2016 Presidential Horse Race

[kmoose]

I used the Midwest as one example of where the loss of cheap labor would force farmers into growing something else. And there are thousands, if not millions of Midwest acres planted with tomatoes, cabbage, strawberries, cucumbers, etc. I never stated that the growth of produce was limited to the Midwest. Are you suggesting that farm laborers in California, Virginia, Florida, and Georgia are paid substantially more than those in the Midwest? If you know anything about the migrant labor force, then you know that the field workers are called migrant workers for a reason. The migrant laborers in Florida, Virginia, Georgia, and California and those in Michigan and Ohio and other Midwest states are one and the same. They follow the planting and harvesting seasons in search of employment. The vast majority of the farm laborers who come to Michigan and Ohio each summer come from the border area of Texas, from Florida, and from other southern states. So any law preventing Mexican immigrants from entering the United States or deporting those that are already here would severely hamper the produce industry all across the country.

There are other ways to keep this from happening. First of all, many of those operations do not fall under minimum wage laws, so the labor rate is not going to change. Also, if you are concerned that Americans are not going to want to do those jobs; tie some unemployment and medicare scenarios to farm labor. In other words, if you reach a certain threshold of unemployment benefits, then you will be ineligible for unemployment until you complete so many weeks of farm labor.

Also, you seem to be oblivious to the problem. Mexican immigrants are not the problem, ILLEGAL immigrants are the problem.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

I was just in Lancaster County this morning to visit my daughter at college. On the way there this 25 degree morning I got stuck behind a horse drawn buggie on Route 501 while the family inside was wrapped up in a half dozen hand sewn quilts to stay warm. They were no doubt on their way to visit with another Amish family to socialize and commune in a home with no electricity and outdoor plumbing. While I have incredible respect for their fortitude and simple way of life that revolves around back breaking labor, it is hardly a way of life that American citizens aspire to. Much technological progress has come in the last couple of centuries that make living as if it were the 18th century seem less than ideal.

I wasn't advocating everyone go Amish tomorrow. I was just pointing out that there are farms all over this country (even excluding my Amish friends) who don't rely on migrant labor. Eddy was talking like farms would all shut down on Monday morning if there were no illegal immigrants, and it's 100% wrong.

As for you, next time you're in Lancaster County hit me up! We'll go out to lunch and I'll make you to pay because social justice haha.

 

[IrishLax]

Not so laughable when you consider "all" of Rubio's positions on immigration. To pander to the Republican base, Rubio has gotten closer and closer to the positions espoused by Trump and Cruz.

Whatever fits your narrative and helps you sleep at night.

 

[GoIrish41]

You are making an incorrect assumption that the laborers' illegal status allows employers to exploit them. The fact is that certain farm laborers are outside of minimum wage laws:



So, in the instances above, their immigration status would make no difference in the wages they earn.

Amercan workers are largely unwilling to work for the compensation that these immigrants will work for because the immagrants' alternative is much worse. The wages these farm workers receive are notoriously low. Without the immigrants, farmers would be forced to raise their wages or change crops -- as been pointed out by others. The result would be higher food prices. The same is true for construction workers in many parts of the country. Without their willingness to work for substandard wages, builders would have to pay more and the cost of construction would rise.

Quibble all you want about what is and isn't exploitation, but taking advantage of the desperation of workers to pay lower wages to increase profit margins fits my definition.

 

[GoIrish41]

I wasn't advocating everyone go Amish tomorrow. I was just pointing out that there are farms all over this country (even excluding my Amish friends) who don't rely on migrant labor. Eddy was talking like farms would all shut down on Monday morning if there were no illegal immigrants, and it's 100% wrong.

As for you, next time you're in Lancaster County hit me up! We'll go out to lunch and I'll make you to pay because social justice haha.

I'll have to do that. Lets just do it before Trump gets elected in case Eddy is right. I am putting a couple kids through college right now and the lunch tab could go up quick once he throws out all the Mexicans.

 

[EddytoNow]

There are other ways to keep this from happening. First of all, many of those operations do not fall under minimum wage laws, so the labor rate is not going to change. Also, if you are concerned that Americans are not going to want to do those jobs; tie some unemployment and medicare scenarios to farm labor. In other words, if you reach a certain threshold of unemployment benefits, then you will be ineligible for unemployment until you complete so many weeks of farm labor.

