 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Odin
 Good post Diss. I think it is not economic reasons we limit immigration, it is the rednecky scum racists who are scared of the "brown hoards." and use the "they are stealing our jobs" line as populist ranting and raving to get support for thier racist policies.  :vomit: |
Odin, in California, the "racist scum" who oppose legalizing the Mexican worker are the unions. They prefer the current "illegal" status so the undocumented worker cannot challenge the union worker for jobs.
Prop 187, decried by the Mexican-American community, really wanted the US government to help pay for the US-government mandated costs imposed on the California taxpayer by the immigrants. These costs were killing the California budget, forcing taxes ever higher, etc, etc., to pay for social programs for the illegal immigrant who does not pay taxes because they have no Social Security number.
That same let's-get-the-Feds-to-pay banner was raised strongly in the recent debate by none other than the "racist scum" Harrington who said a non Republican was necessary to challenge the Bush regime to get more funding for California.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Master Zen
|
 |
of naughty
Jan 2003
time: 23:31
|
|
"stealing our jobs" is utter BS. I'd like to see farm boys volunteer for farm hands. Unemployment is almost always voluntary. There are jobs everywhere, just that not everyone wants them.
Anyway, I think after all these rants and flames a compromise is being reached: Migration would be good if it were legal. So, make it easier for mexican workers to legally enter and work in the US. They will pay taxes which is good, and most of them will leave since they only go to the US to get some $$ to start or help up a small business down here.
Not much different to the proposal our government had about free trade in labor, shame it was brushed away after 9/11. Let them come, work for a few years, save up some cash, pay taxes, and send that money back here until they can be self-sufficient.
Remember the bracero program, was not all that different, and it worked great.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SlowwHand
|
 |
of The Cooler
Sep 1999
time: 23:31
|
|
Now look what the Mexicans are trying to pull! 
By Richard Cowan
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Tequila, the distilled spirit that fueled a decades-old margarita craze in the United States, has landed squarely in the middle of a trade fight between Mexico City and Washington.
Mexico is threatening to cut off all bulk exports of Tequila, claiming it needs to tighten quality controls on the gold-plated namebrand that is owned by the Mexican government and supposedly assures every bottle's high quality. If enacted, all Tequila would be bottled in Mexico.
Mexico is the only nation that produces the alcohol made from fermented sap from the blue agave plant.
But as is usually in the case with trade fights, there are opposing views. U.S. companies suspect that by banning bulk exports used north of the Rio Grande for individual bottling, Mexico is maneuvering to steal American bottling jobs.
Peter Cressy, president of the Distilled Spirits Council, on Wednesday called Mexico's proposal an "ill-conceived action" in violation of world trade rules.
Another U.S. industry official, who asked not to be identified, bluntly said the Mexican government was trying to "create jobs" by moving American bottling operations south.
In early August, as official Washington was mostly shut down, Mexico previewed a new regulation requiring that all Tequila would have to be bottled before export.
The Bush administration, already reeling from 3.3 million private sector job losses under its watch and sensing the potential loss of bottling plant jobs in California, Arkansas, Missouri and Kentucky, has been in contact with Mexico to protest the move, according to a U.S. Trade Representative's office spokeswoman.
The agency is hoping to head off a late-October official publication of the regulation by Mexico that could go into effect as early as next year.
Allen Johnson, the chief agriculture negotiator for the U.S. Trade Representative, told inquiring senators on Tuesday his agency was still reviewing Mexico's proposed regulations and was working with industry to try to resolve the problem.
Last year, the United States consumed 86.4 million bottles of Tequila, more than half of Mexico's total output. Eighty-three percent was shipped to the U.S. in bulk form and bottled here, according to the U.S. industry.
Mexico's Tequila Regulatory Council challenged the notion that job creation was driving the move to kill bulk exports.
Judith Meza Nixon, U.S.-Canada representative for the council, said there is evidence that handlers of bulk Tequila on both sides of the border could be eroding the drink's quality.
In a telephone interview, she said that some bulk shipments from Mexico turned out to be sugar cane alcohol or grains spirits, instead of Tequila. In other instances, U.S. bottlers were found mixing different types of Tequila together, also in violation of Mexican standards, she said.
