On Wed, 03 May 2006 00:31:55 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 02 May 2006 22:54:59 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

Not at all. The issue for most people I know is this and only this: without
*some* sort of control over who's coming in, we have no idea who's coming
here -- no way to tell the diference between Manuel the Mechanic who wants to
get a job, learn English, and raise his kids as Americans, and Domingo the
Drug Dealer, and Diego the Drunk Driver, and Consuela the Welfare Queen whose
only ambition is to have her child born a U.S. citizen at taxpayer expense and
then continue to live here, again at taxpayer expense, and Jose the Terrorist
who wants to set off a radioactive bomb in Chicago, and Ahmed the Terrorist
who's trying to blow up Los Angeles.

I have no problem with Manuel coming here. I welcome Manuel.

But I sure as hell want to keep Domingo, Diego, Consuela, Jose, and Ahmed OUT.
Virtually all of the islamic terrorists came in through Canada. Maybe
we are building the fence on the wrong border.


At least the ones that got caught...

Doug Miller wrote:

mm wrote:

I doubt illegals commit as many crimes per person as most other
subgroups in the US, because they know if they are arrested, they'll
likely be deported.

Yeah, right.

somebody wrote:
and less-crowded emergency rooms and the costs of giving
them free medical treatment,among many other services that the US has to
supply illegals.

It varies. In some places it's hard for illegals to get any other aid
except emergency rooms.

Bull****. What's stopping them (or anyone else) from just going to the doctor?

Doctors demand money or insurance. You never saw those discreet little
signs saying "It is customary to pay for services when rendered"? A
simple 5-minute visit is $100. God help you if you need tests. The
doctors don't have to take you if you can't -- or won't -- pay.
Hospitals do.

--
Cheers, Bev
================================================== =================
"If your mechanic claims that he stands behind his brake jobs, keep
looking. You want to find one willing to stand in front of them."

-- B. Ward

wrote:

On 3 May 2006 00:02:59 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:

Consturction trades used to be a semi-skilled,good paying job,that
highschool dropouts or those not college-bound could take and earn a decent
living,and if they wanted,go on to better jobs.

The principal of my kids' elementary school worked as a carpenter during
the summer.

That was the result of unions driving up the cost of labor. I find it
interesting the same conservatives who hate unions also hate the
immigrants.

I hadn't really thought about the illegals being a real poke in the eye
to overpaid union members. Gotta think about this...

--
Cheers,
Bev
================================================== ========
"The last thing you want is for somebody to commit suicide
before executing them."
-Gary Deland, former Utah director for corrections

Doug Miller wrote:

In article , "George E. Cawthon" wrote:

Doug Kanter wrote:

wrote in message
egroups.com...



I for one would
pay a little more money to support our own workforce.



But, who would get this extra money if we kicked all illegals out of the
country? Have you ever seen the backbreaking work involved in harvesting
certain crops? Would you want your kids to do that kind of work?



Ah, then explain the cotton gin! I wonder how
many people went around screaming that the country
would come to a halt if there weren't any slaves
to pick cotton.

Start with the ones who wore blue uniforms in the Civil War. Slavery
was an issue long before the Civil War, and not legal originally in ..
was it Georgia or South Carolina? Funny, but the original wealth in
this country came from furs, sugar and tobacco. So immoral now )

The simple fact is that ingenuity would probably
find a solution cheaper than the current back
breaking stoop labor if illegals were not
available. I think one could make a tight
argument that illegals are inhibiting progress.

Folks will work as hard as they need to if they can gain from it. When
the money doesn't meet their needs, like the minimum wage for couples
with a family, there is no use. The argument that a decent minimum wage
will ruin business is baloney. If flipping burgers paid $10/hr, and the
burger joint cost $100 in wages per hour, rather than $60, they would
probably sell MORE burgers and the wage earners would earn more money to
spend at WalMart and Home Depot (whatever happened to anti-trust laws?
Too Liberal?) American wages will sink to the level of developing
nations before we can compete again, and by that time much of America's
wealth will be owned by others. Land values in my town are already so
high that cops and teachers can't afford a home here, and the pols keep
bending over backward to kiss up to the developers - giving away our
country for a vote.


I don't often agree with you... but you make an excellent point here, one
which I plan to borrow for future discussions. Hope you don't charge
royalties... :-)

In article , The Real Bev wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

mm wrote:

I doubt illegals commit as many crimes per person as most other
subgroups in the US, because they know if they are arrested, they'll
likely be deported.

