When he landed, he applied for and received asylum.) Because of its history, the US has laws allowing people to seek asylum. I suppose some might want to go back in time and stop those laws from being written. But odds are they were logical when written, and are probably fairly logical now. I do believe that the U.S. carries "asylum" to a rather ridiculous extreme. Some years ago there was a furor here in the news paper about a fellow who fled Thailand for the U.S. seeking asylum... for insulting the king. Now, insulting the king has been against the law in Thailand from the earliest days that Thailand existed and the law is spelled out in sufficient detail that one, likely, can't transgress the law unknowingly. So here is an individual who knowing violated an age old law in Thailand and is granted asylum in the U.S.? The big influx from Central America certainly contains many people who are literally fleeing for their lives. From what I've read, some of that is precipitated by past U.S. policies in Central America. And I'll note that one relative of mine works for an agency that supports refugees in some ways. There are horrible stories to hear. Yes, as long as you only hear one side of the story. Rather like Somalia where first one side slaughtered the other side and then when the other side gained power it killed members of the first side. And then when the first side became dominant... Rather like "Who's on first". Also, I think there's little comparison between U.S. and Thailand. This is a huge country with an enormous economy and lots of prosperity. There's a long, long land border with Mexico, a much poorer country. That means there's a lot of motivation to sneak across that border and serious difficulty preventing the crossings. "a long, long land border"? Thailand has 4,863 km (3,021 miles) of land boundaries with 4 countries, of which the three with the longest borders have significantly lower standards of living and where people are almost literally standing in line to get to the land with the golden pagodas. The U.S., in contrast has 1,954 miles bordering a country with a significantly lower standard of living :-) Which is not to say Trump's wall would really work. It would stop those walking across, probably a small percentage. Until, perhaps, the ladder was invented. Just from reading the newspaper there seem to have been tunnels dug, airplanes and even boats, to allow drug runners and of course illegal workers to cross the border. Overall, it's a complicated problem. America is filled with know- nothings who think every problem is easy. But this problem would be tricky even if millions of people didn't make millions of dollars by hiring illegal immigrants. Those people - many of whom are well connected politically - will stand in the way of any fierce enforcement against firms that employ these people. And it's not even necessarily big firms. When you need your grass cut and you check the bulletin board at the grocery store, you call around for the best price. You don't say "Oh, and let me see your citizenship papers." Hell, it recently came out that Trump has had (and probably still has) illegal immigrants working for him. - Frank Krygowski Rather like the highway speed laws. You got 'em but you don't obey 'em. Over the years I have lived for a number of years in Singapore where laws are rigidly enforced - S$1,000 fine for spitting on the sidewalk - there are no ghettos, employment is 97.9%, foreign workers are carefully controlled. There are about 1.4 million foreign workers versus about 6 million citizens. And you know? there are no "gated communities" and the citizens feel it safe to walk the street' (and people DON'T spit on the sidewalk :-). By, the way, talking about the law, the murder rate in Singapore is 0.32/100,000 population, Thailand where murders seem to be common is 3.24/100,000 and the "Land of Opportunity", the U.S. it is 5.35/100,000. cheers, John B. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Something I read in the News
On Tue, 18 Dec 2018 12:41:59 -0800 (PST), jbeattie
wrote: On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 at 11:40:46 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote: On 12/18/2018 12:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 at 1:56:23 AM UTC-5, John B. Slocomb wrote: I wonder why the U.S. doesn't follow Thailand in matter of illegal immigrants. Here the only individuals that qualify for government assistance of any sort are citizens , or, in some cases, legal workers who pay taxes. Illegal immigrants are liable to jail terms but are usually just extradited to their home country. AND, those who employ illegal workers are liable to a 1 year jail term and a large fine. I'm not sure about it but Thai law usually assigns one penalty per crime committed, i.e., two illegal workers equals two years and double fine, etc. While finding that one will be hanged in a fortnight is said to concentrates the mind wonderfully I also find that "no food unless you earn it" tends to ensure that most people will be gainfully employed. Well, I think this issue is extremely complex. Some salient points: First, the U.S. is a nation of immigrants. During most of its history it needed to actively import people to make use of the huge amount of virgin land, to do farm work, to build railroads, to keep the factories running. That's how and why my grandparents came here. It's still true that lots of businesses - agriculture and everything else, from lawn care to manufacturing - want cheap labor. There must be thousands of businesses owned by people all across the political spectrum who depend on people