First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Legal Workers Line Up for Restaurant Jobs After Sheriff Joe Raids
Posted 1/30/17 , edited 1/30/17

DeadlyOats wrote:
Neither I, nor that reporter represented that ALL degree holders would, out of desperation take that job. Nobody said that was the case.


The OP started with "Americans won't take "lower pay jobs" bullshit this line of over 100 people tell a different story." - this is what I was trying to imply. Just because one person was out in middle of Arizona trying to get an $8 per hour position despite having a master's degree doesn't mean there aren't Americans who won't take lower paying jobs. I wasn't criticizing the woman directly - just that it was a weak argument (so was mine, admittedly) trying to say that it was a lie simply based on this one person.


DeadlyOats wrote:
I never said it was easy to get the H-1B visa. None of the news stories I posted as examples said it was easy to get that visa. What I said, and what was reported, is that it is often abused by American businesses. Businesses don't care how many hurdles the H-1B visa holder had to go through to get their visa. They only care that the H-1B visa holder is highly skilled and competent at what he or she does - and that they can pay him or her tens of thousands of dollars less per year than they were paying the American that was replaced by the visa holder.


Yep, like I mentioned in my initial response (to you) - there are some companies that abuse those who are on H-1B visas. Most of those whom I met that are here on such visas are genuinely awesome people - they care about American values, some are religious (Catholic, Christian, or Hindu), and they all just want to live in a place that's got a lot of potential (aka "The American Dream™"). It's just that some companies will end up hiring them for significantly less than that of those who have the same qualifications but are "bonafide" Americans (native citizens). I know quite a few developers in the area that are on H-1B and are making around $40-50,000 a year - average in the area should be around $70-95k (easily, the higher end of this spectrum is for those with experience).

Basically, I'm agreeing with you on this point.


DeadlyOats wrote:
I wonder why your employer doesn't hire American college students? Or why they don't hire American college graduates, who have trained for the type of work that is done at your business? This is where we get those news stories of Americans who graduated college with a degree, and several certificates under their belt, and they can't get hired.


As someone who's hired most of my team, the answers to your questions vary. I've hired a few citizens that have the required qualifications and certifications as members of my team - but they simply didn't last long. In most of their situations, they wouldn't do as much work as required because it hit their personal time (our customers can be 24/7 and if an issue comes up, it needs to be addressed - my team (development) and support are on-call 24/5 with rotating weekends) or their price point started too high. I would argue for the national average for the position I was hiring for - the potential employee would ask for $30-50k over the national average without budging at all (for example, we'd offer $85k for someone fresh out of college [15k above the national average] and they'd ask for $120-140k).

In the end, it was more efficient and rational to hire those who were willing to do what the job demanded versus those who were not. In the cases that I've hired them, it was because they were fully qualified and they were willing to accept +10k over the national average and they just happened to be someone who was coming off of a student visa. They're all legal citizens of the United States of America though (they've gone through the citizenship exams and all that goodness). They chose to do that process, we didn't pay for anything other than to sponsor their H-1B at the time of employment.

It would be like if someone applied for a job at a fast food joint that is known to pay $8.50 per hour but they're asking for $65,000 a year for 25 hours a week. That's why those who applied didn't get accepted. Not to say that I do not have citizens working in my team - just that there were three occasions where it was "citizen versus immigrant" that I've been in charge of the hiring process and that's why in these situations that the immigrant got the position. (not saying that all people follow this line of reason - just that it was my own personal experience)
15866 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Online
Posted 1/30/17 , edited 1/30/17
Theres plenty of good research done about this and analysis of overall trends, so we don't really need stories like this to give us perspective.

