Illegal Immigration Under President Eisenhower

[rickjump1 0]

President Eisenhower stopped illegal immigration with "Operation Wetback". http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0706/p09s01-coop.html Interesting reading. Retired Border Patrol agents who participated in this operation say it can be done again today.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[SBS 0]

I don't think stopping them is the problem. The question is what do we do when they aren't here?

I would put money on the notion that the day illegals don't contribute something to our economy that is not otherwise available, Operation Wetback Numero Dos will be in place in a matter of days.

We could always make them legal, but that would mean we have to let them stay and can't disown them at will.

_____________
I'm not conceited...I'm just realistic about my awesomeness...

[rickjump1 0]

Life in the US did not die out when Eisenhower sent them home. Farmers hired legal documented workers for starters. Adjustments yes.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[DJL 235]

Quote

President Eisenhower stopped illegal immigration with "Operation Wetback". http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0706/p09s01-coop.html Interesting reading. Retired Border Patrol agents who participated in this operation say it can be done again today.

Anyone who looks to the past for solutions is bound to repeat their mistakes. The underlying motives in that article are so rampant with racism you can almost imagine that we're back in 1951 when white anglos didn't even consider other races to be worthy of sharing bathrooms.

Dammit, that's two posts today where I took it way deeper than it needed to go.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[rickjump1 0]

Quote

Quote

President Eisenhower stopped illegal immigration with "Operation Wetback". http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0706/p09s01-coop.html Interesting reading. Retired Border Patrol agents who participated in this operation say it can be done again today.

Anyone who looks to the past for solutions is bound to repeat their mistakes. The underlying motives in that article are so rampant with racism you can almost imagine that we're back in 1951 when white anglos didn't even consider other races to be worthy of sharing bathrooms.

Dammit, that's two posts today where I took it way deeper than it needed to go.

"Anyone who looks to the past for solutions is bound to repeat their mistakes". False. We learn from the past and improve. Racism? Anthing about removing illegal aliens is racism. Right? Maybe corruption, but not racism. Nobody said anything about sharing bathrooms. Anglos? No, you mean Americans of any color who are here LEGALLY. You don't need to go any deeper.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[SBS 0]

What was the influence that illegal immigrants had on the economy in the 1950's vs that of today? Was it comparable?

If life without them would be as good or better than life with them, and the government has much better intelligence than we do and are well aware of operation wetback and many other methods by which they could stop illegal border crossing, then why don't they stop it?

_____________
I'm not conceited...I'm just realistic about my awesomeness...

[Andrewwhyte 1]

If you read the article there were vested interests back then who suffered from such a round up (as championed by LBJ) and those who would gain (legal unskilled labour). The situation is similar today; the shortage of work for unskilled labour is much less acute but the niche filled by illegals travels much higher up the skills ladder.
The truth is that alleviating the UDW problem amounts to short term pain for long term gain. There is no chance that lawmakers will engage in that kind of policy in an election year or, more importantly, as they are trying to avoid a recession.
Some people may say that freeing up those jobs on the bottom will help the economy, and that may be true a little further in the cycle if the recession really hits employment. Right now however the problem is on the capital side of the economy, that's the side that will suffer from the short term effects of a large scale removal.

[masterrig 1]

Sending illegals back home, is fine with me. What I can't figure-out is why, Washington, in their infinate wisdom, did away with programs where we had the availibilityof workers and when the growing season was over... they went home. I think, the bottom line is, Washington is so eaten up with 'political correctness', they're screwing-up. I tend to agree with you in that, we can learn from our past and correct our mistakes. When our government does away with 'political correctness', they just might, do something right.


Chuck

[DJL 235]

Quote

"Anyone who looks to the past for solutions is bound to repeat their mistakes". False. We learn from the past and improve. Racism? Anthing about removing illegal aliens is racism. Right? Maybe corruption, but not racism. Nobody said anything about sharing bathrooms. Anglos? No, you mean Americans of any color who are here LEGALLY. You don't need to go any deeper.

