Tennessee Businesses Lobby for Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I'm not so sure that would work right away, but son, you made a damned good

argument.

There is a catch that needs to be understood about this. When this class of people

starts paying taxes, part of the incentive goes away for them, and that's a good

thing, actually. I still have a problem with the handling of the issue of "doing the

jobs Americans won't do". I don't see how enabling a foreigner to obtain a status

to compete with an American citizen for a job will benefit our economy. This may

just be me, but I think if we destroy our welfare system and a bunch of other so-

called government benefits like HHS, Food Stamp and subsidies, we would accomplish

much the same thing. Give the American individual incentive to get off the couch

and go to work. Cost of government would go down. Economic productivity would

go up. There would be less need for the mexican to come over the border, except

to become a legal American citizen and become a benefit to our society like those

who already took that path.

I'm stubborn, but you are good.

[Guest Drewsett]

Nothing is an end-all be-all solution. It most certainly wouldn't work right away, but I DO think that it would be a step in the right direction. You yourself pointed out that documenting them and forcing them to pay taxes would remove SOME of the incentive for SOME of the immigrants, but not all. Go spend some time in Central America and I think you will see why they want to come here to live and work.

As far as there being jobs that Americans won't do...that's a simple fact. If you look at the labor market as a simple supply and demand model you will realize that sellers of labor (us) have a price we are willing to accept for our labor. That price can increase or decrease based upon educational level, life choices, etc. Buyers of labor (employers) have a price they are willing to pay for labor. That is dictated mainly by (at least in the chicken processing market) the market price for chicken coupled with the employers' capital costs (equipment, land, etc) and other intangibles (unemployment, worker's compensation, etc).

If you TRULY want to grow the economy, instead of eliminating social welfare programs (which I believe are a...[can't believe I'm saying this] necessary evil...to a certain extent) one would allow businesses to buy the labor at the cost they are willing to pay. Sellers of labor (whether they be American or not) will then achieve the level of education that is necessary for the employment which they seek. It is thus upon the INDIVIDUAL to make their own choices and live or die by those choices. It is not on the government or an employer to be your nanny. If you don't feel that the job pays enough, look for a different job. If there aren't a whole lot of choices in your area, move. If you can't move, then educate yourself to increase your opportunities. DO eliminate waste in social welfare programs (the oft-mentioned Welfare Queen is a perfect example). The camel's nose is under the tent as far as food stamps and other programs are concerned. Americans as a whole are a compassionate people and show them people starving in the street then they feel that "someone" should do "something".

We think that competition is a healthy thing when it comes to businesses, right? Why would it not be a healthy thing when it comes to sellers of labor? Those who are most qualified will receive the best compensation. Those who aren't will have a strong incentive to improve their marketability to employers. As a result, you get a pool of highly trained, highly motivated individuals from which to hire. The only people who lose are the ones with what I like to call the "union mentality" who refuse to improve and demand ever-increasing compensation for ever-decreasing production.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Like I said before, your putting a lot of thought into this and it's always a good

exercise for fine tuning. Our economy needs a lot of things to straighten out

before it becomes robust again.

That necessary evil called welfare could just be scaled back and it would help,

but the problem with government run charity is it is always politicized and is

easy for a politician to manipulate to keep his voters happy. It is also a form

of slavery and has cemented an almost permanent lower class in our country,

which needs to be stopped.

Our country, from the beginning, has been built on self reliance, achievement

individual responsibility. We have become too dependent on government being

the safety net to catch us when we fail. That's too easy a system to corrupt and

is morally wrong, plus, it adds costs to everything in the economic chain, not to

mention, bigger government.

All I'm saying is that we have to get back to basics and get our own government

back to a manageable level to be sustainable. Right now, it's not, without enslaving

more people every time the economy takes a dip.

We need to be ending bureacracies before we add any more, else we fall into the

trap laid out by central planners who want to maintain a bigger government.

People need to be more self reliant and welfare stands in the way. Even Social

Security is a safety net that shouldn't have happened. The individual could do better

than any government is ever willing or able to do without taking more control.

The beast with all the concentrated power in Washington, DC, is what is killing us,

instead of fixing problems. The tax code alone, is slavery, and needs to be abolished

and totally remade into something that doesn't use income as its tool. That alone,

would decentralize the power in DC.

When you fix those problems that already exist, your idea would be fine, as it would

allow others to compete in the marketplace, on a temporary basis, with a more free

and motivated work force: Capitalism. It's been made into a dirty word by so many

central planners that it will be hard to do, but it still can and has to be done, somehow.

We were the example for the rest of the world to follow and now we seem to be falling

into the bad systems that they had instead of remembering where we once came from.

Mexico is somewhat a different problem, since they seem to have a government that's

willing to commit crimes with the drug problem and willingly be hypocritical with their

own immigration laws. Their government is unsustainable. Third world countries usually

are.

We don't need their problems and we don't need to live by their system that created

their problems. Justice has be considered, first and foremost. If it is cruel, so be it. It's

their problem and we have tried to help before with aid and NAFTA, which didn't make

sense to me, either.

Your idea could be a solution, but it would be more workable after we fixed some of our

problems first and ended this war with Mexico.

