Those that extend there H2B visas (up to 3 years) aren't counted towards the cap, nor are their H4 visas family members. Is it the refusal of Americans wanting to do the work or is it the low pay that Americans won't take? Restaurant workers up front are always citizen or LPR, its only the kitchen or bus boys that are foreigners due to low wages. The same with hotel work. The H2A AG has no annual cap, but the visa is limited strictly to AG. Why not change it and allow it to be applied for by the person instead of by the farmer?
Does anyone in USA know what compensation the public receive if they house refugees. I know the refugees receive various benefits, but what about the people they live with and their expenses...eg taking refugee kids to school, teaching them English, transporting them everywhere from Doctors, Dentists, Hospitals and so on...what does the public receive in return for "helping" refugees... We in Australia are yet to be told what compensation we will receive if we accept refugees into our homes.
We don't have to accept refugees into our homes. I'm not aware of any tax incentives for those that do help them. Rest assured, we probably have a myriad of programs to help them resettle at taxpayer expense. The big one I'm most familiar with is that they are excluded from having to pay taxes for a time.
I would be interested in the programs created in the US if only to compare them with any our parasitical politicians attempt....
In your 47% number I wonder how much of it is military, prison, SS, Disability, and Medicare? I don't think average employers of mostly uneducated and unskilled workers can provide jobs which pay enough to terminate their government subsidies? If we assume that welfare recipients can obtain $1000 per month in government subsidies, and assuming there are about 173 work hours per month, employers of low income workers would need to provide an additional $5.78 per hour in wages. Even if it was $500 per month we're still talking about increasing wages by $2.90 per hour. Further, an employer can't hire only those who are unemployed...too many restrictions...
IMO it makes little difference the wage levels since people just don't want to do certain work. Someone might say I'll do that farming job for $30/hour but a few days later when their ass is dragging and their work performance is at 50% they're simply not suitable for certain types of work. I think immigrants generally believe if they take baby-steps, very low wages then increases over the years, that they can find a decent living. Americans IMO want instant gratification and simply are not willing to be patient as they gain higher wages due to performance. IMO this explains why some Americans whine about the low wages and say they'll work if the pay is higher. Well, the pay is what it is and cannot arbitrarily and politically inflated simply to appease lazy Americans...
It takes more then a couple days to acclimate to that type of work, I would also throw in that taller people would have a harder time doing that work as well. But then too, mechanization is also a possibility. Just look at the $15 min wage laws, all that does is increase the costs of everything else. I agree with most of what you are saying.
The restrictions are things that we are going to have to evaluate and eliminate. The "Secure the border" lobby is all about restrictions. They want every employer to be registered, examined by the government, green lighted by some agency after getting permits, licenses, registrations, insurance, bonds, etc., etc. Small businesses cannot even get off the ground, yet the "Secure the border" lobby is all about that E Verify, SSN, background check, pee test, hair test, loyalty test, National ID Card, etc., etc. ad infinitum. IF we spend some time exposing the big government National Socialists that are beating the drums for a more intrusive government, we MIGHT be able to address the real reason (s) many employers cannot / do not hire an all American workforce.
Taller, fatter, lazier, bad backs, bad joints, bad feet, tolerance to sun and heat, etc. etc. Kevin Costner has a great movie on TV now titled McFarland which I recommend for viewing to better understand the work, the pressures of the work, it's impacts on people and families and communities, regarding migrants and/or immigrants in this case doing farm work, plus some feel-good outcomes for some students outside of farming...all based on a true story. Mechanization has it's limitations, and is expensive, and requires different farming techniques, but in all cases, no matter farming or not, when labor creates real or perceived problems to business, more emphasis is placed on automation. So many believe we can just force higher costs into the business process and somehow this is free to society? Nothing is free!!
Can't remove the restrictions of hiring only 'unemployed' people. This is too limited and industry won't accept it. I'm a business owner and no one has approached us about any of the things you mention above. We cannot have healthy and larger business without all of them starting out as small business. Small businesses can thrive today. All employers hire workers which allow the company to satisfy demand and whether or not someone is American has no meaning in satisfying demand...