"Overall, illegal immigrants don't have a big impact on U.S. wage rates. The most respected recent studies show that most Americans would notice little difference in their paychecks if illegal immigrants suddenly disappeared from the United States. That's because most Americans don't directly compete with illegal immigrants for jobs. There is one group of Americans that would benefit from a dramatic cut in illegal immigration: high-school dropouts. Most economists agree that the wages of low-skill high-school dropouts are suppressed by somewhere between 3 percent and 8 percent because of competition from immigrants, both legal and illegal. Economists speculate that for the average high-school dropout, that would mean about a $25 a week raise if there were no job competition from immigrants. Illegal immigrants seem to have very little impact on unemployment rates. Illegal workers certainly do take jobs that would otherwise go to legal workers, but illegal workers also create demand that leads to new jobs. They buy food and cars and cell phones, they get haircuts and go to restaurants. On average, there is close to no net impact on the unemployment rate."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5312900
70005 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Oklahoma
Offline
Posted 1/30/17 , edited 1/30/17

sundin13 wrote:

Theres plenty of good research done about this and analysis of overall trends, so we don't really need stories like this to give us perspective.

"Overall, illegal immigrants don't have a big impact on U.S. wage rates. The most respected recent studies show that most Americans would notice little difference in their paychecks if illegal immigrants suddenly disappeared from the United States. That's because most Americans don't directly compete with illegal immigrants for jobs. There is one group of Americans that would benefit from a dramatic cut in illegal immigration: high-school dropouts. Most economists agree that the wages of low-skill high-school dropouts are suppressed by somewhere between 3 percent and 8 percent because of competition from immigrants, both legal and illegal. Economists speculate that for the average high-school dropout, that would mean about a $25 a week raise if there were no job competition from immigrants. Illegal immigrants seem to have very little impact on unemployment rates. Illegal workers certainly do take jobs that would otherwise go to legal workers, but illegal workers also create demand that leads to new jobs. They buy food and cars and cell phones, they get haircuts and go to restaurants. On average, there is close to no net impact on the unemployment rate."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5312900


I would appreciate if they actually cited said "respected recent studies", as this is weasel wording making it difficult for opponents to refute. The article is quite frankly rife with them, making it impossible to verify on one's own without extensive research.

Regardless, I still argue that our high-school dropouts should be making the money and not illegal immigrants - I question if that would have any impact on state spending for welfare as well.
15866 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Online
Posted 1/30/17 , edited 1/30/17

zinjashike wrote:


sundin13 wrote:

Theres plenty of good research done about this and analysis of overall trends, so we don't really need stories like this to give us perspective.

"Overall, illegal immigrants don't have a big impact on U.S. wage rates. The most respected recent studies show that most Americans would notice little difference in their paychecks if illegal immigrants suddenly disappeared from the United States. That's because most Americans don't directly compete with illegal immigrants for jobs. There is one group of Americans that would benefit from a dramatic cut in illegal immigration: high-school dropouts. Most economists agree that the wages of low-skill high-school dropouts are suppressed by somewhere between 3 percent and 8 percent because of competition from immigrants, both legal and illegal. Economists speculate that for the average high-school dropout, that would mean about a $25 a week raise if there were no job competition from immigrants. Illegal immigrants seem to have very little impact on unemployment rates. Illegal workers certainly do take jobs that would otherwise go to legal workers, but illegal workers also create demand that leads to new jobs. They buy food and cars and cell phones, they get haircuts and go to restaurants. On average, there is close to no net impact on the unemployment rate."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5312900


I would appreciate if they actually cited said "respected recent studies", as this is weasel wording making it difficult for opponents to refute.

Regardless, I still argue that our high-school dropouts should be making the money and not illegal immigrants - I question if that would have any impact on state spending for welfare as well.


