Ah, right... because produce magically flew off the trees and into the stores before, right?
No. The agricultural jobs have nearly always been filled by (im)migrant labor (
Hereis some interesting reading in CA migrant labor history). The more recent the immigrants, the more likely they were employed by cotton, fruit or other produce farms or by slaughterhouses. They didn't just work the back-breaking farm jobs either. They worked as maids, janitors, dishwashers, miners, coal shovelers, railroad layers, street sweepers, chimney sweeps,and any other dirty, exhausting, low paying job you can imagine. When the Irish came over, they took these jobs. When the Italians came over, they took these jobs. When the Chinese came over, they took these jobs. When the Poles came over, they took these jobs. When other Eastern Europeans came over, they took these jobs. When the Cubans came over they took these jobs. When the Haitians came over they took these jobs. When the Mexicans came over, they took these jobs.
And new immigrants most often still do wherever they come from.
And don't forget indentured labor and slavery! Many agricultural positions used to be filled by millions of African slaves in the South and a substantial amount of hard labor positions outside the South were filled by indentured laborers and free blacks. Of course, there wasn't much of a distinction in wages or working conditions for citizens, the only real difference being the "freedom" to find another shit job.
So don't try to pretend that immigrants are "stealing" good-paying American jobs.
{ABE: I am in no way shape or form saying that I think highly of the way the poor and immigrants have been treated by employers. Just pointing out that it is nothing new and that immigrants are doing the jobs they have always done. I think RAZD's OP proposal is one of the best ideas I've heard all day}
If you need to complain about something, complain about union-busters because unions exist to guarantee wages and good, safe working conditions. If the unions weren't being abolished then it wouldn't matter if there was a demand for certain jobs (i.e. construction) because wages would be guaranteed regardless.
Complain about outsourcing. Many out of work Americans wouldn't have to accept a lower-paying, non-union job with depressed wages and no benefits if their manufacturing job hadn't been shipped to China.
Better than complaining, DO something about it! Stop voting for people who put corporations' interests ahead of yours. Support your local unions and buy union goods. Buy locally grown produce/meat and stop supporting AgriBusiness. Don't buy sweatshop goods. Demand living wage legislation (local, state and/or federal). Educate your friends about the issue.
And last but not least, stop demonizing immigrants because they are NOT the problem. They (or, rather, the reasons why they come here in the first place) are a symptom of a MAJOR problem with how our system works.
I think another point that many anti-immigration proponents don't realize is that immigrants not only fill jobs (the same jobs that immigrants have always filled), but they also create jobs by expanding existing markets and creating whole new niche markets.
{ABE: I decided to respond to more of the post}
Its a figure of speech, Ang. Just like saying Bush is hiking up gas prices. Do I mean that to mean that he is single-handedly doing so? Of course not. Do I mean that Bill Clinton single-handedly was out along the Tijuana border building a wall by himself in the middle of desert? Obviously not.
I think anglagard's point was that Clinton had a majority Republican Congress who resented his very existence and that it is much easier to say Bush is responsible for the legislation passed in the last 6 years because Congress had a Bush-worshipping majority until last year.
I would have thought someone would question you on the relevance of Clinton in response to RAZD when he didn't bring him up. So I will.
NJ, what is the relevance of Clinton in this discussion. Do you think that everytime you say "Oh, well, Clinton did this!" liberals will automatically cave and say "Oh if CLINTON did it it must be GOOD!" You must be projecting Republican style hero worship onto the more sane among us.
From
Message 89
You're right. There is no need for one because we don't have an immigration problem with Canada. In the unlikely event that Canadians start streaming across the border en masse, I'm pretty sure the heads of state would begin to consider erecting a wall.
You're completely missing the point!
Yes, the reason we don't "need" a wall along Canada is because we don't have a massive influx of immigrants from Canada.
Hmmm...the next logical question would be well what's
different about Canada and our involvement with Canada. Why don't we have a massive influx of Canadians?
I would provide my answers, but I want to see if you have one. If you had thought at all about this you would not have stopped at "because we don't have an immigration problem with Canada."
Back to the original message (I got mixed up when I was looking up stuff you had said, but I couldn't let the above go unanswered).
Bridges are generally built over water, not dry land, which 98% of the border consists of.
It's a metaphorical bridge...
The "demand" for what? Supply and demand is supposed to be reciprocal, not one sided. What do we gain by letting mass immigrants flow through the border?
The demand for jobs. If there were no jobs for them they wouldn't be here. How many times does that have to be said?
As to what we get, we get a bigger market. I mean, they have to spend their money somewhere, right and spend it they do. Here's some info:
Immigrants and Housing
1994 report on immigration (out-of date in some respects but the points about labor and markets still stands).
Labor shortages in Arizona (
Here's another one on the same issue)
Sacramento Business Journal article on immigrants creating jobs by demanding goods and services.
Do you need more? Cuz I can find them, but then again, so can you. Why don't you try researching your claims a bit more.
Edited by Jaderis, : No reason given.
Edited by Jaderis, : No reason given.
"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -
The Iron Heel by Jack London
™ Version 4.2
