kscarbel2

Trump and Immigration (Illegal Immigrants in the US)

117 posts in this topic

Cracks emerge in Trump's campaign promise on immigration

Associated Press  /  November 13, 2016

Donald Trump's tough-talking plan to rein in illegal immigration showed signs Sunday of cracking, with the president-elect backing off his vow to build a solid wall along the southern U.S. border and House Speaker Paul Ryan rejecting any "deportation force" targeting people in the country illegally.

The president-elect retreated from the campaign promise that had inspired his supporters chant "Build the wall!" at Trump's massive campaign rallies.

Would he accept a fence in some spots on the border? In an interview to be aired Sunday, Trump told "60 Minutes": "For certain areas, I would, but certain areas, a wall is more appropriate. There could be some fencing."

Trump also had vowed to immediately deport all 11 million people in the country illegally. But in the interview, he said he's focusing first on ousting or incarcerating 2 million to 3 million "that are criminals and have criminal records, gang members, drug dealers." Trump emphasized that securing the border is his very first immigration priority.

On that, Ryan agreed.

But on CNN's "State of the Union," Ryan rejected the kind of "mass deportations" Trump had championed during the campaign.

"We are not planning on erecting a deportation force," he said.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would any country, under any leadership, intentionally ignore its immigration laws and allow "illegal" immigrants to exist within its borders ?

Trump was going to evict them.......all of them. And rightly so, based on our laws, and on righteousness.

BUT NOW, Trump has caved. He now only plans to evict a mere fraction of the illegal immigrants living in the US.

Trump's "On day one, I'm going to........" talk is quickly evaporating.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See why I don't trust Trump?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It completely boggles my mind that our country literally does not round up the illegal immigrants and immediately deport them.

Why do we have immigration laws, if there's no intent to fully enforce them?

The lack of enforcement isn't an oversight. The government you see, or the people behind the veil, are purposely allowing illegal immigrants to stay. And recall, two mass amnesties were granted by Reagan (3 million) and George H.W. Bush (1.5 million), without the vote of the American people, and Obama wanted a third amnesty to 5 million.

Now, Trump is going to grant amnesty to 9 million* non-criminal illegal immigrants in the country, the largest amnesty of U.S. history!  His campaign promise was just hot air.

* 11 million illegals - 2 million criminal illegals = 9 million.  (Trump says, according to federal data, there are at least 2 million criminal aliens.......good luck rounding up a fraction of them. "Day one, my first hour in office, those people are gone," said Trump.)

The 11 million number comes from from your government, which has multiple reasons to underestimate the actual number, which is estimated to be as high as 30 million*.

* For example, in August 2015, Mexico’s former ambassador to the U.S., Arturo Sarukhan, says there are 30 million “undocumented [illegal] immigrants” living in the United States (Video at 1:00 - http://www.msnbc.com/andrea-mitchell-reports/watch/backlash-grows-over-trump-s-immigration-plan-507691587765).

Florida Senator Marco Rubio says there are 12 to 13 million illegal immigrants are in the U.S., but what's a few million in difference?

Even Trump said (Aug 31, 2016) there could be 30 million:

"Honestly we've been hearing that number for years. It's always 11 million. Our government has no idea [There's some truth]. It could be 3 million. It could be 30 million," Trump said. "They have no idea what the number is. Frankly our government has no idea what they're doing on many, many fronts, folks."

Trump told you, “We will immediately terminate President Obama’s two illegal amnesties, in which he defied federal law and the Constitution to give amnesty to approximately 5 million illegal immigrants. 5 million.”

Obama was only going to grant amnesty to 5 million. Trump is going to “trump” Obama’s number and grant amnesty to 9 million.

Why, because Trump actually feels that if illegal immigrants have been skillful enough to avoid detection for 20 years, they should be rewarded with amnesty.

"You know my views on it and I'm not necessarily, I think I'm probably down the middle on that also,” said Trump. “Because I also understand how, as an example, you have people [illegal immigrants] in this country for 20 years, they've done a great job, they've done wonderfully, they've gone to school [for free], they've gotten good marks, they're productive — now we're supposed to send them out of the country, I don't believe in that."

There are so many ramifications in play here.

For starters, the lack of integrity with any person who knowingly enters the United States illegally speaks for itself. There action is criminal in nature. Thus these people are non-starter undesirables.

