Another way to look at immigration

[Parkbandit]

Just got this via email.. thought it was funny.. and sad at the same time:




Recently large demonstrations have taken place across the country protesting the fact that Congress is finally addressing the issue of illegal immigration.

Certain people are angry that the US might protect its own borders, might make it harder to sneak into this country and, once here, to stay indefinitely.

Let me see if I correctly understand the thinking behind these protests.

Let's say I break into your house. Let's say that when you discover me in your house, you insist that I leave.

But I say, "I've made all the beds and washed the dishes and did the laundry and swept the floors. I've done all the things you don't like to do. I'm hard-working and honest (except for when I broke into your house).

According to the protesters:
You are Required to let me stay in your house
You are Required to add me to your family's insurance plan
You are Required to Educate my kids
You are Required to Provide other benefits to me & to my family
(my husband will do all of your yard work because
he is also hard-working and honest, except for that
breaking in part).

If you try to call the police or force me out, I will call my friends who will picket your house carrying signs that proclaim my RIGHT to be there. It's only fair, after all, because you have a nicer house than I do, and I'm just trying to better myself. I'm a hard-working and honest, person, except for well, you know, I did break into your house. And oh yeah, I get a free education, where you have to pay your own way through college.(TEEHEE)
And what a deal it is for me!!!

I live in your house, contributing only a fraction of the cost of my keep, and there is nothing you can do about it without being accused of cold, uncaring, selfish, prejudiced, and bigoted behavior.

Oh yeah, I DEMAND that you learn MY LANGUAGE!!! so you can communicate with me. And don't forget to make sure your forms are in MY language - I need to understand them...

[Daniel]

Except. That's not what people are saying.

[Celephais]

You are cold, uncaring, selfish, prejudiced, and a bigot.

Yet I agree with you.

[Parkbandit]

Except. That's not what people are saying.

What people?

[Clove]

They have a right to pursue happiness after all

[Gan]

What people?

his people

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

What are they saying?

[TheEschaton]

That's the most retarded analogy ever. The U.S. insists on the free trade, but would like to restrict the flow of the labor force, which is actually an anti-free trade idea.

-TheE-

[Gan]

What are they saying?

What he says they're saying.

[Celephais]

That's the most retarded analogy ever. The U.S. insists on the free trade, but would like to restrict the flow of the labor force, which is actually an anti-free trade idea.
They might be related, but they're not lockstep. There are practicle reasons you can't have "pure" free trade, in the same vein we can't have pure "free flowing labor force".

[TheEschaton]

Well, the problem is the U.S. wants "pure" free trade for corporations on the international level, but "not pure" free trade for the people working for those corporations. If there's going to be regulation on free trade, they should be in balance in re: to these different players in the game.

-TheE-

[Clove]

That's the most retarded analogy ever. The U.S. insists on the free trade, but would like to restrict the flow of the illegal labor force...

-TheE-

Fixed it for you.

[Gan]

Clove ftw

[Arkans]

Nah, it's a pretty funny little comparison.

Unfortunately, you can't take all problems and have a direct and accurate comparison from both a micro and macro points of view.

- Arkans

[diethx]

I may be a registered Democrat, and I may not really follow politics (which is why I never post in the politics folder), but I have to say that I completely fucking agree with how funny and sad and TRUE this is. I guess I think like a Republican when it comes to illegals (and how they need to gtfo).

[Gan]

racist

[Parkbandit]

xenophobe

[Stretch]

God hates minorities.

[AestheticDeath]

Everyone is a minority somewhere...

[Methais]

Let's say I break into your house. Let's say that when you discover me in your house, you insist that I leave.

But I say, "I've made all the beds and washed the dishes and did the laundry and swept the floors. I've done all the things you don't like to do. I'm hard-working and honest (except for when I broke into your house).

Then I say, "But you broke into my house. I have the right to shoot you now." *BANG*

According to the protesters:
You are Required to let me stay in your house
You are Required to add me to your family's insurance plan
You are Required to Educate my kids
You are Required to Provide other benefits to me & to my family
(my husband will do all of your yard work because
he is also hard-working and honest, except for that
breaking in part).

According to me, it's a moot point because you're dead.

Fixed.

[Gan]

haha

Methais wins.

[Methais]

http://loltapirs.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/american.jpg

[Keller]

Fixed it for you.

You were just trying to make a joke and now recognize the fallacy of your argument, right?

[Stanley Burrell]

According to the protesters:
You are Required to let me stay in your house
You are Required to add me to your family's insurance plan
You are Required to Educate my kids
You are Required to Provide other benefits to me & to my family
(my husband will do all of your yard work because
he is also hard-working and honest, except for that
breaking in part).


That's literally Conservatives' self-assurance e-mail with enough .50 cal of ALL-AMERICAN-M1A1 firepower to make it as a copy and paste on a vBulletin MMORPG forum?

ParkBandit. If anyone is "invading your home" it's because they like throwing eggs at your glassing and watching you come out in your holey Hanes Classics exclaiming "BESSY, GRAB DA SHAWTGUNNN."

LoL. I love you fucks because waiting for a reason makes sense to y'all. I love it, I love it, I love it.

Just, uh, keep it far away from civilized society, kthnx. We don't really need the South. Blow yourselves up like you have been. Better yet, get your kids to do it for you because placing a 9 millimeter in a young child's palm and having calm in your voice when teaching gun safety makes sense to you.

Hahaaa, funny-ass fuckers. Man. How bad you can suck? I'm not kidding. A Desert Eagle in a toddler's hands will defeat the tarr'rists. Hopefully.

Seriously. I will sign up for sneak-a-peek conservative jibberjabber in MMails if it's this hysterical.

I got one, I got one,

OBAMA BIN LADEN ROROROROOROROROFLLFFLLFLFLLRLRMFMFFFAO. Send this to 20 of your deskjobbers and win a free Purple Heart replica.

Fuck you.


Cock. Fucking. Eaters. Jesus... ...Unbelievable. Nice, nice, nice... But still. Wow.

[TheEschaton]

Funny, it's illegal because of politics, but free trade demands free movement of labor.

[Parkbandit]

Funny, it's illegal because of politics, but free trade demands free movement of labor.


You are an idiot. In your fantasy world, it's open borders, group hugs and chocolate donuts growing on trees. Unfortunately, we're in the real world here.

[Keller]

You are an idiot. In your fantasy world, it's open borders, group hugs and chocolate donuts growing on trees. Unfortunately, we're in the real world here.

:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

I wish I had known I was limited to 4 smilies before I clicked that damn icon 380 times. Why I didn't cut/paste the first line of them instead of manually clicking? I don't know.

[Snapp]

I want a chocolate donut tree.

[Methais]

I want a chocolate donut tree.

That would be the greatest thing ever.

[diethx]

I want a chocolate donut tree.

I would prefer chocolate munchkins, actually. Or maybe chocolate and jelly.

[Back]

Some people are horrible at analogies. But they are free to express their horrible talents none-the-less.

[Gan]

Funny, it's illegal because of politics, but free trade demands free movement of labor.

I'm curious to know what economic theory that comes from.

[Clove]

You were just trying to make a joke and now recognize the fallacy of your argument, right?


Funny, it's illegal because of politics, but free trade demands free movement of labor.

No, I wasn't. No country in the world allows people to just walk across its borders and start working "in the interest of free trade". It's a bullshit argument. Thanks for playing.

[Clove]

I'm curious to know what economic theory that comes from.

The concept of free trade does actually include free movement of labor between and within countries. And the US allows foreign workers (under the NAFTA agreement) to work within our borders, including Mexicans, legally.

[Parkbandit]

No, I wasn't. No country in the world allows people to just walk across its borders and start working "in the interest of free trade". It's a bullshit argument. Thanks for playing.