Well this was taken from a Q&A type interview which typically aren't sourced but I'll dig up a few sources for you, some scientific studies, some not and some with more sources for you to jump into contained within:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/17/magazine/do-illegal-immigrants-actually-hurt-the-us-economy.html
Summary: Wages suppressed 0.4 to 7.8% for high school drop outs but everyone else generally benefits from illegal immigration. Illegal immigration being a minor net positive is the general consensus among economists.
https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/research/economic_blame_game.pdf
Summary: There is little apparent relationship between recent immigration and unemployment rates at the regional, state, or county level. there is no statistically significant relationship between the unemployment rate and the presence of recent immigrants who arrived in 2000 or later.
http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/economic-letter/2010/august/effect-immigrants-us-employment-productivity/
Summary: Statistical analysis of state-level data shows that immigrants expand the economy’s productive capacity by stimulating investment and promoting specialization. This produces efficiency gains and boosts income per worker. At the same time, evidence is scant that immigrants diminish the employment opportunities of U.S.-born workers.
http://www.nber.org/papers/w15507
Summary: We find no evidence that immigrants crowded-out employment and hours worked by natives. At the same time we find robust evidence that they increased total factor productivity, on the one hand, while they decreased capital intensity and the skill-bias of production technologies, on the other.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/jobs/2012/05/04/what-immigration-means-for-u-s-employment-and-wages/
Summary: Economists do not tend to find that immigrants cause any sizeable decrease in wages and employment of U.S.-born citizens and instead may raise wages and lower prices in the aggregate.
http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/003465302317331937#.WI-3o39qySo
Summary: These findings are consistent with two hypotheses: border enforcement has a minimal impact on illegal immigration, and illegal immigration from Mexico has a minimal impact on wages in U.S. border areas.
http://www.epi.org/publication/immigration-facts/
Summary: Just an overview of many of the things I've said.
70005 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Oklahoma
Offline
Posted 1/30/17 , edited 1/30/17

sundin13 wrote:


zinjashike wrote:


sundin13 wrote:

Theres plenty of good research done about this and analysis of overall trends, so we don't really need stories like this to give us perspective.

"Overall, illegal immigrants don't have a big impact on U.S. wage rates. The most respected recent studies show that most Americans would notice little difference in their paychecks if illegal immigrants suddenly disappeared from the United States. That's because most Americans don't directly compete with illegal immigrants for jobs. There is one group of Americans that would benefit from a dramatic cut in illegal immigration: high-school dropouts. Most economists agree that the wages of low-skill high-school dropouts are suppressed by somewhere between 3 percent and 8 percent because of competition from immigrants, both legal and illegal. Economists speculate that for the average high-school dropout, that would mean about a $25 a week raise if there were no job competition from immigrants. Illegal immigrants seem to have very little impact on unemployment rates. Illegal workers certainly do take jobs that would otherwise go to legal workers, but illegal workers also create demand that leads to new jobs. They buy food and cars and cell phones, they get haircuts and go to restaurants. On average, there is close to no net impact on the unemployment rate."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5312900


I would appreciate if they actually cited said "respected recent studies", as this is weasel wording making it difficult for opponents to refute.

Regardless, I still argue that our high-school dropouts should be making the money and not illegal immigrants - I question if that would have any impact on state spending for welfare as well.


Well this was taken from a Q&A type interview which typically aren't sourced but I'll dig up a few sources for you, some scientific studies, some not and some with more sources for you to jump into contained within:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/17/magazine/do-illegal-immigrants-actually-hurt-the-us-economy.html
Summary: Wages suppressed 0.4 to 7.8% for high school drop outs but everyone else generally benefits from illegal immigration. Illegal immigration being a minor net positive is the general consensus among economists.
https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/research/economic_blame_game.pdf
Summary: There is little apparent relationship between recent immigration and unemployment rates at the regional, state, or county level. there is no statistically significant relationship between the unemployment rate and the presence of recent immigrants who arrived in 2000 or later.
http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/economic-letter/2010/august/effect-immigrants-us-employment-productivity/
Summary: Statistical analysis of state-level data shows that immigrants expand the economy’s productive capacity by stimulating investment and promoting specialization. This produces efficiency gains and boosts income per worker. At the same time, evidence is scant that immigrants diminish the employment opportunities of U.S.-born workers.
http://www.nber.org/papers/w15507
Summary: We find no evidence that immigrants crowded-out employment and hours worked by natives. At the same time we find robust evidence that they increased total factor productivity, on the one hand, while they decreased capital intensity and the skill-bias of production technologies, on the other.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/jobs/2012/05/04/what-immigration-means-for-u-s-employment-and-wages/
Summary: Economists do not tend to find that immigrants cause any sizeable decrease in wages and employment of U.S.-born citizens and instead may raise wages and lower prices in the aggregate.
http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/003465302317331937#.WI-3o39qySo
Summary: These findings are consistent with two hypotheses: border enforcement has a minimal impact on illegal immigration, and illegal immigration from Mexico has a minimal impact on wages in U.S. border areas.
http://www.epi.org/publication/immigration-facts/
Summary: Just an overview of many of the things I've said.