Yeah, right.

somebody wrote:
and less-crowded emergency rooms and the costs of giving
them free medical treatment,among many other services that the US has to
supply illegals.

It varies. In some places it's hard for illegals to get any other aid
except emergency rooms.

Bull****. What's stopping them (or anyone else) from just going to the
doctor?

Doctors demand money or insurance. You never saw those discreet little
signs saying "It is customary to pay for services when rendered"? A
simple 5-minute visit is $100. God help you if you need tests. The
doctors don't have to take you if you can't -- or won't -- pay.
Hospitals do.

The point is, that's a problem for *poor* people -- not a problem specifically
for illegal aliens.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Jim Yanik wrote:

"Joseph Meehan" wrote in
:


KC wrote:
..

I wonder.. Considering all but the Native Americans are illegal
immigrants or decedents of them I suspect it would be rather quiet.



"native" Americans -migrated- from Asia via the Bering land bridge long
ago.
Mexicans are of mostly SPANISH descent.

The illegals who slaughtered indians?

"ameijers" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. .
"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:

"Goedjn" wrote in message
...

But, who would get this extra money if we kicked all illegals out of
the country? Have you ever seen the backbreaking work involved in
harvesting certain crops? Would you want your kids to do that kind of
work?

Yes.

When did you start being afraid of hard work?



I'm not. Follow me around the garden for a long Saturday and you'll be
ready for an ambulance. But I can envision a ****load of kids who'd be
steered away from this kind of work by parents who think it's "for
others".



hasn't it always been like that?

(parents generally try to give their offspring the best possible start
in
life,if they can. Often,they spoil them.)
Jim Yanik

So, which jobs are off limits for a "good start"?

Any that are physically dangerous, or force the kids to associate with
druggies and other low-lifes, or immoral or illegal. I could probably come
up with some others. Anything that interfered with getting a decent
education, of course, like a night-shift job during a school year.

aem sends...


Some of your category descriptions are too vague. Druggies? If you kid was
going to college to learn broadcasting, and was offered a job in Rush
Limbaugh's studio, can I assume you would not allow this because Rush is a
drug addict? Immoral? Would you let your kid work as an intern with some of
our congressmen, knowing that at any moment, you'd probably read that they
were being indicted for one thing or another? What makes you think a Mexican
in a top-notch restaurant kitchen fits any of your labels?

"The Real Bev" wrote in message
...

Most of the folks that pick things like tomatoes, grapes, celery,
lettuce,...... are immigrants. Locals REFUSE to work these jobs.

So locals would rather not work than work for the wages the illegals
accept? Then how can the locals survive?

My theory: Some people won't to farm work for the same reason some people
won't commute via bus. You'll never hear them say it out loud, but they
don't want to be around...ya know..those types of people.

"BobK207" wrote in message
ps.com...

With the advent of cheap heavy duty computer processing power it would
be only a short time until tomatoes, strawberries, asparagus, etc were
harvested 24/7 by robot

w/ IR / UV vision & electronic sinffers they'd only pick the ripe
stuff or maybe even sort it on the fly!


Years away. And, they'd have a tough time figuring out which part of a
broccoli stalk to cut.

"BobK207" wrote in message
oups.com...

..................Some crops cannot be harvested by machines. If they
could be, the machines would exist. .............


not if the current alternative is cheaper, if I can have fruit hand
picked for less than the ammortized cost of a machine then there is no
incentive for such a machine to exist.

. ......No machine will harvest them safely, at least not until
robotics are much further along. A long list of other crops are also
too delicate for anything but human handling......

Again at what relative cost?

as long as we have artificially cheap labor innovation in those fields
will be stunted

no machine could ever fly,
one could ever fly faster than the speed of sound,
it would be impossbile to send a man to the moon & return safely
how could one ever operate on a persons heart
active suspension in a production automobile? too expensive!


what else do we put on the list?


The combine was invented in the late 1940s. There was plenty of cheap labor
available at the time, as there has been ever since. In that time period,
farmers have immediately embraced machinery, regardless of labor costs.
There are benefits which go beyond human labor costs.

"The Real Bev" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:

wrote:

I for one would
pay a little more money to support our own workforce.

