And except in the current economy, we've had far less people coming in (legally or not) and those industries with manual labor are starting to thrive again.
The reason for a decrease in immigration from say Mexico, is because they have a lower unemployment rate than the US does currently. When other countries have low unemployment rates we tend to see less people coming to the US just to find a job. That said, if the manual labor dependent business continue to see demand for their sevices grow then we will see an uptick in people crossing.
A few years ago the state of Georgia tried an experiment with parolees and agriculture jobs. They set them up with farmers, with the industry pay rate, for a harvest. They worked alongside legal migrant workers to see if parolees could replace some of the migrants. Guess how long the parolees lasted? If you guessed less than a day you would be correct, every parolee quit by the end of the first day because it was too hot, too hard, and the migrants were outpacing them. Almost every American crew member I worked with in landscaping was the either the laziest on the crew or screwed up things the most. I'm arguing that the manual laborers should have more visas available (currently H-2A is less than 200k a year) to them and for longer than 6 months or a year. Many of them don't plan to be permanent residents or want to be, they just want to make money for their families back home.
Parents who can't ready English and are therefore here illegally.
I don't think knowledge of English is a requirement to immigrate to the US; it is a requirement for naturalization. Many of those parents are learning English from their children and understand it but they aren't comfortable enough to speak it or admit that they speak it.
The reason for a decrease in immigration from say Mexico, is because they have a lower unemployment rate than the US does currently.
If that's the reason for immigration, why did the caravan refuse Mexico's offer of employment? There's more to it than jobs.
A few years ago the state of Georgia tried an experiment with parolees and agriculture jobs
Parolees. That's not much of an incentive. Being homeless and having someone at home to take care of is a stronger incentive, wouldn't you say? I would say that it's generally not a fair comparison to base the entirety of your "immigrates for work" argument. Give someone enough incentive and enough pay and they absolutely will last as long as anyone else.
Many of them don't plan to be permanent residents or want to be, they just want to make money for their families back home.
You know that that generally devalues the host country currency, right?
I don't think knowledge of English is a requirement to immigrate to the US
I just looked that up and it just so happens that I was wrong! TIL, thank you.
I'm arguing that the manual laborers should have more visas available (currently H-2A is less than 200k a year)
I see your point but I'm still not convinced that this is a good thing. I'm not saying you can't change my mind. I'm saying that you haven't.
If that's the reason for immigration, why did the caravan refuse Mexico's offer of employment? There's more to it than jobs.
I've stated that previously. I think that the people in the caravan have valid reasons to be fleeing their home countries even if the caravan is being used for something different. These are desperate people to risk everything to try and come to the US in hopes of a better and safer life.
The Georgia experiment was expanded to those on unemployment and no one would work those jobs. There is a stigma in the US that manual labor jobs aren't an honest career to pursue because the hours are long and the pay is too low (even though it's usually above minimum wage). Historically many Americans see manual labor jobs as something for second class citizens and immigrants (slaves, then the Irish, then the Chinese...). So if Americans are refusing to work those jobs then someone is needed until the stigma is broken.
My reason for upping the limits for H-2A visas is that the migrant crews that are here on visas clearly isn't enough. The crews end up being a mix of illegal and legal workers. Most the farmers know what's going on as well but since they deal with the legal crew bosses and house the ones with visas, they turn a blind eye to the illegals on the crews. The system is broken and the farmers already have a ton of hurdles to jump just to get the ones that have visas. Raise the visa numbers and make it easier for the farmers to navigate the process and the demand for illegals will drop. I'm sure the same problems exist in construction. For landscapers they also need to make the visa process simpler and more landscapers would probably use it. In Atlanta the landscapers are hard pressed to find American workers that are hardworking and trustworthy so they're more willing to take a chance on an illegal standing at a gas station looking for work (that's a damn sight to see 50 Hispanics at a gas station waiting for work). Fix the system otherwise it will keep happening regardless of a wall being built or not.
Of course. It would be a bit racist to do otherwise, yeah?
You know that was the same excuse used in the days of slavery, right? So I consider this a completely invalid argument based on principles, ethics, and morals alone. I work in an industry that has historical completely abused the H1B visa program. Companies place job ads that are 100% shaped and crafted to avoid American workers. This goes from not being in English all the way down to "Will not accept anyone without an H1B visa." While you might be willing to see the better part of people, companies have no better part and are only about the money. "A worker who will do all this, for cheap, and take all the abuse we can dish out? Bring 'em on!" And of course H1B visa holders will put up with it. If they lose their job, they have to leave the country. So they'll work for next to nothing. This artificially depresses wages. So in order to get pay in my field that is anything close to what you should be getting in my field, you don't stay with one company. You job hop every 6 months to a year. That means no real retirement fund, no good savings, nothing good on the insurance front, perks that always reset. This is not how working is supposed to be. No American worker pushes for more immigrants in their own field. Only the companies.
So should we let people in to fill job positions? Imagine the most firm way of saying no and then say that out loud.
I didn't say "best and brightest." I said an education track. And it's only a 5 year track instead of the abuse they have to put up with working for substandard wages. If they want to go into another field after 5 years, nothing is stopping them.
And except in the current economy, we've had far less people coming in (legally or not) and those industries with manual labor are starting to thrive again. Let me know if you need links on this but, just a forewarning, it's been posted here on phuks before.
Pointing to my previous comment, that would be racist. Although, to be fair, a lot of people do share that sentiment and many have a cognitive contradiction: they don't mind Hispanics being here as long as they don't see them in a job or in a school. To be fair, that's where a lot of imbalance is happening. We've been talking about the jobs bit but also in school where these children who are here illegally or, if you consider another thought, wouldn't and shouldn't be here if not for their parents... they aren't citizens and are therefore using up resources funded by the taxpayer for education that are intended for legal or natural citizens. There's already too little funding for schools. This is part of the reason why. There's a primary school down the road from me. I drive by it on my way to work. The neighborhood is primarily white but half the signs for the school are only in Spanish. Elementary school kids don't pay attention to such things so those signs are for the parents. Parents who can't ready English and are therefore here illegally. That's not a small influence.
Granted, that whole section really applies to any race or country of origin. It just so happens that it's a lot easier for people from Mexico to get in because there's a shared border. Any other country pretty much has to slip in via plane, boat or another country (such as Mexico). And since the US has better treatment of prisoners and has long had a kind of "catch and release" system, they opt to come here first.
Trump tried that with Muslim majority countries with known ties to terrorism (except Saudi Arabia, of course... gotta have that oil). There were two camps: those who called it racist and those who were called racist for supporting that change. You have to understand that a better or stricter vetting process decreases the amount of people coming in and that creates pressure on both sides of the border to decrease requirements.