Busloads of migrants dropped off at Kamala Harris home

Post Reply New Topic

My parents had virtually nothing when they arrived in Australia, had virtually no support from the government, and worked extremely hard (my father worked 3 jobs at once at one time).

Some of the 5th-generation Australians resented the success of these "wogs" who worked their guts out while they grew their beer bellies sitting on the verandah drinking beer.

But those days, here in Australia, seem to be gone, with many immigrants simply "bludging" off the good welfare and related benefits.
Many of the main opponents of massive immigration are older former immigrants, interestingly.

Karma?

You do realise I am talking about the situation in Australia, not Ameriia, right?

My context = joking.
Your context = Taking my joking seriously.
"Interesting."

Yes, I am well aware that "Communism" is a failed political system and have said that in another thread recently.

There is an obvious way to fix this problem: make it legal for them to work. Then they don't have to be "off-books," or using stolen social security numbers to get "on-books" jobs. Our immigration laws should be dynamic and able to change based on the needs of our labor market. Instead, we're stuck with a rigid and archaic quota system that stopped serving our needs half a century ago. We don't have to make them citizens or permanent residents; we can just make it legal to live and work here as long as there is a need for the labor.

The problem is that our politicians don't really want to fix the problem. It's all hot air. The broken system gives conservatives a talking point to rail against, while also creating an underground economy that allows their wealthy constituents to exploit undocumented immigrants. Trump used underpaid, undocumented labor for decades, only cleaning it up near the end of his presidency. Nannies, maids, gardeners ... citizens like how cheap the undocumented labor is. Construction, agriculture ... our economy relies a lot on cheaper migrant labor. As long as it stays in the shadows, it can be exploited. Cheap, underground, migrant labor also helps keep wages for US citizens in similar jobs low. Again, the wealthy (who have big political pull) win.

The desire for the labor isn't hard to see. If migrants weren't able to find work when they come here, they wouldn't keep coming. There wouldn't be a "better life" to pursue.

The problem could be fixed if the will was there. It's obvious the will isn't there.

Busing migrants in a political stunt is a waste of resources and fixes nothing, on top of simply being cruel and inhumane. What it does do is keep the con alive.

I'm past fed up with the con.

The “guest worker” program should be implemented.

What is the problem with implementing an Ellis Island-type place (or places) where immigrants can be processed? Acknowledging that “economic migrants” just want a better life, and don’t seek to sponge off the government, seeking handouts? Most immigrants are more disdainful of welfare recipients than the native-born.

Last edited by kraftiekortie on 29 Dec 2022, 10:15 am, edited 1 time in total.

That's exactly how we've dealt with millions of refugees arriving in just a couple of weeks last year.
We aren't a great economy, we can't afford mass social support and we don't want millions of people with no means to live searching around and forming mass underground, not always lawful structures. So the job market and business rights have been officially opened for all of them.
It seems to be working. With all the disturbance that's inevitable and with inevitably worsening economical situation because of the neighbouring war, we stay a livable place, without much new problems on the social level.

There's one other aspect, though: we know some of the immigrants will stay but we hope many of them will have a place worth returning to if for any reason they don't feel at home here. Supporting changes for the better in other countries (of course, this is possible only to some limited extent, extremely limited in some cases) is a part of dealing with migration problem.

Then you get into them being entitled to the social security withholdings that were paid in years before they arrived. That's gonna go over like a lead balloon. There's a reason it takes a while for naturalization. I'm past fed up with goons that want to give the farm away. I have an idea, why don't you and others like you offer up your social security benefits to the refugees. Then, you can figure out how to survive when you turn 67.

I believe ability to legally work and entitlement to social security funds can be separated.

The whole point of them getting these "off the book" jobs is because the employers are screwing everyone: the government, the immigrant, etc... They get cheap labor, the 'employee' doesn't pay taxes on the income, they aren't entitled to insurance, etc... It's illegal.

Give them all social security numbers and these jobs will not be available to them. They have a vested interest in being off the books too. They send a large portion of the money back to Mexico (or where ever), and live 14 to a house to minimize expenses in the states. I lived in horse farm country my entire childhood. There's a way these things work and it's more complex than just 'have them all work on the books.'

Greg Abbott is a neanderthal with a minuscule chode and an inexplicable urge to scream about it to everybody.

Don't you have any tools to adress employer abuse?
I don't doubt it is complex.
I live in a country that both produces and attracts economic migrants. Making work legal is a first step to adress horrible abuse illegal migrants are vulnerable to. It also offers the state taxes from their work and it offers the migrants opportunities to integrate into the lawful parts of the society.

Abusive employers are to be fought, not to be bent to. Making money on illegal procedures should not be legal and it definitely should not be shielded by state policies. Make their work legal and see how the job market evolves in response to it.

Most immigrants I've met want to work "on the books." They want to pay taxes and contribute to America. They also want to send some of their earnings back to family in their home nation.

Saying this, there is certainly a problem with employers wanting to hire people "off the books," so they can pay them less than minimum wage.

I will say that they are very hard working and for the most part nice. I did have one incident to contend with. My mother got involved with trying to help two young immigrants, one turned out just fine. The other stole her hand gun ( she forgot it was in her car when she paid him to clean it out ) and got arrested with it in his possession. He had no where to go and she allowed him to rent her spare room. He never paid a dime and I came over, and threw him out. This was probably the one time when I was grateful I didn't yet know I was autistic. By the time I was finished screaming and throwing things, he was never heard from again.

Most of them are not like that

People only get a decent amount of Social Security benefits if they have worked in the US most of their lives. For example, I've worked in the US about 43 years. I'm still not going to get over about $2,500 a month once I apply for Social Security at age 67. That's really not all that much, but it's better than in most countries. The difference is that most countries have free healthcare for many people. We don't. "Original Medicare" only pays 80% of your medical bill in most cases.

It's more like a certain immigrant might "know somebody," and that "somebody" might get them some sort of monthly welfare benefit or Food Stamps. Undocumented immigrants are not eligible for government programs, state and federal, by and large. If they get grievously sick or injured, though, a hospital can't turn them away from treatment.

In New York State, they could get a driver's license, though (this is so they could keep track of them better).

I wish someone would directly address the question as to why we shouldn't implement an "Ellis Island" sort of situation, so immigrants can be documented. It worked pretty well in the past.

It's not a "challenge," per se. I'm just curious. I understand there was lots of trauma within Ellis Island in its heyday. We can prevent much of it these days.

What stemmed the tide of immigration wasn't that Ellis Island "wasn't working"----but mostly it was a 1924 law severely curtailing immigration from certain nations.

I really feel, if an Ellis Island situation is practicable, that this could solve a lot of the problem of illegal immigrants.

I would like to know why this wouldn't be practicable. I'm not saying this would be an absolute solution----but I would want to know why, so I can learn. There, the immigrants could be fingerprinted and be monitored in general.

I know that most immigrants don't want to constantly run and hide from the authorities. They want to work legally, earn money, pay taxes, put their kids through college, etc.

I am not seeking to get into a debate about this. I'm just seeking the reasoning why this sort of thing can't be implemented. I'm not saying that this could be implemented. Nothing like Ellis Island has been implemented since at least the 1950s; there must be some reason for this.

I don't care if I get a litany of-----how can you NOT KNOW why?----or whatever. I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed.