Guest Worker Program (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

popeye1250 -> Guest Worker Program (11/24/2006 4:57:17 PM)

Caitlyn and me were discussing the possibility of the next Congress comming up with a "Guest Worker Program" in the next two years on another thread.
I told her I didn't think it was very likely because so many Americans would be against it.
If the govt. can't control our borders and start deporting the 20 million? illegals in the country now they're way ahead of themselves trying to sell a "Guest Worker Program" to The American People.
If there were such a program put in place it would have to have a lot of details in it as well as especially enforcement provisions to even have a chance at passing and we all know how good the govt. is at keeping their word!
I think any such program should have the following conditions imposed on it.
The countries of Mexico, all Central American countries and S. American countries should be excluded from any Guest Worker Program.
Those countries are largely responsible for the immigration mess we're in right now and you don't "reward" people for criminal behaviour.
The program should last for a finite amount of time say 6 years.
Any program should *NOT* be a permanent program.
Any type of guest worker program should not be a "citizenship" program. That is the person comes to this country for a 2 or 3 year period to *work* and they should have minumum contact with citizens and under no circumstances should there be any possibility of ever getting U.S. Citizenship.
They should be paid "the going rate" of pay for the type of work they are doing and there should be a caseworker with full powers to make sure that they do.
More later. Any thoughts so far?



popeye1250 -> RE: Guest Worker Program (11/24/2006 5:15:07 PM)

Also, all housing, medical and other costs created by the individuals in this program should be bourn by the companies involved in the guestworker program.
There should be absolutely *no costs* involved to the taxpayers.



philosophy -> RE: Guest Worker Program (11/24/2006 6:19:28 PM)

..it seems to me that any country has the right to insist that if foreigners come there they ought not to be an economic burden. Obviously there are humanitarian emergencies that crop up from time to time, but they're exceptional not the norm. i can't comment too much on what you suggest Popeye, because not being American i don't have the same stake in it as you do....but i am intrigued as to why you feel it necessary to insist that these legal workers "should have minumum contact with citizens"....not sure why this is relevant to ensuring foreign workers don't become a burden......



sleazy -> RE: Guest Worker Program (11/24/2006 6:27:13 PM)

Well as one who has come close to dealing with INS on that side of the atlantic with a view to settling, I can appreciate some of the points made. Both side of the ocean it seems the ability of the relevant agencies to enforce the law is often hampered, ineffective, and inconsistently appllied.

I would imagine the reasoning behind minimizing contact with the natives is to avoid any chance of
a) marriage
b) other support for hiding from the authourities.



popeye1250 -> RE: Guest Worker Program (11/24/2006 9:09:56 PM)

Sleazy, correct.
And for a change I would include Europeans in the program as well as India and China.
I'd imagine that after working here for two or three years someone from China would return home very well off if they saved a lot of their earnings.
Philosophy, the way things are working now with no program and employers hiring illegals it is costing taxpayers tens of billions!
Of course they don't want anything to change.
They'd make it legal to hire illegal aliens and pay them even less and call it a "Guest WorkerProgram" if they had their way.



NeedToUseYou -> RE: Guest Worker Program (11/24/2006 11:34:13 PM)

I don't agree with everything, but I do think that nationality of a child should be determined by the nationality of the parents. So, if two people jumped the border popped out a baby, it wouldn't do them any good. Of course, it wouldn't help in cases were the mother or father is a US citizen, but at least it would make some sense and discourage people from coming here expressly for the purpose of giving birth.

I really don't see the logic of banning central america. They are obviously the ones most willing to come and least expensive to deport/import. It makes no sense to ship someone from china to do what someone in mexico would do.

I agree the guest worker program shouldn't be permanent and the numbers allowed should be written that they can't exceed a certain percentage of the population at any given time. (Would need a study to determine our actual need for workers, any more than that leads to joblessness which isn't good either).

I don't think it would be possible or economicly advantageous to completely cut them off from the population. You'd have to construct prison like complexes and hire full time guards to do that, which would defeat the purpose of lowering costs of certain jobs. I would say a good compromise would be mandatory check-ins once a month. You don't check in you are deemed in violation and a warrant is placed for your arrest and you void future guest worker privileges. At least this would reduce the float of workers from one area to another as they'd have to check in, or would be charged with a crime if caught elsewhere.

I'd also say that during the time here the employer must at their own expense provide English training classes.

I'm not opposed to permanent citizenship either. My personal view is the person should be able to demonstrate the ability to get and hold a job that wouldn't require any additional support. It's not a bad thing to import doctors, engineers, etc.... But it's really not in our economic interest to let the unskilled enter permanently in groves either.