And obviously, any job these people take could/would have gone to an American, or legal immigrant.

Trump said, "We want people to come into our country, but they have to come into our country legally and properly vetted, and in a manner that serves the national interest. There will be no amnesty. Our message to the world will be this: You cannot obtain legal status, or become a citizen of the United States, by illegally entering our country. Can't do it."

And yet, we are now under Trump looking at the largest amnesty plan for illegal immigrants in American history.

On “60 Minutes”, Trump said his administration will “get the people that are criminal and have criminal records, gang members, drug dealers, we have a lot of these people, probably 2 million, it could be even 3 million. We are getting them out of our country, OR we are going to incarcerate.

"Or we are going to incarcerate"???    Where did that concept come from. "Or"?  As in, put them in U.S. prisons at the taxpayer's (our) expense?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, kscarbel2 said:

It completely boggles my mind that our country literally does not round up the illegal immigrants and immediately deport them.

Why do we have immigration laws, if there's no intent to fully enforce them?

There are so many ramifications in play here.

For starters, the lack of integrity with any person who knowingly enters the United States illegally speaks for itself. There action is criminal in nature. Thus these people are non-starter undesirables.

And obviously, any job these people take could/would have gone to an American, or legal immigrant.

 

I'm with ya KS and my guess why trump may back off is our biased media, the dems the illegals will continue to paint the gop as hateful racists who want nothing more than to destroy minority's families and the left wing media will be running that headline on the 24 hr news cycles for years and the gop will have to deal with it every election too.  And that is a huge tool that the left uses (hate, fear and divide built on lies) to stay in power. Let border jumpers in, call the gop racist for trying to pass a law that requires state ID required to vote and promise those free loading border jumpers more free stuff if you vote for the left. Like it or not that is the truth. 

Edited by HeavyGunner
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, kscarbel2 said:

It completely boggles my mind that our country literally does not round up the illegal immigrants and immediately deport them.

Why do we have immigration laws, if there's no intent to fully enforce them?

There are so many ramifications in play here.

For starters, the lack of integrity with any person who knowingly enters the United States illegally speaks for itself. There action is criminal in nature. Thus these people are non-starter undesirables.

And obviously, any job these people take could/would have gone to an American, or legal immigrant.

 

Under United States Code, crossing the border without going through Customs is a misdemeanor, like a parking ticket.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like heavy gunner,I agree with Ksb Enforce the laws! Take the money in " social welfare" funds and hire more border patrol agents,creates employment! I'm referring to the money used on illegals not the money to help those who legitimately need it! A lot of if not most of president elect Trumps promises however appealing to many were "campaign rhetoric"! It is monetary impossible to build a wall along the whole Mexican border! When the money is needed for infrastructure! It is not impossible to end " sanctuary cities" and start to publicly deport as many illegals as financially feasible! It is not impossible to prosecute companies who hire illegals! These three things if properly and publicly done will remove the incentive to enter America illegally. Another thing, No person working in America including green card workers doing the work no one else wants should receive a wage so low that they can't afford decent Housing and proper nutrition! The run down migrant camps and third world conditions most green card workers live in are a disgrace to America! I noted that several states voted to raise the minimum wage. Good! I don't like Trump and I don't like the Clinton's!  But I'm willing to give him a chance!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Makes as much sense as "zero tolerance" parking enforcement!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, 'twas Obama said something like that, and he was partly right. Unpaid parking is actually a major drag on some city's budgets, while even undocumented immigrants pay taxes and patronize the local businesses. Also, immigrants tend to be young adults who pay a lot in taxes and use little government services. On the state level, it's the young and the old who are most dependent on government for services. On the federal level, the biggest budget item is the military.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, TeamsterGrrrl said:

No, 'twas Obama said something like that, and he was partly right. Unpaid parking is actually a major drag on some city's budgets, while even undocumented immigrants pay taxes and patronize the local businesses. Also, immigrants tend to be young adults who pay a lot in taxes and use little government services. On the state level, it's the young and the old who are most dependent on government for services. On the federal level, the biggest budget item is the military.

