|
Post by gypsymama on Sept 5, 2017 23:47:24 GMT
And as long as we can each state our viewpoints without calling each other names, I'm cool with everyone stating what they think and feel. that seems very post police-ish. i doubt anyone cares what a "30 day" poster thinks anyway.
|
|
|
Post by #notLauren on Sept 5, 2017 23:49:56 GMT
You obviously care since you took the time to respond with the usual double-talk nonsense. But then, if you feel you simply can't communicate without name calling then you have far greater issues than whether or not to respond to my posts.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Sept 5, 2017 23:50:14 GMT
I'm talking about our current policies of granting amnesty or some type of deferral of action to people who come to this country in violation of our laws. As for the children of these people, no it's not their fault. But that shouldn't necessarily translate into a right to stay. That's odd; the thread was about DACA. What other policies of amnesty or deferral are you talking about?
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Sept 5, 2017 23:51:27 GMT
And I'd still love to know who will compensate the people of Texas for our loss when you send all these folks back where they came from.
|
|
|
Post by #notLauren on Sept 5, 2017 23:51:43 GMT
I may be confusing this thread with the other one on this topic. Several posters were talking about a need to overhaul the immigration system. Either way, I think you know that but if you didn't, there's the answer to your question.
|
|
|
Post by #notLauren on Sept 5, 2017 23:52:07 GMT
And I'd still love to know who will compensate the people of Texas for our loss when you send all these folks back where they came from. This makes absolutely no sense.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Sept 5, 2017 23:59:15 GMT
|
|
|
Post by #notLauren on Sept 6, 2017 0:01:08 GMT
Hire Americans or create a system for allowing legal immigrants to come for these jobs, just like we do with the high tech jobs.
You can't cry on the one hand about low wages offered to the American worker and yet support the influx of low cost labor that keeps wages down.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Sept 6, 2017 0:01:14 GMT
I may be confusing this thread with the other one on this topic. Several posters were talking about a need to overhaul the immigration system. Either way, I think you know that but if you didn't, there's the answer to your question. But these are not policies that are already in place, as your comment seemed to imply. We have no amnesty program and no deferred action program except DACA.
|
|
|
Post by compeateropeator on Sept 6, 2017 0:02:38 GMT
While there are probably a lot of people who agree with your statement, my guess is President Trump (as relayed by Huckabee-Sanders) does not. I will be curious what his response is if Congress chooses to nothing.
That's their job,” she said, “and if they can't do it, then they need to get out of the way and let somebody else who can take on a heavy lift and get things accomplished.”
She repeated: “Again, if they can't, then they should get out of the way and let somebody else take their job that can actually get something done.”
And then: “Again, if Congress doesn't want to do the job that they were elected to do, then maybe they should get out of the way and let someone else do it.”
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Sept 6, 2017 0:05:16 GMT
Hire Americans or create a system for allowing legal immigrants to come for these jobs, just like we do with the high tech jobs. You can't cry on the one hand about low wages offered to the American worker and yet support the influx of low cost labor that keeps wages down. That's what we haven't done; that's why we're at fault for this mess. We've created a huge market for unskilled labor from outside the country, without also creating a legal avenue for people to come here and do those jobs. That's on us. And I would say that you can't cry about the influx of low cost labor and simultaneously oppose raising the minimum wage. Many of these jobs go unfilled because Americans don't want to do them for a low wage. Republicans oppose raising the minimum wage to a livable level for Americans. How does that make sense?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 20, 2024 14:41:26 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2017 0:06:10 GMT
So wait a minute? You want taxpayers to subsidize those individuals that hire undocumented workers that force them to live in complete squalor and pay them pennies on the dollar? I think those that hire undocumented and illegal workers should suffer the consequences...and yes, if that means we will pay $3 for a head of lettuce, so be it. Companies and individuals need to be hiring those legally able to work in this country. Those that don't are breaking the law just like the illegal workers they're employing.