Thank you, when I'm feeling a bit better I'll sink some time reading into them - should be pretty interesting.
23260 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 1/30/17 , edited 1/31/17



"Anyone who considers themselves useful" - that's an interesting take. There are some people who work two part-time jobs and are still on welfare because of having a family to feed. Just like you said - "welfare doesn't apply to everyone". Those who manipulate the system are the ones that are causing domino-effect complications with those who deserve it (they work their asses off and aren't able to sustain themselves).


Oh look you changed the scenario again, surprise surprise. Weren't you just talking about people who make about 3K off of welfare a month. Yeah they need to make welfare more difficult to get, too many people abusing and I even know one of them.



This is why I only put down my master's degree on my resume that correlates to the position I'm looking for. For example, I would only put my bachelor's degree and my IT certifications if I were hunting for a development position. Though, if I were applying for a think tank that focuses on statistics or theoretical mathematics - I'd add my Master's degree (whereas I have an entirely different resume for this field).


I've had difficulty getting a job at even lesser jobs as a cashier or doing inventory because of my degree or because I didn't include it. If I had my degree then the whole interview was about "why are you taking a lesser job your overqualified". If I didn't include it then the interview was about "I see this 4 year gap, what did you do during it". Sucks....


No, I'm attacking your "because this one person wants a job that's $8 an hour and has a Master's degree then that means all people with a Master's degree will do a job for $8 per hour" logic. It's mathematically flawed. I know I'd work whatever I can and I have - which I mentioned above that I don't hold the same values as some people I know do (that they're better off living off of unemployment and welfare/disability for their entire lives).


It's not flawed. Making $8 is better than making $0. Did you even learn to math? When your running out of money any job looks good, I know from personal experience.



Unemployment only lasts for so long. Disability only applies to the disabled. Welfare only applies under certain conditions. Are you telling me to go disable myself when I have to choose taking a low paying job? Also by not having a job for so long it hurts my future chances of getting a job so it hurts me in the long run.
1543 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 1/30/17 , edited 1/31/17

gornotck wrote:


DeadlyOats wrote:


shugotenshi-atm wrote:

While I do agree it is relevant today, the reality is most law enforcement largely avoids dealing with illegal workers. After all business owners are the ones hiring them and business owners have sway in local politics.

I'm all for forcing all business owners to hire only legal American work, also known as following the law. But we need to remember that supply and demand is a very real force and if you "can't find workers" to do a job that means the supply is too low for the desired price point. That is, you need to pay more money.

Would you rather work somewhere that pays you $5 an hour to do dishes or $10? The choice is obvious. The former can complain about not having enough workers all they want. The latter will have no issue with finding workers. We consumers need to pay market price for everything we buy; business should have to pay market price for their labor needs.


Let me think... I think that currently, minimum wage is 7.50 not 5.00... So, these businesses are choosing to pay less than minimum wage. What American or legal resident would work for the legal minimum wage that they are entitled to? But how many illegal aliens would be glad to get any wage for any job - especially when one considers that any wage in the U.S. is premium when compared to their home countries' currencies...?


