Americans First – Citizenism as a Moral Principle to Regulate Immigration

[Benvolio]

That immigration has always benefitted the United States throughout its entire history, even including periods of time where the foreign-born immigrant population was of a much higher proportion than it is today.

Allowing immigration and working on an economic structure which offers decent employment and decent compensation are not mutually exclusive. You have never offered anything other than a circumstantial argument along the lines of "look how many immigrants came in, now look at the unemployment rate." Unless there was an enormously high surge of immigration during the Bush years, your argument falls apart as an explanation for the unemployment rate, which has a lot more to do with the economic collapse which was brought about by unregulated domestic speculation in the housing market--- not by immigrants.

You don't substantiate any of the things you claim---- probably because the facts don't support your position.

So, I guess you believe immigrants come in but don't take jobs. All criminals? The critical point is that if we stopped immigration, Americans, including minority Americans, would have more chances for jobs, free from competition from outsiders willing to work cheap. Employers would have to recruit and train Americans.

 

[xbuzzerx]

So, I guess you believe immigrants come in but don't take jobs. All criminals? The critical point is that if we stopped immigration, Americans, including minority Americans, would have more chances for jobs, free from competition from outsiders willing to work cheap. Employers would have to recruit and train Americans.

I think that immigration has waxed and waned over different periods but that the lowest end jobs in the U.S. haven't paid a reasonably living wage for decades and has never had an observable relationship with the current state of immigration. And you seem to feel it's fine for minimum wage to not be enough for someone to exist off, despite the fact that 74% of the people working them are not schoolkids, the average age of a minimum wage worker is 29, and 28% have college educations. If you had a reasonable minimum wage and proper employment law enforcement, you'd have employers facing two choices: hire and pay Americans properly (and raise any costs that have been unsustainably too low because of minimum wage labor, as I have said before I do not mind giving up $3.99 breakfast specials if it means someone can actually live off the job of making it for me) or face potentially serious fines and penalties for illegal hiring.

Yes, I think if an employer's choice is between an immigrant who struggles with English or an American for exactly the same wage, there won't be much in the immigrant's favor for hiring purposes.

But-- you oppose this idea. You want corporations to dictate the terms, and you want wages to rise ONLY as a theoretical side effect of cutting off immigration, something we have little reason to believe would happen.

 

[Kulindahr]

I think that immigration has waxed and waned over different periods but that the lowest end jobs in the U.S. haven't paid a reasonably living wage for decades and has never had an observable relationship with the current state of immigration. And you seem to feel it's fine for minimum wage to not be enough for someone to exist off, despite the fact that 74% of the people working them are not schoolkids, the average age of a minimum wage worker is 29, and 28% have college educations. If you had a reasonable minimum wage and proper employment law enforcement, you'd have employers facing two choices: hire and pay Americans properly (and raise any costs that have been unsustainably too low because of minimum wage labor, as I have said before I do not mind giving up $3.99 breakfast specials if it means someone can actually live off the job of making it for me) or face potentially serious fines and penalties for illegal hiring.

Yes, I think if an employer's choice is between an immigrant who struggles with English or an American for exactly the same wage, there won't be much in the immigrant's favor for hiring purposes.

But-- you oppose this idea. You want corporations to dictate the terms, and you want wages to rise ONLY as a theoretical side effect of cutting off immigration, something we have little reason to believe would happen.

It's hard to fathom that these "Close the borders!" fans don't grasp that Americans aren't going to take the shit jobs for slave wages, which is what minimum wage is at present. It used to be that shoveling out a dairy barn floor after milking, then hosing it down, paid enough to live on, which is why people were willing to take such jobs. But even Mexican immigrants, many of whom are among the hardest workers I've ever seen, won't do that job for minimum wage; most wouldn't do it for the moderate amount President Obama is proposing as minimum wage (the going rate for such work here is around $12/hr).