|
|
|
Post by #notLauren on Sept 6, 2017 0:08:44 GMT
Hire Americans or create a system for allowing legal immigrants to come for these jobs, just like we do with the high tech jobs. You can't cry on the one hand about low wages offered to the American worker and yet support the influx of low cost labor that keeps wages down. That's what we haven't done; that's why we're at fault for this mess. We've created a huge market for unskilled labor from outside the country, without also creating a legal avenue for people to come here and do those jobs. That's on us. And I would say that you can't cry about the influx of low cost labor and simultaneously oppose raising the minimum wage. Many of these jobs go unfilled because Americans don't want to do them for a low wage. Republicans oppose raising the minimum wage to a livable level for Americans. How does that make sense? You use the whole concept of supply and demand for labor. If you decrease the supply of low-wage, unskilled labor, you will create a demand for said labor. In order to fill that demand, employers will have to offer higher wages. Simple economics. Republicans opposed the government imposition of minimum wages, not the system of capitalism that built this country.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Sept 6, 2017 0:10:55 GMT
So wait a minute? You want taxpayers to subsidize those individuals that hire undocumented workers that force them to live in complete squalor and pay them pennies on the dollar? I think those that hire undocumented and illegal workers should suffer the consequences...and yes, if that means we will pay $3 for a head of lettuce, so be it. Companies and individuals need to be hiring those legally able to work in this country. Those that don't are breaking the law just like the illegal workers they're employing. I'm talking about me, as a taxpayer and resident of Texas. I don't hire undocumented workers, but as a taxpayer, I'll have to make up the hit to our economy when money undocumented workers contribute goes away. They pay billions in taxes in this country, and they contribute billions to our economy in Texas. It's the same as if I came to your state and said, OK, we're going to take away a big chunk of your productive, tax-paying citizens. Now have fun with that. Oh and PS - the vast majority of undocumented workers here in the city live in the same kinds of apartments and houses that other people live in. No squalor. They're here - I'll say this one more time for the cheap seats - because no Americans will fill the jobs they do. Sometimes they're entrepreneurs and contribute not only their own taxes but also payroll taxes. They're - gasp! - job creators.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 20, 2024 14:41:26 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2017 0:11:30 GMT
Hire Americans or create a system for allowing legal immigrants to come for these jobs, just like we do with the high tech jobs. You can't cry on the one hand about low wages offered to the American worker and yet support the influx of low cost labor that keeps wages down. That's what we haven't done; that's why we're at fault for this mess. We've created a huge market for unskilled labor from outside the country, without also creating a legal avenue for people to come here and do those jobs. That's on us. And I would say that you can't cry about the influx of low cost labor and simultaneously oppose raising the minimum wage. Many of these jobs go unfilled because Americans don't want to do them for a low wage. Republicans oppose raising the minimum wage to a livable level for Americans. How does that make sense? Let the market determine the wage. Yes, a federal, minimum wage standard needs to be in place, but not a $10 or $15 an hour wage. If McDonalds or Wendy's cannot keep their restaurants staffed with workers that earn $8 or $9 an hour, McDonalds or Wendy's will have to make the decision, on their own, to pay more, or not have the staff to keep the doors open at their restaurant.