I agree with your last sentence, completely. The union mentality has to go. Even though

I work in a closed shop and don't see a lot of the problems, with my particular union, they

are corrupted easily and usually benefit people without equity. But that's a whole

different topic. It's not the collective bargaining, but the corruption and politicization that

takes place that does.

Edited August 23, 2010 by 6.8 AR

[tntnixon]

For once, AR, I disagree on one of your points. Capitalism encourages competition, whether it's for production or for labor. Part of our problems are the fact that we have discouraged competition with foreign labor and created a false economy in the US.

Our workers demanded "more money", so we gave it to them and in turn printed more to satisfy the masses as well as discouraging competition with the rest of the world. All "more money" did was drive inflation and devalue the dollar. In other countries, the same amount of money will purchase far more products and services because the market actually reflects true value. Not so in the US. We are long overdue for a period of deflation or super inflation that will shake the very foundations of our economy. We have played a "shell game" for far too long and the debt is coming due.

The typical American family now requires two incomes to do what one income used to do. During the Eisenhower Presidency a dollar was worth 1/37 of an ounce of gold. Today the same dollar is worth 1/1227 of an once of gold. If you consider gold value as stagnant, as I do, then we are quickly losing ground economically. The average household income in 1960 was $6691/yr which if you apply the gold standard would be $221,888 today (kinda sucks to think of it).

So, in turn, I actually think we should be competing with foreign competition. It might be the only way we can get back on track and actually become the nation of our forefathers. There was a time when Americans were that "cheap labor". Americans used to do those jobs nobody wanted and we thrived. We became the envy of the world for that very reason. We actually had the right to negotiate on our own behalf for a wage that was established by the employer and the employee. We didn't have the government placing a value on us, we were free to determine that for ourselves. Unfortunately, the illegals have that right that we have given up which actually makes me envy them quite a bit.

Now all that being said, I do not believe that illegals should be granted amnesty. Their very first act on American soil was to commit a felony. If we choose to keep are current immigration scheme in place, I believe we should enforce it with all of our power. However, becoming the America of old where we opened our borders freely might not be such a terrible thing. It is what made America become what it is. That steady stream of immigrants to Ellis Island, and the like, kept those Americans who were already here from becoming complacent and forced them to compete and produce. We are now mere consumers and not producers.

[Guest Drewsett]

Trust me, I am the last person to advocate for social welfare programs. If I had my druthers, the government would consist of police, fire, military, and that's pretty much it. BUT, I do know that it will be impossible for us to achieve a libertarian utopia like that without bloodshed. I don't want bloodshed. You don't want bloodshed.

If it isn't possible to do away with the programs then we have to make them more efficient. No, it isn't right for individuals or corporations to be "bailed out" if they fail. I think we can end corporate bailouts without many horrible things happening because there will almost always be a buyer for that failed corporation, or at least for their property, plant, and equipment, which should go at least some of the way to settling their debts.

An individual is different. You can shove a camera in the face of an individual on the nightly news and see that he or she is starving. You can identify with their pain. Even if the parents were stupid and made a poor decision, you can see the innocent children suffering as well. That does not play well on TV and Americans wouldn't stand for it. Whether the principle is right or not, the outcome is painful. As I said before, we're a pretty sappy people and are suckers for suffering. As much as I would like to think charity and private giving would bridge the gap, I don't think it will.

Yes you are right, AR, that opening borders without fixing entitlement programs would be a disaster. But notice that I DID say that we should fix and reduce the programs as well as opening borders with a guest worker program.

I believe that we are arguing from the same basic premise, I just am a little more of a realist (some would say defeatist) about social programs.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

That's why I liked your argument to begin with, Drewsett.

TNT now I'm going to have to reread all of my posts and

see how I said that, because I agree with what you

said. Must have been a brain fart.

Have to get back on my PC. My fingers are too big.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Okay. I think I understand the misunderstanding better.

I slid in protectionism kind of sideways and didn't intend for it to come

out the way it did, TNT. I agree that we should be competing with all

forms of labor and goods, except subsidized labor markets, or slave

labor markets. And by the use of protectionism, I don't mean to get into

tariff wars with other countries.

I did mean to say that if we gave incentive to our labor force to work,

by getting rid of all the welfare subsidies, we would allow capitalism to

flourish. The union angle of protectionism is not what I meant. That's

where history shows too much manipulation from politics and union

power is too centrally organized. They become governments.

If that's done, there is no reason to not compete with foreign labor

markets. That's why there are some great points to where Drewsett is

taking his idea, because there is competition allowed.

For capitalism to work, liberty has to prevail. That includes allowing

one to be able to sink or swim on his own efforts, not government

subsidies. Just like Reagan said, "Government is the problem".

Market controls only attempt to determine an outcome where goals

are set by people who don't know anything about markets.

My only argument is, which is first, the horse or the cart?

I hope that makes better sense. Complex issue, isn't it? There's

a lot of room to be able for central planners to screw around with

capitalism.

[Guest mcgyver210]

There should be no rights for illegals since all of them are Criminals Period & they should be deported back to Mexico or where ever they are from & made to enter this country legally. As far as our borders if you cross illegally it should be perfectly fine to use force on anyone crossing. Illegals are not a positive at all they have & still do hurt our economy.