Desperate people will take a lot of jobs just to have some sort of income, but there are still plenty no American will take unless it pays a living wage. It's a cost-benefit situation, really: the benefit of having such jobs is not worth the cost of the effort to many, many people.

Wages would have more upward pressure from the GOP not blocking job-creation-enabling legislation than from shutting down immigration 100% right now. But they've shown they'd rather have twelve million people sitting unemployed than give Obama anything that might resemble a victory.

 

[TX-Beau]

I can't believe y'all are actually arguing immigration with Border Fence Ben.

I tried to find a tilting at windmills gif but was unable to find one, so you'll just have to imagine it.

 

[pat grimshaw]

 

[xbuzzerx]

^ Says the guy who is here only to troll the discussion, and lives in a country with a 16.88/hour minimum wage.

 

[pat grimshaw]

^ ….the discussion….

It's hardly a discussion.

There's one set of JUBBers with grid-locked jaws on side talking AT another set of JUBBers with grid-locked jaws on the other side.

No meeting of the minds. No minds changed.

 

[xbuzzerx]

It's hardly a discussion.

There's one set of JUBBers with grid-locked jaws on side talking AT another set of JUBBers with grid-locked jaws on the other side.

No meeting of the minds. No minds changed.

Thank you for your contribution to nothing, then.

 

[Benvolio]

I think that immigration has waxed and waned over different periods but that the lowest end jobs in the U.S. haven't paid a reasonably living wage for decades and has never had an observable relationship with the current state of immigration. And you seem to feel it's fine for minimum wage to not be enough for someone to exist off, despite the fact that 74% of the people working them are not schoolkids, the average age of a minimum wage worker is 29, and 28% have college educations. If you had a reasonable minimum wage and proper employment law enforcement, you'd have employers facing two choices: hire and pay Americans properly (and raise any costs that have been unsustainably too low because of minimum wage labor, as I have said before I do not mind giving up $3.99 breakfast specials if it means someone can actually live off the job of making it for me) or face potentially serious fines and penalties for illegal hiring.

Yes, I think if an employer's choice is between an immigrant who struggles with English or an American for exactly the same wage, there won't be much in the immigrant's favor for hiring purposes.

But-- you oppose this idea. You want corporations to dictate the terms, and you want wages to rise ONLY as a theoretical side effect of cutting off immigration, something we have little reason to believe would happen.

We do know that only asmall percentage of wage earners are actually paid the minimum. 4.7%. Most are paid more because employers value their experience and competence. It is good business to keep good employees who know their jobs rather than trying to recruit new ones. It will astonish you to know that employers do not conform to your Simon LaGree sterotype.

 

[Kulindahr]

We do know that only asmall percentage of wage earners are actually paid the minimum. 4.7%. Most are paid more because employers value their experience and competence. It is good business to keep good employees who know their jobs rather than trying to recruit new ones. It will astonish you to know that employers do not conform to your Simon LaGree sterotype.

If you count those making state minimums as well, plus salaried workers whose annual income falls below full-time minimum wage, it's a bit higher, on the order of 8%. The portion is dropping, though, and if companies such as Walmart that could easily afford to pay more would do so, the percentage could be dropped under 3%.

But that's still millions of people not being paid enough to live on.

 

[xbuzzerx]

If you count those making state minimums as well, plus salaried workers whose annual income falls below full-time minimum wage, it's a bit higher, on the order of 8%. The portion is dropping, though, and if companies such as Walmart that could easily afford to pay more would do so, the percentage could be dropped under 3%.

But that's still millions of people not being paid enough to live on.

Also as I already pointed out to Ben... someone making 50 cents above minimum wage is not much better off, but would still qualify as "making above minimum wage."

 

[Benvolio]

If you count those making state minimums as well, plus salaried workers whose annual income falls below full-time minimum wage, it's a bit higher, on the order of 8%. The portion is dropping, though, and if companies such as Walmart that could easily afford to pay more would do so, the percentage could be dropped under 3%.