It's the Chocolate Donut Tree argument. Get it right.

And just because no other country allows open borders, doesn't mean we can't be pioneers in it! If you don't agree, you must be a racist (unless it's Canada.. where you would be a coldist.)

[TheEschaton]

I'm not saying any country does, Clove.

I'm simply saying - if y'all believe so much in free, unregulated trade, and allowing corporations to do whatever you wanted - you'd believe in free, unregulated migration of labor, and allowing labor to do whatever it wanted. Not doing so is hypocritical.

Oh, and Clove, all attempts under NAFTA to allow Mexicans to come work here have been severely regulated or curtailed, whilst corporations moving to Mexico to take advantage of lower wages and poorer conditions have not. Either both have to be regulated equally, or not at all.

Kinda wish y'all were a bit more protectionist now, don't ya?

-TheE-

[Clove]

I'm not saying any country does, Clove.

I'm simply saying - if y'all believe so much in free, unregulated trade, and allowing corporations to do whatever you wanted... Kinda wish y'all were a bit more protectionist now, don't ya?

-TheE-

No, free migration of labor is not the same as free movement of labor. We are not obligated under free trade to grant effective citizenship because someone wants to come here to work.

You can criticize how strict (or not) labor is allowed under NAFTA, but it is allowed. Mexico, Canada and the US allow workers to enter and work in their respective countries.

Manufacturing is in Mexico because it's cheaper. And wow, that makes labor jobs in Mexico. The plants are there because of the lower costs but importing more labor doesn't really change that dynamic. Supply and demand would make labor cheaper in America, but not necessarily cheaper than it is in Mexico which is the impetus for jobs going there in the first place.

If people want to come here to work that's one thing. If they want to sneak in here to live that's another. And that is the reality of illegal immigration. They aren't coming here illegally to work. They're coming here illegally to reap the benefits of being an effective US citizen.

[TheEschaton]

Ah, but with that free trade, one needs consistent regulation of wages, and health standards, and regulations, or the whole system doesn't work....as we've seen in the past few years.

As for the migration v. movement piece, you are technically correct. However, the way the political system works, a foreign national, working on U.S. soil on a work visa, is not afforded a green card (and thus the rights of citizens). This basically creates an exploitable underclass which corporations who stay here can manipulate. Maybe if there was a way to make a quasi-permanent work visa into a green card that can't lead to citizenship, and expires if you stop working in that corporation, I'd be less critical.

After all, that's essentially how student visas work right now.

-TheE-

[Clove]

I'm in favor of guest worker programs that allow people to commute across borders, or reside seasonally to work. I'm not really interested in an "underclass"; we afford foreign nationals (here for whatever reason) rights. The leverage a business has over foreign workers remains constant:

If I fire you, you don't get to be here anymore.

That really wouldn't change no matter how you re-structured the papers. There is plenty of work here, but it needs to be entered into legitimately. Minimum wages need to be observed, taxes need to be paid and we need to know who is here and why.

[TheEschaton]

Well, then, we are on the same page. Perhaps where we differ is how much access a foreign national has to that job - IE, if a Mexican wants that job in Mexico, has the skills necessary, will (s)he be able to come here and get that job? Will there be political restrictions on them coming not based on job availability, but latent views wanting to preserve the so-called "homogeny" of the state?

All highly political debates.

-TheE-

[Gan]

The concept of free trade does actually include free movement of labor between and within countries. And the US allows foreign workers (under the NAFTA agreement) to work within our borders, including Mexicans, legally.

The concept of free trade has a given allowance for freedom (portability) of labor within a country - not between countries. Free trade only requires participation from other countries in the marketplace as goods and services are exchanged. This goes all the way back to the principal and theory of comparative advantage.

[Gan]

I'm in favor of guest worker programs that allow people to commute across borders, or reside seasonally to work. I'm not really interested in an "underclass"; we afford foreign nationals (here for whatever reason) rights. The leverage a business has over foreign workers remains constant:

If I fire you, you don't get to be here anymore.

That really wouldn't change no matter how you re-structured the papers. There is plenty of work here, but it needs to be entered into legitimately. Minimum wages need to be observed, taxes need to be paid and we need to know who is here and why.

/Agreed

[Clove]

The concept of free trade has a given allowance for freedom (portability) of labor within a country - not between countries. Free trade only requires participation from other countries in the marketplace as goods and services are exchanged. This goes all the way back to the principal and theory of comparative advantage.

Oh I agree, that's the classic definition; but in light of NAFTA labor has been added to the mix. I don't really have a problem with including labor in "free trade" definitions because it's insignificant. If trade is healthy, labor really doesn't need to move between nations.

[Gan]

Well, then, we are on the same page. Perhaps where we differ is how much access a foreign national has to that job - IE, if a Mexican wants that job in Mexico, has the skills necessary, will (s)he be able to come here and get that job?
If the Mexican is after a job in Mexico, why come here?



Will there be political restrictions on them coming not based on job availability, but latent views wanting to preserve the so-called "homogeny" of the state?

All highly political debates.

-TheE-
I believe Clove has already discussed work visas if you mean a Mexican citizen seeks a job here in the US.

[Parkbandit]

You both are racists.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I wish I could get some of that cheap mexican labor my folks get in Tucson. Mom got her whole house tiled for like, 3 burritos and a bag of rice.

Here in Kansas City they are called Mexican'ts :(

[Daniel]

Where are you guys getting the notion that free trade does not involve labor?

Trade usually refers to Goods and Services.

Services are usually preformed by..people. Therefore, for services to be unrestricted, people must be unrestricted.


Is this in the republican handbook or something?

[Clove]

Where are you guys getting the notion that free trade does not involve labor... Is this in the republican handbook or something?

Service /= Labor. We get it out of econ. textbooks.

Labor is a factor of production along with land, and capital (we aren't including those in fair trade either).

Service is a non-material good.

"Equal blue. Sweet & Lo pink. You see, they're not the same, are they?"

[oldanforgotten]

Where are you guys getting the notion that free trade does not involve labor?

Trade usually refers to Goods and Services.

Services are usually preformed by..people. Therefore, for services to be unrestricted, people must be unrestricted.


Is this in the republican handbook or something?

Actually no. NAFTA has no mention of labor, it is the agreement of free trade via reduced/eliminated tariffs. Since you cannot place a tariff on labor, nor can you effectively tax illegal labor, it would fall well out of line with NAFTA.

NAFTA was very careful to eliminate mention of labor either, even though it implicitly resulted in many jobs being shipped overseas.
________
Sell vaporizers (http://vaporizeraffiliateprogram.com)

[Clove]

Actually no. NAFTA has no mention of labor, it is the agreement of free trade via reduced/eliminated tariffs. Since you cannot place a tariff on labor, nor can you effectively tax illegal labor, it would fall well out of line with NAFTA.

NAFTA was very careful to eliminate mention of labor either, even though it implicitly resulted in many jobs being shipped overseas.

Not exactly. NAFTA created a TN (Trade NAFTA) status for foreign nationals in Mexico, Canada and the US workers to ease mobility of workers. All three nations have upheld it.

[Gan]

Where are you guys getting the notion that free trade does not involve labor?

Trade usually refers to Goods and Services.

Services are usually preformed by..people. Therefore, for services to be unrestricted, people must be unrestricted.


Is this in the republican handbook or something?


Service /= Labor. We get it out of econ. textbooks.

Labor is a factor of production along with land, and capital (we aren't including those in fair trade either).

Service is a non-material good.

"Equal blue. Sweet & Lo pink. You see, they're not the same, are they?"

Goods = produced by that country in tangible form.
Services = goods still produced by that country only in non-tangible form.

IE: India providing outsourcing IT helpdesk services to US corps (Dell, Microsoft, etc.).

[Daniel]

Service /= Labor. We get it out of econ. textbooks.