|
|
|
Post by #notLauren on Sept 6, 2017 0:14:03 GMT
So wait a minute? You want taxpayers to subsidize those individuals that hire undocumented workers that force them to live in complete squalor and pay them pennies on the dollar? I think those that hire undocumented and illegal workers should suffer the consequences...and yes, if that means we will pay $3 for a head of lettuce, so be it. Companies and individuals need to be hiring those legally able to work in this country. Those that don't are breaking the law just like the illegal workers they're employing. I'm talking about me, as a taxpayer and resident of Texas. I don't hire undocumented workers, but as a taxpayer, I'll have to make up the hit to our economy when money undocumented workers contribute goes away. They pay billions in taxes in this country, and they contribute billions to our economy in Texas. It's the same as if I came to your state and said, OK, we're going to take away a big chunk of your productive, tax-paying citizens. Now have fun with that. These people are not citizens. No matter how many times you claim they are. Along with the money that goes away, are the services needed to provide to illegals. Thus the costs of operating your state's infrastructure and services will go down. Less stress on your schools, your roads, your health care, etc to go along with the decrease taxes collected.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Sept 6, 2017 0:14:19 GMT
That's what we haven't done; that's why we're at fault for this mess. We've created a huge market for unskilled labor from outside the country, without also creating a legal avenue for people to come here and do those jobs. That's on us. And I would say that you can't cry about the influx of low cost labor and simultaneously oppose raising the minimum wage. Many of these jobs go unfilled because Americans don't want to do them for a low wage. Republicans oppose raising the minimum wage to a livable level for Americans. How does that make sense? Let the market determine the wage. Yes, a federal, minimum wage standard needs to be in place, but not a $10 or $15 an hour wage. If McDonalds or Wendy's cannot keep their restaurants staffed with workers that earn $8 or $9 an hour, McDonalds or Wendy's will have to make the decision, on their own, to pay more, or not have the staff to keep the doors open at their restaurant. This makes no sense at all. Better to close the restaurant down and employ no one at all than to raise the wage to a level that Americans are willing to work for?
|
|
|
Post by #notLauren on Sept 6, 2017 0:15:03 GMT
That's what we haven't done; that's why we're at fault for this mess. We've created a huge market for unskilled labor from outside the country, without also creating a legal avenue for people to come here and do those jobs. That's on us. And I would say that you can't cry about the influx of low cost labor and simultaneously oppose raising the minimum wage. Many of these jobs go unfilled because Americans don't want to do them for a low wage. Republicans oppose raising the minimum wage to a livable level for Americans. How does that make sense? Let the market determine the wage. Yes, a federal, minimum wage standard needs to be in place, but not a $10 or $15 an hour wage. If McDonalds or Wendy's cannot keep their restaurants staffed with workers that earn $8 or $9 an hour, McDonalds or Wendy's will have to make the decision, on their own, to pay more, or not have the staff to keep the doors open at their restaurant. Or, make a decision to move to robotics and away from human personnel; which is what McDonalds and other minimum wage employers have already started doing.
|
|
|
Post by #notLauren on Sept 6, 2017 0:15:48 GMT
Let the market determine the wage. Yes, a federal, minimum wage standard needs to be in place, but not a $10 or $15 an hour wage. If McDonalds or Wendy's cannot keep their restaurants staffed with workers that earn $8 or $9 an hour, McDonalds or Wendy's will have to make the decision, on their own, to pay more, or not have the staff to keep the doors open at their restaurant. This makes no sense at all. Better to close the restaurant down and employ no one at all than to raise the wage to a level that Americans are willing to work for? From the business owner's point of view, that may very well be the most viable option.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Sept 6, 2017 0:17:22 GMT
I'm talking about me, as a taxpayer and resident of Texas. I don't hire undocumented workers, but as a taxpayer, I'll have to make up the hit to our economy when money undocumented workers contribute goes away. They pay billions in taxes in this country, and they contribute billions to our economy in Texas. It's the same as if I came to your state and said, OK, we're going to take away a big chunk of your productive, tax-paying citizens. Now have fun with that. These people are not citizens. No matter how many times you claim they are. Along with the money that goes away, are the services needed to provide to illegals. Thus the costs of operating your state's infrastructure and services will go down. Less stress on your schools, your roads, your health care, etc to go along with the decrease taxes collected. In terms of their contribution to the economy, it doesn't matter if they're citizens or not. Clearly you didn't read the article I posted, because if you'd had, you'd know that illegal immigrants are a significant net boon to the economy. (There are lots of studies that show this if you do a little research.) We'd be saving on infrastructure, but still suffer a net loss to our economy. So who's going to make up that loss to us? I don't want to pay higher property taxes or sales tax because you decided to deport my neighbors.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Sept 6, 2017 0:18:28 GMT
This makes no sense at all. Better to close the restaurant down and employ no one at all than to raise the wage to a level that Americans are willing to work for? From the business owner's point of view, that may very well be the most viable option. How on earth is it better for the business owner to have no business at all?