But, who would get this extra money if we kicked all illegals out of the
country? Have you ever seen the backbreaking work involved in harvesting
certain crops? Would you want your kids to do that kind of work?

How about the kids who don't have the skills to flip burgers? You'd
rather pay them to hang around recycling centers drinking out of bottles
in paper bags?
Cheers,
Bev


Anyone who can't flip a burger should've been evaluated no later than
elementary school. They have much deeper problems. I honestly don't know how
society should provide for people like that.

Thank you.

I don't care what country you come from, IF you come here legally.
Secondly, let's not forget that this is not -only- about the Mexicans
coming here illegally, but all who are entering this country illegally.
If 12 million Mexicans can "sneak" into this country, who else is
getting in illegally? If Bush is so concerned about terrorism, why
isn't this problem higher on his terrorism list?

"Bee" wrote in message
oups.com...
Thank you.

I don't care what country you come from, IF you come here legally.
Secondly, let's not forget that this is not -only- about the Mexicans
coming here illegally, but all who are entering this country illegally.
If 12 million Mexicans can "sneak" into this country, who else is
getting in illegally? If Bush is so concerned about terrorism, why
isn't this problem higher on his terrorism list?



Because Bush is incompetent. This country needs a manager with a track
record of success, and the ability to brutally manhandle, chew up and spit
out those who would distract him/her from what's important.

In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:

In article , The Real Bev

Doctors demand money or insurance. You never saw those discreet little
signs saying "It is customary to pay for services when rendered"? A
simple 5-minute visit is $100. God help you if you need tests. The
doctors don't have to take you if you can't -- or won't -- pay.
Hospitals do.

The point is, that's a problem for *poor* people -- not a problem
specifically
for illegal aliens.

No, the point is: we have enough of our own citizens who are poor
people, that already have put a strain on the system, the addition of
non-citizens is overwhelming the system to the breaking point.

--
-Ernie-

"There are only two kinds of computer users -- those who have
suffered a catastrophic hard drive failure, and those who will."

Have you done your backup today?

wrote:
On Tue, 02 May 2006 22:51:30 -0700, The Real Bev
wrote:


wrote:


On 3 May 2006 00:02:59 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:


Consturction trades used to be a semi-skilled,good paying job,that
highschool dropouts or those not college-bound could take and earn a decent
living,and if they wanted,go on to better jobs.

The principal of my kids' elementary school worked as a carpenter during
the summer.


That was the result of unions driving up the cost of labor. I find it
interesting the same conservatives who hate unions also hate the
immigrants.

I hadn't really thought about the illegals being a real poke in the eye
to overpaid union members. Gotta think about this...


Here's some more food for thought:

http://tinyurl.com/e57gx

NO VALUE UNLESS YOU ARE A SUBSCRIBER.

We have NO idea what the story is saying and you do not have permission
from the LA Times to quote it here.

"Ernie Klein" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:

In article , The Real Bev

Doctors demand money or insurance. You never saw those discreet little
signs saying "It is customary to pay for services when rendered"? A
simple 5-minute visit is $100. God help you if you need tests. The
doctors don't have to take you if you can't -- or won't -- pay.
Hospitals do.

The point is, that's a problem for *poor* people -- not a problem
specifically
for illegal aliens.

No, the point is: we have enough of our own citizens who are poor
people, that already have put a strain on the system, the addition of
non-citizens is overwhelming the system to the breaking point.

--
-Ernie-

What "strain"?

In article ,
Scott en Aztl?n wrote:

On Tue, 02 May 2006 22:51:30 -0700, The Real Bev
wrote:

wrote:

On 3 May 2006 00:02:59 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:

Consturction trades used to be a semi-skilled,good paying job,that
highschool dropouts or those not college-bound could take and earn a
decent
living,and if they wanted,go on to better jobs.

The principal of my kids' elementary school worked as a carpenter during
the summer.

That was the result of unions driving up the cost of labor. I find it
interesting the same conservatives who hate unions also hate the
immigrants.

I hadn't really thought about the illegals being a real poke in the eye
to overpaid union members. Gotta think about this...

Here's some more food for thought:

http://tinyurl.com/e57gx

Thanks anyway, but I pass on sites that have to register to enter.

--
-Ernie-

"There are only two kinds of computer users -- those who have
suffered a catastrophic hard drive failure, and those who will."

