Full Version: Business trumps immigration laws-whose your daddy?
The intersecting of two competing issues has always fascinated me, especially when one quietly creeps up and over takes the issue, which is what we are seeing with immigration and farm labor provisions that is business friendly. 
It is no secret as to why people feel that the letter of the law should be followed to a "t" when it comes to immigration. A competing, and equally valuable issue has to do with farm labor. As of late, there has been a farm labor shortage due to tougher immigration rules. Not surprisingly, the California Farm Bureau and other groups are concerned about food rotting in the fields and higher food prices for consumers due to draconian immigration policies. Not surprisingly, the Bush administration has recently begun to rewrite provisions to alleviate the concerns of farmers dependent upon immigrant labor.
My opinion on immigration is of the Wal-Mart processing line of thinking. On this, I'm not certain which priority should come first. There are important considerations other than economic ones, yet, any non-economic reason usually loses. Should that be the case with this? Either you are for a free-market economy and believe in un-fettered markets regarding this, or your not, you can't have it both ways IMHO.
Questions for debate;
1.)When it comes to business and immigration policy, which should trump the other in this case? Why do you believe as you do?
2.)Would it be worth paying more for produce, if we could ensure that illegal aliens were not working the fields in this country?
3.)When does concern for economic growth and laissez-faire principles give way to non-economic principles? Should it ever?
4.)Do the migrant farm employers care about our well being, the integrity of our borders, and the need for a safe America?
It is no secret as to why people feel that the letter of the law should be followed to a "t" when it comes to immigration. A competing, and equally valuable issue has to do with farm labor. As of late, there has been a farm labor shortage due to tougher immigration rules. Not surprisingly, the California Farm Bureau and other groups are concerned about food rotting in the fields and higher food prices for consumers due to draconian immigration policies. Not surprisingly, the Bush administration has recently begun to rewrite provisions to alleviate the concerns of farmers dependent upon immigrant labor. My opinion on immigration is of the Wal-Mart processing line of thinking. On this, I'm not certain which priority should come first. There are important considerations other than economic ones, yet, any non-economic reason usually loses. Should that be the case with this? Either you are for a free-market economy and believe in un-fettered markets regarding this, or your not, you can't have it both ways IMHO.
Questions for debate;
1.)When it comes to business and immigration policy, which should trump the other in this case? Why do you believe as you do?
2.)Would it be worth paying more for produce, if we could ensure that illegal aliens were not working the fields in this country?
3.)When does concern for economic growth and laissez-faire principles give way to non-economic principles? Should it ever?
4.)Do the migrant farm employers care about our well being, the integrity of our borders, and the need for a safe America?
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Oct 28 2007, 11:22 AM) 
The intersecting of two competing issues has always fascinated me, especially when one quietly creeps up and over takes the issue, which is what we are seeing with immigration and farm labor provisions that is business friendly. It is no secret as to why people feel that the letter of the law should be followed to a "t" when it comes to immigration. A competing, and equally valuable issue has to do with farm labor. As of late, there has been a farm labor shortage due to tougher immigration rules. Not surprisingly, the California Farm Bureau and other groups are concerned about food rotting in the fields and higher food prices for consumers due to draconian immigration policies. Not surprisingly, the Bush administration has recently begun to rewrite provisions to alleviate the concerns of farmers dependent upon immigrant labor.
My opinion on immigration is of the Wal-Mart processing line of thinking. On this, I'm not certain which priority should come first. There are important considerations other than economic ones, yet, any non-economic reason usually loses. Should that be the case with this? Either you are for a free-market economy and believe in un-fettered markets regarding this, or your not, you can't have it both ways IMHO.
Questions for debate;
1.)When it comes to business and immigration policy, which should trump the other in this case? Why do you believe as you do?
2.)Would it be worth paying more for produce, if we could ensure that illegal aliens were not working the fields in this country?
3.)When does concern for economic growth and laissez-faire principles give way to non-economic principles? Should it ever?
4.)Do the migrant farm employers care about our well being, the integrity of our borders, and the need for a safe America?
It is no secret as to why people feel that the letter of the law should be followed to a "t" when it comes to immigration. A competing, and equally valuable issue has to do with farm labor. As of late, there has been a farm labor shortage due to tougher immigration rules. Not surprisingly, the California Farm Bureau and other groups are concerned about food rotting in the fields and higher food prices for consumers due to draconian immigration policies. Not surprisingly, the Bush administration has recently begun to rewrite provisions to alleviate the concerns of farmers dependent upon immigrant labor. My opinion on immigration is of the Wal-Mart processing line of thinking. On this, I'm not certain which priority should come first. There are important considerations other than economic ones, yet, any non-economic reason usually loses. Should that be the case with this? Either you are for a free-market economy and believe in un-fettered markets regarding this, or your not, you can't have it both ways IMHO.
Questions for debate;
1.)When it comes to business and immigration policy, which should trump the other in this case? Why do you believe as you do?
2.)Would it be worth paying more for produce, if we could ensure that illegal aliens were not working the fields in this country?
3.)When does concern for economic growth and laissez-faire principles give way to non-economic principles? Should it ever?
4.)Do the migrant farm employers care about our well being, the integrity of our borders, and the need for a safe America?
Business in all cases IMO must obey the LAW. If they can ignore immigration laws they why not others? And who is it that decided that this law could be ignored? And why?
