Capitol Hill Blue Forums Life and Moral Issues Crime & Punishment Illegal Immigration and Appropriate Penalties

Yeah, me too. I'm not sure though - if it's per week, that would be in keeping with needing an extra $100 (per week) just to get TO minimum wage. But 3#/minute is not that much - I've seen pickers work, if you're talking instantaneous rate, that's pretty slow; as an average... maybe.

On the other hand, the other article said

OK, so at this rate (which is probably the upper end, in ideal conditions), that would be 12# per minute, or 733#/hr, or 5800#/day - so that extra penny would be $58/day? Hmm.

I think the real numbers are somewhere in between... but in any event, for someone making $150/week or even $450/week, damn straight that $100 per week would help them out of poverty! Just another case of economic class disconnect...


Indeed.

The CEO made 3.09 million last year. I wonder how many tomatoes that is per minute??

Your garden variety Beefsteaks sometimes reach that size, but 6-8 oz. is more common. Tell me, Leo, how many pounds would you pick before you got tired of dragging your gunny sack along and went over to the foreman to trade full for empty? How much of your time would you be using up, time that you would otherwise be using to pick tomatoes? How much time to weigh the bag? To get a receipt for the weight? How many extra tomatoes do you have to pick to get that fifteen minute break twice a day? How many to get a drink of water? Adjust your hat?

I tell you what, one day of my life I worked with an organic farmer to get a taste - what turned out to be my fill - of small scale agriculture. I picked peppers for four hours. If you think picking 1,667 pounds of tomatoes a day seems an easy task, I highly recommend the experience.

Actually it is talked about. And, unfortunately, it happens that the value of these workers for US employers increases as they remain undocumented and become subject to abuse.

I completely support coming up with some program that will deal with all of these issues in an explicit and legal manner. It is not the workers that I oppose, but their illegal status and the employers who use the situation for their own profit.

Generally I agree. However Ireland has not yet had a sufficient flood of immigration that it is overwhelming the traditional local culture.

A truly charming aspect of Europe is all the many distinct cultures and micro cultures. At some point, immigration can reach a level where the distinctive local culture is eroded. Where that happens in Europe, you will find local residents objecting.

One reason that Japan has been so adamant in refusing immigrant workers is because they want to protect their culture. And, yes, this is causing a problem for them in that there are insufficient care givers for the aging population.


With all respect, Schlack, I think the title of this thread may have something to do with that.

Ardy

The words, yes, but that doesn't bear out any kind of economic hardship, which is also what you seemed to argue (albeit you admitted no direct knowledge).

In this narrow case of picking fruit, it seems that DOUBLING the illegal wage would result in an economic increase, at the dinner table, of only 2 cents or so, per pound... not much of a hardship, is it? And I would think that doubling existing wages, whether it's $3 or $11 per hour, is likely going to attract *legal* workers, and so reduce if not eliminate the need for illegal hiring, especially at sub-minimum wage rates.

Would you agree with that conclusion as well?

First, reality, it isn't my argument. Second, aren't you failing to include the profit motive? It isn't the consumer's "hardship" that is being considered but rather that of the primarily corporate farming enterprises that is at risk if I understand the argument put forth.

but it is related to the 'appropriate penalties' idea...
Staff fired over prank-call shock treatments

It seems like to me anyway, that you get fired for being late too many times or for being rude to a customer. Getting fired for this kind of activity seems inappropriately mild, but then - I'm a bit of a stickler.

Speaking of appropriate penalties - It looks to me as though we've failed to come up with workable penalties for illegal immigrants...

Maybe we could move ourselves over to a parallel track --

Anybody want to take a crack at workable penalties for employers of illegal immigrants?

Mellow, I'm not sure that I've got anything productive to say about penalties. I think the laws are wrong, therefore the penalties are moot.

EmmaG

Leaving Arizona

Good News, Folks! Employer sanctions can work!

Read the article, it's like a CHRISTMAS MIRACLE!!!!!

I mean that in the GEE-ZUSS way - not the HEY-ZEUS way.

Ah, market forces at work, eh?

No, wait, this is simply "making it a poor business decision to employ an undocumented worker". Someone said that on one of the immigration threads. I think it's a very good turn of phrase, and seems ultimately as reasonable as any anti-immigration strategy could be.

I see this approach as the commonest of common ground we have between the "amnesties" and the "Minutemen". We have to look at how it affects all the parties involved, including employers as well as the overall population of Hispanic Americans. I hear the Party On the Left extolling the need for a pathway to citizenship as an essential partner to punishing illegal employers. Now we have the latter on a large scale, in one of the most heavily impacted States in the Union.

What do y'all think is going to happen? Long term, I mean. Should we expect to see some new, more robust method of obtaining citizenship (i.e., hefty fine plus civics and ESL)? How do other "solidarity" type folks view this?