*hugs lou dobbs*

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
When people complain about their wages, they should consider that when you add workers to the market (especially those willing to work for less money), the average wage will go down.
 
nbcrusader said:
When people complain about their wages, they should consider that when you add workers to the market (especially those willing to work for less money), the average wage will go down.

Adding to the mix, when you have tax credits that encourage outsourcing, but nothing of the sort to encourage wage increases, the average wage will go down.

The federal government may not control the economy, but they have proven time and time again that they can add incentives to encourage business practices that they prefer. Yet, it always seems that the U.S. government is always anti-labor when it comes to tax laws and credits.

Melon
 
nbcrusader said:
Send jobs overseas or allow cheaper labor to enter the country - either way it is bad news for the existing wage base.

I agree. This is why I tend to think all of our politicians scrambling to legalize illegal immigrants in our nation have little regard for the fact that nearly 3/4 of our nation is uneducated and many of the jobs that Americans supposedly "won't do" are jobs whose wages have been dramatically eroded over the last 25 years or so by the presence of illegal immigrants willing to do it for peanuts.

No, Americans won't work for peanuts, but they will work most jobs at workable wages. And if the illegals weren't there, business would be forced to increase their wages to find an American willing to do it. That is, after all, the other side of capitalism that few want to talk about.

Melon
 
melon said:
No, Americans won't work for peanuts, but they will work most jobs at workable wages. And if the illegals weren't there, business would be forced to increase their wages to find an American willing to do it. That is, after all, the other side of capitalism that few want to talk about.

Bingo!

And it would lead to an even stronger economy.

It is estimated that at least $20 billion is sent to Mexico alone by illegal immigrants. That is a larger source of income than Mexico's oil industry.
 
Last edited:
It's amazing to me how blind our elected politicians have been with this issue over the past 15 years.

The total disregard to overpopulation, environmental degradation and the destruction of the American working class wage scale due to uncontrolled mass immigration is breathtaking in its hubris.

Allowing a foreign leader to dictate our immigration policy, which is the most lenient on Earth, is a big mistake. If something serious isn't done about it this time, I'm afraid some severe consequences will befall all of us down the road.
 
Last edited:
4U2Play said:
It's amazing to me how blind our elected politicians have been with this issue over the past 15 years.

The total disregard to overpopulation, environmental degradation and the destruction of the American working class wage scale due to uncontrolled mass immigration is breathtaking in its hubris.

Living the lavish lifestyle that these politicians live means that they never have to worry about having to relate to the people they theoretically "serve." As such, they have all the time in the world to delay and/or do nothing.

Of course, this goes beyond the issue of immigration.

Melon
 
4U2Play said:
It's amazing to me how blind our elected politicians have been with this issue over the past 15 years.

The total disregard to overpopulation, environmental degradation and the destruction of the American working class wage scale due to uncontrolled mass immigration is breathtaking in its hubris.

Allowing a foreign leader to dictate our immigration policy, which is the most lenient on Earth, is a big mistake. If something serious isn't done about it this time, I'm afraid some severe consequences will befall all of us down the road.


since you're not accepting PM's, i'll just come out and say that i'm really enjoying your contributions to FYM -- you're a unique, thoughtful voice with an original perspective on many issues.

i have nothing to add to this thread, just wanted to give you snaps.
 
Holy shit, a compliment! :shocked:

Or are you being facetious? (no, I'm not paranoid... are you trying to trick me???)

I'm extremely opinionated and all over the map politically, which usually pisses everyone off, so I'm surprised by your comments, thank you. :D

Most everything I have read of yours lately is interesting, too, no joke. I disagree with a lot of your takes, but your posts are always well-written and intelligently thought-out.

I just discovered this forum last week, and I find it truly mind-expanding and enjoyable. It has forced me to reconsider a couple of my positions, which is always a good thing. Who knew U2 had so many smart, cool fans!

Irvine511, I'm surprised you don't have an opinion on this thread, please provide one if you get the chance.

Cheers,
Nick
 
Last edited:
4U2Play said:
Holy shit, a compliment! :shocked:

Or are you being facetious? (no, I'm not paranoid... are you trying to trick me???)

Haha...keeping the discourse civilized and reasonably rational (as you've done so far) will keep FYM, contrary to popular lore, in a relatively happy coexistence between liberals, conservatives, and everyone in between.

Melon
 
4U2Play said:
Yup.

Besides, most of these politicians employ "cheap" (probably illegal, in many cases) housekeepers and gardeners to take care of their mansions, don't they.

I think Nannygate put most politicians on notice that hiring an illegal (an failing to pay social security taxes) is a bar to political career growth.

No that they give a damn how we live anyways.
 