Have you done your backup today?

In article ,
says...
Joseph Meehan wrote:

KC wrote:
..

I wonder.. Considering all but the Native Americans are illegal
immigrants or decedents of them I suspect it would be rather quiet.

They're immigrants from Asia. You think they grew from seed?

Well, yes. Didn't you? ;-)

--
Keith

Ernie Klein wrote:

In article ,
Scott en Aztl?n wrote:

On Tue, 02 May 2006 22:51:30 -0700, The Real Bev
wrote:

wrote:

On 3 May 2006 00:02:59 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:

Consturction trades used to be a semi-skilled,good paying job,that
highschool dropouts or those not college-bound could take and earn a
decent
living,and if they wanted,go on to better jobs.

The principal of my kids' elementary school worked as a carpenter during
the summer.

That was the result of unions driving up the cost of labor. I find it
interesting the same conservatives who hate unions also hate the
immigrants.

I hadn't really thought about the illegals being a real poke in the eye
to overpaid union members. Gotta think about this...

Here's some more food for thought:

http://tinyurl.com/e57gx

They just mention "immigrants". Do they mean legal immigrants or
illegal immigrants or both? Do they allow illegals to join the
union(s)? Given that the purpose of unions is to increase union
membership, I can see why they'd want as many illegals as possible to
jump the border.

Thanks anyway, but I pass on sites that have to register to enter.

That's what bugmenot is for. This worked:


nobugster

--
Cheers,
Bev
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Nothing in the universe can withstand the relentless application
of brute force and ignorance." -- Frd, via Dennis (evil)

wrote in
:

On 3 May 2006 00:02:59 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:

Consturction trades used to be a semi-skilled,good paying job,that
highschool dropouts or those not college-bound could take and earn a
decent living,and if they wanted,go on to better jobs.
That was the result of unions driving up the cost of labor. I find it
interesting the same conservatives who hate unions also hate the
immigrants.

Once again,LEGAL immigrants get included along with ILLEGAL immigrants,to
cloud the issue.
Most people have no problem with LEGAL immigrants,just the illegals.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Joseph Meehan" wrote in
:



You analogy does not apply. The line at the grocery store is
real, the
waiting list for entry into the US is a political decision to satisfy
those who hate and fear those who are different.


But that list is STILL **OUR** decision to make and implement.
Not foreigners.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

The Real Bev wrote in
:

Joseph Meehan wrote:

KC wrote:
..

I wonder.. Considering all but the Native Americans are illegal
immigrants or decedents of them I suspect it would be rather quiet.

They're immigrants from Asia. You think they grew from seed?


And they were not -illegal-,as there was no established borders or
countries to regulate immigration.

That is the crux of the debate;Does the US get to determine who it will
allow to immigrate to or work in the US?

Or is it just anything goes.(open borders)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Jim Yanik wrote:
"Joseph Meehan" wrote in
:



You analogy does not apply. The line at the grocery store is
real, the
waiting list for entry into the US is a political decision to satisfy
those who hate and fear those who are different.


But that list is STILL **OUR** decision to make and implement.
Not foreigners.

The point is it is a bad hateful fearful decision. Looking at history,
time and time again when two groups have merged, they both gained. I
wonder how Germany would have made out if they did not decide that they had
to maintain their pure race and exterminate others.

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit

Doug Kanter wrote:
"BobK207" wrote in message
ps.com...

With the advent of cheap heavy duty computer processing power it would
be only a short time until tomatoes, strawberries, asparagus, etc were
harvested 24/7 by robot

w/ IR / UV vision & electronic sinffers they'd only pick the ripe
stuff or maybe even sort it on the fly!




..Doug-

merely stating

"Years away. And, they'd have a tough time figuring out which part of a
broccoli stalk to cut."

is not much of an arguement


I guess you don't have much faith in the engineering development
community...............I do, I was part of it for many years.

Now software is another story, but they're not really enginners (as
evidenced b y how crappy they're products are)

cheers
Bob

Doug Kanter wrote:
"BobK207" wrote in message
oups.com...

..................Some crops cannot be harvested by machines. If they
could be, the machines would exist. .............


not if the current alternative is cheaper, if I can have fruit hand
picked for less than the ammortized cost of a machine then there is no
incentive for such a machine to exist.

. ......No machine will harvest them safely, at least not until
robotics are much further along. A long list of other crops are also
too delicate for anything but human handling......