In Arizona, as of January 1, the minimum wage is $10. As of Jan 30, dollars to pesos means that 10 dollars becomes over 200 pesos. Over 4000 pesos a week, even if they only work 20 hours.

Who wants to pay over $4000 a week for a dishwasher?


are you really trying to say a peso is equal to a dollar? even after you mentioned the exchange rate?
23260 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 1/30/17 , edited 1/31/17

ran76 wrote:


gornotck wrote:


DeadlyOats wrote:


shugotenshi-atm wrote:

While I do agree it is relevant today, the reality is most law enforcement largely avoids dealing with illegal workers. After all business owners are the ones hiring them and business owners have sway in local politics.

I'm all for forcing all business owners to hire only legal American work, also known as following the law. But we need to remember that supply and demand is a very real force and if you "can't find workers" to do a job that means the supply is too low for the desired price point. That is, you need to pay more money.

Would you rather work somewhere that pays you $5 an hour to do dishes or $10? The choice is obvious. The former can complain about not having enough workers all they want. The latter will have no issue with finding workers. We consumers need to pay market price for everything we buy; business should have to pay market price for their labor needs.


Let me think... I think that currently, minimum wage is 7.50 not 5.00... So, these businesses are choosing to pay less than minimum wage. What American or legal resident would work for the legal minimum wage that they are entitled to? But how many illegal aliens would be glad to get any wage for any job - especially when one considers that any wage in the U.S. is premium when compared to their home countries' currencies...?


In Arizona, as of January 1, the minimum wage is $10. As of Jan 30, dollars to pesos means that 10 dollars becomes over 200 pesos. Over 4000 pesos a week, even if they only work 20 hours.

Who wants to pay over $4000 a week for a dishwasher?


are you really trying to say a peso is equal to a dollar? even after you mentioned the exchange rate?


I wonder if they used the dollar sign because they don't have the peso symbol on their keyboard.
16331 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 1/30/17 , edited 1/31/17
It is the 'peso' symbol. There's no difference.
Posted 1/30/17 , edited 1/31/17

Rujikin wrote:

Oh look you changed the scenario again, surprise surprise. Weren't you just talking about people who make about 3K off of welfare a month. Yeah they need to make welfare more difficult to get, too many people abusing and I even know one of them.


Yeah, this just goes to show that you're skimming over my "TL;DR" posts. I didn't say they "make 3K off of welfare a month" - I said that their benefits would equal that amount if they were paid per month. You can check the rate for Maryland - both conservative and liberal organizations will tell you that Maryland is one of the highest "paid" states for those on social programs. Try to read what I'm typing, rather than skimming over it, please.


Rujikin wrote:
I've had difficulty getting a job at even lesser jobs as a cashier or doing inventory because of my degree or because I didn't include it. If I had my degree then the whole interview was about "why are you taking a lesser job your overqualified". If I didn't include it then the interview was about "I see this 4 year gap, what did you do during it". Sucks....


I'm all-too-familiar with the "you're overqualified" (I endured this both in the United States and the United Kingdom when I lived there). Having a degree and too high of networking certifications for someone at a young age doesn't bode well. Mostly because you end up having a high-end certification that normally requires years of experience without any of the experience. I've learned over the course of time that multiple resumes/CVs are usually the best way for me to stay employed.


Rujikin wrote:
It's not flawed. Making $8 is better than making $0. Did you even learn to math? When your running out of money any job looks good, I know from personal experience.


It's flawed when you're making a sweeping generalization based off of one person's statement. Perhaps I should give you a lesson in statistics, eh?