with questionable papers who are willing to work for less. And I think for most of those people, it's not a question of "no work so no food" policies chasing them home. They work and work hard. I read a couple articles last year about tomatoes rotting in fields because the people who used to pick them were now too afraid to work. The farm owner said he couldn't get "regular Americans" to do the work. They wouldn't put up with the job for more than one day. There's also the bit about asylum. I once helped a foreign guy get asylum, albeit unwittingly. (He asked me to write him a letter inviting him to visit. When he landed, he applied for and received asylum.) Because of its history, the US has laws allowing people to seek asylum. I suppose some might want to go back in time and stop those laws from being written. But odds are they were logical when written, and are probably fairly logical now. The big influx from Central America certainly contains many people who are literally fleeing for their lives. From what I've read, some of that is precipitated by past U.S. policies in Central America. And I'll note that one relative of mine works for an agency that supports refugees in some ways. There are horrible stories to hear. Also, I think there's little comparison between U.S. and Thailand. This is a huge country with an enormous economy and lots of prosperity. There's a long, long land border with Mexico, a much poorer country. That means there's a lot of motivation to sneak across that border and serious difficulty preventing the crossings. Which is not to say Trump's wall would really work. It would stop those walking across, probably a small percentage. Until, perhaps, the ladder was invented. Overall, it's a complicated problem. America is filled with know- nothings who think every problem is easy. But this problem would be tricky even if millions of people didn't make millions of dollars by hiring illegal immigrants. Those people - many of whom are well connected politically - will stand in the way of any fierce enforcement against firms that employ these people. And it's not even necessarily big firms. When you need your grass cut and you check the bulletin board at the grocery store, you call around for the best price. You don't say "Oh, and let me see your citizenship papers." Hell, it recently came out that Trump has had (and probably still has) illegal immigrants working for him. Wall- necessary but not sufficient. Won't solve all problems, or even most, but necessary. Immigrants- Yes we children of immigrants love immigrants. Illegal invaders are not the same as immigrants. Conflating terms is not helpful. Public charge- Logically, immigrants are proscribed from being a public charge with good reason. Laws unenforced or ignored altogether- https://ktla.com/2018/12/17/man-dies...entral-valley/ The wall only became necessary when Trump ran for president. It certainly isn't necessary he https://media.newyorker.com/photos/5...423_r31920.jpg Unless there are invading hordes of Mexican rock climbers. I'd worry more about hang-gliders. Nets! We need nets! There were already appropriations for new sections of fencing. There still are appropriations for new sections of fencing -- even in the proposed Democratic budget. There just isn't a budget for a dopey border-to-border mega-wall through inaccessible terrain. This is all pandering to the base. Sad! Wall-hunt! No Collusion! -- Jay Beattie. On October 26, 2006, U.S. President George W. Bush signed the Secure Fence Act of 2006 (Pub.L. 109-367) into law on October 26, 2006, stating, "This bill will help protect the American people. This bill will make our borders more secure. It is an important step toward immigration reform." "Congress put aside $1.4 billion for the fence, but the whole cost, including maintenance, was pegged at $50 billion over 25 years, according to analyses at the time. By April 2009, DHS had erected about 613 miles (985 km) of new pedestrian fencing and vehicle barriers along the southwest border. Note: as of 2009 approximately 30% of a fence had been built. cheers, John B. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Something I read in the News
On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 at 5:02:48 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 12/18/2018 5:57 PM, jbeattie wrote: On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 at 3:08:02 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote: On 12/18/2018 2:41 PM, jbeattie wrote: On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 at 11:40:46 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote: On 12/18/2018 12:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 at 1:56:23 AM UTC-5, John B. Slocomb wrote: I wonder why the U.S. doesn't follow Thailand in matter of illegal immigrants. Here the only individuals that qualify for government assistance of any sort are citizens , or, in some cases, legal workers who pay taxes. Illegal immigrants are liable to jail terms but are usually just extradited to their home country. AND, those who employ illegal workers are liable to a 1 year jail term and a large fine. I'm not sure about it but Thai law usually assigns one penalty per crime committed, i.e., two illegal workers equals two years and double fine, etc. While finding that one will be hanged in a fortnight is said to concentrates the mind wonderfully I also find that "no food unless you earn it" tends to ensure that most people will be gainfully employed. Well, I think this issue is extremely complex. Some salient points: First, the U.S. is a nation of immigrants. During most of its history