Labor is a factor of production along with land, and capital (we aren't including those in fair trade either).

Service is a non-material good.

"Equal blue. Sweet & Lo pink. You see, they're not the same, are they?"


I didn't say services= labor, Did I?

I said Services require labor. Therefore, to have free flows of services you'll have to some some sort of labor.

Imagine telling executives in major european corporations that they couldn't come into America...

Labor was specifically excluded from NAFTA because it would have been DOA in congress if it did.

Please show me a quote from a textbook or anywhere that says that LABOR is specifically excluded from free trade, despite being a major part of all other economic theories.

[Daniel]

Goods = produced by that country in tangible form.
Services = goods still produced by that country only in non-tangible form.

IE: India providing outsourcing IT helpdesk services to US corps (Dell, Microsoft, etc.).

Please tell that to the Phillipines and Mexico and the several other countries whose economies are dependent on the export of labor.

http://www.migrationinformation.org/Feature/display.cfm?ID=191

You guys are making shit up. Give it a rest.

[Clove]

Please show me a quote from a textbook or anywhere that says that LABOR is specifically excluded from free trade, despite being a major part of all other economic theories.

I just did dipshit. Labor is a factor of production. It isn't a good or a service that is TRADED in free TRADE.

[Daniel]

I just did dipshit. Labor is a factor of production. It isn't a good or a service that is TRADED in free TRADE.

Uh? Land and Capitol are both included in free trade.

Capitol refers to GOODS that are used to make other goods.

If the US said that Toyota could not purchase land to sell or produce products in America they would be hit with a pretty big lawsuit through the WTO.

Please, go call your brother and shut the fuck up.

[Gan]

Please tell that to the Phillipines and Mexico and the several other countries whose economies are dependent on the export of labor.

http://www.migrationinformation.org/Feature/display.cfm?ID=191

You guys are making shit up. Give it a rest.

Please provide an example of their labor export.

*Based on a non-voluntary effort by migrants who choose to move to the US and ship money back to relatives.

Show me a corporation who ships their workers abroad to work and where the proceeds from that labor is paid directly to a Phillipine/Mexican corp.

[oldanforgotten]

Well then, call if North American Almost Free Trade Agreement, because free movement of labor was not part of the deal. The United States has never, to my knowledge, adopted any type of free movement of labor with Mexico in any form, so the point is moot anyway. Secondly, even if it was on the plate, it would have to be managed in a responsible manner, not through illegal border hopping.
________
Buy easy vape (http://vaporizer.org/reviews/easy-vape)

[Daniel]

Please provide an example of their labor export.

*Based on a non-voluntary effort by migrants who choose to move to the US and ship money back to relatives.

Show me a corporation who ships their workers abroad to work and where the proceeds from that labor is paid directly to a Phillipine/Mexican corp.

Okay...

First paragraph:

Few countries have as many of their citizens living abroad as the Republic of the Philippines, or depend so greatly on migration for their economic vitality. According to the government, more than 7.3 million Filipinos, or eight percent of the country's population, currently reside abroad. From 1990 to 2001, official recorded remittances alone averaged 20.3 percent of the country's export earnings and 5.2 percent of GNP, providing a lifeline for many families in a poor country that saw little economic growth in several of those years.

Revised since Edit*

It's called a contracting company.

Like..KBR and Halliburton.

[Clove]

Yes you can trade capital, nice deflection, it still doesn't change the fact that you don't know WTF you're talking about. I don't have to consult my brother- economics is required learning in accounting.

http://www.economist.com/research/Economics/searchActionTerms.cfm?query=free+trade

Note that labor is not mentioned.

http://www.economist.com/research/Economics/searchActionTerms.cfm?query=labour

A factor of production.

We are trading goods and services NOT factors of production, though some goods and services may be USED as factors of production.

Really Danny-boy, go smoke some crack and call your mom up.

[Gan]

Okay...

First paragraph:

Few countries have as many of their citizens living abroad as the Republic of the Philippines, or depend so greatly on migration for their economic vitality. According to the government, more than 7.3 million Filipinos, or eight percent of the country's population, currently reside abroad. From 1990 to 2001, official recorded remittances alone averaged 20.3 percent of the country's export earnings and 5.2 percent of GNP, providing a lifeline for many families in a poor country that saw little economic growth in several of those years.

Revised since Edit*

It's called a contracting company.

Like..KBR and Halliburton.

And since they do not/will not become citizens or live there indefinately (non-temporarily) then it pertains to our discussion how?

Here, let me help you - this is the post where Clove brings up labor.


No, free migration of labor is not the same as free movement of labor. We are not obligated under free trade to grant effective citizenship because someone wants to come here to work.

You can criticize how strict (or not) labor is allowed under NAFTA, but it is allowed. Mexico, Canada and the US allow workers to enter and work in their respective countries.

Manufacturing is in Mexico because it's cheaper. And wow, that makes labor jobs in Mexico. The plants are there because of the lower costs but importing more labor doesn't really change that dynamic. Supply and demand would make labor cheaper in America, but not necessarily cheaper than it is in Mexico which is the impetus for jobs going there in the first place.

If people want to come here to work that's one thing. If they want to sneak in here to live that's another. And that is the reality of illegal immigration. They aren't coming here illegally to work. They're coming here illegally to reap the benefits of being an effective US citizen.

[Daniel]

Yes you can trade capital, nice deflection, it still doesn't change the fact that you don't know WTF you're talking about. I don't have to consult my brother- economics is required learning in accounting.

http://www.economist.com/research/Economics/searchActionTerms.cfm?query=free+trade

Note that labor is not mentioned.

http://www.economist.com/research/Economics/searchActionTerms.cfm?query=labour

A factor of production.

We are trading goods and services NOT factors of production, though some goods and services may be USED as factors of production.

Really Danny-boy, go smoke some crack and call your mom up.

Yay. I can play the google game too.

Free trade is a term in economics and government that includes:

The free movement of labor between and within countries

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Trade

[Daniel]

And since they do not/will not become citizens or live there indefinately (non-temporarily) then it pertains to our discussion how?

Here, let me help you - this is the post where Clove brings up labor.

Uh. You know..

The part of our discussion where labor is a factor in Trade and how we were hypocritical to impose restrictions on trade that does not benefit us, while forcing other countries to lift their restrictions.

[Gan]

So we have restricted foreign companies who wish to send labor contractors to the US and yet we require countries to open access to their markets for our labor contractors?

I guess I'm in the dark here, when has this happened?

[Daniel]

They aren't coming here illegally to work. They're coming here illegally to reap the benefits of being an effective US citizen.

Oh..since I didn't respond to this before:

Ignorant much?

When I was in Iraq there were 4 people in my platoon who were non citizens of the United States willing to fight and die for this country.

I can't even begin to extrapolate that for the entire country, but I find that comment pretty offense and ignorant. Generalizing an entire group of people in such a brash and ignorant way shows more about you as a person then make any particular point.

[Daniel]

So we have restricted foreign companies who wish to send labor contractors to the US and yet we require countries to open access to their markets for our labor contractors?

I guess I'm in the dark here, when has this happened?

Labor =! our comparative advantage. Thanks for trying.

We do however have foreign auto manufactoring that are attempting to sell cars in the United States and we have done everything in our power to stop them.

[Gan]

Labor =! our comparative advantage. Thanks for trying.
Doesnt answer the question. :(



We do however have foreign auto manufactoring that are attempting to sell cars in the United States and we have done everything in our power to stop them.

Thats good old fashioned protectionism. Even if its using US labor to make foreign owned finished goods. And its not a good thing.

[Daniel]

I just did dipshit. Labor is a factor of production. It isn't a good or a service that is TRADED in free TRADE.