Also, you seem to be oblivious to the problem. Mexican immigrants are not the problem, ILLEGAL immigrants are the problem.

Does that mean that Trump's Wall will go around the entire country instead of just along the Mexican border?

 

[kmoose]

Does that mean that Trump's Wall will go around the entire country instead of just along the Mexican border?

I don't know. But I would say it will go where the most number of illegal immigrants are found to be crossing. But the wall is not set up to keep Mexicans from legally immigrating to the US...

 

[EddytoNow]

I wasn't advocating everyone go Amish tomorrow. I was just pointing out that there are farms all over this country (even excluding my Amish friends) who don't rely on migrant labor. Eddy was talking like farms would all shut down on Monday morning if there were no illegal immigrants, and it's 100% wrong.

As for you, next time you're in Lancaster County hit me up! We'll go out to lunch and I'll make you to pay because social justice haha.

I never stated that all farms would shut down if the migrant labor force was deported from the country. I rightly pointed out that many would be forced to shut down or switch to crops less-reliant on migrant farm labor if they could find no one to plant and harvest their crops. The economics of farm production is pretty simple. When crop production exceeds demand the price paid to farmers drops substantially. When demand exceeds production the price paid to farmers increases. If farmers can't make a living producing one crop or can't find workers willing to plant and harvest it, they will either be out of business or they will start growing something else.

The large corporate farms are flourishing. Small farmers are finding it harder and harder to compete.

Finally, am I the only one that sees something wrong with farm labor laws that make it legal to employee children under 16 for work in the fields?

 

[tommyIRISH23]

Just curious to hear opinions- does our countries tax code drive wealth out of our country?

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

I'll have to do that. Lets just do it before Trump gets elected in case Eddy is right. I am putting a couple kids through college right now and the lunch tab could go up quick once he throws out all the Mexicans.

If you pull your kids out of college so that a few minorities can have "access" to higher education, I'll up the anty and buy dinner for ya.

 

[GoIrish41]

If you pull your kids out of college so that a few minorities can have "access" to higher education, I'll up the anty and buy dinner for ya.

Ha. They can always get jobs as farm workers or on crews that pour concrete. Turns out there may be a lot of job openings soon.

 

[Buster Bluth]

So what I'm understanding you to be saying...

Part 1... the environment for the formation of ISIS was Bush's fault... (Mr. not everything is Obama's fault)

My response to Part 1...K, who gives a fuck? How we got here has no bearing on what we need to do.

You can't fix a problem if you don't know what the problem is, so knowing how we got here is a prerequisite for making good decisions. But don't tell that to the people running for President, it's just "carpet bombing and overwhelming force" that'll solve the problem...

Here's Dick Cheney laying out, in 1994, just how stupid a decision it would have been to remove Saddam Hussein's dictatorship that was keeping the peace over the three-way ethnic/religious fault line that is Iraq, nine years before he want ahead and ignored his own advice:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/6BEsZMvrq-I" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Understanding that Bush and Co handed Iraq to that aforementioned Shia portion of Iraq should be a pretty big clue on why the Sunni Arabs aren't willing to put it back together...how is this so difficult to understand?

Part 2...No one wants ISIS gone, or is at least not willing to do something about it.

My response to Part 2...I disagree, and think your logic is dated...and does not consider the desire of common people...ISIS has killed indiscriminately...something AlQaeda did not do...as a result ISIS has no friends outside themselves and twisted one off fucksticks around the world...

ISIS has no friends, huh? What about all of the oil sneaking through Turkish hands and soft money coming in from Saudi Arabians who support Wahhabism?

Geopolitics--that's what gets militaries involved--isn't about friends and enemies. It's about nations looking at their own self interests and our allies are currently of the opinion that removing ISIS is a net negative for them right now.

The list of ISIS enemies is long and generally well funded...and inclusive of "ARABS" as well as Syria, Iran and Iraq...

Officially opposing the actions of ISIS does not mean they want to help remove them. Let's talk about what the removal of ISIS means for each possible ally that has a military to help:

Turkey: Iraqi Kurdistan gains strength, which emboldens the large Kurdish minority in their country. Iran gains control of a stabler Iraq, that's bad news. Russian puppet al-Assad gets his country back, this is awful news for Turkey considering Russia has been a historic foe for the Turks for centuries. (bonus fact: Turkey desired NATO admission (read: protection from Russia) so bad that they were the fourth largest contributor to the UN force that fought in the Korean War, just so they'd look like a good boy for Uncle Sam) Asking Turkey to join a coalition that would help Russian interests is laughable. There's a reason they are the ones helping ISIS the most.