I'm unsure what the "going rate" refers to, if it is for current U.S. citizens that are on the books. I wouldn't see the point, there are huge segments of the economy that want the cheap labor.  I'd say it should be fixed as a percentage of minimum wage as a base line. 2/3rds of the minimum wage would seem reasonable.

Any medical treatment and or deportation expenses are to borne by the employer, this would give the employer incentive to more closely pick and certify the type of workers they are using.

I'm sure there is more......

After that is done, can start on changing the system for the current US citizens. LOL.





LTRsubNW -> RE: Guest Worker Program (11/24/2006 11:48:17 PM)

Whenever I have guests over I always find it offensive that they think they don't have to work.



NorthernGent -> RE: Guest Worker Program (11/25/2006 4:06:14 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

I'd imagine that after working here for two or three years someone from China would return home very well off if they saved a lot of their earnings.



Popeye, this is pretty much what is expected in Britain with the Poles who are working here. In practice, they are migrant workers (as opposed to immigrants) as they are expected to return to Poland after couple of years working here.

The problem with this is that the Poles (and the immigrants you have in mind) offer business and the Government a quick fix and a reason not to train the poorest socio-economic groups in British and US society. Thus, when the Poles return to Poland we will still have a section of our society who are short of skills and training (as you will when your guest workers return to China).

In my opinion, our Governments should be making funding available to train British and US citizens (rather than spend our money on tridents/wars etc) who desperately need an improvement to their quality of life. Otherwise, you will always have a section of your society (as you do now) cut off from economic and social enablement.

If our economies can absorb guest/migrant workers and train our own unskilled then great but let's give our own people a chance first and then look for guest workers if there is a shortage of labour supply.

You may think immigrants do jobs that your own people are unwilling to do but this is certainly incorrect in Britain. We have individuals within ethnic groups, mentally and physically disabled, homeless and habitually unemployed who could all contribute to our economy if the conditions are planted to enable them. It has been proven in Britain that migrant workers make a net contribution to economic growth but it is also proven that those Britons who benefit are those previously in a comfortable position. So, it comes down to this, do you want your elites and middle classes to increase their personal wealth or do you want to give your poorest socio-economic groups a chance to benefit from the vast wealth created within the US?



meatcleaver -> RE: Guest Worker Program (11/25/2006 5:12:46 AM)

Free movement of labour within the EU is one of the benefits of the EU. The fact that some governments and indivciduals see it as a negative is because (my guess) they usually see the glass as half empty rather than half full. If immigration has caused the economy to grow, some of that growth has to be spent of the need for increased services such as medical and education but on the whole, it costs the country nothing. The fact that there are poor trapped in an underclass has nothing to do with migration and everything to do with a government's domestic policy. By blaming migrant workers for a country's problems is letting the government off the hook for its failed policies. The EU economy is expanding, Britain has an equal claim to that increased wealth but it needs to have the policies to exploit it. Migrant workers are a side issue, a red herring. My guess is the same applies to NAFTA and migrant Mexicans in the US.



NorthernGent -> RE: Guest Worker Program (11/25/2006 5:50:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

Free movement of labour within the EU is one of the benefits of the EU. The fact that some governments and indivciduals see it as a negative is because (my guess) they usually see the glass as half empty rather than half full.

Not this invidual, MC. I am as optimistic a person as you will ever meet. On the otherhand, I'm also a realist. Also, I have never said and nor believe that the EU is a negative concept. We've had this discussion before and I would love to see Britain learning some lessons from our European neighbours and this will only be done with Britain being far more involved in the EU than we are at the moment.
 
Also, I'm aware that many of our councils are partially funded by EU departments in order to enable our poorest sections of society and create sustainable economic growth.
 
My objection to migrant work is on the grounds that our Government is using it as a quick fix towards economic growth when  I believe they should be aiming for sustainable economic growth by improving the skill sets of people who are cut off from the wealth generated in our country.
 
If immigration has caused the economy to grow, some of that growth has to be spent of the need for increased services such as medical and education but on the whole, it costs the country nothing. The fact that there are poor trapped in an underclass has nothing to do with migration and everything to do with a government's domestic policy. By blaming migrant workers for a country's problems is letting the government off the hook for its failed policies. The EU economy is expanding, Britain has an equal claim to that increased wealth but it needs to have the policies to exploit it. Migrant workers are a side issue, a red herring. My guess is the same applies to NAFTA and migrant Mexicans in the US.


I'm not blaming migrant workers for anything. Humans have migrated for many a year so it is an accepted state of affairs. As said, my complaint is that our Government and business allies are milking the situation with their interests in mind.
 