[QUOTE=Clove;689578]Yes you can trade capital, nice deflection, it still doesn't change the fact that you don't know WTF you're talking about. [QUOTE]

Oh. P.s. Maybe not, but it does counteract the bullshit ascertation that we don't trade factors of production.

[Daniel]

Doesnt answer the question. :(



Thats good old fashioned protectionism. Even if its using US labor to make foreign owned finished goods. And its not a good thing.

Thanks for following the point.

It is hypocritical to be protectionist when you are advocating free trade in other countries when it benefits you.

[Clove]

Yay. I can play the google game too.

Free trade is a term in economics and government that includes:

The free movement of labor between and within countries

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Trade

You asked for an definition from an economic text and I gave you one. Look up a few definitions in econ. texts, I guarantee you they will disagree with the Wiki definition. Really just call your mommy up and ask her.

[Daniel]

You asked for an definition from an economic text and I gave you one. Look up a few definitions in econ. texts, I guarantee you they will disagree with the Wiki definition. Really just call your mommy up and ask her.

Lol. Please quote what I asked for.

I said a quote where it said it was specifically EXCLUDED.

The absence of mention does not imply the absence of existence.

I guess they didn't teach you simple logic in accounting.

[Gan]

Thanks for following the point.

It is hypocritical to be protectionist when you are advocating free trade in other countries when it benefits you.

I was following more specifically the point in discussion. Specifically where we are importing labor to other countries and not allowing other countries to import labor into ours. Labor, specifically people working in the capacity where they are compensated not directly from the entity contracting the labor but from the labor contractor. And not labor that migrates to a country to live on a permanent basis.

Thanks anyway.

[Parkbandit]

Please show me a non-3rd world country that has completely open borders. People from all over the world can come and go as they please.

What's that? They don't exist? Huh?

Weird.

[Gan]

PS.

Daniel, great job of coming to TheE's rescue again.

Does he have you on retainer?

[Bobmuhthol]

Most European countries?

[Parkbandit]

Most European countries?


Are you posing a question.. or making a statement with a question?

Unrestricted immigration is the key here.

[Daniel]

I was following more specifically the point in discussion. Specifically where we are importing labor to other countries and not allowing other countries to import labor into ours. Labor, specifically people working in the capacity where they are compensated not directly from the entity contracting the labor but from the labor contractor. And not labor that migrates to a country to live on a permanent basis.

Thanks anyway.

Who said it had to be a labor for labor transaction?

Who said labor was confined to contracting? That was an *example* because *you* asked for a situation where a company would export labor.

There are plenty of examples where individuals move to another country for a job. From the US and without.

Who said that it was on a permenent basis?

A very large proportion of the Mexican economy is remittances from America. That implies a few things A) That these people work. Kinda goes into that bullshit line about them just wanting to suck up benefits now doesn't it? and B) That these people are still maintaing ties in their home country, giving them a compelling reason to leave.

You attempting to narrowly defined the criteria for what is acceptable is nothing more than a feeible attempt to prove your point that "Labor" is not "Trade".

The worse part is that you think someone is buying that load of shit.

[Daniel]

Are you posing a question.. or making a statement with a question?

Unrestricted immigration is the key here.

Thanks Bob.

European countries. There is unrestricted movement of labor between members of the EU Community. Which *was* a stipulation in the EU free trade Agreement.

Next.

[Gan]

Who said it had to be a labor for labor transaction?

Who said labor was confined to contracting? That was an *example* because *you* asked for a situation where a company would export labor.

There are plenty of examples where individuals move to another country for a job. From the US and without.

Who said that it was on a permenent basis?

A very large proportion of the Mexican economy is remittances from America. That implies a few things A) That these people work. Kinda goes into that bullshit line about them just wanting to suck up benefits now doesn't it? and B) That these people are still maintaing ties in their home country, giving them a compelling reason to leave.

You attempting to narrowly defined the criteria for what is acceptable is nothing more than a feeible attempt to prove your point that "Labor" is not "Trade".

The worse part is that you think someone is buying that load of shit.

So then you should have an easy time answering my question then?


So we have restricted foreign companies who wish to send labor contractors to the US and yet we require countries to open access to their markets for our labor contractors?

I guess I'm in the dark here, when has this happened?

PS. Its a non-sarcastic question btw. I'm seriously wanting to know if this is happening because I have failed to read about it through my normal sources.

[Keller]

No, I wasn't. No country in the world allows people to just walk across its borders and start working "in the interest of free trade". It's a bullshit argument. Thanks for playing.

And here I thought you were bright enough to understand the fallacy. You can't refute a subjective policy argument with an objective statement of law.

This is not a rhetorical question but a sincere one -- what are the real economic differences between a job emmigrating to Mexico and a Mexican immigrating to the US for that same job?

[Warriorbird]

I'd be just fine with dealing with illegal immigration. There's a bunch of no nonsense steps we could take to make it less of a problem to various systems.

There's also millions of dollars and hundreds of lobbyists for mostly traditionally "Republican" groups dedicated to making it not happen.

[Daniel]

So then you should have an easy time answering my question then?



PS. Its a non-sarcastic question btw. I'm seriously wanting to know if this is happening because I have failed to read about it through my normal sources.


Uh. The question is misleading. As I said. The issue is that

A) There are people who want to come work within the United States and are unable to do so under existing legislation.

This is called a barrier to trade.

B) We often times have required countries to open up their economies for us to deal with them.

This would be called hypocritical with A.

If you are unfamiliar with the concept of B then I suggest you google or wiki the term "Structural Adjustment" or "Washington Consensus".

[Gan]

Uh. The question is misleading. As I said. The issue is that

A) There are people who want to come work within the United States and are unable to do so under existing legislation.

This is called a barrier to trade.
I disagree. This is called an immigration policy because its based on an individual basis. Now if these individuals were corporations then I would agree with your assessment.



B) We often times have required countries to open up their economies for us to deal with them.

This would be called hypocritical with A.
Apples and oranges.
Have we required countries to open up their immigration policies for individuals to move to another country to work? Or have we required other countries to open up their economies to our corporations to work?

If we have asked for the former then yes, it would indeed be hypocritical. If we have asked for the latter and provide barriers on the corporate level then yes it would be hypocritical.
Of the latter instance is where I'm unsure of...

Hence, why I asked the question.



If you are unfamiliar with the concept of B then I suggest you google or wiki the term "Structural Adjustment" or "Washington Consensus".
I'm familiar with the terms, thanks.

[oldanforgotten]

And here I thought you were bright enough to understand the fallacy. You can't refute a subjective policy argument with an objective statement of law.

This is not a rhetorical question but a sincere one -- what are the real economic differences between a job emmigrating to Mexico and a Mexican immigrating to the US for that same job?


Let?s do a realistic comparison though.

Scenario 1:
A US plant shutting down and emigrating to Mexico results in the loss of jobs in the U.S and the gain of jobs in Mexico. The company assumes an initial loss in whatever plant/severance/other costs are required to shut down the US plant, as well as the startup costs for the plant in Mexico. Those jobs in Mexico are now taxed by the Mexican government, increasing revenue collected. The US company realizes a labor savings due to the reduced cost of labor in Mexico, but does not generally pass the savings onto the consumer, because of the initial (and generally significant) loss in the emigration, which can take 3-4 years to recover.

This is done most often with unskilled labor, where it is easier to get the labor done overseas, and only recently is skilled labor being done overseas.

The benefits to the company are as follows:
Foreign unskilled labor is more stable, and less expensive
Foreign unskilled labor retains on average, between 75-100% efficiency depending on the location of the labor
Foreign unskilled labor can be more easily reverted to seasonal, which is important for a lot of production


Scenario 2:
Now, if a Mexican crosses the border illegally and works as your landscaper, you get cheaper landscaping done, and the person who owns the landscaping company makes more money as well, because unless he/she is stupid, he?s not passing all the savings onto you, and it generally gets done faster, because they are more likely to be willing to work on Saturdays as well.