Saudi Arabia: Iraqi Shia (read: Iran) gain control of Iraq. Bad for Saudi Arabian goals considering they've been fighting Iran in multiple theaters for years and giving them Iraq and Syria back could put Iran in its most powerful position in centuries. Centuries. An Iranaian-Russian belt of client states from Iran to Lebanon would not be something they want to see. That's why they funded all kinds of proto-ISIS fighters in Syria in the first place. Saudi Arabia also has a sizeable chunk of Shia Arabs within its own border, and they are terrified of what would happen if they got any ideas; think Domino Effect from the Cold War.

UAE: See Saudi Arabia.

Iraqi Kurdistan: Removing ISIS gives greater authority to a centralized Baghdad government, which makes their chances at greater autonomy, and achieving independence, less likely. Their biggest issue right now, considering they've basically driven ISIS off Iraqi Kurdish land, is that the Kurds on the other side of the border are within a NATO member..

and by their own claim ISIS considers themselves alafist Jihadists...However, most alafist Jihadists are non violent...except that tafir gives them moral authority to kill apostate muslims...which they all see ISIS as apostate Muslims...thats a lot of people who are ok with whacking ISIS. Now we have European participants who all of the sudden have impetus to drop the hammer as their people are ready...A coalition is attainable IMO. Won't know until January 2017 I guess....because a) you have to ask; and b) you have to be credible when you ask

Name me one European country that is willing to occupy Iraq/Syria. You can't. And considering their abilities in Libya in 2011, I'll take the Europeans saying they want to help drop bombs on ISIS as an IE member saying he wants to help catch passes for Brian Kelly.

Part 3 Everyone who wants boots on the ground is an idiot

Yeah I'd say trying to occupy Iraq/Syria without a way out is idiotic. It's the difference between the Gulf War and the Iraq War, and why the line "never get involved in a land war in Asia" is a thing.

My response...K. They are if they put themselves in the box of the past. There are certainly ways of severely stunting ISIS by overwhelming force, and then going away with a plan to have locals keep whacking them...the issue is...the only reason a coalition isn't attainable is Mr. Obama's reputation of indecisive "leadership"...not for a lack of willing participants...like I said...this will get cleaned up in a year...

You strike me as laughably uninformed on relations in the Middle East.

Until then, hoping the homeland doesn't have to pay for having someone who's foreign policy is to snivel about why we got here in the first place...at least you and he have that in common.

ISIS holdings in Syria/Iraq are not a prerequisite for fuckheads committing terrorist acts around the world. They are two different ballgames. There is an argument to be made that ISIS' success in Syria/Iraq emboldens those impressionable Muslims, but ISIS hasn't gained noteworthy ground in a year and the Russians are even of the opinion that ISIS allows them to "shoot fish in a barrel." They are more than happy to see their would-be Chechen terrorists travel to Syria to die for their cause.

The fact that there are thousands of terrorist wannabes with Western passports is troubling. But thankfully we have whole departments working on combating that threat. But, there will be more attacks with or without ISIS. Anyone who disagrees with that is delusional. The question is, how do we respond? Do we give ourselves the greenlight to fuck everything up in the Middle East again? Do we spend 4-6 trillion dollars trying to occupy and democratize a place that doesn't want us there?

The people advocating occupying Syria and Iraq to eliminate ISIS aren't advocating from a position of strength but out of weakness and the desire to use fear tactics to win votes. ISIS is not an existential threat to this country, but a policy of perpetual wars to try to achieve unattainable goals would actually weaken our ability to respond to those types of threats.

 

[Circa]

If Bush seems to be coming up in the polls. It's the Media doing it; which war are we wanting?

 

[phgreek]

You can't fix a problem if you don't know what the problem is, so knowing how we got here is a prerequisite for making good decisions. But don't tell that to the people running for President, it's just "carpet bombing and overwhelming force" that'll solve the problem...

Here's Dick Cheney laying out, in 1994, just how stupid a decision it would have been to remove Saddam Hussein's dictatorship that was keeping the peace over the three-way ethnic/religious fault line that is Iraq, nine years before he want ahead and ignored his own advice:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/6BEsZMvrq-I" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Understanding that Bush and Co handed Iraq to that aforementioned Shia portion of Iraq should be a pretty big clue on why the Sunni Arabs aren't willing to put it back together...how is this so difficult to understand?