1 person in the video stating that she needs a job, has a masters degree, applying for a job that's $8 per hour.
This was taken in 2011 where the overall amount of unemployed Americans by the end of the year was around 13,100,000.
1 person out of 13,100,000 stated on a video that she has a master's degree and is applying for a job that $8 per hour.
One person does not equate to everyone that has a master's degree and is unemployed. (1 != 13,100,000) (even less than that seeing as not all 13.1 million would have a master's degree, mind you - but it's just a generic understanding how one person doesn't equate to all).




Rujikin wrote:
Unemployment only lasts for so long. Disability only applies to the disabled. Welfare only applies under certain conditions. Are you telling me to go disable myself when I have to choose taking a low paying job? Also by not having a job for so long it hurts my future chances of getting a job so it hurts me in the long run.


No, I'm telling you that just because one video has one person stating that they'd work doesn't mean that everyone in America would work an $8 per hour position when they've got a college degree under their belt. People exploit all social services/programs in some fashion or another (faking disability, extending unemployment by holding a claim against the former employer, etc). We both agree on this part, though. What you're not grasping is that the reason people are exploiting these services is because, in the short-term (not thinking about retirement or even getting back into the workforce), it's easier to support a family by doing so than to have a job for $8 an hour.

Is it right? No. It's one of the biggest issues in our country. Low minimum wage in contrast to the expected income to sustain you and your family, plus job markets of multiple sectors (blue and white collar positions alike) being poor equates to people abusing a system designed to "help you back on your feet" versus "keep you at home and pay your bills".

I know two people who have been living off of disability since they were 18 years old (and they're 30/32 years old now).. neither of them are genuinely disabled in any way, shape, or form but both refuse to work because "it's for chumps". We all know people who abuse the system, that's the sad thing about it all.
21953 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Leanbox, Gameindu...
Online
Posted 1/30/17 , edited 1/31/17

Chaossal wrote:

No one can TAKE a job away. Managers are the ones at fault for hiring people under the table for low wages not the people looking for work.


Agreed, and who can blame them? 15 million people came here without papers knowing that they could get a job under the table. Nobody is enforcing the law and everyone knows it.


runec wrote:

Ugh, really? A Sheriff Joe story from 2011?

Do you not know who Sheriff Joe is? Even putting aside that he is a despicable, inhumane racist shit bag that oversaw what the DoJ called the worst example of racial profiling in American history; He's probably cost taxpayers more in legal fees and paying out lawsuit settlements than illegal immigrates have cost his county. Also one of the foremost supporters of Birtherism.

He was voted out of office and is currently facing jail time himself for contempt of court:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/18/us/sheriff-joe-arpaio-arizona.html

As for the attempt at a story itself: Show me Americans lining up to pick fruit for 10 hours.




While that may be true with the agricultural sector, a majority of those here without authorization are working in other sectors: construction, restaurant industry, domestic work, cleaning companies, etc.

runec 
39954 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 1/31/17 , edited 1/31/17

kevz_210 wrote:
While that may be true with the agricultural sector, a majority of those here without authorization are working in other sectors: construction, restaurant industry, domestic work, cleaning companies, etc.


Yes, which is another aspect of this problem of using immigrants as a political bogeyman. It would be more effective ( and less legally and morally horrifying ) to target the demand not the supply. The supply is a problem so complex and porous it will never, ever be fully addressed. Its just not logistically possible. Targeting the demand however makes the US a less desirable destination and cuts the problem at the root.

But targeting the demand doesn't provide politicians with a perpetual bogeyman they can scapegoat. Blaming immigrants ( which has a long and robust history in American politics ) is an ideal political tool. It's a complicated problem that can't fully be solved which can be blamed for any number of woes. It creates a perpetual political enemy that never goes away, that can be scapegoated for just anything and is just vague enough that people fill the blanks based on their personal bias.

You can convince 100 different people that immigrants are the root of their problems and they'll have 99 different ideas as to exactly what an immigrant is and how they're causing them a problem personally.