Scenario 1 has merits and demerits. It costs jobs, which eventually need to be replaced somehow, or the overall money supply can shrink and the trade deficit increases. Secondly, it is by terms anti-competitive due to standard of living. Workers in this country generally would be unwilling to accept a dollar an hour to do that kind of work. Free trade by nature provides cheaper customer goods, but also hurts the labor force in the stronger economic countries. It provides the best total benefit to society, but at the cost of the strongest cog in the wheel. Unfortunately, as of now, those benefits are not finding their way into consumer hands, but rather into corporate executive hands. The average CEO, minus stock and options (which generally make up a significant chunk of their benefits) is 262 times the lowest level permanent worker they employ.

Scenario 2 while fruity on the outside, is actually dangerous. While a definite consumer benefit is felt up front, it is a direct economic drain. No taxes are being paid on earnings. If the person has to go the hospital, taxpayers pay for it, and if they get into an accident, they are likely to hit and run out of fear of deportation. Those workers represent cheap labor in the U.S, but they also represent a direct liability to the country, with no taxes or social security or anything being collected to afford the benefits of living here.
________
OAKVILLE ASSEMBLY (http://www.ford-wiki.com/wiki/Oakville_Assembly)

[Clove]

Lol. Please quote what I asked for.

I said a quote where it said it was specifically EXCLUDED.

The absence of mention does not imply the absence of existence.

I guess they didn't teach you simple logic in accounting.

Apparently we're not doing a good job teaching logic to minorities either.

[Parkbandit]

Thanks Bob.

European countries. There is unrestricted movement of labor between members of the EU Community. Which *was* a stipulation in the EU free trade Agreement.

Next.


Is that the case in Europe? I live in France, I want to go to Spain... all I have to do is drive there.. and start living? Unrestricted and without any limits? What about someone from Africa? Can they simply land in France and start living there.. or do you have to be part of the European Union to do this?

Let's hold off on the "Next" until we actually get the facts.

[Warriorbird]

You can work there... it only extends to the EU countries (certainly not any pesky Africans). There's limits on how long you can stay.

[Parkbandit]

You can work there... it only extends to the EU countries (certainly not any pesky Africans). There's limits on how long you can stay.

OOOOOHHH.. so maybe it's not "Next" time quite yet.

Still waiting for a non-third world country that has an unrestricted immigration policy.

[Warriorbird]

There's some special waivers for citizens of former colonies but my cousin didn't have the specific details. I think it only extends to the former colony's colonizer however... not the whole EU.

There's still illegal immigration there and they tend to have a fair amount of issues with it.

EU countries can opt out of the agreement and maintain their own border controls. England and Ireland did I believe. I imagine the British folks could expound at length.

[Clove]

Is that the case in Europe? I live in France, I want to go to Spain... all I have to do is drive there.. and start living? Unrestricted and without any limits? What about someone from Africa? Can they simply land in France and start living there.. or do you have to be part of the European Union to do this?

Let's hold off on the "Next" until we actually get the facts.

For the purposes of economy the EU may as well be "The United States of Europe."

[Clove]

I find it ironic that the argument was fairly civil and free from pointless personal insults, until Daniel showed up. I mean jumpin' jeezus on a pogo-stick, even PB's been behaving himself.

[Warriorbird]

Certain people have serious antipathy. I don't actually consider illegal immigration a wedge issue (except maybe in the Republican Party itself.)

[Daniel]

I disagree. This is called an immigration policy because its based on an individual basis. Now if these individuals were corporations then I would agree with your assessment.

[quote]

It is still Labor. and Thus Trade.


[quote]
Apples and oranges.
Have we required countries to open up their immigration policies for individuals to move to another country to work? Or have we required other countries to open up their economies to our corporations to work?

If we have asked for the former then yes, it would indeed be hypocritical. If we have asked for the latter and provide barriers on the corporate level then yes it would be hypocritical.
Of the latter instance is where I'm unsure of...

Hence, why I asked the question.


I'm familiar with the terms, thanks.

Actually, it's not different. It's all trade.

But whatever makes you think you're right.

[Daniel]

Apparently we're not doing a good job teaching logic to minorities either.


I find it ironic that the argument was fairly civil and free from pointless personal insults, until Daniel showed up. I mean jumpin' jeezus on a pogo-stick, even PB's been behaving himself.

Thanks for conceeding the point.

P.s. Wanna wager a guess as to who threw out the first "Dipshit"?

[Daniel]

Is that the case in Europe? I live in France, I want to go to Spain... all I have to do is drive there.. and start living? Unrestricted and without any limits?

Yes. Answering your question and also proving that for economic purposes: Labor is included in International trade.


Next.

[Parkbandit]

OOOOOHHH.. so maybe it's not "Next" time quite yet.

Still waiting for a non-third world country that has an unrestricted immigration policy.


Still waiting...

[Daniel]

I just did dipshit. Labor is a factor of production. It isn't a good or a service that is TRADED in free TRADE.

Quoted.

Thanks for derailing the thread Clove.

[Parkbandit]

Yes. Answering your question and also proving that for economic purposes: Labor is included in International trade.


Next.

Incorrect (not a surprise to everyone here)

You may have diverted the discussion to trade and economy.. but that isn't the thread topic. It's immigration, plain and simple.

Show me a country that has an unrestricted immigration policy.. until then, your retarded "Labor is Trade" argument is nothing more than a stupid diversion.

Maybe you would like a chocolate donut off TheE's tree?

[Daniel]

Still waiting...

What is your point PB?

I was never claiming that any country had unrestricted immigration policies. I was claiming that Labor was apart of trade.

You won't find a single country that has a completely "Free" economy either.

[Daniel]

Incorrect (not a surprise to everyone here)

You may have diverted the discussion to trade and economy.. but that isn't the thread topic. It's immigration, plain and simple.

Show me a country that has an unrestricted immigration policy.. until then, your retarded "Labor is Trade" argument is nothing more than a stupid diversion.

Maybe you would like a chocolate donut off TheE's tree?

Incorrect, How?


So since no country has unrestricted immigration, Labor is not a part of trade?

That makes since to you?

How about..no country has free trade, period. How does that factor into your little logic?

Once we've established that you all were making shit up to prove your point that trade has nothing to do with labor we can get back to the OP.

Let me know when you're ready.

[Parkbandit]

Incorrect, How? Once we've established that you all were making shit up to prove your point that trade has nothing to do with labor we can get back to the OP.

Let me know when you're ready.

What exactly did I make up? I asked a simple question.. pertaining to the thread I started here. Name ONE fucking country that has unrestricted immigration.. Guess what dumbfuck, there isn't one. Instead, you and your pal TheE claim that because of NAFTA, we should allow free labor to go along with free trade.. which is as fucking stupid as you've demonstrated yourself to be on multiple occasions.



http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e6/belike53/retard.jpg

:yes:

[Daniel]

What exactly did I make up? I asked a simple question.. pertaining to the thread I started here. Name ONE fucking country that has unrestricted immigration.. Guess what dumbfuck, there isn't one. Instead, you and your pal TheE claim that because of NAFTA, we should allow free labor to go along with free trade.. which is as fucking stupid as you've demonstrated yourself to be on multiple occasions.



http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e6/belike53/retard.jpg

:yes:


I actually said that NAFTA specifically excluded Labor because of political implications.

Nice try though.

Good call on busting out the photoshop. When you can't win with logic and actual knowledge; use pictures.

[Gan]

I disagree. This is called an immigration policy because its based on an individual basis. Now if these individuals were corporations then I would agree with your assessment.


It is still Labor. and Thus Trade.




Actually, it's not different. It's all trade.