4U2Play said:
Holy shit, a compliment! :shocked:

Or are you being facetious? (no, I'm not paranoid... are you trying to trick me???)

I'm extremely opinionated and all over the map politically, which usually pisses everyone off, so I'm surprised by your comments, thank you. :D


no, no -- i'm being serious. i like the fact that you're unpredictable, since so many of us have been here so long you can almost predict what any given regular poster is going to write before it is even written, so it's nice to have a thoughtful, unpredictable breath of fresh air.

i also think it's important to occasionally toss a bone, so to speak, to some of the regular posters (i usually do this via PM) since it can get heated in here, sort of a reminder that none of this is to be taken personally (and sometimes the reminder is more for myself than anyone else).

as for the article ... i've never lived in a border state (though i live in a neighborhood with a huge Spanish-speaking population) so i'm not terribly familiar with these immigration issues. i have some broad opinions on the issue -- sending people back would be disasterous, immigrants contribute in immeasurable ways, i think America is at it's core a nation for the world so making English the national language is completely racist, and we all know my feelings on Iraq -- but i don't feel qualified to really comment in-depth on this.

and, truth be told, it's simply not as relevant to me as many other issues, and i think all of this stinks of politics -- it seems like a massive distraction on the part of the Bush administration to try and win back some of the conservatives who've left him (by doing something paranoid like calling in the National Guard) and by winning back some of the independents (offering Amnesty), but it looks like it's backfiring on him.

it could also be a ploy by Congressional Republicans seeking a red meat nativist issue that they can use to give themselves some badly needed differentiation from this hapless president who's more of a liability than an asset.
 
On one hand I'm encouraged that America, as a nation, is willing to debate the issue openly unlike European nations that appear to be unwilling to acknowledge their immigration problems. (IMO, no offense meant). But on the other hand, how discouraging is it to hear so many voices that champion their own agenda above the best interests of the nation. Big business, Catholic Church, Labor Unions, kowtowing politicians from both parties, et cetera.

While the issue is new to Washington DC, it would be a mistake to call it a ploy. The problems are many, they are real, they are serious and they are 20 years in the making.
 
INDY500 said:
While the issue is new to Washington DC, it would be a mistake to call it a ploy. The problems are many, they are real, they are serious and they are 20 years in the making.



imho, it's not that the issue is a ploy; it is very much an issue and has been for a while, yes, though it seems as if it has been, in the past, more of a border state issue than a national issue.

it's sudden and immediate elevation to "political crisis" on a national level is a ploy by the Bush administration to change the channel from bad news in Iraq, abysmal approval ratings, and the growing evidence of thorough corruption throughout the Republican party all while there has been no progress made on the religious right wing fundamentalist agenda -- abortion still legal, gays still considered human -- that has so long been promised to them by the Republican party elites.
 
Irvine511 said:

it's sudden and immediate elevation to "political crisis" on a national level is a ploy by the Bush administration to change the channel from bad news in Iraq, abysmal approval ratings

I couldn't agree with you more. Bush has completely ignored immigration issues for 12 years. 6 as president and 6 as governor of Texas. An unequivocal failure.
 
Irvine511 said:
it's sudden and immediate elevation to "political crisis" on a national level is a ploy by the Bush administration to change the channel from bad news in Iraq, abysmal approval ratings, and the growing evidence of thorough corruption throughout the Republican party all while there has been no progress made on the religious right wing fundamentalist agenda -- abortion still legal, gays still considered human -- that has so long been promised to them by the Republican party elites.

Its damned if you do, damned if you don't with this issue.
 
Irvine511 said:




imho, it's not that the issue is a ploy; it is very much an issue and has been for a while, yes, though it seems as if it has been, in the past, more of a border state issue than a national issue.

it's sudden and immediate elevation to "political crisis" on a national level is a ploy by the Bush administration to change the channel from bad news in Iraq, abysmal approval ratings, and the growing evidence of thorough corruption throughout the Republican party all while there has been no progress made on the religious right wing fundamentalist agenda -- abortion still legal, gays still considered human -- that has so long been promised to them by the Republican party elites.

I agree. Bush's political problems are the only reason he's started to talk about immigration reform.
 
Wrong.

First of all, we don't have an immigration problem. We have an illegal alien problem. Important distinction, considering all the bullshit charges of "racism" by the radical Latino groups, certain unions and Big Business.

Secondly, Bush wanted to tackle this serious problem right from the get-go, starting in 2001 when he came into office. He had multiple meetings with Fox at the time, and both of them came up with a kind of mutual agreement on how to implement some needed changes.

Go back and read the newspaper reports if you don't remember.

The reason everything got put on hold was because of 9/11... the previous agreements, which favored Fox's position, rather than concerning themselves with US needs, were thrown out, in light of the new security situation.