Again at what relative cost?

as long as we have artificially cheap labor innovation in those fields
will be stunted

no machine could ever fly,
one could ever fly faster than the speed of sound,
it would be impossbile to send a man to the moon & return safely
how could one ever operate on a persons heart
active suspension in a production automobile? too expensive!


what else do we put on the list?


The combine was invented in the late 1940s. There was plenty of cheap labor
available at the time, as there has been ever since. In that time period,
farmers have immediately embraced machinery, regardless of labor costs.
There are benefits which go beyond human labor costs.


Doug-

I get the feeling you deny the existance of economic forces in the
world.

The whole reason for application of capital is the improvement of
productivity; that is, output per unit input.


In that time period, farmers have immediately embraced machinery, regardless of labor costs.

must have been their altruistic side making those decisions


you didn't address my Japan & Germany case

just like people in SoCal stopped mowing their own lawns, because it
wasn't worth their time.

If the illegals disappeared, lawn mowing would become more costly and

some people would pay more for legals, some would mow their own, some
would replace their lawns with low maint gardens.

it's all about choices, "economic" choices (even if the folks making
the choice fail to see it) time vs money; DIY or job it
out.........millions & millions of choices

and the illegal alien pool of cheap labor skew the choices in favor of
labor over alternatives


but it seems like I won't be able to convince you.........

cheers
Bob

BobK207 wrote:
Doug Kanter wrote:
"BobK207" wrote in message
ps.com...

With the advent of cheap heavy duty computer processing power it would
be only a short time until tomatoes, strawberries, asparagus, etc were
harvested 24/7 by robot

w/ IR / UV vision & electronic sinffers they'd only pick the ripe
stuff or maybe even sort it on the fly!




.Doug-

merely stating

"Years away. And, they'd have a tough time figuring out which part of a
broccoli stalk to cut."

is not much of an arguement


I guess you don't have much faith in the engineering development
community...............I do, I was part of it for many years.

Now software is another story, but they're not really enginners (as
evidenced b y how crappy they're products are)

cheers
Bob

that would "their" products.........see no grammar or spell checker in
the Google mail reader, my point exactly!

"BobK207" wrote in message
oups.com...

Doug Kanter wrote:
"BobK207" wrote in message
ps.com...

With the advent of cheap heavy duty computer processing power it would
be only a short time until tomatoes, strawberries, asparagus, etc were
harvested 24/7 by robot

w/ IR / UV vision & electronic sinffers they'd only pick the ripe
stuff or maybe even sort it on the fly!




.Doug-

merely stating

"Years away. And, they'd have a tough time figuring out which part of a
broccoli stalk to cut."

is not much of an arguement

You're not a gardener. The broccoli, in software terms, would be an "object"
taken from the real world, which needed to be standardized enough for a
computer to understand. Otherwise, the waste would be considerable.


I guess you don't have much faith in the engineering development
community...............I do, I was part of it for many years.


I have lots of faith in engineering. But, I'm also very good at seeing when
objects have something in common and when they do not. Farm machinery relies
on a certain commonality among the crops it's able to handle without damage.
To a certain extent, seed companies are able to create hybrid vegetables
which mesh well with what the machines need. But, I'm positive that if they
came up with a strawberry with a skin tough enough to resist mechanical
damage, you would stop buying strawberries.

In other words, this is not purely an engineering issue.

"BobK207" wrote in message
oups.com...

Doug Kanter wrote:
"BobK207" wrote in message
oups.com...

..................Some crops cannot be harvested by machines. If they
could be, the machines would exist. .............


not if the current alternative is cheaper, if I can have fruit hand
picked for less than the ammortized cost of a machine then there is no
incentive for such a machine to exist.

. ......No machine will harvest them safely, at least not until
robotics are much further along. A long list of other crops are also
too delicate for anything but human handling......

Again at what relative cost?

as long as we have artificially cheap labor innovation in those fields
will be stunted

no machine could ever fly,
one could ever fly faster than the speed of sound,
it would be impossbile to send a man to the moon & return safely
how could one ever operate on a persons heart
active suspension in a production automobile? too expensive!


what else do we put on the list?


The combine was invented in the late 1940s. There was plenty of cheap
labor
available at the time, as there has been ever since. In that time period,
farmers have immediately embraced machinery, regardless of labor costs.
There are benefits which go beyond human labor costs.


