The problem with importing cheap labor

[CARLHAYDEN]

Steven Malanga
Skilled Immigrants at Last?
Flaws and all, the proposed bill could change immigration for the better.
18 May 2007

The proposed legislation, however, may also founder on proposals to establish guest worker programs, and here more negotiation and compromise will be necessary. The bill establishes a program of between 400,000 and 600,000 legal guest workers per year, mostly serving our farms. Proponents say that the program would alleviate low-wage worker shortages, while opponents argue that guest worker programs have never succeeded in the past, either here or in Europe, and that they eventually establish a permanent force of guest workers who never leave.

But there is a larger problem with guest worker programs: by providing employers with cheap labor, they discourage investments in productivity and mechanization that would eventually make the workers unnecessary. In other developed countries where illegals are not so plentiful, farmers have employed more mechanization than in the United States. Even here, when President Kennedy eliminated a guest worker program for tomato pickers in the 1960s, California growers adopted a mechanized system that allowed them to pick more tomatoes with 5,000 skilled workers than 40,000 illegals had been able to pick by hand.

[CARLHAYDEN]

That is a myopic view of a very complicated market.  Immigrants do more that work at farms.

Yes, the commit crimes, they incrase the expensive of the education system, they burden the medical system.

The point of the excerpt of the article I posted was that importing cheap labor only retards the implementation of improved technology, which in the long run lowers costs.

Either you didn't get this rather clear message, or you just don't want to deal with it.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Yeah, all of those medical, programming, construction, design, and educated professionals in technical skills do nothing but rob corner stores and decrease our technological advances.    Really Carl, there is more to the issue than people running across the border.  Either you didn't get this rather clear message, or you just don't want to deal with it.

nODU,

I realize that you personally want to inflict as much pain on fhs American people as possible.

When someone is murdered by an illegal alien, you are glad.

When hundreds of millions of dollars are taken from taxpayers to support illegal aliens, you cheer.

You are no different from BRTD.

Oh, and let me make it clear since YOU deliberately misrepresent what I said>

THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LEGAL ALIENS AND ILLEGAL ALIENS!!!

Not too many of the illegal aliens are engaged are in high skill occupations as a majority are high school dropouts.

[CARLHAYDEN]

When you consider the material you posted discussed legal foreign workers, your predictable rant shows you forgot which thread you were posting in.  You may feel free to cut and paste it into one of your illegal immigrant threads, and replace it with one which discusses how you were wrong to label all legal immigrants and foreign workers with a false stereotype.

I posted the thread and you are trying to twist is totally contrary to the begining (typical Modu).

Notice, the title of the thread "cheap labor" and the substance of the initial post (which dealt with low skill labor)? 

The thread had to do with the fallacious (you know, your type) of argument that we "need" cheap, low skill labor.

The article pointed out that the most cost efficent approach is to use modern technology.

Modu tried to change the thread to do with high tech workers, which are an entirely different subject.

Well, that's typical Modu.

[CARLHAYDEN]

*dies laughin*  You're right, your silly topic thread says "cheap labor."  Too bad the title of your article says "skilled labor," which, however if it did say "cheap labor," your bigoted comment about them being criminals and illegals is still wrong.  Keep trying to talk your way out of it though.  (By the way, you are terrible at straw man.)

Likr so many lefties, Modu likes to engage in name callling.

Diosagree with him and you are a "bigot."

Oh, and the substance of the post noted low skilled labor, something whidh Modu also evades.

Yeah, Modu is a joker, who evades facts, and engages in name calling.

Oh, and those persons murdered by illegal aliens, well, according to Modu they didn't happen.

[CARLHAYDEN]

I realize that you personally want to inflict as much pain on fhs American people as possible.

When someone is murdered by an illegal alien, you are glad.

When hundreds of millions of dollars are taken from taxpayers to support illegal aliens, you cheer.

You are no different from BRTD.

Likr so many lefties, Modu likes to engage in name callling.