...not going to waste time discussing WHY Bush and co invaded...they did...what was turned over to the Obama administration was at least stable. AND we all know the lesson...we can't occupy anything because we do not possess the will to do so, as the political winds change to rapidly to be consistent. Now...the point was that none of the history precludes us from taking action in the region...why is that so hard to understand? Simply pointing to the past as reasons to remove an option from the table ...not smart. Your justifcation seems to be that it would be done exactly the same way, as you continue to carp about nation building, and staying. No nation to build...just an enemy to kill. ...by assuming boots on the ground would be prosecuted in the same fashion as 2003...well its obvious the goals aren't even remotely the same now...so anyway

ISIS has no friends, huh? What about all of the oil sneaking through Turkish hands and soft money coming in from Saudi Arabians who support Wahhabism?

not many...but...Interesting because what you say here is that they will be sustained, and won't implode...which is the argument so many from the left use as justification to sit on their hands...So yea, more reason to squash them.


Geopolitics--that's what gets militaries involved--isn't about friends and enemies. It's about nations looking at their own self interests and our allies are currently of the opinion that removing ISIS is a net negative for them right now.

Officially opposing the actions of ISIS does not mean they want to help remove them. Let's talk about what the removal of ISIS means for each possible ally that has a military to help:

Turkey: Iraqi Kurdistan gains strength, which emboldens the large Kurdish minority in their country. Iran gains control of a stabler Iraq, that's bad news. Russian puppet al-Assad gets his country back, this is awful news for Turkey considering Russia has been a historic foe for the Turks for centuries. (bonus fact: Turkey desired NATO admission (read: protection from Russia) so bad that they were the fourth largest contributor to the UN force that fought in the Korean War, just so they'd look like a good boy for Uncle Sam) Asking Turkey to join a coalition that would help Russian interests is laughable. There's a reason they are the ones helping ISIS the most.

Saudi Arabia: Iraqi Shia (read: Iran) gain control of Iraq. Bad for Saudi Arabian goals considering they've been fighting Iran in multiple theaters for years and giving them Iraq and Syria back could put Iran in its most powerful position in centuries. Centuries. An Iranaian-Russian belt of client states from Iran to Lebanon would not be something they want to see. That's why they funded all kinds of proto-ISIS fighters in Syria in the first place. Saudi Arabia also has a sizeable chunk of Shia Arabs within its own border, and they are terrified of what would happen if they got any ideas; think Domino Effect from the Cold War.

UAE: See Saudi Arabia.

Iraqi Kurdistan: Removing ISIS gives greater authority to a centralized Baghdad government, which makes their chances at greater autonomy, and achieving independence, less likely. Their biggest issue right now, considering they've basically driven ISIS off Iraqi Kurdish land, is that the Kurds on the other side of the border are within a NATO member..



Name me one European country that is willing to occupy Iraq/Syria. You can't. And considering their abilities in Libya in 2011, I'll take the Europeans saying they want to help drop bombs on ISIS as an IE member saying he wants to help catch passes for Brian Kelly.

"Friends" tends to speak to people sharing an interest in an outcome...I don't believe most Muslims see removal of ISIS as a net negative, even those in government service...governments may be inclined to continue to stand aside...it is complex, but not beyond building a coalition...no one said occupy anything...there is literally no reason to stay now...the only reason to put boots on the ground is to kill an enemy....to stunt ISIS.


Yeah I'd say trying to occupy Iraq/Syria without a way out is idiotic. It's the difference between the Gulf War and the Iraq War, and why the line "never get involved in a land war in Asia" is a thing.

No one said occupy anything...limited time engagement...flatten ISIS...leave. Not sure why that is such a hard concept...why stay? I think we are going to get a chance to see if we can build a coalition...very complex...but doable with a credible leader

You strike me as laughably uninformed on relations in the Middle East.

You strike me as steeped very deeply in an orthodoxy that breeds weakness, failure and acceptance...the good news for you is you are well read such that you will be able to manipulate other people into believing you called it right...SMH.


ISIS holdings in Syria/Iraq are not a prerequisite for fuckheads committing terrorist acts around the world. They are two different ballgames.