Also, on your "it costs the country nothing point" there is some truth in this as migrant workers are obviously working but also young which means they pay in tax and take little out in terms of pension and welfare. A point to bear in mind though is that migrant work is cheaper and so that tax put in is less than the tax put in by a British worker and while helping to maintain low inflation it also helps to maintain a reduced level of spending power. Thus, it's not as rosy in the garden as it seems at first light. There is a lot of debate at the moment on the economic impact of migrant labour and it is not clear cut by any stretch of the imagination. Either way, we should be aiming for sustainable economic growth and enabling the poorest socio-economic groups in our society - migrant labour supports neither because ultimately we need long term skills rather than a quick fix.




KatyLied -> RE: Guest Worker Program (11/25/2006 5:50:40 AM)

quote:

they should have minumum contact with citizens


This is an interesting concept.
How do you define "minimum contact".
How would you enforce it?
It sounds like you are looking for people to populate a work camp.

spelling edit




JerseyKrissi72 -> RE: Guest Worker Program (11/25/2006 5:54:54 AM)

Alot of people have trouble with migrant workers but from where I LIVE people here won't do the jobs on the farms that the Mexicans will so...why bitch? Alot of Americans are lazy and would much rather collect welfare than go work in a field picking vegetables all day long...My grandfather came from the South and he would work a farm in the morning, go to work during the day, work the farm at night....Alot of Americans have gotten lazy.



popeye1250 -> RE: Guest Worker Program (11/25/2006 7:29:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: KatyLied

quote:

they should have minumum contact with citizens


This is an interesting concept.
How do you define "minimum contact".
How would you enforce it?
It sounds like you are looking for people to populate a work camp.

spelling edit




Katy, what I meant was that there shouldn't be any possibility of attaining U.S. Citizenship through this program either by marriage or having a child with an American citizen.
It would be a totally seperate program from anything else.
They would be here to work not to travel around and see the country. A *work* program not a way to get U.S. Citizenship.
And as Needtouseyou mentioned about involving Mexico, Central & S. America those countries already have millions of their population here illegally so they shouldn't be involved in this program.
We should give other countries a chance for a change.



popeye1250 -> RE: Guest Worker Program (11/25/2006 7:47:45 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou

I don't agree with everything, but I do think that nationality of a child should be determined by the nationality of the parents. So, if two people jumped the border popped out a baby, it wouldn't do them any good. Of course, it wouldn't help in cases were the mother or father is a US citizen, but at least it would make some sense and discourage people from coming here expressly for the purpose of giving birth.

I really don't see the logic of banning central america. They are obviously the ones most willing to come and least expensive to deport/import. It makes no sense to ship someone from china to do what someone in mexico would do.

I agree the guest worker program shouldn't be permanent and the numbers allowed should be written that they can't exceed a certain percentage of the population at any given time. (Would need a study to determine our actual need for workers, any more than that leads to joblessness which isn't good either).

I don't think it would be possible or economicly advantageous to completely cut them off from the population. You'd have to construct prison like complexes and hire full time guards to do that, which would defeat the purpose of lowering costs of certain jobs. I would say a good compromise would be mandatory check-ins once a month. You don't check in you are deemed in violation and a warrant is placed for your arrest and you void future guest worker privileges. At least this would reduce the float of workers from one area to another as they'd have to check in, or would be charged with a crime if caught elsewhere.

I'd also say that during the time here the employer must at their own expense provide English training classes.

I'm not opposed to permanent citizenship either. My personal view is the person should be able to demonstrate the ability to get and hold a job that wouldn't require any additional support. It's not a bad thing to import doctors, engineers, etc.... But it's really not in our economic interest to let the unskilled enter permanently in groves either.

I'm unsure what the "going rate" refers to, if it is for current U.S. citizens that are on the books. I wouldn't see the point, there are huge segments of the economy that want the cheap labor.  I'd say it should be fixed as a percentage of minimum wage as a base line. 2/3rds of the minimum wage would seem reasonable.

Any medical treatment and or deportation expenses are to borne by the employer, this would give the employer incentive to more closely pick and certify the type of workers they are using.

I'm sure there is more......

After that is done, can start on changing the system for the current US citizens. LOL.





Need, I and I'm sure most Americans would agree with you about that "automatic citizenship" nonsense.
The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution was enacted in 1868 to give "full citizenship" to freed slaves after the civil war who were at that time for census purposes counted as "3/5's of a human being."
I really don't think it was enacted to facilitate illegal immigration like some would want us to believe today.
I know that Ireland just changed their laws 2 years ago to stop that.
Now if both parents aren't in Ireland legally and they have a child no citizenship is granted. I don't know if  Gr. Britain does that, perhaps Gent could tell us.
And, I don't think "huge segments of the economy" want cheap labor, just some businesses.
The way you cure that is to import large numbers of MBA's in from India to work @ $20k per year and see how much they like "cheap labor" then! They want *YOU* to work for short money not *THEM*!



