Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Dec 16, 2010 - 06:30pm PT
|
I didn't say the illegal immigration issue is just fine. I was talking about the motivation -- and about the effect of our tolerance of anti-illegal-immigrant rhetoric that insults Hispanic American citizens.
Certain things are, I believe, truisms. We can't have any realistic immigration policy unless we can control our borders. Pretending there is no problem is, in fact, part of the problem. But lumping all illegals into the category of those here for handouts not only flies in the face of my personal experience, it leads, in my opinion, to something other than appropriate reform.
Why is it so hard to put together a program that allows those who want to work here to come and work? I think it's because others working here think their standard of living will fall if we let foreign workers in to work legally. That thinking was traditionally the province of labor unions who want to restrict the supply of labor, and their Democratic enablers. Republicans historically supported those who want to work,
Our entitlement system, particularly here in California, is out of control. Our broken immigration system is one of the problems. Mis-labeling the motivation of those entering the U.S. illegally won't help us to fix it.
John
|
|
shut up and pull
climber
|
|
|
Dec 16, 2010 - 06:31pm PT
|
FDR re government unions:
In a little-known letter he wrote to the president of the National Federation of Federal Employees in 1937, Roosevelt reasoned:
"... Meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the government. All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations ... The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for ... officials ... to bind the employer ... The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives ...
"Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of government employees. Upon employees in the federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people ... This obligation is paramount ... A strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent ... to prevent or obstruct ... Government ... Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government ... is unthinkable and intolerable."
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Dec 16, 2010 - 06:31pm PT
|
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Dec 16, 2010 - 06:32pm PT
|
|
|
shut up and pull
climber
|
|
|
Dec 16, 2010 - 06:34pm PT
|
John -- you make the right distinctions and I was sloppy in not making them myself. My experience with illegals is that most are hard-working (far more so usually than their white counterparts in similar jobs). But, their influx creates massive problems starting with their need for public assistance, their children filling our schools, the few that commit crimes (and bring their gangs with them), etc.
My main point earlier was the fact that neither party wants the border closed, for selfish reasons.
|
|
shut up and pull
climber
|
|
|
Dec 16, 2010 - 06:37pm PT
|
The failure to close the border, and implement an orderly legal immigration process whereby we CHOOSE who we want in this country, is an epic tragedy. We entice illegals to risk life and limb to come here by NOT enforcing our borders, and then they have to live at risk of being deported (rightfully so, since they violated our laws). Further, the fact that we do not CHOOSE who to let in is a terrible mistake.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Dec 16, 2010 - 06:44pm PT
|
'In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language.. And we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.'
President Theodore Roosevelt 1907
I absolutely agree for those who wish to be permanent residents. In 1970 I visited Beirut where, at the time, I had seven first cousins living, along with all of the aunts and uncles on my mother's side. It was a beautiful, sophisticated city, but there was a dark side: everyone had primary allegiance to their ethnic and religious groups, rather than to Lebanon.
My Armenian relatives were Armenians first and foremost, who just happened to be in Lebanon. The Druze family and my aunt and uncle, who lived one floor apart in the same building, had nothing to do with each other. Part of Lebanon spoke French, part Arabic, and part Armenian. It was a unified country in name only.
This exploded in ethnic and sectarian violence in 1975 from which the country never recovered. I'm glad it wasn't that way for Armenians here. Even though my ancestors were all subjects of the Ottoman Empire when Washington and Lincoln were alive, they are part of my heritage, because I was brought up to be an American first. I haven't lost my ethnic roots, but they don't define me first.
In my opinion, one of the consequences of our insistance on group studies (i.s. be gender, race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation) is not to celebrate our diversirty, but to Balkanize us. Nothing will accomplish that quicker than lacking a common language.
Again, though, I see this as an issue for citizenship. I don't see this as an issue for temporary employment.
John
|
|
Ksolem
Trad climber
Monrovia, California
|
|
|
Dec 16, 2010 - 06:45pm PT
|
"Meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the government. All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations ... The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for ... officials ... to bind the employer ... The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives ...
"Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of government employees. Upon employees in the federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people ... This obligation is paramount ... A strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent ... to prevent or obstruct ... Government ... Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government ... is unthinkable and intolerable."
Brilliant. I had no idea FDR took this position.
As I recall it was JFK who opened the door to the unionization of Government employees (I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong...) This has been an unmitigated disaster. Originally Government jobs came with good benefits (available to the Gov due to economy of scale) largely to offset the pay being lower than the private sector, e sensible arrangement. Today Government jobs pay better and have better benefits than comparable work in the private sector.
Anyone remember the lashing Reagan took from the Dems for firing the striking air traffic controllers?
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Dec 16, 2010 - 06:52pm PT
|
I can't remember who was president when congress opened the federal workers to unionization. I do recall that it was Jerry Brown who was largely responsible for doing so in California. Ironically, he now gets to deal with the consequences of that decision his second time around.