Bush and the congressional Republicans should have started re-working the illegal alien problem a lot sooner than 2006, rightly so, but to say that this is a ploy to "get our minds off of Iraq" is absurd.

If they would have started working on this major problem in 2002, 2003, 2004 or 2005, the same charges of "diversion" would have levelled, without merit.

Believe it or not, most people I know here have the ability to worry about Iraq AND worry about illegal aliens flooding across the borders AT THE SAME TIME. This is quite an intellectual feat, I realize.

If anything, it is the pro-illegal alien crowd that tries to divert everyone's attention on this vital issue by calling everyone who opposes them a "racist" or "nativist", thinking that will shut down the debate.

Those overused tactics, happily, are failing this time.
 
Last edited:
well, can't agree.

yes, Bush met with Fox in 2001, and yes this is an issue where i almost agree with him, but it's current elevation to crisis level has been a political calculation, and i think it's rather shrewd on the part of Republicans up for re-election who are dying for ways to differentiate themselves from Bush as well as needing something red meat enough for the nativists that, yes, do make up much of the Republican base that feels betrayed by Bush and have threatened to sit out in November.

it's also possible for people to oppose illegal immigration and love illegal immigration and not be racists or nativists -- however, this is not the Republican base and i find it hard to believe that your average "Minute Man" or whatever crackpots are out there "defending" the border aren't motivated by racism and nativism at some level.

are there legitimate reasons to be worried about this issue? absolutely. is calling in the National Guard a means of assuaging such fears? no. is it a way to get the rah-rah yahoos excited? absolutely.

is it immeasurably complex? yes.

the whole issue of making english the "official" language of the US, however, is extremely racist. thankfully, no one thought to do this in the 19th century or else we'd all be speaking German as there was a movement to make German the official language of the US due to all the German-speaking immigrants to the midwest.
 
Some good points, Irvine, but how can making a language a nation's offical tongue be "racist", especially one so widely spoken as English?

Please explain that one.

Is Mexico "racist" for making Spanish its official language?

Is Canada "racist" for making English and French its official languages?

Perhaps you should start a protest against those two "racist" nations first.

Maybe you mean a different word, but since "racist" is used to label and tar everyone from Barry Bonds haters to those who wish to prevent millions of illegal aliens from flooding our country, I can see how meaningless and uselessly political that word has become.

By the way, a relatively unknown movement, called "English Plus", emerged in the 80's and seeks to counter the English Only movement, but I haven't heard much about it lately.


PS. Regarding German becoming the official language of the US, please research the "Muhlenberg Legend" -- that story is false
 
Last edited:
verte76 said:
I agree. Bush's political problems are the only reason he's started to talk about immigration reform.

Illegal immigration has been a serious issue well before Bush took office.

And it is not the type of issue that provide a successful cure to the ills of the administration.

Claiming this is a diversion from other issue is far too simplistic of an analysis.
 
4U2Play said:
Some good points, Irvine, but how can making a language a nation's offical tongue be "racist", especially one so widely spoken as English?

Please explain that one.

Is Mexico "racist" for making Spanish its official language?

Is Canada "racist" for making English and French its official languages?

Perhaps you should start a protest against those two "racist" nations first.

Maybe you mean a different word, but since "racist" is used to label and tar everyone from Barry Bonds haters to those who wish to prevent millions of illegal aliens from flooding our country, I can see how meaningless and uselessly political that word has become.

By the way, a relatively unknown movement, called "English Plus", emerged in the 80's and seeks to counter the English Only movement, but I haven't heard much about it lately.



because the US is different. one of our greatest strengths is that we have no Myth of Origin. no matter how hard i'll try, i'll never be Chinese. any Chinese person can come here and become American. it's a national identity not predicated upon ethnicity, religion, country of origin, or shared language. English is the most widely spoken language, yes, and anyone would be doing themselves a massive disservice if they came here and didn't learn English, and yes, i get irritated when people in stores can't speak English, but i don't see the point of declaring an "official" language when we've never had one. it reminds me of the Federal Marriage Amendment (and the convenient scapegoating of "activist judges") -- some bigots feel threatened, or uncomfortable with an evolving society, so they try and write laws that do little other than make themselves feel better thorugh the denigration of others (in the case of the FMA, belittle gays). the FMA is homophobic at its core because it seeks to distinguish between and then assert the superior "worth" of heterosexual relationships over homosexual ones. making English the official language would do the same thing, only here we're making distinctions between Euro heritage and Latin heritage.


PS. Regarding German becoming the official language of the US, please research the "Muhlenberg Legend" -- that story is false


that would be news to me, but i will look into it.

true or not, it illustrates an important principle -- the most widely spoken language in the United States will vary as history changes. in 200 years, Spanish might well be the most widely spoken language here. in 500 years, it might be Mandarin. i would imagine that in 200 or 500 years the French will still be speaking French, and that's fine. but that arises from a very different sense of what national identity is all about, and our very open, accepting, flexible definition of what an American is remains one of the things about this country of which i am most proud.
 
nbcrusader said:


Illegal immigration has been a serious issue well before Bush took office.

And it is not the type of issue that provide a successful cure to the ills of the administration.

Claiming this is a diversion from other issue is far too simplistic of an analysis.



it's not just a diversion, but it functions as a diversion. we'd all do well not to underestimate the high level of political calcuation that goes into the introduction and/or revival of certain issues -- it all happens on an electoral timetable and according to the wishes of lobbyists. you didn't think that we actually deal with issues according to their importance, did you?

and this issue works very, very well for Republicans seeking re-election. it gives those Republicans from the Northeast who are seeking to appear moderate a way to appear moderate, and those who answer to "the base" a chance to appear like a red-blooded America First-er.
 
Diversion may be a minor benefit of this issue - but it certainly is not the type of issue that is presented for diversion purposes.

I think we need to focus on the substance of this very complicated issue.
 
nbcrusader said:
Diversion may be a minor benefit of this issue - but it certainly is not the type of issue that is presented for diversion purposes.

I think we need to focus on the substance of this very complicated issue.

I say this as someone who will defend Bush on many things but he has shown absolutely zero leadership on this issue other than to play buddy-buddy with Vicente Fox. If he was so was concerned about border security why wait 4&1/2 years to do anything about it? Why call the Minutemen "vigilantes" and "unneeded" last year and then turn around and call for National Guard deployment at the border this year? What has changed? The politics, pure and simple.

I'll not pretend that there are any simple answers but...until such time as Mexico, as a nation, is able to provide it's growing population with a strong vibrant economy which supplies ample jobs at close to U.S. market wages, I look for any laws passed in America will be bandaids at best. And millions of Mexicans will continue to seek a better life here. Legally or illegally.

Sorry to be so negative. I enjoy the discussion on this board, but the disconnect on this issue between the elites and "the working Joes" really bugs me.
 
nbcrusader said:
Diversion may be a minor benefit of this issue - but it certainly is not the type of issue that is presented for diversion purposes.

Actually, this is precisely the kind of issue presented for diversion purposes. The "Bear Patrol" episode of "The Simpsons" was great; their expensive and unpopular program was under severe public criticism, so what was Mayor Quimby's response? Blaming illegal immigrants, thus changing the subject and averting criticism of the "Bear Patrol." Quite a prophetic episode, considering it was done several years before President Bush's first election.

Likewise, we're dealing with an widely unpopular president and Congress, so who do we blame for all the nation's problems? Illegal immigrants, of course! Unfortunately, reigning in illegal immigrants alone isn't going to change the fact that the American economy is increasingly hostile to the nearly 3/4 of Americans who are considered "uneducated," and is going to do nothing to stop American corporations from closing shop and going abroad for their cheap labor. Who needs to hire illegals when you can legally set up shop at the source?

But, hey...it's an election year. As long as voters are deceived until Election Day, who cares about short-sighted pandering?

Melon
 
ah, the genius of mid-1990s Simpsons episodes ...

[q]Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm.

Lisa: That's spacious reasoning, Dad.

Homer: Thank you, dear.

Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.

Homer: Oh, how does it work?

Lisa: It doesn't work.

Homer: Uh-huh.

Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.

Homer: Uh-huh.

Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
[Homer thinks of this, then pulls out some money]

Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.
[Lisa refuses at first, then takes the exchange][/q]



[q]Homer: Woo-hoo! A perfect day. Zero bears and one big fat hairy paycheck.
[opens it up] Hey! How come my pay is so low? ... Bear patrol tax! This is an outrage! It's the biggest tax increase in history!

Lisa: Actually, Dad, it's the smallest tax increase in history.

Homer: Let the bears pay the bear tax. I pay the Homer tax.

Lisa: That's home-owner tax.

Homer: Well, anyway, I'm still outraged.
[/q]



[q] Lisa: I don't see how you can support Proposition 24, Dad.

Homer: Open your eyes, Lisa! Our schools are so jam-packed with immigrants, people like Bart have lost the will to learn!

Bart: There's no denying it, Sis.
[/q]



[q]Moe: You know what really aggravazes me? It's them immigants. They wants all the benefits of living in Springfield, but they ain't even bother to learn themselves the language.

Homer: Hey, those are exactly my sentimonies.
[/q]
 
Back
Top Bottom