If Mexico halts bulk shipments, the government would be "protecting the authenticity of a product," which Nixon argued was within international trade rules.
Frank Coleman, a spokesman for the U.S. distillers, said this trade dispute comes as consumption is skyrocketing. That, he said, was because of American's growing love for premium sipping Tequilas and for Tequila-based drinks.
Without Mexico's bulk Tequila, Cressy said, there is the "significant potential" for shortages.
If Mexico goes ahead with this, the United States eventually could file a North American Free Trade Agreement complaint. For now, both industries are saying they have NAFTA on their side.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Good old NAFTA. 
The only thing Clinton did besides get a blow job from his employee.
So everything he had anything to do with, sucked.
Last edited by SlowwHand on 29-09-2003 at 03:56
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Master Zen
"stealing our jobs" is utter BS. I'd like to see farm boys volunteer for farm hands. Unemployment is almost always voluntary. There are jobs everywhere, just that not everyone wants them.
Anyway, I think after all these rants and flames a compromise is being reached: Migration would be good if it were legal. So, make it easier for mexican workers to legally enter and work in the US. They will pay taxes which is good, and most of them will leave since they only go to the US to get some $$ to start or help up a small business down here.
Not much different to the proposal our government had about free trade in labor, shame it was brushed away after 9/11. Let them come, work for a few years, save up some cash, pay taxes, and send that money back here until they can be self-sufficient.
Remember the bracero program, was not all that different, and it worked great. |
I support this kind of program. It makes sense. Of course, the Democrats will be against it because it inherently lowers labor rates in the US, etc., etc., etc.
It might also be a solution to the millions of "undocumented" workers already in the US.
But, are you sure they all want to return to Mexico? Are there reasons for Mexicans to want to stay in the United States other than economics?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:31
|
|
quote:
Are analogs for the reasons why free and open borders are a bad idea for any country concerned about things like smuggling, terrorism, public safety, etc. |
Terrorists are generally well-funded, well-connected people who can get here legally (as was the case with 9/11 hijackers). Not the type who cram into trucks like sardines without adequate food and water to avoid the INS. As for smuggling, bring all the cocaine you want. The war on drugs ought to end. 
quote:
As to 1) why is it necessary to avoid normal immigration means? The assumption here is that people can apply for immigration in their home country just like anyone else. Illegals simply cut in line in front of the law abiding. |
Because the law is absolutely wrong. It's extremely hard to get here legally if you have the wrong skin color and aren't rich or educated enough. Immigration barriers force people into desperate poverty and deprive them of liberty, and therefore ought to be abolished. As I told pchang, the problem is not that "illegals" cut in line, but that there is a line.
quote:
As to 2), I fully agree with you. Political refugees should be fully welcome here in the US. This is why I so strongly disagree with returning the refugees from Castro's paradise. However, I was unaware that Mexico was a completely fascist country that prevented legal immigaration to the US. |
What the hell are you talking about? The Cubans are the lucky few who are able to immigrate to the US whenever they want to (the immigration authorities that handle Cuba say that they don't get any genuine political refugees - they're almost all economic refugees). As for Mexico, wha..? 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
|
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:31
|
|
quote:
Labor is like any other commodity. It's price depends on supply and demand. Add to the supply by legalizing the illegal, and the price goes down. |
No, you didn't read what I said. Your economic analysis is simply wrong. The supply of labor isn't increased by giving amnesty to illegal immigrants, it just gives legal protections to former illegal immigrants.
The legal status of non-citizen labor is being held over them by businesses to exact lower wages, which leads to a general depression in working class wages.
quote:
Every uniion member knows this, which is why the unions are against legalizing the immigrants. |
Not every union opposes free immigration, and your assertion was regarding the Democratic party which is certainly far less xenophobic than the Republican party. That's why the GOP was able to lose California so spectacularly.
quote:
It appears, Ramo, that you are one more dedicated Marxist who sees nothing attractive about capitalism. Sad. |
I'm an anarcho-syndicalist, not a Marxist, and I'm hardly "dedicated." 
And yes I see nothing attractive about your hypocritical brand of capitalism where capital should be free but labor should be enslaved by trade barriers.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31.
Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
29-09-2003 00:02
|