That would be a linguistic trap you fell into; a counter to the "He who does not learn from the past is bound to repeat his mistakes." I say that because while we need to look to the past for mistakes, it's not as easy when you're looking for solutions. Any action that you take needs to apply to the present day - you cannot simply do what you did last time to fix a problem, otherwise you're going to end up exactly where you were at the beginning. Solutions need to be proactive and modern. I don't know what "operation wetback" fully entailed and it doesn't really matter. We as a sovereign nation need to do what it takes to protect our borders but we can't do it by using a method we came up with in 1951.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[rickjump1 0]

Quote

Sending illegals back home, is fine with me. What I can't figure-out is why, Washington, in their infinate wisdom, did away with programs where we had the availibilityof workers and when the growing season was over... they went home. I think, the bottom line is, Washington is so eaten up with 'political correctness', they're screwing-up. I tend to agree with you in that, we can learn from our past and correct our mistakes. When our government does away with 'political correctness', they just might, do something right.


Chuck

It will take some tough decisions starting with White House. Don't see it happening with this guy or 1 out of 3 of the current candidates. Some sanctuary cities are taking a second look after Americans are killed in traffic accidents by illegals who have previous violations and no legal drivers license. They were left alone by the police to continue driving. As for illegal criminals, if they do serve time, they are not DEPORTED. Insane.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[rickjump1 0]

As heartless as it seems to you, making these people go home can be done. Just ask the retired Border Patrol agents. They have sat back and watched our country fill back up years after one president had the guts to do something about it. Think about it. If you illegally enter any country other than the United States, you would be deported and considered a criminal.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Life in the US did not die out when Eisenhower sent them home. Farmers hired legal documented workers for starters. Adjustments yes.

I think that is the most viable option....

Make it VERY VERY expensive for anyone caught hiring illegals... that dries up the jobs and sends a message to other employers...

THEN reform our welfare system... no work.. no money.. period... There are VERY few on welfare who could not do something productive.. and for mothers... job sharing so that several of them band together... and share the same jobs.. with one of them doing day care duties on a rotational basis.

Any jobs after that that were not being filled with Americans.. THEN go for the guest worker programs... and the only ones elegible are the ones who show up at the hiring in THEIR OWN COUNTRY with transportation provided by the employers... to the job and back to their country at the end of a 1 year term.

[DJL 235]

Quote

As heartless as it seems to you, making these people go home can be done. Just ask the retired Border Patrol agents. They have sat back and watched our country fill back up years after one president had the guts to do something about it. Think about it. If you illegally enter any country other than the United States, you would be deported and considered a criminal.

I agree with you completely.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[rickjump1 0]

Quote

Quote

As heartless as it seems to you, making these people go home can be done. Just ask the retired Border Patrol agents. They have sat back and watched our country fill back up years after one president had the guts to do something about it. Think about it. If you illegally enter any country other than the United States, you would be deported and considered a criminal.

I agree with you completely.

Do you have soultions? I would be interested.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[rickjump1 0]

Hiring illegals and welfare are similar. Life without cheap labor: ouch! Get a job: ouch. Can be done.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[DJL 235]

A few for starters. Not gonna spend my workday blowing more hot air.

Improve and expand programs for work visas and make it easier to come over legally. Documented workers are losing jobs to illegals because of cost making the program moot. We need a good program that is worthwhile to use.

Immediate deportation of undocumented persons. This is the most difficult because if someone won't say where they're from then we can't just drive them across the Canadian border and dump them.

Increase fines to employers. Money talks in capitalism.

Define citizenship based on the mother's legal status.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Increase fines to employers. Money talks in capitalism.

Personally I would support DEPORTING the people who hire illegals back to THEIR country of origin

[SBS 0]

What you've said is a reasonable statement, but is a very general overview of the issue...some will benefit, some will suffer, politicians don't have the balls, etc. What I'm wondering, which I don't have the time or frankly desire to do right this second (but may sometime), is look at quantifiable impact that a move like this would have.

What we can't discount is the different impacts that it would have on different industries. Some may suffer more than others, and while one industry may benefit slightly, the other may suffer greatly, and we net out at a negative.

Something else that I think is interesting, is that we always assume that because they are here companies will not hire legal citizens. Nobody is rejecting applications of documented workers...not like they disappear and all of a sudden there's a raid at the employment office of people who were just waiting for them to go away. If there are others in line for one's job then that person needs to work harder. If what people say is true, and all these people are going to come out of the woodwork when the Mexicans are gone and they weren't on the line fighting for the jobs before, then they weren't worth a damn in the first place.

_____________
I'm not conceited...I'm just realistic about my awesomeness...

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

If what people say is true, and all these people are going to come out of the woodwork when the Mexicans are gone and they weren't on the line fighting for the jobs before, then they weren't worth a damn in the first place.