|
|
|
Post by #notLauren on Sept 6, 2017 0:20:04 GMT
At some point, the costs outweigh the benefits. Many businesses are near that point and the minimum wage increases push them over the edge.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 20, 2024 14:41:26 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2017 0:20:34 GMT
Let the market determine the wage. Yes, a federal, minimum wage standard needs to be in place, but not a $10 or $15 an hour wage. If McDonalds or Wendy's cannot keep their restaurants staffed with workers that earn $8 or $9 an hour, McDonalds or Wendy's will have to make the decision, on their own, to pay more, or not have the staff to keep the doors open at their restaurant. This makes no sense at all. Better to close the restaurant down and employ no one at all than to raise the wage to a level that Americans are willing to work for? You missed the point. It's better to let the restaurant, and the market conditions determine what they pay their workers and whether or not they have workers to pay. If someone doesn't want to work for $8 or $9 an hour...don't.
|
|
PLurker
Prolific Pea
Posts: 9,744
Location: Behind the Cheddar Curtain
Jun 28, 2014 3:48:49 GMT
|
Post by PLurker on Sept 6, 2017 0:20:50 GMT
In your opinion, he took the morally "right" action. Many Americans disagree with your assessment. Trump is now taking the same legal route to repeal DACA. However, he's deferred it 6 months to give Congress a chance to act. Executive actions are "legal". No one disputes this. BUT, executive actions are easily undone. Obama knew these when he used it to implement DACA. He was banking on Hillary's winning the election. He backed the wrong horse and now finds his successor with the same "legal" options. In my opinion he has had no problem signing EOs at record rate and he's deferred it 6 months for his own personal reasons. That's why I think he does every.thing. Personal reasons-he, himself and "I'. My opinion of him was formed by reading and information out there long before he became a reality star or ran for office- I simply think he is a not very good person and is ill-fitted to serve as POTUS or any office that is to serve others. He serves himself. He may do something I agree with (not yet) but it will only be because it serves him and little other reason, in my opinion. He is probably deferring it so the buck doesn't stop with him- he doesn't have to take a real stand on a hot topic/controversial issue. It can become someone else's and "not my fault". And/or he can use it as a bargaining chip for something. Like his wall. In my opinion, unless it just happens to coincide with what's best for him, trump does little for moral reasons, even if it is the 'right moral decision'. That would just be a coincidence.
|
|
peasquared
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,458
Jul 6, 2014 23:59:59 GMT
|
Post by peasquared on Sept 6, 2017 0:21:46 GMT
Hire Americans or create a system for allowing legal immigrants to come for these jobs, just like we do with the high tech jobs. You can't cry on the one hand about low wages offered to the American worker and yet support the influx of low cost labor that keeps wages down. Say this happens and they are deported, God forbid, the systems for legally allowing workers to come to the U.S. (ie H2A) will not allow a worker that has been previously deported back in. Regardless of the situation. So, that means none of those poor Dreamers would be allowed back to work.
|
|
|
Post by #notLauren on Sept 6, 2017 0:22:13 GMT
These people are not citizens. No matter how many times you claim they are. Along with the money that goes away, are the services needed to provide to illegals. Thus the costs of operating your state's infrastructure and services will go down. Less stress on your schools, your roads, your health care, etc to go along with the decrease taxes collected. In terms of their contribution to the economy, it doesn't matter if they're citizens or not. Clearly you didn't read the article I posted, because if you'd had, you'd know that illegal immigrants are a significant net boon to the economy. (There are lots of studies that show this if you do a little research.) We'd be saving on infrastructure, but still suffer a net loss to our economy. So who's going to make up that loss to us? I don't want to pay higher property taxes or sales tax because you decided to deport my neighbors. Did you read your own post? You made the comment about taking away a large chunk of your "tax-paying citizens". As far as your property taxes being raised, weren't you one who has stated you'd gladly pay more taxes for a variety of liberal causes? Why would you be opposed to paying more taxes to insure that the wages for actual citizens goes up and that the actual citizens will contribute to the tax base?
