Motives of those passionate about immigration issues

[Frank Ryan]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

My grandfather was a non-union carpenter and was run out of town. So I am a anti-union person myself.

But I definitely ain't corporate.

I believe in the ability of people to organize and form unions. I am opposed to laws that would restrict work to only union members. And I support corporations attempting to bust unions.

Mike, what do you mean by "union busting"? To me that phrase means doing unethical if not illegal things like threatening or bribing workers to keep unions out.
Companies are and should be allowed to try and convince their employees not to organize.

I've been a union member in the past, it didn't make my work place a people's paradise but it did keep bad managers from abusing underlings.

Best and most honest way to keep a company union-free: get rid of asshole managers.

[Frank Ryan]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Are you certain you're correct?

Aren't some labor unions passionately in favor of immigration controls in order to ensure workers within their union get jobs, not lower paid illegals?

I haven't followed the debate too closely as it is frequently politisized quickly, thereby dropping its interest level with me.

Aren't their interested parties which support immigration reform not based on racism or xenophobia?

I think some unions are courting immigrants (legal or otherwise) and see them as potential new members. Modern labor has had a fracture. The AFL-CIO lost some powerful unions who formed the Change to win coalition. Change to win has their eye on service industry jobs.

IMHO,individual union members can be some of the most socially conservative folks around.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I confess to automatically mistrusting the motives of those who wax all enraged about immigration issues. I automatically wonder if they are jobless, dislike all foreigners or non-whites, have a screw loose, etc. It is not a very cool issue to go around ranting about in my experience. I suppose we need to police and regulate our borders but this issue is not one that makes my blood boil. Tell me I'm wrong here in my crystal tower in Seattle.

I tend to agree with this.

You are either racist or have been brainwashed by racist propaganda if you believe immigration has been anything but a major economic boon for the US. Look at how flat Japan's economy has been. Look at how stagnant Europe has been last 20 years. This would be us without immigration.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by jay santos

I tend to agree with this.

You are either racist or have been brainwashed by racist propaganda if you believe immigration has been anything but a major economic boon for the US. Look at how flat Japan's economy has been. Look at how stagnant Europe has been last 20 years. This would be us without immigration.

Church leaders have repeatedly said that converts are the life blood of the church and that if there were no converts, the church would wither away. I think that same principle applies to immigration, to an extent.

I don't think anyone is saying there should be no immigration. Rightfully, people are demanding that we have better control over who we're letting inside our borders.

There's nothing wrong with a little quality control to make sure we don't have a Mariel boatlift full of Cuban convicts or something like that which floods our country with people we wouldn't have ever let in legally given their past.

The US needs to increase the number of people it allows in legally each year and cut down on the paperwork needed so that upstanding citizens like that Ecuadorian family in my branch can come to America in less than 20 years and not be stuck in a situation where the mother is stranded back in South America while her husband and three daughters are here in the US.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Church leaders have repeatedly said that converts are the life blood of the church and that if there were no converts, the church would wither away.

While converts are important, I think we can all agree that pioneer stock are the backbone of the church.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

While converts are important, I think we can all agree that pioneer stock are the backbone of the church.

LOL, you're just trying to get FMCoug going aren't you.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Church leaders have repeatedly said that converts are the life blood of the church and that if there were no converts, the church would wither away. I think that same principle applies to immigration, to an extent.

I don't think anyone is saying there should be no immigration. Rightfully, people are demanding that we have better control over who we're letting inside our borders.

There's nothing wrong with a little quality control to make sure we don't have a Mariel boatlift full of Cuban convicts or something like that which floods our country with people we wouldn't have ever let in legally given their past.

The US needs to increase the number of people it allows in legally each year and cut down on the paperwork needed so that upstanding citizens like that Ecuadorian family in my branch can come to America in less than 20 years and not be stuck in a situation where the mother is stranded back in South America while her husband and three daughters are here in the US.

Even this sentiment sometimes feels like cleverly disguised anti-immigration/racism. I'm not saying you believe it, but I think when people say they want to increase the number of people allowed legally, they usually mean increase it marginally while cracking down on illegal immigration so that the net change in immigration is way down. If you changed immigration law such that it was so easy that net immigration stayed level, it wouldn't appease the folks making your argument.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Even this sentiment sometimes feels like cleverly disguised anti-immigration/racism. I'm not saying you believe it, but I think when people say they want to increase the number of people allowed legally, they usually mean increase it marginally while cracking down on illegal immigration so that the net change in immigration is way down. If you changed immigration law such that it was so easy that net immigration stayed level, it wouldn't appease the folks making your argument.

I've never heard anyone on the anti-illegal-immigration side of the debate express a desire to see a net negative change in immigration. I think that's a demonization tactic that completely misses the point and ruins the debate.

I'm also getting a little weary of people seeing hidden agendas ("cleverly disguised") in posts. Yesterday, SU read one of my posts and pulled racism right out of his butt. Stop trying to be smarter by half, and read plainly.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Tex

I've never heard anyone on the anti-illegal-immigration side of the debate express a desire to see a net negative change in immigration. I think that's a demonization tactic that completely misses the point and ruins the debate.

I'm also getting a little weary of people seeing hidden agendas ("cleverly disguised") in posts. Yesterday, SU read one of my posts and pulled racism right out of his butt. Stop trying to be smarter by half, and read plainly.

You've "never heard anyone on the anti-illegal-immigration side of the debate express a desire to see a net negative change in immigration." Interesting. I guess it's all a non-issue.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by jay santos

You've "never heard anyone on the anti-illegal-immigration side of the debate express a desire to see a net negative change in immigration." Interesting. I guess it's all a non-issue.

I don't know what you're talking about. Most people I know on that side of the issue (including me) aren't even thinking about the net change in immigration. We simply want people who shouldn't be here (NJ murderer as Exhibit A) to NOT be here.

I couldn't care less about the net change. Net immigration could increase for all I care ... so long as we know who we're letting in, and what they're doing here.