Crushing their base of operations offers an impact...to say otherwise defies logic and reason. Yes one off whack jobs currently weaponized aren't going to change their tune because we bulldoze ISIS...but remove most of them, and ISIS loses a ton of credibility, and recruiting power...not about gaining ground...its about killing the organization everywhere it is...seems like the low hanging fruit is where it is most concentrated...


There is an argument to be made that ISIS' success in Syria/Iraq emboldens those impressionable Muslims, but ISIS hasn't gained noteworthy ground in a year and the Russians are even of the opinion that ISIS allows them to "shoot fish in a barrel." They are more than happy to see their would-be Chechen terrorists travel to Syria to die for their cause.

The fact that there are thousands of terrorist wannabes with Western passports is troubling. But thankfully we have whole departments working on combating that threat. But, there will be more attacks with or without ISIS.

Yea...well. there will be a hand gun killing in Chicago tomorrow, likely helped along by an illegal sale of a handgun, so WTF, may as well not try and do something long term to prevent the ones coming in the future..so yea I get your logic there...

Anyone who disagrees with that is delusional. The question is, how do we respond? Do we give ourselves the greenlight to fuck everything up in the Middle East again? Do we spend 4-6 trillion dollars trying to occupy and democratize a place that doesn't want us there?

you are fixated on nation building...indeed, that opportunity was lost...its gone...I think most just want to kill ISIS everywhere it is with every means at our disposal...and thats about the extent of the operation...no it isn't simple, but the decision to do so is...


The people advocating occupying Syria and Iraq to eliminate ISIS aren't advocating from a position of strength but out of weakness and the desire to use fear tactics to win votes. ISIS is not an existential threat to this country, but a policy of perpetual wars to try to achieve unattainable goals would actually weaken our ability to respond to those types of threats.

I think it is perfectly attainable to hit the ground and kill or capture 80% of ISIS...gather intel...destroy ordinance, supplies, anything used in the ISIS cause...and come home. Do that while you make an all out assault on money, propaganda access and infrastructure, and other strategic concerns, like say, I don't know a useful executive order or two about who gets in to this country under any circumstance...and no not trump like...more like common sense like...It is all doable, even a coalition...but you need to be credible and committed...at the moment we are neither. So it'll have to wait ...until we are.

 

[drayer54]

Iraq, to me, logistically made sense. I didn't need WMD or a smoking gun. Iraq had an evil dictator and more importantly, favorable terrain.

Afghanistan is not a place to fight a war. It favors the locals, it's rough, difficult to travel, hard to fight in, and not centrally locatated to bad guys. When Islamic extremists fill a region, it makes sense to go dump the American army in a flat piece of desert where the A-10's, Apaches, and American tanks can unleash hell. Iraq is a centrally located theater where goat bangers from Syria, Iran, and other sand nations can come out easily to fight the USA and allow us to kill a high number of hostile bad guys as conveniently as possible.

Putting boots on the ground now would kill more, but you will never kill them all. As more youth are raised in ruins and violence, more extremists are born. More children only remember the USA as killers and machines of war. Is it worth risking more fathers and sons just to kill a bunch more? I don't think so. I think at this point, we just bomb the shit out of them and allow other nations to chip in as they collapse. Inviting them into our country is a whole separate issue.

 

[IrishInFl]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/nn4tP7ogWIA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[pkt77242]

Iraq, to me, logistically made sense. I didn't need WMD or a smoking gun. Iraq had an evil dictator and more importantly, favorable terrain.

Afghanistan is not a place to fight a war. It favors the locals, it's rough, difficult to travel, hard to fight in, and not centrally locatated to bad guys. When Islamic extremists fill a region, it makes sense to go dump the American army in a flat piece of desert where the A-10's, Apaches, and American tanks can unleash hell. Iraq is a centrally located theater where goat bangers from Syria, Iran, and other sand nations can come out easily to fight the USA and allow us to kill a high number of hostile bad guys as conveniently as possible.

Putting boots on the ground now would kill more, but you will never kill them all. As more youth are raised in ruins and violence, more extremists are born. More children only remember the USA as killers and machines of war. Is it worth risking more fathers and sons just to kill a bunch more? I don't think so. I think at this point, we just bomb the shit out of them and allow other nations to chip in as they collapse. Inviting them into our country is a whole separate issue.

Two things.
1. There are a ton of brutal dictators out there. Not a very good reason unless they were threatening us and Iraq was not threatening us.

2. It isn't just winning the war, we had no way out of Iraq, and in reality there probably wasn't a way out of Iraq that didn't end with civil war. So it doesn't matter if we could "win the war" because we made it a much bigger threat to ourselves than it previously was.

Also I agree that we shouldn't put ground troops back in Iraq.

 

[tussin]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/nn4tP7ogWIA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Now this is something that will get bipartisan support.

 

[drayer54]

Two things.
1. There are a ton of brutal dictators out there. Not a very good reason unless they were threatening us and Iraq was not threatening us.

2. It isn't just winning the war, we had no way out of Iraq, and in reality there probably wasn't a way out of Iraq that didn't end with civil war. So it doesn't matter if we could "win the war" because we made it a much bigger threat to ourselves than it previously was.

Also I agree that we shouldn't put ground troops back in Iraq.

I'm sure we could justify putting troops in Iraq from now to eternity. I'm not saying that the brutal dictator justified the war. I am saying that a brutal dictator was good enough to justify it when what we really needed was the combat theater. Iraq is a beautiful place for us to fight a war, while Afghanistan is one of the worst in the world.

Also, Iraq doesn't really exist anymore. Iranian Shiite influence reigns supreme on one side, ISIS controls portions on the other side and the Kurds reign in the north. The people we support tend to dine with people we don't support and the friendly's aren't all that friendly.

Iraq isn't the threat now, nor was it ever. No Iraqi army or Air Force will ever strike us. The threat comes from the organizations that blend in the background and operate in the shadows, just like before. We have to find the most efficient methods possible to kill them, and at one point in time, that meant putting our guns in the sand.

As more cities in the region look like modern-day Homs, it is apparent that the region will likely suffer from unrest for generations and anti-american sentiment is likely going to stay. So do you keep invading and provide the face of resentment or let the Russians/NATO all join in and make the picture even sloppier to comprehend? There is a reason that the sand countries aren't taking refugees or dropping bombs (unless really suddenly convenient) and we should really move further that direction.
Only one problem with backing off too far....

The problem is that we have to be unrelenting in our mission to ensure that a nuclear weapon never falls into the wrong hands. We can't fix Iraq, nor should we try to. Iranian expansion whether in influence or in territory, plus the threat of nukes will always obligate us to be present though.

 

[Buster Bluth]

I think it is perfectly attainable to hit the ground and kill or capture 80% of ISIS...gather intel...destroy ordinance, supplies, anything used in the ISIS cause...and come home.

This makes no sense whatsoever.

Remember the arguments used by conservatives who (wisely) opposed a timeline for withdrawal, saying something along the lines of "they'll just wait for us to leave and come back," that would be applicable here. Hell conservatives right now are making the argument that our withdrawal is what allowed ISIS to form in the first place, and they aren't wrong.

This "go there, kick some ass, come home" stuff is pie in the sky crap that wouldn't solve anything and would almost certainly look like a tremendous victory for ISIS. That's why they want us to attempt that chief.

Again, the problems that allow ISIS to exist are political in nature.

Do that while you make an all out assault on money, propaganda access and infrastructure, and other strategic concerns, like say, I don't know a useful executive order or two about who gets in to this country under any circumstance...and no not trump like...more like common sense like...It is all doable, even a coalition...but you need to be credible and committed...at the moment we are neither. So it'll have to wait ...until we are.

You're dreaming.

 

[BGIF]

Barbara Bush and family are ardently supporting Jeb in his pursuit of the presidency.

They are firm believers that no child should be left behind.

 

[connor_in]

seriously...I have found at least five variations on this theme political cartoon-wise

(and another five on coin toss gags that didn't involve the super bowl)

 

[kmoose]

I never stated that all farms would shut down if the migrant labor force was deported from the country. I rightly pointed out that many would be forced to shut down or switch to crops less-reliant on migrant farm labor if they could find no one to plant and harvest their crops.

The problem with your position is that it assumes that the migrant workforce is made up of only illegal immigrants, and that removing illegal immigrants will cause the migrant workforce to dry up overnight. And the former is simply not true, while the latter is not logical. There is an H-2A Temporary Agricultural Worker Visa program in the US. The same people who are here illegally because things are so terrible in their own homeland will still be willing to come here and work for the same wages, legally.

 

[wizards8507]

The problem with your position is that it assumes that the migrant workforce is made up of only illegal immigrants, and that removing illegal immigrants will cause the migrant workforce to dry up overnight. And the former is simply not true, while the latter is not logical. There is an H-2A Temporary Agricultural Worker Visa program in the US. The same people who are here illegally because things are so terrible in their own homeland will still be willing to come here and work for the same wages, legally.

