R
redbetta
Guest
The migrants filed a lawsuit or was it their handlers who organized all of this?
- Status
H
HarryStotle
Guest
But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. (1 Timothy 5:8)HarryStotle:
My claim is this:
One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”
“The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.
Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’
The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.” Mark 12.
1
13pollitos
Guest
Most of the people that make this journey don’t have the knowledge to do something like that. I have a feeling if this is accurate, it was either the “advocacy” groups (that do more harm than good) or the few that are returning to the US after deportations or voluntarily leaving.
1
13pollitos
Guest
It can be argued that this is just what the migrants are doing. Most just want to provide for their households.
M
midori
Guest
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Actually, it would be more like making much more profitable those corrupt businesses that are willing to pay illegals a fraction of what they would if they hired from the existing labour pool, thereby being unfair to both those they employ and those they can choose not to.
Unscrupulous business owners love the fact that a large influx of cheap labour depresses the cost of labour. Serves to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.
Last edited:
M
midori
Guest
So, I’m a landlord.
After I dropped my kids off at school, I went to go meet with some tenants for their walk-through. They have permission to stay in the US and work for 9 months, but then they have to leave the country for 3 months. Then they can come back and work for another 9 months. When they’re in the US, they work in one of the local factories. When they’re in Mexico, they work in agriculture. They started off only being able to work here for three months before having to leave for a period; in a little while longer, they’ll be able to stay permanently and work year-round.
It’s been a long time since I had anyone be so diligent in returning their house to me. I was really impressed. They got their full SD refund on the spot-- which I never do.
The next time they come back, I hope I have something that fits their needs, because I’d love to rent to them again.
But that’s the way you do it. You follow the rules. Bypassing the rules is an insult to all the foreign nationals who are very diligent in jumping through the hoops.
If we ever wanted to change the bureaucracy, I’d support that 100%. But you don’t change the rules by ignoring the rules— you change the rules by looking at the law and following the process to change the laws that are deemed too onerous.
After I dropped my kids off at school, I went to go meet with some tenants for their walk-through. They have permission to stay in the US and work for 9 months, but then they have to leave the country for 3 months. Then they can come back and work for another 9 months. When they’re in the US, they work in one of the local factories. When they’re in Mexico, they work in agriculture. They started off only being able to work here for three months before having to leave for a period; in a little while longer, they’ll be able to stay permanently and work year-round.
It’s been a long time since I had anyone be so diligent in returning their house to me. I was really impressed. They got their full SD refund on the spot-- which I never do.
The next time they come back, I hope I have something that fits their needs, because I’d love to rent to them again.But that’s the way you do it. You follow the rules. Bypassing the rules is an insult to all the foreign nationals who are very diligent in jumping through the hoops.
If we ever wanted to change the bureaucracy, I’d support that 100%. But you don’t change the rules by ignoring the rules— you change the rules by looking at the law and following the process to change the laws that are deemed too onerous.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
It can also be argued that countries who declare war and invade other countries are just doing what the migrants are doing – providing for their own household.HarryStotle:
It can be argued that this is just what the migrants are doing. Most just want to provide for their households.
The question still remains whether it is a just way of providing for your own household by taking from someone else without their permission or without any thought regarding what effect your actions will have on those others.
There is a thing called precedent. If foreigners can simply decide to invade a country for their own economic benefit, then what is to stop the entire population of Central and South America from unilaterally deciding to move to the United States to better provide for their households?
By what principle do you decide 10 million would be fine, but 10 million and 1 is too many?
Or, if you universalize the argument, why wouldn’t poor households in the United States equally have a right to take whatever they want from wealthier households near them under the guise that they are merely trying to better provide for their household?
Where does coveting thy neighbor’s goods come into this?
Is justice now a thing imposed like a heavy boot from above that reduces all nations and communities to equal levels of deprivation rather than a question of moral responsibility?
Let’s just destroy the rule of law and ordered society for the sake of temporarily making everyone equal. That way we can revel in our moral rectitude for a time – at least until the law of the jungle and a Hobbesian lifestyle that is short, brutal and nasty re-emerges from the rubble.
D
DENNYINMI
Guest
Far be it for me to criticize the truth about crony capitalism and the exploitation of labor but there is another point regarding the type of work many migrants were employed to do.
The farming industry cannot employ just anyone. Most American farmers have been on a tractor from the time they were knee high to a grasshopper and can safely operate the machinery. Can you fill a silo?
Bailing hay (and even something as minor as knowing the difference between hay and straw) is a learned art of farming as well as a grueling time for the farmers to run the machinery that does it, then load it into their barns. It is NOT all strictly physical labor it requires knowledge as well. List every part of the tractor, now tell me what parts need to attach to it to do the aforementioned job.
Safety would be a major concern without the farming knowledge to do a job.
How many know the difference between beef cattle and a milk cow? A jersey vs an angus short horn cross?
How many know that a barb-wire fence cannot be cut during a repair? It will come back to wrap you like a whirl wind fury.
Most Americans unfamiliar with the workings of farm labor would be a major liability on a farm in terms of safety alone, let alone possibly destroying an entire crop. Most Americans unfamiliar with this vocation would not even be able to tell when a field is ripe for harvest, or good soil vs barren.
Some food for thought.
1
13pollitos
Guest
Yes they ARE taken advantage of, but if they didn’t take the jobs they do, no one would take them.
1
13pollitos
Guest
Most immigrants and legitimate employers WANT more work permits available. Immigration reform would help everyone.
blackforest
Well-known member
I will repeat this until the fat lady sings about cows coming home under a blue moon: Coming to the U.S. to seek asylum is legal.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
This is largely a red herring because it argues for admitting legitimate and legal immigrant employees, not illegals.
Can you explain why Caesar Chavez, a farmer worker from Mexico who worked diligently for the rights of Mexican farm laborers, himself guarded the border against an influx of illegals?
From the Wikipedia article on Caesar Chavez.
In 1969, Chavez and members of the UFW marched through the Imperial and Coachella Valleys to the border of Mexico to protest growers’ use of illegal immigrants as strikebreakers. Joining him on the march were Reverend Ralph Abernathy and U.S. Senator Walter Mondale. In its early years, the UFW and Chavez went so far as to report illegal immigrants who served as strikebreaking replacement workers (as well as those who refused to unionize) to the Immigration and Naturalization Service. In 1973, the United Farm Workers set up a “wet line” along the United States-Mexico border to prevent Mexican immigrants from entering the United States illegally and potentially undermining the UFW’s unionization efforts.
More food for thought.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Economic betterment is not a legal reason for granting asylum.midori:
I will repeat this until the fat lady sings about cows coming home under a blue moon: Coming to the U.S. to seek asylum is legal.
And those seeking asylum have been offered that in Mexico, but most have refused. So are they desperate for asylum, or merely seeking economic opportunity? That isn’t asylum.
blackforest
Well-known member
I just spit out my morning coffee when I realized that you and I actually agree on something.
Although - just by way of reminder - these asylees aren’t “illegal” if they apply for asylum.
Although - just by way of reminder - these asylees aren’t “illegal” if they apply for asylum.
blackforest
Well-known member
Government officials review their petitions for asylum and will make that determination.
1
13pollitos
Guest
Because must people I know in real life that want to secure the border actually want to do so for the protection of the migrants as well as our nation. That means that we want protections for people already here, to provide legal means for them to safely get here, be treated with dignity and not subjected to cruel practices, have a path to become legal once here, and deported if they are dangerous.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
My understanding is that claimants for asylum are permitted to enter the country while their case is considered. Then after several years in wait, 94% never show up for their hearing. In the meantime, the issue of birthright citizenship creates an additional factor.
So claiming asylum is largely a pretext for getting into the country. Since anyone can claim it, the procedure is deeply flawed.
I suppose I am not telling you anything you don’t already know.
1
13pollitos
Guest
This is partially correct. If a claim for asylum meets specific criteria, the person or family is allowed entry while it is sorted out. If the criteria is not met, entry is denied.
D
DENNYINMI
Guest
It’s all delicious when important points are pointed out. Enjoy the entre’. There is an important aspect to farming, whether working with livestock or equipment. Many Americans cannot do what migrant farmers were doing because…drum roll>>>>They don’t know how and are safety liabilities.
It was only a point, not subject to argument. Hay (no pun, lol) it is what it is. haha
Last edited:
- Status