I've never said that a proposed law would require an employer to hire an American and / or someone that was unemployed (on welfare or unemployment.) In a constitutional de jure (lawful) constitutional Republic, you cannot lock out a foreigner simply because they don't want to become a citizen in order to work in the U.S. What can you do, both constitutionally and logically? Get the government out of the employer's private affairs. Let them hire whomever they want. If they discriminate, so be it. What you can do is to give the employer incentives. If an employer hires an all American staff, they qualify for a substantial tax incentive. If they take someone off welfare or unemployment, give them a substantial tax incentive. Nobody is going to force the businessman to lower his taxes - perhaps get a check from Uncle Scam for his part in helping out the economy. The benefit to society is that someone that previously could not get a job (due to the preference of hiring foreigners or some particular group), is now getting job offers and a chance to move ahead. You've heard nothing of this? It's no surprise. The Democrats and the Republicans can't think that far ahead. It's my own idea - developed after many intense years of trying to find a constitutional and palatable way to give many Americans a fighting chance without infringing on the Rights of others.
Well...you said "Furthermore, if the "Secure the border" advocates wanted jobs to go to Americans (and they really don't care about jobs), they would support a platform that rewards employers who take people off the welfare dole, unemployment rolls and hire an American workforce. We could have a system that scrutinizes people living (sometimes for several generations) on the public dole and give them ultimatums... go to work or lose your benefits." Employers only care about hiring people which allows the company to satisfy it's demands. All people, whether they are legal or illegal, Americans or not, can apply for the same jobs. All of them are competing for the same jobs. In the cases where Americans won't compete for jobs, the labor void will be filled by others...
I keep reading your posts and realize there is some kind of disconnect between you and I. I'm willing to keep trying to find out what it is I'm trying to convey that you don't understand. Employers have a de jure (that is lawful) constitutional Right to hire whomever they want. It's their job and they can give it to whomever they choose. It's that simple. The laws that stand in the way - whether "civil rights" laws, laws aimed against foreigners, etc. are unfortunate stumbling blocks to Liberty. At the end of the day, the employer is going to try to hire the person that will make them the most profit. On this point, the "Secure the border" has no issue in America. We are still not officially a socialist nation; therefore, the jobs are not being stolen (sic) because the public nor the government own them. Well, we have a faction of people that believe that if you kick the foreigners out, we will magically hire an American to do the job. That's absolute B.S. Period. If we have so many laws that a corporation cannot make money and so many regulations that they cannot avail themselves of cheap labor, they will close their doors OR pack up and move to another country. There is no guarantee that ridding this country of so - called "illegal aliens" will benefit the United States. What I propose is the passage of laws that encourage the employer to hire Americans. IF the government is giving the undocumented foreigner the privileges of citizenship, then that practice ought to stop. Now, assuming we do that, there is a perfectly level playing field and there is no excuse for Americans to say that someone is "stealing" their job. It puts an end to the ongoing phony debate regarding "illegal" immigration. People that come here with no intent on becoming citizens do not fall into the category of "illegal immigration" since their intent is not to become a citizen. We're going to have to come to grips with that reality OR we lose the country because we force citizenship on people that don't want to be citizens. This isn't rocket science. We're not losing America due to the presence of foreigners; we're losing the country because the left is demanding that all foreigners pledge fealty to this country. The foreigners are forced into having a say in the future of America AND a part of the American pie. The left hides behind the banner of conservatism and they push political propaganda prostitutes like Donald Trump (whose real mission is to guarantee Hillary Clinton the presidency.) The only purpose of anti - discriminatory laws, anti - immigration laws, National ID, etc. have is to disenfranchise the posterity of the founding fathers. All the chicken squeeze laws being pushed by the anti - immigrant "Secure the border" types will ultimately find their way into the courts where they will be declared unconstitutional AND, when that happens, what the liberals lobby for will be the ultimate reality. Either Liberty is a God given unalienable Right or it is not. IF unalienable Rights do not exist then neither does your Right to keep and bear Arms. You don't have a Right to speak out against corrupt government and you don't have a Right to Freedom of Religion without the unalienable Right of Liberty. Liberty is not a privilege of citizenship; it's not a grant by the government; it's not a byproduct of your National ID Card.