But that's still millions of people not being paid enough to live on.

Exactly. The minimum wage does not help those out of work and instead raises the prices they pay. Stopping immigration will put more Americans into jobs, while causing employers to pay more for good help.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Exactly. The minimum wage does not help those out of work and instead raises the prices they pay. Stopping immigration will put more Americans into jobs, while causing employers to pay more for good help.

Placing attractive wages on jobs will motivate Americans to compete for jobs that immigrants currently occupy. And few to no employers would hire someone who struggles with English over someone who speaks it fluently if all other considerations were equal.

You're against that, though.

 

[Benvolio]

Placing attractive wages on jobs will motivate Americans to compete for jobs that immigrants currently occupy. And few to no employers would hire someone who struggles with English over someone who speaks it fluently if all other considerations were equal.

You're against that, though.

Once again, that leaves millions of immigrants in the country but unemployed. Crime anyone? But actually, it is against the law to favor Americans over legal immigrants. Poor language skills is just another disability which the employer will be punished for. Higher wages just a good reason for millions more to come.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Once again, that leaves millions of immigrants in the country but unemployed. Crime anyone? But actually, it is against the law to favor Americans over legal immigrants. Poor language skills is just another disability which the employer will be punished for. Higher wages just a good reason for millions more to come.

What a load of bull. Every single job I've ever hired for demanded "good communication skills" in the ad and required a verbal face to face interview before the hiring. Had I not been hired because someone "didn't like the quality of my English", I would have never known that was the reason.

 

[Benvolio]

What a load of bull. Every single job I've ever hired for demanded "good communication skills" in the ad and required a verbal face to face interview before the hiring. Had I not been hired because someone "didn't like the quality of my English", I would have never known that was the reason.

Perhaps, but an alien cannot be discriminated against in favor of an America. Turning down an alien because of poor English is an invitation for a law suit. But I admit that I have not had your vast experience in and out of jobs. We can only guess why so many.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Perhaps, but an alien cannot be discriminated against in favor of an America. Turning down an alien because of poor English is an invitation for a law suit. But I admit that I have not had your vast experience in and out of jobs. We can only guess why so many.

This is absolute nonsense. There is no mass requirement for employers to hire employers who cannot speak English to deal with English speaking customers or coworkers, nor is it discrimination to not hire someone monolingual for a position that requires bilingual status.

 

[opinterph]

Perhaps, but an alien cannot be discriminated against in favor of an America.

Nor can “an American” be discriminated against in favor of “an alien.” (I note that the terms you are using here are rather unsophisticated.)

The purpose of anti-discrimination laws is to promote parity among eligible employee recruits.

Turning down an alien because of poor English is an invitation for a law suit.

If command of the English language can be validated as a selection criterion, then it is perfectly legal to select or deselect job candidates on that basis.

I encourage you to invest some time studying employment law.

 

[Kulindahr]

This is absolute nonsense. There is no mass requirement for employers to hire employers who cannot speak English to deal with English speaking customers or coworkers, nor is it discrimination to not hire someone monolingual for a position that requires bilingual status.

Exactly right. A few years back many stores in town posted job openings that required both English and Spanish, while tech businesses were requiring not just English, but college-level English.

 

[Benvolio]

Nor can “an American” be discriminated against in favor of “an alien.” (I note that the terms you are using here are rather unsophisticated.)

The purpose of anti-discrimination laws is to promote parity among eligible employee recruits.




If command of the English language can be validated as a selection criterion, then it is perfectly legal to select or deselect job candidates on that basis.

I encourage you to invest some time studying employment law.

Notice the requirement that the company "validate" command of English. Where? In a lawsuit for one thing. We were talking about "poor" English, not zero English, nor "command of" English, so it is not black and white. If the employer turns down an immigrant because of "poor" English he runs the risk that it will be considered discrimination because the English was "good enough".

Many companies and governmental entities have affirmative action programs which would make it legal to discriminate in favor of an alien against an American.