I certainly remember the vitriol Reagan took from the left for his actions vindicating the peoples' rights against PATCO. The left never got over it, and still consider that act -- which benefitted the non-PATCO citizenry in countless ways -- as vile.
John
|
|
shut up and pull
climber
|
|
|
Dec 16, 2010 - 07:09pm PT
|
DRUDGE HEADLINE:
Senate clerks preparing to read 1,924-page spending bill on floor -- for 50 hours!...
Senator: 'There's No Way' To Read Entire Bill Before Vote...
KERRY: 'Why Would We Have To Read Something?'
|
|
shut up and pull
climber
|
|
|
Dec 16, 2010 - 07:12pm PT
|
DRUDGE HEADLINE:
Biden To GOP Opposition: 'Get Out Of The Way'...
Reid: Earmarks are 'what we're supposed to do'...
Omnibus bill loaded with goodies for abortion industry...
|
|
shut up and pull
climber
|
|
|
Dec 16, 2010 - 07:14pm PT
|
BUT WHY WOULD THEY WANT WAIVERS IF OBAMACARE WAS SO WONDERFUL?
AHHHH THE JOYS OF FASCIST CORPORATISM WHERE GOVERNMENT DECIDES THE WINNERS AND LOSERS:
The Obama Administration has quietly granted even more waivers to the new federal health reform law, doubling the number in just the last three weeks to a new total of 222.
One of the more recognizable business names included on the newly-expanded list of waivers issued by the feds is that of Waffle House, which received a waiver on November 23 for health coverage that covers 3,947 enrollees.
Another familiar name was that of Universal Orlando, which runs a variety of very popular resorts in the Orlando, Florida area. Universal was given a waiver for plans that cover 668 workers…
…And there are more unions who have received waivers in this latest batch, like the Bricklayers Local 1 of MD, VA and DC, the United Food and Commercial Workers Union in Mount Laurel, New Jersey, the Indiana Teamsters Health Benefits Fund, Service Employees International Union Local 1 Cleveland Welfare Fund, and more are listed.
The waivers are also going to a number of average sounding companies like Telesis Management Corporation, Trans-System Inc., Varsity Contractors Inc. and Moore’s Retread & Tire of the Ark-La-Tex, Inc.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Dec 16, 2010 - 07:15pm PT
|
So what exactly is the point?
Is it that Federal employees are overpaid versus the private sector when
benefits such as healthcare and pension are included?
I presume the concern is this pay inequity.
Helps to compare apples to apples.
Holding a Federal position GENERALLY involves more ability than plucking
chickens at Tyson or any number of very low wage jobs that are thrown into
the generic mix of "private sector" jobs for supposed comparison.
Government jobs automatically deny the employee the same opportunity for
significantly higher pay than in the private sector. A government employee
knowingly takes the job and its lack of career higher pay in exchange for
more job security and also in a sense of public service.
Public service employment should WANT to attract people who are willing
to make that career commitment. High turnover is not desirable.
YES, the total pay package may now over time have gotten out of wack.
Congress can take care of this by immediately passing a bill to fire all
Federal employees and then rehire them without them being represented through collective bargaining (union).
So donate money, campaign against those highly paid government employees.
It just plain hurts so much to see some people get a better job than you have with more job security, DOESN'T IT?
|
|
shut up and pull
climber
|
|
|
Dec 16, 2010 - 07:16pm PT
|
THE FIRST TEA PARTIER -- JFK:
"Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government."
– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 17, 1963, annual budget message to the Congress, fiscal year 1964
|
|
shut up and pull
climber
|
|
|
Dec 16, 2010 - 07:18pm PT
|
Norton -- more government, less freedom. Period. And try and fire an incompetent government employee -- almost impossible. But hey, that is the point - -make it impossible to fire the people whose union dues go to the Dem politicians who protect them.
|
|
shut up and pull
climber
|
|
|
Dec 16, 2010 - 07:19pm PT
|
"It is no contradiction – the most important single thing we can do to stimulate investment in today's economy is to raise consumption by major reduction of individual income tax rates."
– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: "The Economic Report Of The President"
|
|
shut up and pull
climber
|
|
|
Dec 16, 2010 - 07:20pm PT
|
OH MY GOD -- JFK WOULD BE HUNG IN EFFIGY TODAY BY TODAY'S LIBS:
"A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget. Every taxpayer and his family will have more money left over after taxes for a new car, a new home, new conveniences, education and investment. Every businessman can keep a higher percentage of his profits in his cash register or put it to work expanding or improving his business, and as the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues."
– John F. Kennedy, Sept. 18, 1963, radio and television address to the nation on tax-reduction bill
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Dec 16, 2010 - 07:20pm PT
|
|
|
shut up and pull
climber
|
|
|
Dec 16, 2010 - 07:21pm PT
|
OBAMA WOULD POUND JFK FOR SAYING THIS:
"The largest single barrier to full employment of our manpower and resources and to a higher rate of economic growth is the unrealistically heavy drag of federal income taxes on private purchasing power, initiative and incentive."
– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 24, 1963, special message to Congress on tax reduction and reform
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!