 

Illegals are paying taxes?!  You've got to be kidding!  We sudsidize them with our tax money that we earn but they sure as hell aren't paying .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, BillyT said:

Like heavy gunner,I agree with Ksb Enforce the laws! Take the money in " social welfare" funds and hire more border patrol agents,creates employment! I'm referring to the money used on illegals not the money to help those who legitimately need it! A lot of if not most of president elect Trumps promises however appealing to many were "campaign rhetoric"! It is monetary impossible to build a wall along the whole Mexican border! When the money is needed for infrastructure! It is not impossible to end " sanctuary cities" and start to publicly deport as many illegals as financially feasible! It is not impossible to prosecute companies who hire illegals! These three things if properly and publicly done will remove the incentive to enter America illegally. Another thing, No person working in America including green card workers doing the work no one else wants should receive a wage so low that they can't afford decent Housing and proper nutrition! The run down migrant camps and third world conditions most green card workers live in are a disgrace to America! I noted that several states voted to raise the minimum wage. Good! I don't like Trump and I don't like the Clinton's!  But I'm willing to give him a chance!

how much money should I spend on housing people for 2.5 weeks per year? the state says I cant put them in tents, campers are not legal if they don't have 2 escape routes.....funny part is part of the labor I use are wild land fire fighters and they stay in tents for months when on fires. But the migrant housing camp can use tents (government run) 

Oh and the "So Low Wage" is about 170 bucks a day avg. for seven hours of work and I pay for the housing expenses

Edited by gearhead204

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, HeavyGunner said:

Illegals are paying taxes?!  You've got to be kidding!  We sudsidize them with our tax money that we earn but they sure as hell aren't paying .

they have to have a SS # and the employer must withhold SS and all other payroll deductions  they pay local and state sales tax....now if that ss # doesn't belong to them, they can't file taxes on it. so the government gets added income!.... the catch is the few problem workers that end up either being jailed or hospitalized. Those do cost us money. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup, and plenty of born in the USA citizens get in trouble and cost us a lot of money too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

41 Chevy, this is the study you're talking about. It shows an overall net benefit from immigration, not the massive costs you allege. And here in the land of Jount Council 32 of the IBT, we learned back in the 80s that immigrants strengthen the labor movement, not weaken it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump says he will on day one deport from the U.S., or incarcerate in the U.S., two to three illegal immigrants who are "criminals and have criminal records, gang members, drug dealers."

But how many illegal immigrants have committed crimes in the U.S., other than immigration violations?

In 2013, there were 1.9 million removable criminal aliens (criminal immigrants, both legal and illegal).

This number includes people lawfully in the U.S. (legal immigrants) who face deportation after being convicted of serious crimes.

However, only 820,000 (43 percent) of the 1.9 million removable criminal aliens are illegal aliens (illegal immigrants) with criminal convictions.

.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TeamsterGrrrl said:

41 Chevy, this is the study you're talking about. It shows an overall net benefit from immigration, not the massive costs you allege. And here in the land of Jount Council 32 of the IBT, we learned back in the 80s that immigrants strengthen the labor movement, not weaken it!

http://www.fairus.org/issue/illegal-immigration-is-a-crime

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

538 did a good analysis and agrees, there are way less than Trump's "tow or three million" criminal undocumented immigrants in the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

41 Chevy, still got your facts wrong. Your cite is not from an authoritative bipartisan source, and the cite within the article is from 1997 and is too dated to be relevant now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump’s stance on immigration puts him closer to Obama

The Financial Times  /  November 14, 2016

As Donald Trump reaffirms his goal of expelling at least 2 million unauthorized [illegal] immigrants with criminal records, Hispanic groups and other critics argue that his stance is closer to President Barack Obama’s than usually thought.

Advocacy groups who criticize the president-elect’s plans as unjust and unworkable have also attacked Mr Obama as the “deporter-in-chief” for expelling more than 2.7 million unauthorized immigrants during his first seven years in office. The current president’s policy on deportations ran in parallel to his effort to give others the right to remain legally in the US.

“Obama is the person who has deported more people than any president before him,” said Clarissa Martinez de Castro of the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic advocacy group that dubbed the White House’s current occupant the deportation president in 2014.

“If you listen to the debate it sounds like Obama has been at the border giving people green cards. It’s ludicrous, these alternative realities. The notion that Obama hasn’t been enforcing the law is an easy talking point to stir your base, unless you are suffering the consequences of his actions.”