Doug-

I get the feeling you deny the existance of economic forces in the
world.

The whole reason for application of capital is the improvement of
productivity; that is, output per unit input.

That's correct. But, it's not applicable to every situation. If you
disagree, then tell me why most corn is harvested by machines?

Or, maybe a more direct question, just so we don't head down a blind alley
talking about two different things: Are you saying that the lack of machines
for harvesting strawberries is due to the fact that there's no demand for
them yet?



In that time period, farmers have immediately embraced machinery,
regardless of labor costs.

must have been their altruistic side making those decisions

No, but I suspect that the reasons *could* be psychological in nature. I
know about a dozen farmers, and most of them share an interesting trait with
home gardeners: A preference for working alone. A machine eliminates dealing
with the annoyances of supervising employees.


just like people in SoCal stopped mowing their own lawns, because it
wasn't worth their time.

If the illegals disappeared, lawn mowing would become more costly and
some people would pay more for legals, some would mow their own, some
would replace their lawns with low maint gardens.

it's all about choices, "economic" choices (even if the folks making
the choice fail to see it) time vs money; DIY or job it
out.........millions & millions of choices

and the illegal alien pool of cheap labor skew the choices in favor of
labor over alternatives


but it seems like I won't be able to convince you.........

Here, I'll repeat my question: Why have so many crops been harvested
exclusively by machine, as far back as the 1940s? It's more than the novelty
of the machines, or a casual choice on the part of farmers.

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 03 May 2006 18:11:11 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

But, I'm positive that if they
came up with a strawberry with a skin tough enough to resist mechanical
damage, you would stop buying strawberries.

That is exactly what is going on with "grocery store tomatoes"
They made a fruit tough enough for machine handling and shipping but
it is not fit to eat. Florida is looking into machine harvested
oranges but that will require replanting all the groves with different
spacing between the trees and perhaps a different hybrid of the fruit.
God only know how horrible they will taste.

The tomato skin thing was undertaken more for the packing equipment than
anything to do with the harvest. Similar issue, though.

Norminn writes:
this country came from furs, sugar and tobacco. So immoral now )
I thought that was "Molasses to Rum to Slaves"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1776_%2...29#Scene_Seven



--
May no harm befall you,
flip
Ich habe keine Ahnung was das bedeutet, oder vielleicht doch?
In my email replace SeeEmmYou.EeeDeeYou with CMU.EDU

Robert Gammon writes:
We have NO idea what the story is saying and you do not have permission
from the LA Times to quote it here.
try bugmenot.com

--
flip

On Wed, 03 May 2006 06:48:07 -0700, Scott en Aztlán
wrote:

On Wed, 03 May 2006 00:16:19 -0400, wrote:

On 2 May 2006 10:53:05 -0700, wrote:

it's certainly reasonable to assume that they are taking some jobs that
could be filled by groups with high unemployment. Young blacks, for
example, have a very high unemployment rate. Not all these illegals
are working farms. They are everywhere.

You can't get those people to work.

You could if you stopped giving them welfare.

Agreed. Hunger is a great motivator.

--Andy Asberry recommends NewsGuy--

In article ,
"Doug Kanter" wrote:

"Ernie Klein" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:

In article , The Real Bev

Doctors demand money or insurance. You never saw those discreet little
signs saying "It is customary to pay for services when rendered"? A
simple 5-minute visit is $100. God help you if you need tests. The
doctors don't have to take you if you can't -- or won't -- pay.
Hospitals do.

The point is, that's a problem for *poor* people -- not a problem
specifically
for illegal aliens.

No, the point is: we have enough of our own citizens who are poor
people, that already have put a strain on the system, the addition of
non-citizens is overwhelming the system to the breaking point.

--
-Ernie-

What "strain"?

The one that's causing hospitals to shut down emergency rooms because
they can't afford to keep supplying free services. There is no denying
who the freeloaders are. Even the most liberal of the California
legislators have to admit that it is a crises situation.

--
-Ernie-

"There are only two kinds of computer users -- those who have
suffered a catastrophic hard drive failure, and those who will."

Have you done your backup today?

Doug Kanter wrote:
"George E. Cawthon" wrote in message
...

Doug Kanter wrote:

wrote in message
egroups.com...



I for one would
pay a little more money to support our own workforce.