Diosagree with him and you are a "bigot."

...

Yeah, Modu is a joker, who evades facts, and engages in name calling.

Carl, does the word 'hypocrisy' mean anything to you?

I realize that you are actively hostile.

I once had some respect for you.

Apprently you seem to believe that calling someone a "bigot" for disagreeing is acceptable behavior.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Apprently you seem to believe that calling someone a "bigot" for disagreeing is acceptable behavior.

Actually, I said "bigoted," and it was the right adjective to use.  I didn't call you a "bigot."  If you feel that was sooooo insensitive of me, well, I'm sooooo sorry.   

No simply dishonest.

Post anything which disagrees with Modu, and the comment is "bigoted."

Now, to go back further, I did not say tha "all" immigrants commit violent crimes, etc., rather you merely chose to misinterpret it that way.

Well, another case of Modu.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Carl, why do you insist on behaving as if your style of debating is far superior to anybody else's on here, and that you are entirely innocent of ad hominem attacks or strawmen arguments?  You attack other people for using the same tactics you use yourself (even when they haven't, occasionally).

Please provide an example of where I have alleged that another poster has made a "bigoted" post.

Also, I am far less concerned with "style" than with substance. 

Notice, instead of dealing with the substance of this thread (i.e. there is no need for cheap, unskilled labor) Modu sought to change the subject.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Modu,

I apologize that the title of the thread, “The problem with importing cheap labor” made you think of “medical, programming, design and educated professions in technical skills.”

I apologize that you decided to read the word “all” in my response that “immigrants” (actually “migrants”) discussed in the two paragraph article excerpt, commit crimes and increase the expense of the education system. 

I apologize that you feel the compulsion to label the comments of those who disagree with your viewpoints as “bigoted.”

[CARLHAYDEN]

I realize that you personally want to inflict as much pain on fhs American people as possible.

When someone is murdered by an illegal alien, you are glad.

When hundreds of millions of dollars are taken from taxpayers to support illegal aliens, you cheer.

You are no different from BRTD.

Likr so many lefties, Modu likes to engage in name callling.

Diosagree with him and you are a "bigot."

...

Yeah, Modu is a joker, who evades facts, and engages in name calling.

Carl, does the word 'hypocrisy' mean anything to you?

I realize that you are actively hostile.

I once had some respect for you.

Apprently you seem to believe that calling someone a "bigot" for disagreeing is acceptable behavior.

No, but I don't believe that saying that someone cheers the waste of tax dollars or is glad for murders is either - you basically saying ad hominem attacks are bad while at the same time using them yourself! THAT IS HYPOCRISY PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

All I've seen from you in this thread is attacking the characters of the people who disagree with you rather than properly refuting their arguments, which frankly speaks to your character far more than to theirs.

Now then, lets expand on that if you please. 

Are you denying that the migrants discussed in the article have historically, and are likely in the future, to cost the taxpayer money for law enforcement, education and medical expenses?  And if you agree that they have and are likely to do so in the future, then how is it inappropriate to condem policies which would have those impacts?

[CARLHAYDEN]

Now then, lets expand on that if you please. 

Are you denying that the migrants discussed in the article have historically, and are likely in the future, to cost the taxpayer money for law enforcement, education and medical expenses?  And if you agree that they have and are likely to do so in the future, then how is it inappropriate to condem policies which would have those impacts?

No, in fact I'm not arguing anything at all about the article or illegal immigration. What I'm arguing about is your style of 'debate', which seems to be attacking your opponents while ignoring their arguments, and until you change this I find it rather pointless to even attempt debate on the subject with you.

For instance you claimed that Modu is glad when an illegal immigrant murders someone - what the hell is your basis for this statement? When has Modu indicated any form of happiness when he hears about a murder commited by an illegal immigrant?

Again, I ask for specifics.  What "arguments" have been made that I have "ignored"?

As to Modu's past statements, I'll get back to you.  It takes time for a search.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Again, I ask for specifics.  What "arguments" have been made that I have "ignored"?

