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.

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.

quote:

they should have minumum contact with citizens

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

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.

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.