I like California, too. I also like the rule of law.
5 Likes
I answered your question by stating where I live as a simple statement of true fact – California has a porous border, and California has a great number of Undocumented persons. Nothing is stopping them, and nothing will, until it is legally arduous and consequential for employers to be found with undocumented persons in their employ.
Having a laissez-faire attitude about borders essentially means you’re okay with exploitation, assault, workplace injury and less savory concerns happening to migrants, as it a) makes avocados cheaper and b) doesn’t affect you.
What do you think about changing the general condition and treatment of them to “guest workers”?
Gross exaggeration. Many are being stopped, caged, torn from loved ones, killed, deported, raped, exploited,
etc.
This massive invasion of which you speak is a figment of fevered imaginations, implanted there by politicians and their corporate controllers in order to distract and control voters, no?
2 Likes
You’ll pardon me for being unimpressed by moral advice from a 250-years-dead slaveowner.
Our Immigration laws are not unjust, just unjustly enforced, like going after the substance (undocumented labor) and not the supplier (employers, CEO’s).
This country could benefit from a real guest worker program – monitored, regulated, with picture ID with an expiration date and a temp. Visa allowing the same – but as that would be inconvenient ot the people who prosper most from the employ of guest labor, it’ll never happen.
But, if my Bank Card can know when I’m out-of-state and give me a fraud alert, we could create a specific-duration Guest Worker visa that can account for specific start-stop times.
Again, I am not against undocumented labor because of race, creed or nationality; I am against it because it allows plutocrats to profit from hurting and exploiting them, diminishes American wages and makes for a two-class society of citizens and serfs.
You’ll pardon me for being unimpressed by moral advice from a 250-years-dead slaveowner.
You’ll pardon me in return, I’m sure, for being unimpressed by an ad hominem attack.
3 Likes
It’s not an attack on you, it’s an attack on Mr. Jefferson, who history establishes has it coming.
I know.
As an attack on him, it’s also a failure to address what he said (in a statement echoed, of course, by many others).
4 Likes
That’s cool, bro, so do most people. With a bit of learning, however, people tend to realize that the exact letter of the law is rarely reflective of the situation on the ground and that enforcement mandates can backfire and cause lots of social damage or economic disruption. Deporting illegal immigrants en masse or militarizing all borders isn’t going to suddenly fix anything. It’s almost as though politicians who promise such fixes are engaged in…meaningless political theater.
1 Like
Never meaningless, given its political utility, and the huge sums being made now by private contractors.
5 Likes
The documentedness or undocumentedness of people who do want to bother you tells you nothing at all about those who are antipathetic to the very idea of moving to anywhere near you. You still haven’t told me how you know how many of them there are.
If the mother-in-law is found to be poisoning this person, then I’d expect there to be a quick search through all previous relationships, in case the mother-in-law was successful in the past and it went unnoticed.
I should think one person without proper documentation breaking the law and enabling even more illegality on behalf of their lawbreaking employer would be cause for concern.
OK. I give up. You have no interest in answering my question about a point you raised. You win.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