But whatever makes you think you're right.

Its different when comparing based on the premise of immigration and by definition of an individual seeking work vs. a foreign corp seeking market activity. I'm sorry its something that you fail to grasp, but thanks for conceding the point anyway.

[Gan]

Good call on busting out the photoshop. When you can't win with logic and actual knowledge; use pictures.


I think pictures are quite appropriate since you fail to grasp the previous posts with print in them.

LOL @ PB. I wonder if Daniel will put that one in as his avatar.

[Daniel]

Its different when comparing based on the premise of immigration and by definition of an individual seeking work vs. a foreign corp seeking market activity. I'm sorry its something that you fail to grasp, but thanks for conceding the point anyway.

Okay. So a good is excluded from trade considerations because there is some sort of restriction on it.

So..anyone with a Tariff is not considered?

So, an independent consultant is different than a consulting company offering professional services?

No.

Essentially, It's not included in discussions of trade *because you say so*.

Right. Got it.

[Daniel]

I think pictures are quite appropriate since you fail to grasp the previous posts with print in them.

LOL @ PB. I wonder if Daniel will put that on in as his avatar.

I like the pom poms.

[Clove]

Thanks for conceeding the point.

P.s. Wanna wager a guess as to who threw out the first "Dipshit"?

I said the argument was civil, dipshit, until you showed up. And it was.

[Gan]

Okay. So a good is excluded from trade considerations because there is some sort of restriction on it.

So..anyone with a Tariff is not considered?
Anyone with a tariff? ???


So, an independent consultant is different than a consulting company offering professional services?

No.
YES YES YES! Yes there is a difference if the consultant is working under a temporary work visa under the direction and cooperation of a foreign company vs. an independant consultant migrating over to the US to live and work on his own. How can you not see the difference?



Essentially, It's not included in discussions of trade *because you say so*.

Right. Got it.
And it should be included in the discussions of trade *because you say so*???

Riiiiight. Got it.

[Crazy Bard]

Fight!! Fight!! Fight!! Fight!! ...Pussys

[Gan]

I like the pom poms.

Whatever lifts your dress.

:shrug:

[Daniel]

I said the argument was civil, dipshit, until you showed up. And it was.

Implying what?

[Clove]

Implying what?

And he wonders why I call him dipshit?

[TheEschaton]

What exactly did I make up? I asked a simple question.. pertaining to the thread I started here. Name ONE fucking country that has unrestricted immigration.. Guess what dumbfuck, there isn't one. Instead, you and your pal TheE claim that because of NAFTA, we should allow free labor to go along with free trade.. which is as fucking stupid as you've demonstrated yourself to be on multiple occasions.



http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e6/belike53/retard.jpg

:yes:

The implication, dumbass, is we're being hypocritical in demanding free flow of corporations across the borders, but don't allow free flow of labor across the borders. As is every developed country in the world. Not that there exists some country X with completely open borders.

Once again you've missed the center of the debate and nitpicked on a hypothetical we never said existed.

[Daniel]

Anyone with a tariff? ???

Typo.

*Anything.




YES YES YES! Yes there is a difference if the consultant is working under a temporary work visa under the direction and cooperation of a foreign company vs. an independant consultant migrating over to the US to live and work on his own. How can you not see the difference?


So..The mexican who comes over to pick fruit is not doing so under the direction and cooperation of a company?

It's all labor.

A person from another country is providing a service for the benefit of America. How can you not see this?



And it should be included in the discussions of trade *because you say so*???



Actually, no. Because that's what economics is: Goods and Services.

You don't arbitrarily exclude things because you don't like the implications.

It's a political decision, not an economic one.

The moral decision should be that if we are going to have people in America working, then we should be ensuring that they have access to the same benefits and standards of employment that everyone else has. As it presently stands, for millions of people that is only possible through citizenship or illegal immigration. However, all they are tryign to do is fill a service, that *we* demand. Hardly fair.

[Daniel]

And he wonders why I call him dipshit?

Oh..so you weren't implying that *I* resorted to pointless name calling?

You were rightfully chastising yourself for degenerating the argument to pointless name calling?

I apologize for the misunderstanding then.

[Gan]

The implication, dumbass, is we're being hypocritical in demanding free flow of corporations across the borders, but don't allow free flow of labor across the borders. As is every developed country in the world. Not that there exists some country X with completely open borders.

Once again you've missed the center of the debate and nitpicked on a hypothetical we never said existed.

Since Daniel couldnt answer the question, I"ll ask you.


So we have restricted foreign companies who wish to send labor contractors to the US and yet we require countries to open access to their markets for our labor contractors?

I guess I'm in the dark here, when has this happened?

[Clove]

The implication, dumbass, is we're being hypocritical in demanding free flow of corporations across the borders, but don't allow free flow of labor across the borders. As is every developed country in the world. Not that there exists some country X with completely open borders.

Once again you've missed the center of the debate and nitpicked on a hypothetical we never said existed.

That's just patently untrue. A Dutch corporation decides to open a plant in Taiwan doesn't mean that Taiwan labor now pours into Holland. We do allow foreign workers to work in the United States, but we don't allow unrestricted immigration.

[TheEschaton]

Ah, but Gan, what you're failing to realize that "free trade" (where the movement of labor is free across borders in a global model) is not necessarily "the best trading situation for Americans"...it's simply the one which allows the most competition.

And God knows how our corporations actually hate competition.

-TheE-

[Clove]

Oh..so you weren't implying that *I* resorted to pointless name calling?

You were rightfully chastising yourself for degenerating the argument to pointless name calling?

I apologize for the misunderstanding then.

You're still being a dipshit.

[Daniel]

Since Daniel couldnt answer the question, I"ll ask you.

I did answer it. Sorry I didn't fall into your loaded question.

[Daniel]

You're still being a dipshit.

How's that foot taste?

[Daniel]

We do allow foreign workers to work in the United States, but we don't allow unrestricted immigration.

No, but we restrict the amount of foreign workers. Hence, unfree trade.

Contrary to your asinine assertation, not all people who illegally come to America do so to collect a welfare check.

[TheEschaton]

Not everything flows through corporations, Gan - the restriction of the right to work where a person wishes to work (due to wages, benefits, what have you) applies to individuals.

Let's put it this way: You have the U.S. and Mexico, a first and third world country respectively. Through NAFTA, you are demanding the right for corporations to move to Mexico and set up shop there. Companies do, to take advantage of competitive (read: low) wages and better (read: worse) working conditions.

Now, the labor, if this was to be a truly competitive process, would be able to say, "Hey, I don't want this crappy job, I want the better job in the U.S. with higher wages, benefits, and so on..." If this was an actually competitive market, this would be allowed, but because of POLITICAL (read: made up) pressures to restrict immigration, they can't do that.

What this creates is a system not of competition, as free trade demands, but a system where corporations, because there are no tariffs, win handily if they move to Mexico, and the workers in Mexico who can't come here lose handily because no one in Mexico will pay a good wage.

-TheE-

[Parkbandit]

I think pictures are quite appropriate since you fail to grasp the previous posts with print in them.

LOL @ PB. I wonder if Daniel will put that one in as his avatar.


He's still on the Bill and Jane books.. baby steps.

And I doubt he'll change his avatar. I think he likes to see himself as a girl.

[Daniel]

He's still on the Bill and Jane books.. baby steps.

And I doubt he'll change his avatar. I think he likes to see himself as a girl.

You know. I think I'll actually crap my pants when you actually make a post in the politics folder that has any amount of substantiated content.

[Keller]

That's just patently untrue. A Dutch corporation decides to open a plant in Taiwan doesn't mean that Taiwan labor now pours into Holland. We do allow foreign workers to work in the United States, but we don't allow unrestricted immigration.

What is patently untrue about his post? Please pick the EXACT words from his post and show how they are patently untrue.