Mr Trump vowed on Sunday to deport 2-3 million people including “gang members [and] drug dealers” in the US illegally but appeared to step back from his campaign pledge to expel all of the US’s 11 million unauthorized immigrants.

His promise to do in short order what took the Obama administration two terms has raised questions about the feasibility of his promises, given legal and practical impediments to throwing even hardened criminals out of the country quickly.

Muzaffar Chishti of the Migration Policy Institute, a research group, said Mr Trump’s ability to fulfil his pledge would be hindered by the constitution’s requirement to give deportees legal due process and by the limitations of the US’s enforcement apparatus.

“Our immigration court system is quite clogged. You would be adding another group to the clogged system,” he said, noting that there is already a backlog of 500,000 deportation cases.

“It would require a huge expansion of law enforcement personnel. But even after that it would require a huge expansion in the number of immigration judges and prosecutors. Putting such a system in place quickly would be a tall order,” Mr Chishti said.

In an interview with CBS on Sunday, Mr Trump — who campaigned on building a border wall and ordering mass deportations — identified immigration reform as one of his top three priorities alongside healthcare and changes to the tax system.

“What we are going to do is get the people that are criminal and have criminal records, gang members, drug dealers, we have a lot of these people, probably 2 million, it could be even 3 million, we are getting them out of our country or we are going to incarcerate,” he said.

Independent analysts were baffled by the numbers the president-elect gave. The Migration Policy Institute estimates that 820,000 of the US’s 11 million unauthorized immigrants have a criminal conviction and that 300,000 are for felonies, the most serious crimes.

In 2012 the Department of Homeland Security estimated that there were 1.9 million “removable” non-Americans with criminal convictions, but more than half of them were legally present with green cards or other forms of visa.

“The vast majority of the American public would agree that somebody who poses a national security threat or a threat to community wellbeing should not be released on to the street,” said Ms Martinez de Castro.

But she said Mr Trump had failed to provide specifics about who he would categorize as a criminal. “I’m assuming he’s casting a very broad dragnet,” she said.

To the dismay of immigrant advocates, a substantial number of the Obama administration’s deportations have involved people who committed minor infractions such as traffic violations or had no criminal record at all.

The Obama administration stepped up deportations in part to show Republicans that the border was secure as it tried to persuade Congress to pass a comprehensive package of immigration reforms.

But that legislative effort failed in 2013. A subsequent attempt to use Mr Obama’s executive powers to remove the deportation threat for some 4m unauthorized immigrants with no criminal records was stopped by the Supreme Court in June.

Mr Trump appeared to soften his stance on mass deportation towards the end of his campaign and said on Sunday that many illegal immigrants were “terrific people”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, TeamsterGrrrl said:

41 Chevy, still got your facts wrong. Your cite is not from an authoritative bipartisan source, and the cite within the article is from 1997 and is too dated to be relevant now.

Sorry, I posted the incorrect link. Here is the NAS findings.

 
 
 

 

 
Office of News and Public Information
leftnavtop.jpg leftnavbottom.jpg
 
 
Back | Home
News from the National Academies
Date: May 17, 2014
Contacts: Molly Galvin, Media Relations Associate
Shannon Flannery, Media Relations Assistant
(202) 334-2138; Internet <[email protected]>


EMBARGOED: NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE BEFORE 5 P.M. EDT SATURDAY, MAY 17

Overall U.S. Economy Gains From Immigration,
But It's Costly to Some States and Localities

WASHINGTON -- Immigration benefits the U.S. economy overall and has little negative effect on the income and job opportunities of most native-born Americans, says a new report* by a panel of the National Research Council. Only in areas with high concentrations of low-skilled, low-paid immigrants are state and local taxpayers paying more on average to support the publicly funded services that these immigrants use.

"Immigrants may be adding as much as $10 billion to the economy each year," said panel chair James P. Smith, senior economist at RAND Corp., Santa Monica, Calif. "It's true that some Americans are now paying more taxes because of immigration, and native-born Americans without high school educations have seen their wages fall slightly because of the competition sparked by lower-skilled, newly arrived immigrants. But the vast majority of Americans are enjoying a healthier economy as the result of the increased supply of labor and lower prices that result from immigration."