JerseyKrissi72 -> RE: Guest Worker Program (11/25/2006 8:21:36 AM)

Alot of times I read through these forums and think they are nothing more than opportunities for people to hear themselves talk...I smell so much racism ....[8|]



popeye1250 -> RE: Guest Worker Program (11/25/2006 8:38:26 AM)

Gent, you make some excellent points!
It's pretty obvious to me that just because there is a perceived "need" for a program like this that we are veering away from "Capitalism" in it's stricktest sense.
In Capitalism if you can't get help at a certain rate, you raise that rate until you can.



caitlyn -> RE: Guest Worker Program (11/25/2006 8:39:29 AM)

You don't need to exclude specific nations from a guest worker program.
 
People that are already here illegally, would be offered a work permit, providing they have an American business willing to sponsor them (who would also be responsible or them), and all others would be deported.
 
The argument is used that these people come here seeking work. We should accept that at face value. If they are working, they can stay ... but you can't allow a guest worker program to be used as a tool to come to this country and soak up free services. That isn't the intent. The 'land of opportunity' exists for those that want to work for it, not something to be provided by our government.



NorthernGent -> RE: Guest Worker Program (11/25/2006 9:51:13 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

Gent, you make some excellent points!
It's pretty obvious to me that just because there is a perceived "need" for a program like this that we are veering away from "Capitalism" in it's stricktest sense.
In Capitalism if you can't get help at a certain rate, you raise that rate until you can.


People have to keep one eye on the role of Government and the ultimate goal for a society. If it is accepted that the role of Government is to enable its people economically and socially then it follows that, unless you class "the people" as not including those struggling at the bottom end, migrant workers will not support the overall Government role of looking after its people. Correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding is the US has a serious homelessness problem and an unemployment rate of about 5% (could be wrong on that). Wouldn't Government policy be better placed where providing these people with the means to work (instead of migrant worker programmes which serve to create more wealth for those who already have wealth)? After all, it's a basic human right of every person on this planet to be afforded a quality of life by the Government and the wider world.



amativedame -> RE: Guest Worker Program (11/25/2006 10:40:54 PM)

Fast reply:

All I am going to say is this: deporting would cost billions apon billions of dollars.  Where do you expect to get that money from?  If you allow them to work, you open up the chance to tax them.

So you can:

a. overspend by deporting everyone

or

b. not make the entire country broke by allowing said people to work & open up the chance to tax them



NorthernGent -> RE: Guest Worker Program (11/26/2006 2:56:39 AM)

Isn't the conversation about guest/migrant works rather than illegal immigrants? I couldn't comment on the cost of deporting an illegal immigrant from the US but what I can comment on is the fact that there are economic and social costs to British citizens attached to pursuing a policy of attracting migrant workers. I imagine these costs translate to the US too.

Economic costs:

Reduced wages/reduced spending power
Reduced wages/reduced taxation going into the coffers
The increased cost of public services as there will be greater demand in areas such as road use, public transport etc.

Obviously, there are economic benefits too as mentioned in a previous post.

Social costs:

If you accept that migrant workers serve only to line the pockets of those who already have wealth then you are in danger of your society pulling futher apart as the wealth gap will only increase. The two countries in the Western world with the greatest wealth gap are also the two countries with the highest rates of obesity, use of anti-depressants, anti-social behaviour, serious crime etc - Britain and the US. There is a correlation between wealth imbalance and a sick society.

Even the British Conservative Party are beginning to accept the above. Now, in my life time these people have not given a flying one about anyone outside of the establishment and the middle classes so when they are saying it you can take it as read that the situation is out of control. This is from Greg Clark, a shadow minister and senior policy adviser to the Conservative leader David Cameron:

"Thatcherism in the 1980s and previous conservative governments made a terrible mistake by ignoring an alarming increase in relative poverty levels among children at that time. In failing to properly acknowledge this, the Government of the day contributed to an atmosphere of anger and mistrust. Poverty in Britain hasn't gone away and if the poorest people in this country fall too far behind those further up the income scale our society will pull further apart"
 
I personally do not want to see a situation here like you have in the US where many non-white Americans are cut-off from the opportunities afforded to white Americans (New Orleans was laid bare for the world to see and it wasn't a pretty sight).

It all comes back to the type of place you want to live in, what you admire in people and ultimately your personal values. If you place personal wealth, elitism and class structure above human rights and civil liberties then go for the guest worker programme. Alternatively, the you could always put pressure on your Government to stop spending tax payers money on tridents and invasions and put this money into developing the skills of the people in places like New Orleans.

What is the saying I keep hearing on this board? Something along the lines of "A country ran by the people for the people" - is this all of the people or just some of the people?



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125