[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Immigration See other Immigration Articles Title: Inviting Mexican Guest Workers Into U.S. Would Worsen Problems Inviting Mexican Guest Workers Into U.S. Would Worsen Problems Insight on the News, August 27, 2001 by James R. Jr. Edwards The Bush administration has announced that it is considering both a mass amnesty of illegal Mexican aliens and a guest-worker program. Both ideas are signs that the administration is in denial regarding immigration. First, guest-worker programs don't work. The U.S. Bracero program from 1942 to 1964 brought in millions of Mexican workers to do field labor. It contained worker safeguards, but guest workers still were exploited. The Bracero program stimulated a flow of illegal immigration after the program ended. Formerly legal workers continued to return illegally. Many settled in the United States with their relatives and friends following them. This guest-worker program sparked a migrant flow much larger than might otherwise have occurred. Related Results * Low immunity to measles and rubella among female guest workers, Northern... * Immigrants, Guest Workers, and Policy Issues: Perspectives on Mexican... * Buca offers discount to Calif. state workers * Delaware North Signs Agreement With Unite Here * Guests in the Machine The Germans also know that there's no such thing as a guest worker. Germany's guest-worker program created a permanent second class of Turkish residents. In fact, all guest-worker schemes suffer a fundamental flaw: There's no way to guarantee that guest workers return home. After guest workers have stayed put a few years, unrelenting pressure builds to grant them permanent residence because they have put down "roots." Second, U.S. workers would go unprotected. Guest workers could flood the labor market in certain job sectors and drive down wages. While lower wages may reduce consumer prices a bit, they reduce America's standard of living even more. Low-skilled native workers and recent immigrants would suffer most from that kind of direct competition. By granting de facto permanent residence, guest-worker programs create the worst of both civic worlds: They preserve a resident's loyalty to the mother country, while undermining civic loyalty and assimilation to what actually is his new homeland. An amnesty would reward 3 million illegal Mexican aliens already here by putting them first in line for guest-worker visas. Do we really want to send the message throughout the Third World that the United States rewards lawbreakers? This ill-advised proposal comes just at the wrong time. The United States faces a sharp slowdown in economic productivity in the 21st century, according to a recent study by economists at the Boston Federal Reserve Bank. It concludes that mass immigration mostly of uneducated, unskilled people, coupled with low native birthrates and retirement of baby boomers, threatens the growth of productivity. The Boston Fed economists say that, normally, economic output per worker rises when population growth slows. Improving U.S. education levels in the last century spurred the productivity gains we have achieved. Our homegrown workforce of "knowledge workers" has met great challenges and brought about the highest standard of living of any nation. The Boston Fed report estimates that the United States needs a 40 percent gain in labor productivity by 2030 just to keep up our present standard of living. But given present immigration policy, we're importing Third-World standards of living for our children and grandchildren. The U.S. economy doesn't need warm bodies alone, which our present immigration system, proposed guest-worker programs and mass amnesty provide. The United States needs bright individuals who will benefit -- not burden -- our society. Our immigration system should favor individuals who bring certain assets to the table. We should award points toward admission for having earned a college degree, for being proficient in English, for having a proven track record in certain career fields in which we lack workers and for other such criteria. We want such people here permanently. For example, my neighbor immigrated from Italy. He came speaking English fluently and had a college degree. He works in the high-tech sector. He assimilated into American life, became a U.S. citizen and is a valuable member of the community. He easily would have gained admission through a point system. He's the kind of immigrant who will help us achieve the productivity level the nation needs just to keep steady. By contrast, we shouldn't compound our problems by admitting millions of unskilled, uneducated people. Presently, the foreign-born are more than three times as likely to drop out of school as the native-born. Current immigrants are more likely to be unemployed, twice as likely to live in poverty, more likely to take welfare and two-and-a-half times more likely to lack health insurance as natives. We can't afford to keep importing poverty, both for immigrants themselves and for Americans who increasingly will rely on immigrants' productivity to sustain our standard of living and to fund Social Security and Medicare for baby boomers. The Boston Fed report should serve as a wake-up call to both political parties that cheap foreign labor cannot be sustained if the United States is to remain a thriving society. It's time to get serious about immigration reform. James R. Edwards Jr., an adjunct fellow at the Hudson Institute, coauthored The Congressional Politics of Immigration Reform.