The U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, a congressionally appointed body, asked the Research Council to examine the effects of immigration on the national economy, on government revenues and spending, and on the future size and makeup of the nation's population. It was not asked to make policy recommendations.

Each year about 800,000 people immigrate legally to the United States. In addition, between 200,000 and 300,000 new illegal immigrants stay in the country each year. In 2008, 43 percent of immigrants came from Latin America and the Caribbean, 26 percent were from Canada and Europe, 25 percent were from Asia, and 6 percent were from other countries.

Immigrant labor allows many goods and services to be produced more cheaply, and provides the work force for some businesses that otherwise could not exist. For example, immigration has helped build and maintain America's textile and agricultural industries. Other businesses that employ many immigrants -- such as restaurants and domestic household services -- would not exist on the same scale without immigrant workers, the panel said.

Most immigrants work in specialized sectors of the economy such as the manufacturing and service industries, and compete primarily for jobs with each other and with Americans who don't hold high school diplomas. Through this competition, in fact, the wages of these native-born Americans may have fallen some 5 percent over the past 15 years. Yet even in local labor markets with high numbers of new immigrants, overall job opportunities and wages for the native-born are not significantly affected by immigration. The effects may be minor because natives who compete directly with immigrants may be moving to other areas, and because immigration brings overall economic benefits to most Americans.

Costs to Taxpayers

The majority of America's immigrants live in six states: California, New York, New Jersey, Texas, Florida, and Illinois. Using data from California and New Jersey, the panel estimated how much immigrant households -- those headed by foreign-born people -- cost state and local taxpayers. This was calculated by subtracting the costs of services those households use -- such as public education, police and fire, welfare, and public health -- from the amount of taxes they pay on an annual basis. These estimates were made before new laws eliminated welfare benefits for legal immigrants who are not U.S. citizens.

In California, where many new immigrants live, each native household is paying about $1,178 a year in state and local taxes to cover services used by immigrant households, the panel said. In New Jersey, which has a more established immigrant population, the calculation is about $232 a year. However, annual estimates of immigrants' impact on state and local taxpayers may be inflated and should not be used to predict the long-term costs of admitting new immigrants, the panel said. These calculations do not indicate how much immigrants and their children will pay in taxes or how they will use public services over their lifetimes.

On an annual basis, new immigrant families receive more in publicly funded services than they pay in taxes, the panel said. Most -- especially those from Latin America -- tend to have more school-aged children and require more educational services than other households. Although immigrants use about the same level of government services as native-born residents, most immigrants pay less taxes because they own less property and have lower-paying jobs.

The panel's long-term estimates indicate that on a national level, the majority of new immigrants and their descendants will add more to government coffers than they receive over their lifetimes. The positive fiscal effects of immigration at the federal level are shared equally by all residents across the nation. However, residents of a few states such as California -- with high numbers of new immigrants -- will bear long-term costs that are concentrated at the state and local level of government.

Immigrants and their children will bring long-term benefits for most U.S. taxpayers because -- like most Americans -- immigrants use more publicly funded services in childhood and old age, but they make positive contributions as working adults. In addition, the majority of immigrants pay taxes and add revenue for some services -- such as national defense and interest on the federal debt -- for which they do not impose costs.

The long-term fiscal contributions that immigrants make, however, will vary depending on such factors as education and age of arrival to the United States. Immigrants with higher levels of education will pay more taxes in the long term because they have higher incomes. But immigrants who don't have high school educations and those who are age 50 or older on arrival may receive more benefits than they pay in taxes.

Immigrant Jobs and Wages

The wage gap between new immigrants and native workers has grown rapidly in recent decades, the panel said. In 2010, for example, recently arrived male immigrants were paid 32 percent less than native workers; in 1970, new immigrants' wages were 17 percent less. New female immigrants make 22 percent less than native-born women, a gap that has grown by 10 percent since 1970. This wage gap is growing mainly because more recent immigrants -- many of whom are from poor countries in Latin America -- have much lower education and skill levels than most Americans.

New immigrants are more than twice as likely as Americans not to have a high school degree, the panel said. More than one in three new immigrants have not completed high school. As a result, a disproportionate number of immigrants hold the lowest paying jobs in restaurants for instance, or in domestic positions. In 2010, almost half of all new immigrants earned among the lowest wages in the United States.