I have no need to connect with you...you have your perspective and I have mine...you cannot convince me of anything I don't agree with. What if Alabama decides a way to remove Blacks from their state is to create a law that says no Blacks can be hired by Alabama businesses? How do you feel about this? 'Stolen jobs' should not be literally translated that someone else 'stole' a job from another person...this is political BS. If Americans won't perform certain jobs that legal and illegal immigrants currently perform, then forcibly removing them would be stupid. You can't encourage the employer to hire only Americans if there are not enough Americans to satisfactorily do the jobs. Microsoft, Apple and others claim they can't find enough quality employees who are US citizens. I don't think we're 'losing America' but instead just going through a continuing societal/cultural evolution. I'm all for a National ID program...I think every person in the USA must be able to identify themselves. If everyone for example has a unique SS number, at least we know who they are, how many there are, why they are here, and we can collect taxes. We are a nation governed by laws...
Illegals happen to be the next crop of democrats , so nothing will ever be done . All the sanctuary cities are democratically controlled and have out of controlled spending and high property taxes .
First you say you don't want to connect with me and then you ask me questions that my previous responses ought to have answered already. You asked: "What if Alabama decides a way to remove Blacks from their state is to create a law that says no Blacks can be hired by Alabama businesses? How do you feel about this?" RESPONSE: Government cannot tell private business who they can and cannot hire. To do so would violate the guarantee of Liberty that our forefathers fought, bled and died in order to secure. The problem is not in the foreigners nor their presence; the real problem are those who want to mandate that those foreigners become citizens. As for the Orwellian National ID, we are still in disagreement. What Hitler did with a tattoo, the current forces are doing with National ID, the SSN and micro-chip technology. Welcome to Orwell's 1984.
I think everything is becoming one big bloody mess. In Australia recently, they are allowing muslim kids in school who do not wish to sing the National Anthem to walk out...not just stand there and not sing....to bloody walk out... What a disgrace...and we are accepting 12000 syrian refugees...probably all muslims... And what is done about the kids walking out on the NA...nothing...in fact the teachers encourage it......what would happen in the USA if kids were encouraged to do this.... Immigrants need to respect the country they live in...if they dont, you get anarchy.... If you are born in Australia..you are Australian...how can you not sing the NA... How can you be allowed to just walk out......unbelievable....
When you said 'disconnect' I thought you were implying that I wasn't seeing things 'your way'? Each state, depending on the power of the electorate, can define their government. Currently there are federal guidelines/laws/constitution, etc. which prevent states from doing anything they wish. If you believe government has no role in determining public and private policy then any government, like Alabama, could deny Blacks a right to work. Government must be involved to prevent the absurd from happening which humans are quite capable of doing...
Perhaps as society evolves...there is less need for nationalization and more need for individuality? As our national borders become more porous, more invisible, with humans having almost universal mobility around the planet, to visit work and live, it seems awkward to me to demand an allegiance from 'others' just because they are on American soil? John Lennon prophetically said in a song 'imagine no countries' and if you think about this some, it was truly prophetic! As we evolve we have less need for borders/countries and more need for individuality rooted in world community. Today's problems and those that follow cannot be solved nation by nation and require a worldwide participation...like global climate change, potable water, nutrition, clean energy, shelter, health care, etc.
I'm saying disconnect in that we don't understand one another due to a lack of communication. For example I have a fear that the "Secure the border" lobby does not acknowledge. It is very real and very well possible. Let's say that the government puts up a border and now the feds claim that all who live along the border have no property rights because the government has to cross those lines in order to enforce laws relating to improper entry. As time progresses, local law enforcement wants to ignore all border lines, including private property lines. They have to pursue all criminals so your private property rights are nullified. Can't happen? Try explaining Constitution Free Zones. Today there are only two accepted views of the issue: the "Secure the border" talking points and the liberals. As you probably know, I don't subscribe to either point of view. The "Secure the border" guys started out as a civilian border watch group. When challenged in court, they were found guilty of violating the civil rights of some Salvadorans that were trespassing over private land in order to effect an improper entry into the U.S. In short, private property rights took a back seat to the civil rights of undocumented foreigners trying to come into the U.S. improperly. If their rights trump ours in the courts, we have to look at how the courts may rule in the future. I'm beginning to think that the "Secure the border" lobby deliberately lost that 2003 case in order to con Americans into buying into the secure the border mantra. It worked, but at what cost? MOD EDIT - Rule 3 IF we try to understand that, we're in a better position to propose solutions that solve the issue on an incremental basis without jeopardizing our Liberties.
