grandwazoo
Ene 9, 2007, 3:31 AM
Reportar Abuso
|
paul wrote:
> "grandwazoo" <grand@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:12q6coq37j6sqef@corp.supernews.com...
>> paul wrote:
>>> "Rudy Canoza" <rudy-canoza@excite.com> wrote in message
>>> news:eVvoh.7857$pQ3.6538@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>> [re-edited to solve some line break problems]
>>>>
>>>> Set up a program that legalizes it.
>>>
>> Paul, I think the pre-condition of securing the borders is not a realistic
>> possibility. It makes for good emotional campaign issue, as
>
> demanding amnesty (again) and expanded guest worker programs and such as
> pre-conditions to securing the borders is a non starter as well. i
> personally will not consider any of these things while our border remains
> unsecure, and i truly believe that i'm not alone.
I think that is the Mexican standoff. Time waits for no man.
>
>> evidenced by the posters here. We may see some 'big motion' again in the
>> 2008 election. The border fence bill was passed so that the politicians
>> can point to doing something about the 'problem'. The hard facts of
>> economics are at opposition to any meaningful immigration reform. Cheep
>> labor at a time of low unemployment means that wages can only be kept low
>> for Americans, if there is a cheep supply of labor.
>
> and you think that workers will not vote for secure borders when they figure
> this out?
Voting and securing are two things. Of course workers will vote against
continuing the influx of illegas! It is simple supply and demand
economics. The art of politics is to maintain the status quo, while
making big motion.
>
>> The hard reality, IMHO, toward the solution is by way of a Constitutional
>> Amendment that removes the notion of Corporations as Persons for campaign
>> finance purposes. The courts have ruled upon the issue of free speech in
>> the matters of corporations and treats the entities as a person. This is
>> the reason the McCain/Fiengold law has proved such a failure. Campaign
>> finance or 'clean elections' works to a degree in AZ, but it is voluntary.
>> As I understand, a congressman need to generate about $6,000 per day to
>> run for reelection. Nobody is going to come out a be a public champion for
>> cheep labor because they will get creamed, but the subtle understanding is
>> there along with the $1000 a plate diner or what ever the quid pro quo.
>> Senators skate some of this by way of "honorarium" (check it out in the US
>> Constitution.) I conclude that the way to the border is through real
>> campaign finance reform. That is, if I agreed with the notion the border
>> is a problem and not an opportunity.
>
> i have seriously mixed feelings regarding campaign finance reform. as the
> supreme court has pointed out (repeatedly) this involves the question of
> free speech, and i am a big supporter of free speech. erosion of rights
> concerns me whether it is the republicans or the democrats who are doing it.
>
I'm not advocating restrictions on commercial speech. Free speech
wrongly has been equated to money in our election process. He who has
more money has more speech. Which is ok with respect to the market
place, but the monster has the bizarre effect upon our election process.
To me the issue is one of equal protection and due process in our most
important of self governance in a representative democracy. To that
end, we should have the equal voice, otherwise the representatives
represent only those with the money to fund them. What makes sense in a
court, that corporations are persons, does not logically extend to
election campaigns. Can a corporation run as a candidate?
>> That's not to say there are technologies, to a degree, can have an impact
>> upon the border. We can predict that implementing any measure that makes
>> easy border crossing scarce, will increase the cost. That cost is
>> financial and human. Humans will take higher risk, they have taken greater
>> risk just getting to the border, such as riding trains and dealing with
>> criminals. For many, the risk to obtain the promise land is an imperative
>> to survive.
>
> costs of such technologies have been dropping rapidly. technology will make
> higher risk immaterial. we also need to put corporate big whigs in jail for
> hiring illegal workers. this act alone will dramatically reduce the huge
> numbers of border crossers.
>
Why would it make risk immaterial. You assume a perfection that will
never exist. Technology is a two way street, insofar as any system can
be defeated and any fortress taken in time.
Even assuming the technology exist to block 99% of the intruders, the
economic incentives and domination of the political system by those that
need the cheep labor will effectively block the deployment.
>> I still think the way is to open the borders, easy work visa and quick
>> finger prints and a background check. Get caught without the visa, go to
>> prison along with who ever hires you. This will keep a reasonable supply
>> of cheep labor, control the criminals and terrorist and the rising water
>> will lift both our southern neighbors and our boats. Oh, that cheep labor
>> may not be so cheep when minimum wage laws are applied. Word get out that
>> America is the land of good money, but the competition for jobs makes
>> rough. In the meantime, the economies to the south will begin to improve
>> with capital investment from the north.
>
> this has some merit, and can be discussed once the pressure is off the
> border. until that end is in sight, expanded guest worker programs are a
> non-starter.
>
The pressure is on the border. The analogy is pressure. Restrict the
flow and the pressure increases. You can never get to a discussion about
an expanded worker program, since you can never effect the border
protection. I suppose this argument is between the way is should be in a
perfect world, and the way it is in an imperfect world. I'm a pragmatist
rather than an optimist. I don't think you can get there from here.
>> As you know, this more involved to make this work, but that to me is the
>> solution to an opportunity.
>>
>> Or, we can maintain the fiction and China will eat all our lunches.
>> Campaign finance reform is needed, regardless of the border issue.
>
> lol, if we don't get our heads out of our posteriors, china will eat our
> lunches anyway within the next 50-60 years, regardless of border issues.
> some leveling of the field of play for corporations may be needed. i don't
> think that any level of campaign finance reform is going to answer that
> need. not by itself anyway.
Without it we guarantee more of the same and the accumulative effect
compounds. I think your China time horizon is way to long. Try 15 to 25
years. The EU understands the stakes. Too bad that we think we are
immune to the very capitalistic forces that we preach. The North
American trading block is the solution, unless we continue the Pacific
trading block that is working now. It is hard to level multi-national
corporations when you have no sovereignty over the entity because the
home offices are off shore outside of jurisdictions, yet they can pour
millions into your election process.
I was thinking of a project to build a wall. In building the wall, the
cheep labor supply diminishes and the cost of the wall increases. So
that the longer the wall constructed, the shorter the supply of labor to
construct the wall. Seems like Zeno's paradox <smile>
|