Specifically? Well, you seem to have ignored all but two paragraphs of the article you posted for starters. Typically though you tend to balk at anything contradictory to your notions of illegal immigrants.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Methinks you'll have a hard time finding it as I doubt such statements actually exist.

Well, I quoted part of the article to deal with a specific issue, i.e. the allegation that the United States "needs" cheap imported labor.

Now, the two paragraphs dealt with that matter.

Again, I ask for a specific argument which I have not responded to in detail.

Also, it will take time to research as Modu likes to play around with terms.  Sometimes they're "illegal aliens," sometimes they're "illegal immigrants," sometimes they're "undocumented workers."

So far I have been unable to find the exact quote.

I do not have the time to continue the search, so I will at this time retract my allegation that he stated his approval of murder of Americans by illegal aliens.

[CARLHAYDEN]

That's because you aren't going to find one, just like I'm not going to find an apology from you.  But keep up your personal attacks while you try to avoid discussing the two paragraphs you referenced.  THAT I find amusing, unlike a cop being killed in the line of duty.  Seems like you are wrong again.

Twp seperate items.

First, you sound a lot like Bart Simpson with your "you cann't prove I did it" rant.

Second, you never attempted to discuss the two paragraphs I quoted, but rather hijacted the thread with skilled labor.

So, are you now suggesting we should import unskilled labor rather than investing in improved technology?

Or are you just going to do a victory dance at having been able to eliminate the evidence?

[CARLHAYDEN]

hahaha . . . why are you running from what you posted?  It is discussing legal immigration for skilled labor.  Foreign skilled labor, no matter the industry, will tend to be cheaper than domestic labor.  The fact that you cannot accept that legal immigrants are different from illegal immigrants, and are not necessary murderers or criminals, is your own problem which you need to deal with. 

First, as you know, I have previously (and rather extensively) noted the distinctions between legal and illegal aliens in this country.

Second, this thread was about low skill labor, and the law permitting their importation, and the lack of need for that importation.

Third, if you want to start a thread about legal aliens, please go ahead and start one.

Fourth, please stop trying to conflate two seperate categories.

[CARLHAYDEN]

The amendment to remove the guest workers failed. These are the 31 Senators who voted to remove the guest worker program:

Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Byrd (D-WV)
Casey (D-PA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Coburn (R-OK)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dorgan (D-ND)
   Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Vitter (R-LA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00174

They tended to be the more liberal Democrats, but there are some exceptions.

Sad to say it lost.

Notice that Senator Nelson (Nebraska) voted for the measure!

What I am told is that many Senators do not want to enrage big business and will vote for the Bingaman amendment as a compromise.

These idiots would have taken Solomon's proposal to cut the baby in half as a 'reasonable' compromise.

Also, I am told that there could have been approximately two dozen Republicans to vote for this amendment if the liberals had been willing to committ to support any one of three amendments supported by conservative Republicans:

1.) Official English
2.) Really build the border fence
3.) Real employer sanctions

[CARLHAYDEN]

It probably would have still gotten rejected. The Senate just voted 48-49 to reject an amendment putting a 5 year sunset clause on (one of?) the guest worker program. It was a fairly party line vote, with most Democrats in favor, and most Republicans oppose.

Party line breakers:
Republicans for:
Coburn, Corker, Grassley, Inhofe, Sessions, Shelby, Sununu, Thune, Vitter
Democrats against:
Akaka, Cantwell, Carper, Feinstein, Kennedy, Kerry, Lincoln, Menendez, Salazar,

Lieberman also voted against it.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00178

I have a suggestion.

When you do the breakdown on Senate votes in the future you might want to divide it by year facing the voters.

I suspect that support for the bill will tend to be highest among those not scheduled to face the voters until 2012, and lowest among those having to face the voters next year.

The closeness of this vote encourages me that in the House of Representatives, where organized labor has more influence, and big business less influence, such an amendment will pass.