21953 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Leanbox, Gameindu...
Online
Posted 1/31/17 , edited 2/1/17

runec wrote:


kevz_210 wrote:
While that may be true with the agricultural sector, a majority of those here without authorization are working in other sectors: construction, restaurant industry, domestic work, cleaning companies, etc.


Yes, which is another aspect of this problem of using immigrants as a political bogeyman. It would be more effective ( and less legally and morally horrifying ) to target the demand not the supply. The supply is a problem so complex and porous it will never, ever be fully addressed. Its just not logistically possible. Targeting the demand however makes the US a less desirable destination and cuts the problem at the root.

But targeting the demand doesn't provide politicians with a perpetual bogeyman they can scapegoat. Blaming immigrants ( which has a long and robust history in American politics ) is an ideal political tool. It's a complicated problem that can't fully be solved which can be blamed for any number of woes. It creates a perpetual political enemy that never goes away, that can be scapegoated for just anything and is just vague enough that people fill the blanks based on their personal bias.

You can convince 100 different people that immigrants are the root of their problems and they'll have 99 different ideas as to exactly what an immigrant is and how they're causing them a problem personally.



You mean they should be going after businesses? Yeah that will never happen, politicians are incapable of going against their campaign corporate finance benefactors. It's one of those issues where most of the public knows the solution regardless of their political ideology and yet nothing has been or will be done because money is more important than politicians' constituents.

I think the smartest thing Sanders said during the campaign is that you cannot fix Washington without campaign finance reform. The problem is those who would have to vote on such changes benefit from the status quo.
runec 
39954 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 1/31/17 , edited 2/1/17

kevz_210 wrote:
You mean they should be going after businesses? Yeah that will never happen, politicians are incapable of going against their campaign corporate finance benefactors. It's one of those issues where most of the public knows the solution regardless of their political ideology and yet nothing has been or will be done because money is more important than politicians' constituents.

I think the smartest thing Sanders said during the campaign is that you cannot fix Washington without campaign finance reform. The problem is those who would have to vote on such changes benefit from the status quo.


Pretty much. Like I said, immigrants are an easy "Hey! Look over there!" for politics and have been since the second ship reached the coast of North America. >.>

39169 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 2/2/17 , edited 2/3/17
Legal immigrants have many many rights. They have many opportunities. They went through the process, and have become legal residents, or have become naturalized citizens. These folks worked hard to get where they are and, NONE of them are being deported, arrested, nor otherwise turned away.

It is ILLEGAL immigrants who are breaking the law. They are in the United States illegally. They are using up resources that LEGAL RESIDENTS, and UNITED STATE CITIZENS deserve to be made available to them.

Immigrants are not looked down on, but ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS ARE a PROBLEM.

Liberals don't care about the law. They don't care about the United States Constitution. They would love to burn the U.S. Constitution, especially Canadian Liberals, they WANT to erase the United States' borders.

However, just as the British rejected the EU, and had their triumph with BREXIT, Americans rejected globalism, and have triumphed with a nationalistic agenda.

American government, to serve and protect American citizens, and legal residents.

You condemn President Trump for protecting America and the American people from dangerous terrorists and RAPISTS, hidden among legitimate refugees, but you haven't said a single word about Malcolm Bligh Turnbull. He has 1250 Iraqi, Iranian, Afganistani, AND Syrian refugees, that Australia REFUSES to take.

He made a deal with Obama to dump them on the United States.

Why don't you jump on Australia for not taking in those refugees? Eh? Why don't you?

I'll tell you why. Because Malcolm Bligh Turnbull (Australia's prime minister) is not Donald J. Trump (The United States' president). That's the only reason.

Why don't you Canadians take them? Why isn't Justin Pierre James Trudeau (Canada's prime minister) making his "TEMPORARY" refugee acceptance a PERMANENT one? Why doesn't he take the 1250 refugees that Australia doesn't want to take?

Hypocrisy! Hypocrisy and lies! This isn't about being kind to refugees. This is about discrediting President Donald J. Trump!
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.