I got a PM asking for me to elaborate on the 2003 incident since many don't know what the current immigration battle is all about. In 2003 some Salvadorans crossed over private property attempting an improper entry into the United States. They encountered Ranch Rescue, a private border patrol organization protecting the property of a rancher at his behest. An altercation ensued and the Salvadorans got pistol whipped. The matter went to court and the court ruled that Ranch Rescue violated the "civil rights" of the Salvadorans. At this point, I was of the opinion that the case should have been appealed and the courts forced to rule on the issue of PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranch_Rescue https://www.splcenter.org/seeking-justice/case-docket/leiva-v-ranch-rescue As you've seen by the criticisms of me, the "Secure the border" lobby has always supported a big government solution to the issue of foreigners entering the United States. At every level, they support the government view that the individual has no right to protect their private property against trespassers. In 2003, that disagreement within the patriot right, led to the founding of the Minutemen Project (2004) and subsequently, the Minutemen types (Secure the border advocates) co-opted the citizen militias. PRIOR to the "Secure the border" propaganda, the citizen militias were active not only in defending private property from trespassers, they were also instrumental in protecting property owners from unfair abuses of eminent domain. Today, the focus is all on empowering the government to defend the border, including but not limited to, private and government held property. That means that the government can violate the Fourth Amendment guarantees of private property owners while they carry out warrantless searches on the pretext of pursuing so - called "illegal aliens." That encroachment has evolved into the policy that created Constitution Free Zones wherein the Constitution does not apply within a hundred miles of the border. So, I have to ask again: IF we pursue the issue in the manner it has been done, what stops the courts from saying that we allow suspected criminals (sic) to be pursued up to a hundred miles of a border so there ought not be a bar to pursuing criminals ANYWHERE inside the U.S. regardless of the individual property owner's rights???? ... Oh yeah, I forgot... the courts ruled the civil rights of the trespasser trumps the private property owner Rights. The "Secure the border" guys have a convoluted idea about how all of this works.
Then Ranch Rescue shouldn't have sicked dogs on the illegals, pointed guns at them, placed them on their knees with their hands behind their heads, acting as though they were interrogating them, threaten them, and they shouldn't have "pistol whipped" them. Had they simply detained them and called the authorities there would have been NO issues, but the wannabe commandos, one of which was a felon with a weapon, hit one and then when they realized what they did, they had the property owner take them to the road in front of the house and tell them to get along and that if they came through again they would be shot and or killed. Good thing a local authority was driving down that road and picked them up. To make matters worse neither of the 2 in question from Ranch Rescue appeared in court. It has nothing to do with private property rights, had they simply not assaulted the illegals and called the authorities the matter would have been resolved. But when you got a bunch of wannabe military "soldiers of fortune" who bought every commando gizmo sold, playing enforcement, what would one expect? This has nothing to do with "big government". Protecting your property and assaulting someone for simple trespass are 2 very different things. Ranch Rescue escalated the issue beyond that which was needed, had they not assaulted the illegals and simply called the authorities there would have been no issue. Their means of operation are what got them convicted. Look Chicken Little, the sky is falling. Yes authorities can go on your property if they are in pursuit of a criminal, nothing you can do about it. The CFZ has been around since the 1950's. Authorities, in their pursuit of a criminal already have the ability to pursue them across your property if the criminal goes their. http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/04/justice/scotus-misdemeanor-police-searches/ Stanton v. Sims (12-1217)
Makes no difference if it's the Mexican border or the fence around your backyard...when law enforcement has a need to access your property they are going to do so. A criminal being chased by the law cannot find a legal safe haven simply because they are on someone's personal and private property. The 'secure the border' idea and implementation is a political Band-aid but does nothing to solve illegal entry into the USA.