Poster Comment: here's an article from 2001. We should understand that the Republicans have been working to restore an economic and political atmosphere of slavery in our country for a long time. When you have people who are not free to quit a job and go take another job legally, then you have a form of slavery. The republicans have been systematically trying as hard as they can to give us such situations for a long period of time. 1986 - republicans orchestrated the 'immigration reform' bill where employers were sheltered from harm when they hire illegal immigrants if they first take photo-copies of their legal docs. they did this knowing full well that fake docs would be produced in a black market thus producing a flood of illegal immigration. I remind you that the illegal immigrants are illegal and thus the employers like them as they are not really free citizens who have legal rights. late 1980's - the republicans brought forth all kinds of special work visa programs where semi-slaves were brought in to drive down wages. One American born US citizen graduated from Princeton University in the mid 1990's with a 4.0 GPA in electrical engineering. For one year he sought a job on a full-time basis. He received no job offers. He quit looking after 1 year. 1990's - the republicans expanded these visa programs greatly. At the peak we had 195,000 h1-b visa people coming each year. then we had several other visa programs as well. Employers will always prefer to hire people who cannot quit, people who don't have the legal status to stay in our country if they reject the demands of the employer or the terms of employment. Employers will always prefer semi-slaves over free citizens. 2000's - president bush did introduce legislation that would bring many millions to our country through guest worker programs. The Heritage Foundation estimated back in 2006 that if legislation under consideration would pass, then this would mean 100 million new legal immigrants to our country by 2020. and most troubling of all - these new people would many of them not have full legal rights. Today - republicans are telling us right and left that we need guest workers. The illegal immigrants are guest workers.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All (#0)
the people who rule us tried slavery in our country in the past. It has a negative result. The slaves who were here developed a culture among themselves where they avoided being productive. They knew their owner had to provide for them. They knew they gained nothing by working hard and being productive. They learned to go slow and avoid productivity. But they also learned to be subservient and pretend that they were working. This was not the culture of the slaves in the 1600's and early 1700's. but by 1800 it was, and it just got worse from there. By 1850 slavery was borderline economical and becoming less economical as time went on. By the time the civil war started there were many factories already in the north. But in the south they had very few factories. Why? They tried building factories in the south. Prominent businesspeople involved in the efforts ALWAYS preferred slave labor over free labor. In the north they used free labor because free labor was legal and slave labor was not. But in the south slave labor was legal. the business class could not imagine that more expensive free labor was superior to slave labor. Yet it was. The northern factories prospered. The southern factories failed. This is history. Slavery was an institution that not just harmed the slaves. It harmed the rest of society in the south by stunting economic growth, keeping wages down and destroying opportunity. This is our history with slavery. and then, slavery also created a great division in our nation. Where the descendants of slaves were very alienated. and there were ethnic rivalries because of these things. needless to say 650,000 Americans died in the civil war. I don't think we benefited from slavery. Today our politicians want to bring back a form of slavery to our country. Unlike in the 1600's we have a democracy now. In the 1600's the king of england could dictate that slavery be made a legal institution. Today is different. Today we elect the dictators who in turn wish to give us slavery. We are too stupid and dysfunctional to reasonably rule our own country. Look at all these idiots in our country who shout about illegal immigration - and vote republican. Republicans who will give us guest workers to solve the problem (the problem that they created). Look at the Democrats being dysfunctional on this issue. They are the majority. and they can't even bring order on this issue.
Psalms 137:1 By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion.
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
[Register]
|
||