it needed to actively import people to make use of the huge amount of virgin land, to do farm work, to build railroads, to keep the factories running. That's how and why my grandparents came here. It's still true that lots of businesses - agriculture and everything else, from lawn care to manufacturing - want cheap labor. There must be thousands of businesses owned by people all across the political spectrum who depend on people with questionable papers who are willing to work for less. And I think for most of those people, it's not a question of "no work so no food" policies chasing them home. They work and work hard. I read a couple articles last year about tomatoes rotting in fields because the people who used to pick them were now too afraid to work. The farm owner said he couldn't get "regular Americans" to do the work. They wouldn't put up with the job for more than one day. There's also the bit about asylum. I once helped a foreign guy get asylum, albeit unwittingly. (He asked me to write him a letter inviting him to visit. When he landed, he applied for and received asylum.) Because of its history, the US has laws allowing people to seek asylum. I suppose some might want to go back in time and stop those laws from being written. But odds are they were logical when written, and are probably fairly logical now. The big influx from Central America certainly contains many people who are literally fleeing for their lives. From what I've read, some of that is precipitated by past U.S. policies in Central America. And I'll note that one relative of mine works for an agency that supports refugees in some ways. There are horrible stories to hear. Also, I think there's little comparison between U.S. and Thailand. This is a huge country with an enormous economy and lots of prosperity. There's a long, long land border with Mexico, a much poorer country. That means there's a lot of motivation to sneak across that border and serious difficulty preventing the crossings. Which is not to say Trump's wall would really work. It would stop those walking across, probably a small percentage. Until, perhaps, the ladder was invented. Overall, it's a complicated problem. America is filled with know- nothings who think every problem is easy. But this problem would be tricky even if millions of people didn't make millions of dollars by hiring illegal immigrants. Those people - many of whom are well connected politically - will stand in the way of any fierce enforcement against firms that employ these people. And it's not even necessarily big firms. When you need your grass cut and you check the bulletin board at the grocery store, you call around for the best price. You don't say "Oh, and let me see your citizenship papers." Hell, it recently came out that Trump has had (and probably still has) illegal immigrants working for him. Wall- necessary but not sufficient. Won't solve all problems, or even most, but necessary. Immigrants- Yes we children of immigrants love immigrants. Illegal invaders are not the same as immigrants. Conflating terms is not helpful. Public charge- Logically, immigrants are proscribed from being a public charge with good reason. Laws unenforced or ignored altogether- https://ktla.com/2018/12/17/man-dies...entral-valley/ The wall only became necessary when Trump ran for president. It certainly isn't necessary he https://media.newyorker.com/photos/5...423_r31920.jpg Unless there are invading hordes of Mexican rock climbers. I'd worry more about hang-gliders. Nets! We need nets! There were already appropriations for new sections of fencing. There still are appropriations for new sections of fencing -- even in the proposed Democratic budget. There just isn't a budget for a dopey border-to-border mega-wall through inaccessible terrain. This is all pandering to the base.. Sad! Wall-hunt! No Collusion! Yes, ridiculous is our new level of discourse but facts are stubborn things. Several Congresses over 30-odd years* voted to better secure the southern border, partially wall, fence, even a failed e-surveillance program. Meanwhile Texas reports over a half-million felonies per year by illegals and California no longer reports. Listen to any Jamile Shaw interview in the past ten years about his son and tell me border enforcement is pointless. http://jamielshaw.com/ Or Kate Steinle's father who watched her die as she said, "Dad, help me". There are dozens of memorial websites like: http://www.ojjpac.org/memorial.asp To say a wall is insufficient or ineffective or too expensive is an argument, and I would engage that. To say there is no problem is ridiculous. Nobody is saying there is no problem, although one can disagree on the magnitude of the problem -- and the best, most fiscally responsible way of dealing with the problem. Anecdotes of people getting killed also say nothing about whether the killer would have been deterred by a wall. For all we know, Pedro Espinoza's mom may have taken a bus to El Paso or come to the US through a tunnel in Tijuana. Moreover, there is already a wall in most population areas on the southern border, including Tijuana. We built tons of walls under the Secure Fence Act of 2006. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Fence_Act_of_2006 Maybe more are needed but not an engineering marvel across the canyons of Texas. * The loudest voices against Mr Trump's wall voted for it in the WJC era and blamed GWB for _not_ building it. As with so much of politics, the default position is "I'm for whatever he's against". This is not productive for the nation. Being a first-class ass-wipe not surprisingly puts Trump at odds with the mainstream so even his reasonable policies get discounted, but building a massive wall from border to border is not a reasonable policy. Notwithstanding Faux News and the tin-foil hat news outlets, even the liberal boogeywoman Nancy Pelosi is not advocating for "open borders." Not even the Republican controlled Senate wants to shut down the government for Trump's wall -- or Hadrian's Wall or the Maginot Line. This is all part of his weird pandering. A reasonable politician would identify areas that required fortification and would fortify those areas and not advocate for some great wall through nowhere. But then again, a reasonable politician would not have gutted federal revenues and created a monumental budget gap -- not in a hot economy, but that's a whole other issue. -- Jay Beattie. Half a kumbaya, my half brother. I was with you until that last sentence. Federal revenues are up. Unfortunately both parties* joined in spending even more than that. http://blog.independent.org/2018/07/...eep-piling-up/ Every major tax cut has produced increased revenue. Hell even Putin back in 2003(?) made Russia's tax a flat 13% across the board and filled his treasury. Revenue is only one side of the equation however... *Repugnicans ought to know better. And, sadly, once did know that, or at least faked it. Not to be a downer, but: https://www.politifact.com/punditfac...mp-tax-cuts-s/ Plus, revenues were rising in 2017 before the tax cut became effective. That's what happens during an economic recovery. There may be some trickle-down but not nearly enough. I haven't looked at the details for the Reagan tax cut, but both Reagan and Bush had to raise taxes to fill holes. The economy improved, and Clinton got a hot economy, increased top marginal rates to reduce the deficit -- and did. http://www.factandmyth.com/wp-conten...nton-taxes.jpg Nice bunch of graphs: http://www.factandmyth.com/taxes/tax...crease-revenue I'm all for lower taxes, although my taxes increase under Trump -- but if they did go down, I'd be for that. But I wouldn't expect revenues to increase significantly or at all. Corporations in particular do whatever is in their best interest and will buy their own stock before employing more people who pay more taxes. Why take on more overhead when the next president with have to jack up the rates. This is going to be "read my lips" 2.0. -- Jay Beattie. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Something I read in the News
On 12/18/2018 2:40 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 12/18/2018 12:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 at 1:56:23 AM UTC-5, John B. Slocomb wrote: I wonder why the U.S. doesn't follow Thailand in matter of illegal immigrants. Here the only individuals that qualify for government assistance of any sort are citizens , or, in some cases, legal workers who pay taxes. Illegal immigrants are liable to jail terms but are usually just extradited to their home country. AND, those who employ illegal workers are liable to a 1 year jail term and a large fine. I'm not sure about it but Thai law usually assigns one penalty per crime committed, i.e., two illegal workers equals two years and double fine, etc. While finding that one willÂ* be hanged in a fortnight is said to concentrates the mind wonderfully I also find that "no food unless you earn it" tends to ensure that most people will be gainfully employed. Well, I think this issue is extremely complex. Some salient points: First, the U.S. is a nation of immigrants. During most of its history it needed to actively import people to make use of the huge amount of virgin land, to do farm work, to build railroads, to keep the factories running. That's how and why my grandparents came here. It's still true that lots of businesses - agriculture and everything else, from lawn care to manufacturing - want cheap labor. There must be thousands of businesses owned by people all across the political spectrum who depend on people with questionable papers who are willing to work for less. And I think for most of those people, it's not a question of "no work so no food" policies chasing them home. They work and work hard. I read a couple articles last year about tomatoes rotting in fields because the people who used to pick them were now too afraid to work. The farm owner said he couldn't get "regular Americans" to do the work. They wouldn't put up with the job for more than one day. There's also the bit about asylum. I once helped a foreign guy get asylum, albeit unwittingly. (He asked me to write him a letter inviting him to visit. When he landed, he applied for and received asylum.) Because of its history, the US has laws allowing people to seek asylum. I suppose some might want to go back in time and stop those laws from being written. But odds are they were logical when written, and are probably fairly logical now. The big influx from Central America certainly contains many people who are literally fleeing for their lives. From what I've read, some of that is precipitated by past U.S. policies in Central America. And I'll note that one relative of mine works for an agency that supports refugees in some ways. There are horrible stories to hear. Also, I think there's little comparison between U.S. and Thailand. This is a huge country with an enormous economy and lots of prosperity. There's a long, long land border with Mexico, a much poorer country. That means there's a lot of motivation to sneak across that border and serious difficulty preventing the crossings. Which is not to say Trump's wall would really work. It would stop those walking across, probably a small