Depends on the wage offered. This is an old fight; immigrants, legal or not, put downward pressure on wages. During the fifties the overall skill level of the labour force was lower so it was more visible, but the basic supply/demand function has not changed; capitalists want more labour supply, labour wants less.

[SBS 0]

Quote

Depends on the wage offered. This is an old fight; immigrants, legal or not, put downward pressure on wages. During the fifties the overall skill level of the labour force was lower so it was more visible, but the basic supply/demand function has not changed; capitalists want more labour supply, labour wants less.

I think that something that seems to be forgotten in this argument is that both of those groups, the capitalist and the labor are US. WE are the capitalists AND the labor. Robbing Peter to pay Paul ultimately does not work. Taking away all of the labor and creating demand for people who would rather sit on their asses and collect welfare than go out and earn an honest wage because they are "above that" or are "worth more than that" doesn't serve our country any more than letting anyone in who wants to come. There is a balance that needs to be reached that will included deportation of some and turning a blind eye to others.

So how much do you suppose wages would have to increase to motivate Joe Blow Outta Work to get out into a field and pick berries? Do you propose that the companies just eat that extra cost? That cost will be passed onto us at a premium. They won't do their markup and then tag on that extra $5 an hour they are paying. They are going to tag on his fully loaded salary, $7 an hour, and then mark up their 30% or whatever they want to make. Now we're at $9.10 an hour in addition to what we were paying before.

Now figure one company with 400 Acres, that averages 400 workers 8 hours a day for 6 months of the year. At $7 an hour, 8 hours a day, 26 days a month, that comes out to $3.5 million a year additional to what they are already paying. That is for a farm of 400 acres, producing about 5k boxes per acres. So, $1.75 additional per box plus mark up to the wholesaler, $2.25, plus markup to the store, $3.25, plus markup to the consumer, $4. Eight boxes of strawberries per flat, that's $.50 per little box of strawberries. How many companies do you suppose that would put out of business? Unless of course EVERYONE (meaning us) purchases no less produce, despite the price increases.

That is, assuming best case, that $5/hour would be enough to supply enough workers to pick enough boxes in the same amount of time.

_____________
I'm not conceited...I'm just realistic about my awesomeness...

[SBS 0]

Quote

THEN reform our welfare system... no work.. no money.. period... There are VERY few on welfare who could not do something productive.. and for mothers... job sharing so that several of them band together... and share the same jobs.. with one of them doing day care duties on a rotational basis.

Any jobs after that that were not being filled with Americans.. THEN go for the guest worker programs... and the only ones elegible are the ones who show up at the hiring in THEIR OWN COUNTRY with transportation provided by the employers... to the job and back to their country at the end of a 1 year term.

So I think this sound reasonable, but is a little backwards...take the labor away, see what happens, and then give it back...

What about step one being "reform welfare". That way, we don't suffer from higher prices because of increased labor costs, and companies have the opportunity to build a back up force before their A team gets torn away.

Everyone here that is arguing for deportation of the illegals seems to be giving fantastic ideas for getting rid of them...that's the easy part. The hard part seems here to be written off to "eh, we can make it work". Amazon's is the first real offer of a solution that I have seen, while still skewed towards "get rid of them immediately".

Does anybody look at the big picture here? Not the positive for the Capitalists by increasing the labor force, and not the negative to the labor by forcing down wages, but to the net result that their presence has on the economy and the negative impact that their immediate removal would have? What about the companies that would not be able to bounce back from the recession? We're not talking about a bad year, we're talking about a bad decade. What are they supposed to do when their labor force disappears and they haven't had the support to build a replacement? We can say "fuck em", but the fact is that they service us. We see that end result, and sure, they may lose their mansions, but we will all suffer.

_____________
I'm not conceited...I'm just realistic about my awesomeness...

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Quote

Depends on the wage offered. This is an old fight; immigrants, legal or not, put downward pressure on wages. During the fifties the overall skill level of the labour force was lower so it was more visible, but the basic supply/demand function has not changed; capitalists want more labour supply, labour wants less.

I think that something that seems to be forgotten in this argument is that both of those groups, the capitalist and the labor are US. WE are the capitalists AND the labor. Robbing Peter to pay Paul ultimately does not work. Taking away all of the labor and creating demand for people who would rather sit on their asses and collect welfare than go out and earn an honest wage because they are "above that" or are "worth more than that" doesn't serve our country any more than letting anyone in who wants to come. There is a balance that needs to be reached that will included deportation of some and turning a blind eye to others.