But, who would get this extra money if we kicked all illegals out of the
country? Have you ever seen the backbreaking work involved in harvesting
certain crops? Would you want your kids to do that kind of work?

Ah, then explain the cotton gin! I wonder how many people went around
screaming that the country would come to a halt if there weren't any
slaves to pick cotton.

The simple fact is that ingenuity would probably find a solution cheaper
than the current back breaking stoop labor if illegals were not available.
I think one could make a tight argument that illegals are inhibiting
progress.


Some crops cannot be harvested by machines. If they could be, the machines
would exist. Many cashiers can't get a container of strawberries into a
grocery bag without ****ing them up. No machine will harvest them safely, at
least not until robotics are much further along. A long list of other crops
are also too delicate for anything but human handling.


Just about every crop that is now harvested by
machine was said to be unharvestable except by
hand. In some cases, tomatoes and others, the
crops were changed so that they could be harvested
by machine. Mostly it appears that the solution
is just imagination and inventiveness.

I'm not worried, most of the strawberries
available are inedible anyway.

BobK207 wrote:
Doug Kanter wrote:

"George E. Cawthon" wrote in message
...

Doug Kanter wrote:

wrote in message
legroups.com...



I for one would
pay a little more money to support our own workforce.



But, who would get this extra money if we kicked all illegals out of the
country? Have you ever seen the backbreaking work involved in harvesting
certain crops? Would you want your kids to do that kind of work?

Ah, then explain the cotton gin! I wonder how many people went around
screaming that the country would come to a halt if there weren't any
slaves to pick cotton.

The simple fact is that ingenuity would probably find a solution cheaper
than the current back breaking stoop labor if illegals were not available.
I think one could make a tight argument that illegals are inhibiting
progress.

Some crops cannot be harvested by machines. If they could be, the machines
would exist. Many cashiers can't get a container of strawberries into a
grocery bag without ****ing them up. No machine will harvest them safely, at
least not until robotics are much further along. A long list of other crops
are also too delicate for anything but human handling.



..................Some crops cannot be harvested by machines. If they
could be, the machines would exist. .............


not if the current alternative is cheaper, if I can have fruit hand
picked for less than the ammortized cost of a machine then there is no
incentive for such a machine to exist.

. ......No machine will harvest them safely, at least not until
robotics are much further along. A long list of other crops are also
too delicate for anything but human handling......

Again at what relative cost?

as long as we have artificially cheap labor innovation in those fields
will be stunted

no machine could ever fly,
one could ever fly faster than the speed of sound,
it would be impossbile to send a man to the moon & return safely
how could one ever operate on a persons heart
active suspension in a production automobile? too expensive!


what else do we put on the list?

cheers
Bob


You know Bob, I consider myself a fairly staunch
conservative (whatever that means),and you and I
agree pretty well.

Here is another thought. Isn't it strange that
many of those that condemn conservatives (and
conversely think of themselves as liberal) are the
ones that say we must maintain the status quo or
everything will go to hell and are the ones most
unwilling to allow change?

In article ,
wrote:

On Wed, 03 May 2006 05:26:05 GMT, Ernie Klein
wrote:

I find it interesting that the same liberals who love unions also love
the immigrants.

I guess I must really confuse you.

I am not confused and I was not assuming that you were a liberal. I
turned your statement around because I am amused that union loving
liberals embrace illegal immigrants instead of being offended by them
because they are undercutting the unions the liberals love so dearly.

I am a conservative who is not a
big union fan (they promote mediocrity) but I support immigraiton for
anyone who will work and pay taxes.
They are not stealing anyone's job.

Stealing is a strong word. They they can undercut legal businesses
_because_ they are illegal. A friend of mine is a licensed concrete
contractor. Much of his business came from small jobs for home
improvement. Now homeowners hire a couple of illegals for 1/4 of the
cost.

Nobody seems to worry or care about little things like contractors
licenses, workman's compensation insurance, taxes and thing like that.
Homeowners themselves are in violation of the law, but so what "everyone
does it".

Our kids refuse to take those
jobs.

Your kids maybe.

If you can get an American kid to take a construction job he
will be loitering around talking to his girlfriend on a cell phone
every time you look the other way.

You must associate with different kids than I do.

They whine about hard work don't
stay long enough to actually learn a trade. Give me a crew of liittle
brown guys any day.