percentage. Until, perhaps, the ladder was invented. Overall, it's a complicated problem. America is filled with know- nothings who think every problem is easy. But this problem would be tricky even if millions of people didn't make millions of dollars by hiring illegal immigrants. Those people - many of whom are well connected politically - will stand in the way of any fierce enforcement against firms that employ these people. And it's not even necessarily big firms. When you need your grass cut and you check the bulletin board at the grocery store, you call around for the best price. You don't say "Oh, and let me see your citizenship papers." Hell, it recently came out that Trump has had (and probably still has) illegal immigrants working for him. Wall- necessary but not sufficient. Won't solve all problems, or even most, but necessary. "Wall" as in what Trump promised? Necessary? Sorry, impossible. It will never happen. It's got less chance than finding Saddam's ready-to-fire WMDs. (And yes, I know someone's going to pop up and claim Saddam _did_ have ready-to-fire WMDs. That's how Trump voters' minds work.) Immigrants- Yes we children of immigrants love immigrants. Illegal invaders are not the same as immigrants. Conflating terms is not helpful. Invaders? Like, rolling in the way Germany rolled into Poland in 1939? Like Russia rolled into Crimea a few years ago? What percentage of people sneaking across the border from Mexico are in tanks or carrying military weapons? Conflating terms is _not_ helpful. Public charge- Logically, immigrants are proscribed from being a public charge with good reason. Fine. But those pinko liberals at the Cato Institute seem to think that problem is greatly exaggerated. https://www.cato.org/publications/co...-welfare-state Laws unenforced or ignored altogether- https://ktla.com/2018/12/17/man-dies...entral-valley/ Yeah, I know. And Willie Horton, right? But as might be expected, illegal immigrants tend to mind their Ps and Qs, more than most citizens. They really don't want attention. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Something I read in the News
On 12/18/2018 6:07 PM, AMuzi wrote:
To say a wall is insufficient or ineffective or too expensive is an argument, and I would engage that. To say there is no problem is ridiculous. I personally don't know anyone who thinks there is no problem. But sadly, I do know a few who still insist that Trump is absolutely right to demand an entire border, solid concrete, actual wall. It's simplistic nonsense, but that is what the guy promised, after all. Oh, and it's going to be beautiful, too. He said so! Maybe we can get a couple thousand miles of murals? Portsmouth, Ohio did that on a couple thousand feet of their flood wall. (And those really are worth seeing.) http://www.ohiorivertourism.org/murals.html -- - Frank Krygowski |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Something I read in the News
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Something I read in the News
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Something I read in the News
On 12/18/2018 8:34 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2018 10:18:27 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski wrote: Well, I think this issue is extremely complex. Some salient points: First, the U.S. is a nation of immigrants. During most of its history it needed to actively import people to make use of the huge amount of virgin land, to do farm work, to build railroads, to keep the factories running. That's how and why my grandparents came here. Yes, that is certainly true. BUT your ancestors didn't believe that they could come to the "New World" and go immediately into government funded housing, get essentially free medical case and even receive money "for not working"? I don't think that's what's usually happening. https://immigrationforum.org/article...blic-benefits/ It's still true that lots of businesses - agriculture and everything else, from lawn care to manufacturing - want cheap labor. There must be thousands of businesses owned by people all across the political spectrum who depend on people with questionable papers who are willing to work for less. At one time Mexican workers has some sort of "green card" that allowed them to enter the U.S. and work as seasonal workers. AFAIK, that's still the system. I've worked with PhD professors here on Green Cards. They were (and maybe still are) legal permanent residents, permitted to work here. But nearly half of illegals are people who entered the country legally (for example, with student visas) and when their time was up, simply chose to stay and remain under the radar. Those people are rather difficult to find. And the biggest wall on earth won't change how they got here. Last year we had a local guy like that who was caught. His case was complex and I don't recall all the details - he came here legally, married a U.S. citizen, later got divorced, tried for years (decades?) to get the right to stay, was supposedly on that path with help from our congressman, thought he was on his way to his day in court but instead was suddenly seized by ICE. He was a very well respected businessman and a real asset to the community, but he's gone. And I think for most of those people, it's not a question of "no work so no food" policies chasing them home. They work and work hard. I read a couple articles last year about tomatoes rotting in fields because the people who used to pick them were now too afraid to work. The farm owner said he couldn't get "regular Americans" to do the work. They wouldn't put up with the job for more than one day. As