Historically, the wages of immigrants who entered the country when they were 25 or younger eventually equaled those of native workers after immigrants had been in the work force for about 20 years. However, because new immigrants are coming to the United States with substantially lower education and skill levels and are starting with lower wages, it be may more difficult for them to close the wage gap. In particular, most Mexican male immigrants, who make among the lowest initial wages, have not seen any increase in wages relative to those of native workers even after 20 years in the U.S. work force.

Population Effects

If immigration continues at its present level, the U.S. population will grow to 387 million people by 2050 -- 124 million more than today, the panel said. Immigration would account for about two-thirds of this growth. Under current immigration policy, 26 percent of Americans will be of Hispanic ancestry, growing from 27 million to 85 million by the year 2050. About 8 percent will be of Asian heritage, increasing from 9 million to 34 million. In addition, the boundaries between distinct ethnic groups will become increasingly blurred through intermarriage.

Regardless of immigration policy, the number of older people in the U.S. population will continue to grow. The population of the United States age 65 or older is expected to double by the year 2050. Immigration will also increase the number of children in the population, the panel said. Under current levels of immigration, the number of children in kindergarten through eighth grade will increase by 17 million -- from 36.8 million to 53.7 million -- by the year 2050. If the number of immigrants entering the United States were increased by half, the school-age population would grow by 7 percent, the U.S. population over age 65 would increase by about 5 percent, and the number of people older than age 85 would be unchanged.

The study was funded by the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform. The National Research Council is the principal operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering. It is a private, non-profit institution that provides independent advice on science and technology issues under a congressional charter. A committee roster follows.

*Pre-publication copies of The New Americans: Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration are available from the National Academy Press at the mailing address in the letterhead; tel. (202) 334-3313 or 1-800-624-6242. The cost of the report is $55.00 (prepaid) plus shipping charges of $4.00 for the first copy and $.50 for each additional copy. Reporters may obtain pre-publication copies from the Office of News and Public Information at the letterhead address (contacts listed above).


 
    • NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
      Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education
      Committee on Population

      Panel on the Demographic and Economic Impacts of Immigration

      James P. Smith (chair)
      RAND
      Santa Monica, Calif.

      Alan J. Auerbach
      Department of Economics
      University of California
      Berkeley

      George J. Borjas
      John F. Kennedy School of Government
      Harvard University
      Cambridge, Mass.

      Thomas J. Espenshade
      Office of Population Research
      Princeton University
      Princeton, N.J.

      Richard B. Freeman
      Department of Economics
      Harvard University, and
      Labor Studies
      National Bureau of Economic Research
      Cambridge, Mass.

      John F. Geweke
      Department of Economics
      University of Minnesota
      Minneapolis

      Charles Hirschman
      Department of Sociology
      University of Washington
      Seattle

      Robert P. Inman
      Department of Finance
      Wharton School of Business
      University of Pennsylvania
      Philadelphia

      Guillermina Jasso
      Department of Sociology
      New York University
      New York City

      Ronald D. Lee (*)
      Department of Demography and Economics
      University of California
      Berkeley

      Mary C. Waters
      Department of Sociology
      Harvard University
      Cambridge, Mass.

      Finis R. Welch
      Department of Economics
      Texas A&M University
      Bryan


      RESEARCH COUNCIL STAFF

      Barry Edmonston
      Study Director

      (*) Member, National Academy of Sciences

 

 

Edited by 41chevy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gearhead204, if the 170 a day figure you quote is accurate, and I have no reason to doubt you, you shouldn't be subsidizing their housing! At that wage, they can get together and rent clean campers or cheap motels (on a weekly basis which is cheaper) 90 percent of which are owned by legal ( mostly) immigrants from the middle east and the Indian subcontinent!  Most migrant workers are paid on a piece rate or by the pound, depending on what they are harvesting. In Florida, the citrus pickers are said to average less than minimum wage. That is what I'm talking about when I say low wages! I have little knowledge of the crops grown in the Pacific northwest. Are they picking Apple's, blueberries etc or other fairly high dollar crops? I can't imagine piece rate on cheap crops paying that much...educate me! The migrants down here are mostly living in dirthole depreciated out motels and barracks owned by the growers!

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now