|
|
|
Post by #notLauren on Sept 6, 2017 0:24:44 GMT
In your opinion, he took the morally "right" action. Many Americans disagree with your assessment. Trump is now taking the same legal route to repeal DACA. However, he's deferred it 6 months to give Congress a chance to act. Executive actions are "legal". No one disputes this. BUT, executive actions are easily undone. Obama knew these when he used it to implement DACA. He was banking on Hillary's winning the election. He backed the wrong horse and now finds his successor with the same "legal" options. In my opinion he has had no problem signing EOs at record rate and he's deferred it 6 months for his own personal reasons. That's why I think he does every.thing. Personal reasons-he, himself and "I'. My opinion of him was formed by reading and information out there long before he became a reality star or ran for office- I simply think he is a not very good person and is ill-fitted to serve as POTUS or any office that is to serve others. He serves himself. He may do something I agree with (not yet) but it will only be because it serves him and little other reason, in my opinion. He is probably deferring it so the buck doesn't stop with him- he doesn't have to take a real stand on a hot topic/controversial issue. It can become someone else's and "not my fault". And/or he can use it as a bargaining chip for something. Like his wall. In my opinion, unless it just happens to coincide with what's best for him, trump does little for moral reasons, even if it is the 'right moral decision'. That would just be a coincidence. Well, at least you're honest enough to preface your remarks with "In my opinion" rather than making them sound like facts like so many others here do. As far as the EO, he's undoing much of what Obama did by EO and shouldn't have. These issues belong with the legislative branch of our government.
|
|
|
Post by monklady123 on Sept 6, 2017 0:27:04 GMT
Back on page 1 you said you were "out of here". So why are you still here? Because last I saw, you weren't the post police. So I'll post when and where I want; no explanations owed to you. Of course I'm not. I was merely quoting you, where you said you were "out of here". lol
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Sept 6, 2017 0:27:40 GMT
In terms of their contribution to the economy, it doesn't matter if they're citizens or not. Clearly you didn't read the article I posted, because if you'd had, you'd know that illegal immigrants are a significant net boon to the economy. (There are lots of studies that show this if you do a little research.) We'd be saving on infrastructure, but still suffer a net loss to our economy. So who's going to make up that loss to us? I don't want to pay higher property taxes or sales tax because you decided to deport my neighbors. Did you read your own post? You made the comment about taking away a large chunk of your "tax-paying citizens". As far as your property taxes being raised, weren't you one who has stated you'd gladly pay more taxes for a variety of liberal causes? Why would you be opposed to paying more taxes to insure that the wages for actual citizens goes up and that the actual citizens will contribute to the tax base? Arguing over whether or not they're citizens is a red herring; we're talking about the economic contribution they make. But since you want to argue the point, I'll ask you: what would you call someone who has lived and paid taxes here for decades, volunteered, contributed to the community, raised their children here, created jobs here, possibly fought in the armed services, etc., if not a citizen? My family could probably absorb paying more in taxes or paying higher costs for things like produce, but many families can't. Many families of American citizens can't. That's something we have to consider. It's kind of inconvenient for your narrative that deporting all the illegal immigrants would hurt actual American citizens, isn't it? And yet that's the case.
|
|
lindas
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,160
Jun 26, 2014 5:46:37 GMT
|
Post by lindas on Sept 6, 2017 0:29:59 GMT
God, these damn DACA recipients. Such leeches on our society. Not entirely accurate. While not eligible for federal benefits they are entitled to state benefits, at least in NY, which includes Medicare and welfare. It wouldn't surprise me to find other states do it too.
|
|