above, when I lived in California, there was some sort of hurrah about seasonal workers and although they had some sort of papers to legally enter the U.S. to work in the harvests this practice was halted and the newspaper said that USians who were on relief would harvest the crops. Again, according to the newspaper, on the first day there was a pretty good turn out, on the second day about half as many showed up and by the third practically nobody came. The Paper pointed out that the difference in income between working and being on relief was something like $2 a day more to pick lettuce, or whatever.... In the hot sun? All day? There's also the bit about asylum. I once helped a foreign guy get asylum, albeit unwittingly. (He asked me to write him a letter inviting him to visit. When he landed, he applied for and received asylum.) Because of its history, the US has laws allowing people to seek asylum. I suppose some might want to go back in time and stop those laws from being written. But odds are they were logical when written, and are probably fairly logical now. I do believe that the U.S. carries "asylum" to a rather ridiculous extreme. Some years ago there was a furor here in the news paper about a fellow who fled Thailand for the U.S. seeking asylum... for insulting the king. Now, insulting the king has been against the law in Thailand from the earliest days that Thailand existed and the law is spelled out in sufficient detail that one, likely, can't transgress the law unknowingly. So here is an individual who knowing violated an age old law in Thailand and is granted asylum in the U.S.? I don't know much about U.S. asylum laws. The guy I helped was fleeing communism, and I really didn't have a lot of contact with him after he landed and applied for asylum. But in his case, he didn't go on welfare. He got jobs painting trucks and doing roofing, IIRC. Then he got a decent job due to his EE degree. He did well enough and rose high enough that he represented his international communications company in London for many years. He and his wife now own a ranch in Colorado where he's retired from engineering. Hardly a public housing case. The big influx from Central America certainly contains many people who are literally fleeing for their lives. From what I've read, some of that is precipitated by past U.S. policies in Central America. And I'll note that one relative of mine works for an agency that supports refugees in some ways. There are horrible stories to hear. Yes, as long as you only hear one side of the story. You're probably right. I ought to get in touch with the gang-raping soldiers and see what those women did to deserve it... Also, I think there's little comparison between U.S. and Thailand. This is a huge country with an enormous economy and lots of prosperity. There's a long, long land border with Mexico, a much poorer country. That means there's a lot of motivation to sneak across that border and serious difficulty preventing the crossings. "a long, long land border"? Thailand has 4,863 km (3,021 miles) of land boundaries with 4 countries, of which the three with the longest borders have significantly lower standards of living and where people are almost literally standing in line to get to the land with the golden pagodas. The U.S., in contrast has 1,954 miles bordering a country with a significantly lower standard of living :-) What's the income disparity on the two sides of that border? Between the U.S. and Mexico, it's roughly four to one. And for a lot of the Guatemalans, it's more a matter of life and death. Which is not to say Trump's wall would really work. It would stop those walking across, probably a small percentage. Until, perhaps, the ladder was invented. Just from reading the newspaper there seem to have been tunnels dug, airplanes and even boats, to allow drug runners and of course illegal workers to cross the border. Overall, it's a complicated problem. America is filled with know- nothings who think every problem is easy. But this problem would be tricky even if millions of people didn't make millions of dollars by hiring illegal immigrants. Those people - many of whom are well connected politically - will stand in the way of any fierce enforcement against firms that employ these people. And it's not even necessarily big firms. When you need your grass cut and you check the bulletin board at the grocery store, you call around for the best price. You don't say "Oh, and let me see your citizenship papers." Hell, it recently came out that Trump has had (and probably still has) illegal immigrants working for him. - Frank Krygowski Rather like the highway speed laws. You got 'em but you don't obey 'em. Over the years I have lived for a number of years in Singapore where laws are rigidly enforced ... I've read about a lot of that enforcement. But there's no way that's going to be accepted here in America. Whether it's good or bad, it's fact. I do think that those who hire illegal immigrants should somehow be stopped. But as usual, it's not as easy as it sounds. -- - Frank Krygowski |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The best news is the history you haven't read | AMuzi | Techniques | 2 | June 27th 12 04:17 AM |
Good news: not doping. Bad news: 1 year suspension | Robert Chung | Racing | 0 | May 7th 08 12:37 AM |
2300 news articles for victory. 3100 news articles for doping to get there | [email protected] | Racing | 2 | July 30th 06 07:52 PM |
'Some' news is good news :) | flyingdutch | Australia | 24 | September 6th 05 12:20 PM |
Good news/bad news from Chicago | Paul Turner | General | 18 | November 30th 04 03:54 PM |