Alternatively, if consumers aren't willing to pay the price it costs to produce a certain product, then that product is not worth producing. If consumers value organic beets at $2.00 per pound but it costs $2.50 to produce and distribute organic beets, then organic beets shouldn't be produced.

Unrelated: Best case for the Republicans going into NH is that Bush beats Kasich, Christie, and Carson. Bush is going to keep going regardless but Kasich and Christie have no infrastructure behind NH. We could be looking at a four man race after NH with the Establishment, the Hard-liner, the Outsider, and the One Who Will Actually Win.

 

[woolybug25]

The problem with your position is that it assumes that the migrant workforce is made up of only illegal immigrants, and that removing illegal immigrants will cause the migrant workforce to dry up overnight. And the former is simply not true, while the latter is not logical. There is an H-2A Temporary Agricultural Worker Visa program in the US. The same people who are here illegally because things are so terrible in their own homeland will still be willing to come here and work for the same wages, legally.

Actually, it's closer than you think. 77% of agricultural workers are immigrants, while 55% of them are illigal. So it's pretty close to a majority, which if you count the difficulty in recording actual illegal immigrants, the number is probably over 50%. So "illogical" isn't accurate at all.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...farm-workers-immigration-reform-may-not-help/

Also, lets not act like the H-2A program doesn't have it's own problems. First of all, employers would rather just hire illegals and not have withhold taxes, report, etc. The problem with that is the actual employer, not the employee. But no one seems to be talking about reforming that. Just rounding up all of the mexicans and shipping them back.

 

[GoIrish41]

Actually, it's closer than you think. 77% of agricultural workers are immigrants, while 55% of them are illigal. So it's pretty close to a majority, which if you count the difficulty in recording actual illegal immigrants, the number is probably over 50%. So "illogical" isn't accurate at all.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...farm-workers-immigration-reform-may-not-help/

Also, lets not act like the H-2A program doesn't have it's own problems. First of all, employers would rather just hire illegals and not have withhold taxes, report, etc. The problem with that is the actual employer, not the employee. But no one seems to be talking about reforming that. Just rounding up all of the mexicans and shipping them back.

^ This.

 

[beryirish]

Kasich/Christie ticket! Who's with me!

 

[kmoose]

Actually, it's closer than you think. 77% of agricultural workers are immigrants, while 55% of them are illigal. So it's pretty close to a majority, which if you count the difficulty in recording actual illegal immigrants, the number is probably over 50%. So "illogical" isn't accurate at all.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...farm-workers-immigration-reform-may-not-help/

The point is not whether or not the labor migrant force is strictly made of illegals. The point is whether or not the illegals in the migrant work force can be replaced. Maybe we should just replace the Mexicans with Syrians?

Also, lets not act like the H-2A program doesn't have it's own problems. First of all, employers would rather just hire illegals and not have withhold taxes, report, etc. The problem with that is the actual employer, not the employee. But no one seems to be talking about reforming that. Just rounding up all of the mexicans and shipping them back.

I was not advocating for or against the H-2A program. I was just pointing out that there is a legal mechanism to bring migrant workers into the country, and end up paying them the same wages. IF the premise is true, that these people are just fleeing poverty in their homeland for a chance at prosperity in the US, then these people will still be willing to come, only legally this time. And while employers may see slightly higher costs, it's not like they are going to go out of business, or have to change from strawberries to soybeans. The wages are dictated by the exemption from minimum wage, not on the immigration status of the worker. So that will stay the same.

 

[EddytoNow]

Kasich/Christie ticket! Who's with me!

Are you conceding Ohio and New Jersey to the Democrats?

 

[EddytoNow]

Actually, it's closer than you think. 77% of agricultural workers are immigrants, while 55% of them are illigal. So it's pretty close to a majority, which if you count the difficulty in recording actual illegal immigrants, the number is probably over 50%. So "illogical" isn't accurate at all.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...farm-workers-immigration-reform-may-not-help/

Also, lets not act like the H-2A program doesn't have it's own problems. First of all, employers would rather just hire illegals and not have withhold taxes, report, etc. The problem with that is the actual employer, not the employee. But no one seems to be talking about reforming that. Just rounding up all of the mexicans and shipping them back.

And most of the other 23% were immigrants or children of immigrants at one time.