The law should never be ignored.
1) Immigration policy trumps business interests. The government has the guns, ergo business does what the government wants.
2) It would be worth paying more but taxpayers already pay more for produce due to business interests. Tariffs and subsidies inflate food prices. Take away tariff protections from sugar interests and subsidies from just about every agribusiness along with enforcing immigration rules and the difference may not be that great. As risky as derailing decades-old agricultural economic policies sounds to U.S. taxpayers and farmers, it's nothing compared to the situation in Juarez.
3.1) When you donate the most campaign funds.
3.2) When economic growth and laissez-faire principles usurp rights with "efficiency".
4. They care about all that, I'm sure. They just care more about making ends meet and making a profit where they can.
I don't understand the dilemma, to be honest. My ex-husband's father's employer pays for roundtrip tickets to fly Jamaicans every harvest to pick apples out of his own pocket. He pays for their housing and food. When those guys fly back to Jamaica they make enough in U.S. dollars to do very well on the island. If your wages don't attract legal immigrants and citizens, why not contract out?
2) It would be worth paying more but taxpayers already pay more for produce due to business interests. Tariffs and subsidies inflate food prices. Take away tariff protections from sugar interests and subsidies from just about every agribusiness along with enforcing immigration rules and the difference may not be that great. As risky as derailing decades-old agricultural economic policies sounds to U.S. taxpayers and farmers, it's nothing compared to the situation in Juarez.
3.1) When you donate the most campaign funds.
3.2) When economic growth and laissez-faire principles usurp rights with "efficiency".
4. They care about all that, I'm sure. They just care more about making ends meet and making a profit where they can.
I don't understand the dilemma, to be honest. My ex-husband's father's employer pays for roundtrip tickets to fly Jamaicans every harvest to pick apples out of his own pocket. He pays for their housing and food. When those guys fly back to Jamaica they make enough in U.S. dollars to do very well on the island. If your wages don't attract legal immigrants and citizens, why not contract out?
QUOTE(Ted @ Oct 29 2007, 10:48 AM)
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Oct 28 2007, 11:22 AM)
The intersecting of two competing issues has always fascinated me, especially when one quietly creeps up and over takes the issue, which is what we are seeing with immigration and farm labor provisions that is business friendly. It is no secret as to why people feel that the letter of the law should be followed to a "t" when it comes to immigration. A competing, and equally valuable issue has to do with farm labor. As of late, there has been a farm labor shortage due to tougher immigration rules. Not surprisingly, the California Farm Bureau and other groups are concerned about food rotting in the fields and higher food prices for consumers due to draconian immigration policies. Not surprisingly, the Bush administration has recently begun to rewrite provisions to alleviate the concerns of farmers dependent upon immigrant labor.
My opinion on immigration is of the Wal-Mart processing line of thinking. On this, I'm not certain which priority should come first. There are important considerations other than economic ones, yet, any non-economic reason usually loses. Should that be the case with this? Either you are for a free-market economy and believe in un-fettered markets regarding this, or your not, you can't have it both ways IMHO.
Questions for debate;
1.)When it comes to business and immigration policy, which should trump the other in this case? Why do you believe as you do?
2.)Would it be worth paying more for produce, if we could ensure that illegal aliens were not working the fields in this country?
3.)When does concern for economic growth and laissez-faire principles give way to non-economic principles? Should it ever?
4.)Do the migrant farm employers care about our well being, the integrity of our borders, and the need for a safe America?
It is no secret as to why people feel that the letter of the law should be followed to a "t" when it comes to immigration. A competing, and equally valuable issue has to do with farm labor. As of late, there has been a farm labor shortage due to tougher immigration rules. Not surprisingly, the California Farm Bureau and other groups are concerned about food rotting in the fields and higher food prices for consumers due to draconian immigration policies. Not surprisingly, the Bush administration has recently begun to rewrite provisions to alleviate the concerns of farmers dependent upon immigrant labor. My opinion on immigration is of the Wal-Mart processing line of thinking. On this, I'm not certain which priority should come first. There are important considerations other than economic ones, yet, any non-economic reason usually loses. Should that be the case with this? Either you are for a free-market economy and believe in un-fettered markets regarding this, or your not, you can't have it both ways IMHO.
Questions for debate;
1.)When it comes to business and immigration policy, which should trump the other in this case? Why do you believe as you do?
2.)Would it be worth paying more for produce, if we could ensure that illegal aliens were not working the fields in this country?
3.)When does concern for economic growth and laissez-faire principles give way to non-economic principles? Should it ever?
4.)Do the migrant farm employers care about our well being, the integrity of our borders, and the need for a safe America?
Business in all cases IMO must obey the LAW. If they can ignore immigration laws they why not others? And who is it that decided that this law could be ignored? And why?
The law should never be ignored.
In relation to question #3, should laws be so strict, or should economic convenience be the bsis of such laws? After all, we don't want fruit rotting in fields and the prices going up do we?
QUOTE
In relation to question #3, should laws be so strict, or should economic convenience be the bsis of such laws? After all, we don't want fruit rotting in fields and the prices going up do we?
A meaningless argument. There will always be workers but of course the price will be higher. The price of veggies and some fruit will rise a little – no big deal.
IMO the law is the law. We let in up to 3 million people a year – legally. If we need more workers we can raise the limit. Illegals have to GO.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.