[Parkbandit]

The implication, dumbass, is we're being hypocritical in demanding free flow of corporations across the borders, but don't allow free flow of labor across the borders. As is every developed country in the world. Not that there exists some country X with completely open borders.

Once again you've missed the center of the debate and nitpicked on a hypothetical we never said existed.

OHHHH, so according to TheE and his Fantasy World, every country has open trade AND open borders?

Here's an idea dumbass.. maybe instead of living in your World according to TheE.. maybe you could live in this one and try and figure out why every fucking developed country DOESN'T HAVE FREE FLOWING BORDERS.

Jesus Christ. It's like you ignore 90% of reality in every argument you have.

[Keller]

You know. I think I'll actually crap my pants when you actually make a post in the politics folder that has any amount of substantiated content.

Don't hold your breath.

[Parkbandit]

You know. I think I'll actually crap my pants when you actually make a post in the politics folder that has any amount of substantiated content.


Please show me where I have any unsubstantiated content in this thread... well except the Bill and Jane book part. I'm really not sure you are up to that level yet.. I was probably giving you too much credit.

[Daniel]

Please show me where I have any unsubstantiated content in this thread... well except the Bill and Jane book part. I'm really not sure you are up to that level yet.. I was probably giving you too much credit.


Okay..How about you making up arguments?




Guess what dumbfuck, there isn't one. Instead, you claim that because of NAFTA, we should allow free labor to go along with free trade.. wh






I actually said that NAFTA specifically excluded Labor because of political implications.

Nice try though.

Good call on busting out the photoshop. When you can't win with logic and actual knowledge; use pictures.

[Gan]

Typo.

*Anything.
Try to stick to the topic at hand. We're debating labor, not goods. One doesnt have immigration policies on goods.



So..The mexican who comes over to pick fruit is not doing so under the direction and cooperation of a company? Those who enter the US borders legally work for corporations (farm contractors (both domestic and foreign)) and are covered under THE MIGRANT AND SEASONAL AGRICULTURAL WORKER PROTECTION ACT, AS AMENDED1
(29 U.S.C. 1801, et seq.).
Individuals can operate under the guise of a farm contractor if they follow the proper procedures and register/qualify as one).



It's all labor. If and only if its someone working here who's entered the country legally. You're missing the whole concept of the application of immigration laws.
What you're proposing is that we just open our borders completely to anyone who 'claims' to be here under the precept of 'working' and free trade.

Some people perceive free trade as the free exchange of goods or services as applicable to the laws within the participants country. Free exchange being defined as no barriers to entry to that market.

There can not be 'free trade' as a pure concept simply because there are laws within each society that are designed to govern. Such as child labor laws, child pornography laws, wage and labor laws in general, safety laws, environmental laws, and yes immigration laws. Saying its hypocritical to stand for the removal of legal barriers spefically designed to give domestic production an unnatural market advantage over imported goods and yet still trade within the other laws of the land that each participant country is a fallacy within its own right.



A person from another country is providing a service for the benefit of America. How can you not see this? Benefit being the subjective term.




Actually, no. Because that's what economics is: Goods and Services.

You don't arbitrarily exclude things because you don't like the implications.

It's a political decision, not an economic one.

The moral decision should be that if we are going to have people in America working, then we should be ensuring that they have access to the same benefits and standards of employment that everyone else has. As it presently stands, for millions of people that is only possible through citizenship or illegal immigration. However, all they are tryign to do is fill a service, that *we* demand. Hardly fair.
And yet you cant demonstrate where workers who are here legally dont have the same benefit, standards, and protection that the average legal worker here in the US enjoy...

[Gan]

I did answer it. Sorry I didn't fall into your loaded question.

LOL

If thats what you believe, Dont let me wake you up from your dream.

[Daniel]

Try to stick to the topic at hand. We're debating labor, not goods. One doesnt have immigration policies on goods.



...

You have Tariffs on goods.

/Smiley face into brick wall


Those who enter the US borders legally work for corporations (farm contractors (both domestic and foreign)) and are covered under THE MIGRANT AND SEASONAL AGRICULTURAL WORKER PROTECTION ACT, AS AMENDED1
(29 U.S.C. 1801, et seq.).
Individuals can operate under the guise of a farm contractor if they follow the proper procedures and register/qualify as one).

If and only if its someone working here who's entered the country legally. You're missing the whole concept of the application of immigration laws.
What you're proposing is that we just open our borders completely to anyone who 'claims' to be here under the precept of 'working' and free trade.

Some people perceive free trade as the free exchange of goods or services as applicable to the laws within the participants country. Free exchange being defined as no barriers to entry to that market.

There can not be 'free trade' as a pure concept simply because there are laws within each society that are designed to govern. Such as child labor laws, child pornography laws, wage and labor laws in general, safety laws, environmental laws, and yes immigration laws. Saying its hypocritical to stand for the removal of legal barriers spefically designed to give domestic production an unnatural market advantage over imported goods and yet still trade within the other laws of the land that each participant country is a fallacy within its own right.


Yes Yes.

However, our trade agreements, that we avidly enforce, stipulates that we should put a good faith effort into restricting non trade barriers.

Thanks for implying that Immigration laws are the same as other trade laws. It kinda negates the point that restrictions mean something doesn't count in free trade.





And yet you cant demonstrate where workers who are here legally dont have the same benefit, standards, and protection that the average legal worker here in the US enjoy...

I'm not trying to demonstrate that.

I'm trying to demonstrate that we restrict the number of workers who can work here legally, for our own political reasons.

Comprehension for the win.

[Gan]

Ah, but Gan, what you're failing to realize that "free trade" (where the movement of labor is free across borders in a global model) is not necessarily "the best trading situation for Americans"...it's simply the one which allows the most competition.
I understand that perfectly, and somewhere within this broadly divergent discussion I agree with you that its not necessarily the best trading situation - because not all playing fields (labor/environmental/etc.) are equal. How can the US successfully compete with a nation producing cheap goods at the expense of things like child labor, sweatshop/parasitic work environments, and other things which our own laws and protections raise the opportunity costs on with production.



And God knows how our corporations actually hate competition.

-TheE-

Agreed. Thats the nature of a for profit market system. ;)

[Clove]

How's that foot taste?

Dipshit.

[Daniel]

Dipshit.

Awww. It's okay. There is always next thread.

[Gan]

...

You have Tariffs on goods.

/Smiley face into brick wall


No shit sherlock. You dont have tarrifs on people (that I'm aware of).




However, our trade agreements, that we avidly enforce, stipulates that we should put a good faith effort into restricting non trade barriers.
So I go back to my question, demonstrate where this has taken place.



Thanks for implying that Immigration laws are the same as other trade laws. It kinda negates the point that restrictions mean something doesn't count in free trade.
Incorrect perception ftl.


I'm not trying to demonstrate that.

I'm trying to demonstrate that we restrict the number of workers who can work here legally, for our own political reasons.
Howso? In what manner? With what laws?



Comprehension for the win.

Indeed.

[Clove]

Awww. It's okay. There is always next thread.

Dipshit.

[Clove]

The uneven playing field is a critical aspect of why plants relocate. OAF the E assume that plants relocate so they can lower costs and pocket the difference but that isn't always the case. If I have a shoe factory and we lift tariffs on Mexican imports, suddenly a Mexican factory can make shoes cheaper than I can. The easiest way to keep my price competitive is to move my plant where my costs will be similar.

For some reason the E thinks this is a good reason to allow anyone who wants to work here to come on down (or up).

[Daniel]

So I go back to my question, demonstrate where this has taken place.


Okay.

Take your pick:

http://www.ustr.gov/assets/Trade_Agreements/Monitoring_Enforcement/Dispute_Settlement/asset_upload_file243_5697.pdf



Howso? In what manner? With what laws?