So how much do you suppose wages would have to increase to motivate Joe Blow Outta Work to get out into a field and pick berries? Do you propose that the companies just eat that extra cost? That cost will be passed onto us at a premium. They won't do their markup and then tag on that extra $5 an hour they are paying. They are going to tag on his fully loaded salary, $7 an hour, and then mark up their 30% or whatever they want to make. Now we're at $9.10 an hour in addition to what we were paying before.

Now figure one company with 400 Acres, that averages 400 workers 8 hours a day for 6 months of the year. At $7 an hour, 8 hours a day, 26 days a month, that comes out to $3.5 million a year additional to what they are already paying. That is for a farm of 400 acres, producing about 5k boxes per acres. So, $1.75 additional per box plus mark up to the wholesaler, $2.25, plus markup to the store, $3.25, plus markup to the consumer, $4. Eight boxes of strawberries per flat, that's $.50 per little box of strawberries. How many companies do you suppose that would put out of business? Unless of course EVERYONE (meaning us) purchases no less produce, despite the price increases.

That is, assuming best case, that $5/hour would be enough to supply enough workers to pick enough boxes in the same amount of time.

Yesterday, my wife and I were in the grocery store and 1-qt. of strawberries was $6.39! We passed on the strawberies.


Chuck

[billvon 3,116]

>Yesterday, my wife and I were in the grocery store and 1-qt. of
>strawberries was $6.39! We passed on the strawberies.

And that's the underlying reason "just send em all home" will end up failing. Local crops will go unsold, farmers will go out of business, the economy will slump further - until someone agrees to "look the other way" (just until the farmer gets back on his feet, of course.)

Meanwhile, consumers will continue to buy the $4 bag o strawberries instead of the $8 100%-american-picked strawberries - and the farmers who _are_ trying to play by the rules will lose their farms.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

I think that something that seems to be forgotten in this argument is that both of those groups, the capitalist and the labor are US. WE are the capitalists AND the labor. Robbing Peter to pay Paul ultimately does not work. Taking away all of the labor and creating demand for people who would rather sit on their asses and collect welfare than go out and earn an honest wage because they are "above that" or are "worth more than that" doesn't serve our country any more than letting anyone in who wants to come. There is a balance that needs to be reached that will included deportation of some and turning a blind eye to others.

So how much do you suppose wages would have to increase to motivate Joe Blow Outta Work to get out into a field and pick berries? Do you propose that the companies just eat that extra cost? That cost will be passed onto us at a premium. They won't do their markup and then tag on that extra $5 an hour they are paying. They are going to tag on his fully loaded salary, $7 an hour, and then mark up their 30% or whatever they want to make. Now we're at $9.10 an hour in addition to what we were paying before.

Now figure one company with 400 Acres, that averages 400 workers 8 hours a day for 6 months of the year. At $7 an hour, 8 hours a day, 26 days a month, that comes out to $3.5 million a year additional to what they are already paying. That is for a farm of 400 acres, producing about 5k boxes per acres. So, $1.75 additional per box plus mark up to the wholesaler, $2.25, plus markup to the store, $3.25, plus markup to the consumer, $4. Eight boxes of strawberries per flat, that's $.50 per little box of strawberries. How many companies do you suppose that would put out of business? Unless of course EVERYONE (meaning us) purchases no less produce, despite the price increases.

That is, assuming best case, that $5/hour would be enough to supply enough workers to pick enough boxes in the same amount of time.

In Canada we don't have a large stock of illegals to do farm labour. We do have guest workers and legal immigrants doing it. They get paid wages I don't want to work for, but they are subject to minimum wage laws as well as health and safety regs. American produce is a lot cheaper than Canadian produce and free trade did push a lot of farmers out of business. Most consumers prefer to buy Canadian produce, but their preference is not unlimited; if the apples are cheaper from Washington State then people buy the apples from Washington.

[SBS 0]

Quote

Yesterday, my wife and I were in the grocery store and 1-qt. of strawberries was $6.39! We passed on the strawberies.

That's kind of the point, is that we are already in a situation that is dire. A small hit would put companies under...what we are discussing would be disastrous.

_____________
I'm not conceited...I'm just realistic about my awesomeness...