Uhh..

http://uscis.gov/graphics/lawsregs/ina.htm

[Daniel]

Dipshit.

:thumbsup:

Or however that shit works.

[TheEschaton]

OHHHH, so according to TheE and his Fantasy World, every country has open trade AND open borders?

You need to get yours eyes checked out. That is exactly the OPPOSITE OF WHAT I SAID. I said we were being hypocrites for NOT HAVING THOSE THINGS, because free trade demands BOTH.

As for the "uneven playing field" comments of Gan and Clove, that's just the playing field! ;) I don't claim to be the one in FAVOR of capitalism....

....Or, maybe you want to enforce global standards on wages and conditions for workers, and even the playing field, so the competition is based on INNOVATION and not violation of basic human rights.

-TheE-

[Clove]

:thumbsup:

Or however that shit works.

Hey Daniel, how many times can I get you to quote me calling you a dipshit?

[Clove]

....Or, maybe you want to enforce global standards on wages and conditions for workers, and even the playing field, so the competition is based on INNOVATION and not violation of basic human rights.

-TheE-

The basic human right to dictate my salary. Nice.

[TheEschaton]

The basic human right to work, have food, and shelter.

[Daniel]

Hey Daniel, how many times can I get you to quote me calling you a dipshit?

At least one more, obviously.

[Gan]

Okay.

Take your pick:

http://www.ustr.gov/assets/Trade_Agreements/Monitoring_Enforcement/Dispute_Settlement/asset_upload_file243_5697.pdf



Uhh..

http://uscis.gov/graphics/lawsregs/ina.htm


Not a single topic in the 25 page document (1st link) cover what we're discussing with barriers to labor. They are simply trade negotiations on goods. Strike 4?

Your second link is busted.

http://www.horsesass.org/wp-content/uploads/fail.JPG

[Gan]

I said we were being hypocrites for NOT HAVING THOSE THINGS, because free trade demands BOTH.
Which is where the disagreement lies.


As for the "uneven playing field" comments of Gan and Clove, that's just the playing field! ;) I don't claim to be the one in FAVOR of capitalism....
Yes, we know my socialist friend.


....Or, maybe you want to enforce global standards on wages and conditions for workers, and even the playing field, so the competition is based on INNOVATION and not violation of basic human rights.

-TheE-
Its a nice goal, but as long as you have soverign nations operating their own type of society... its not going to happen.

Ceteris Paribus, while used theoretically, is not a realistic reference point. Each nation is going to have differing laws. Thats why trade negotiations have to take place with the exchange of goods and services. Where it gets sticky is when human capital is imported as a component of a market basket of goods. That capital (K) is not consumed as a finished product, but it also can not be stored on a shelf. Further more, since its a human component there are inherent variables such as wages, rights, provision of necessities, and rights to work and reside (temporarily or permanently) within the foreign country laws regulating that very human component must apply, laws such as immigration laws and migratory worker laws as well as societal laws (criminal/civil).

Now interject the political process of trade negotiations and political afectors that seek to 'protect' the populist domestic 'will of the people' as well as overcome the very same barriers that are thrown up elsewhere.

Work up a worst case scenario.
All barriers to trade in the US are dropped by US Customs. Anyone wishing to come to America to work can enter into the country barrier free with no regulation or enforcement. What happens to immigration laws when anyone seeking to come to America to work (and live) just claims to be 'working' in America? What about national security? It would be great for labor competition, bad for the ratio of wage earner to societal benefitor, and very rough on unemployment. What happens to the prices of goods and services when we drop all of our tarriffs to goods and services and other countries dont? What about things such as patent law protection? Should we drop that too? How will that affect the competetiveness of American corporations on a global scale? What impacts would that have on the cost benefit analysis of creating a product that can and will be replicated at a fraction of the cost and quality without the expense of the R/D that went into its original development and manufacture?

Free trade isnt free in a pure sense. Its just attempting to eliminate the inefficient barriers to entry (politicized tarriffs/laws) into international markets while still respecting the laws governing how those markets behave within those marketplaces. It just depends on who's interpretation of politicized laws/tarriffs/barriers to entry are which.

[Keller]

Over 100 retarded posts later, Gan actually addresses TheE's issue.

At least someone on the R-team can read.

[Warriorbird]

They're half the people who vote in the country Keller. It is scary.

[TheEschaton]

And there it is.


Oh, Gan, if "free trade" isn't really free, why should we care if some countries want to be, say, a little more protectionist? I mean, we don't let their workers freely migrate, why should they let our goods and companies? ;)

In other words: Why is the free flow of goods and capital considered "vital" and "necessary" when the free flow of "labor" and "rights" aren't? I would suggest it's because we don't want free trade, we want to dominate the global economy, at any expense, even human.

-TheE-

[Parkbandit]

The basic human right to work, have food, and shelter.


Don't forget healthcare and transportation.

[Daniel]

Don't forget healthcare and transportation.

We won't.

[Gan]

And there it is.


Oh, Gan, if "free trade" isn't really free, why should we care if some countries want to be, say, a little more protectionist? I mean, we don't let their workers freely migrate, why should they let our goods and companies? ;)

In other words: Why is the free flow of goods and capital considered "vital" and "necessary" when the free flow of "labor" and "rights" aren't? I would suggest it's because we don't want free trade, we want to dominate the global economy, at any expense, even human.

-TheE-

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i3/3strangedays/warf.gif

[TheEschaton]

Way to answer the question. Why do we demand everything that benefits US to be free and unimpaired, while everything that benefits the third world country/worker be highly regulated?

[Parkbandit]

You realize we're IN the United States, right? I've heard of no other country that makes policy that hinders their country, while benefiting third world countries.

I love donut trees.

[Gan]

Way to answer the question. Why do we demand everything that benefits US to be free and unimpaired, while everything that benefits the third world country/worker be highly regulated?

We dont demand everything that benefits US to be free and unimpared. 100+ posts and you still fail to see that or demonstrate where we are asking for everything and giving nothing to a 3rd world country.

Your scenario exists only in your confusion as to what Free Trade represents.

:banghead:

[TheEschaton]

Unlike you, I've studied globalization. ;)

[Gan]

Unlike you, I've studied economics. :(

[Parkbandit]

Woosh?

[Daniel]

Woosh?

Indeed

[Gan]

Its almost predictable.

Good timing Daniel.

[Daniel]

We're just trying to catch up.

[Keller]

Unlike you, I've studied economics. :(

Things have changed since you were in college in the 60s.

[Keller]

Its almost predictable.

Good timing Daniel.

Woosh?

[Gan]

Things have changed since you were in college in the 60s.

:lol:

(My BS Economcs degree (even though it wasnt from U Chicago) is dated 2000) ;)

[Daniel]

You're like 29?

[Gan]

My birthdate is in my profile.

I'm 38.

[Daniel]

Just asking.

My profile said I was like 32 or some shit because I was too lazy to put in my real birthday.

[TheEschaton]

But putting in a fake birthday was somehow more effortless? LoL.

[Methais]

But putting in a fake birthday was somehow more effortless? LoL.

That's what I was wondering.

[Daniel]

Yea.

It was something about registering a new account and me being too lazy to change it.

[crb]

Except. That's not what people are saying.
You sure... I saw on TV a rally where some loser, literally said "Just because I was born in Mexico doesn't mean I don't have a right to live in the USA. Everyone has to right to live, every Mexican." Seriously.

[Crazy Bard]

Did you see the video-clip on CNN of the 20-something Mexican packed pick-up truck traveling from Mexico across the border. Border patrol sent 1 car ..and had to retreat after several rocks were thrown from the trunk. That would have been 20 less jobs that American citizens would be able to snag. Damn Mexicans

[Clove]

Not if they had to pay them the same as an American worker.