--
-Ernie-

"There are only two kinds of computer users -- those who have
suffered a catastrophic hard drive failure, and those who will."

Have you done your backup today?

Doug Kanter wrote:
"BobK207" wrote in message
oups.com...


..................Some crops cannot be harvested by machines. If they
could be, the machines would exist. .............


not if the current alternative is cheaper, if I can have fruit hand
picked for less than the ammortized cost of a machine then there is no
incentive for such a machine to exist.

. ......No machine will harvest them safely, at least not until
robotics are much further along. A long list of other crops are also
too delicate for anything but human handling......

Again at what relative cost?

as long as we have artificially cheap labor innovation in those fields
will be stunted

no machine could ever fly,
one could ever fly faster than the speed of sound,
it would be impossbile to send a man to the moon & return safely
how could one ever operate on a persons heart
active suspension in a production automobile? too expensive!


what else do we put on the list?



The combine was invented in the late 1940s. There was plenty of cheap labor
available at the time, as there has been ever since. In that time period,
farmers have immediately embraced machinery, regardless of labor costs.
There are benefits which go beyond human labor costs.



I don't think you can support those statements.
There were numerous reasons that agriculture was
mechanized--the war reduced the available labor,
the mass movement toward the cities, the
consolidation of farms into bigger units, the
change from the "family farm" to farming as a
business, the change in machinery available etc.

"George E. Cawthon" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
"BobK207" wrote in message
oups.com...


..................Some crops cannot be harvested by machines. If they
could be, the machines would exist. .............


not if the current alternative is cheaper, if I can have fruit hand
picked for less than the ammortized cost of a machine then there is no
incentive for such a machine to exist.

. ......No machine will harvest them safely, at least not until
robotics are much further along. A long list of other crops are also
too delicate for anything but human handling......

Again at what relative cost?

as long as we have artificially cheap labor innovation in those fields
will be stunted

no machine could ever fly,
one could ever fly faster than the speed of sound,
it would be impossbile to send a man to the moon & return safely
how could one ever operate on a persons heart
active suspension in a production automobile? too expensive!


what else do we put on the list?



The combine was invented in the late 1940s. There was plenty of cheap
labor available at the time, as there has been ever since. In that time
period, farmers have immediately embraced machinery, regardless of labor
costs. There are benefits which go beyond human labor costs.

I don't think you can support those statements. There were numerous
reasons that agriculture was mechanized--the war reduced the available
labor, the mass movement toward the cities, the consolidation of farms
into bigger units, the change from the "family farm" to farming as a
business, the change in machinery available etc.

This still doesn't explain why we don't have machines to harvest
strawberries and quite a few other crops. Just to be sure we're on the same
page here, do you believe the reason is that there's no demand for them?

it's certainly reasonable to assume that they are taking some jobs that
could be filled by groups with high unemployment. Young blacks, for
example, have a very high unemployment rate. Not all these illegals
are working farms. They are everywhere.

You can't get those people to work.

You could if you stopped giving them welfare.

Agreed. Hunger is a great motivator.


Well... realistically, first you'd have to put down the riots.
Not that I have any particular problem with that mind you.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
(snip)
Some of your category descriptions are too vague. Druggies? If you kid was
going to college to learn broadcasting, and was offered a job in Rush
Limbaugh's studio, can I assume you would not allow this because Rush is a
drug addict? Immoral? Would you let your kid work as an intern with some
of
our congressmen, knowing that at any moment, you'd probably read that they
were being indicted for one thing or another? What makes you think a
Mexican
in a top-notch restaurant kitchen fits any of your labels?

Quit trying to put words in my mouth, Doug- I said or implied nothing of the
kind. Being the offspring of immigrants, I am quite familiar with the
nose-in-the-air condescending attitude of some Nth generation whitebreads.

I have absolutely no problems with Mexicans, Hispanics, or any other ethnic
group of self-or-externally identified name. As a kid working construction,
I crossed paths with lots of Spanish-speaking casual labor and tradesmen. I
don't speak Spanish, many of them spoke little English, but as far as I
know, we got along fine. I was just the kid humping supplies, or picking up
trash. Most of them made me look bad with the amount of work they turned
out. As to your other examples, you know bloody well what I meant- street
people of whatever background or ethnicity- the ones that regard a new
teenager on the block as fresh meat. The type of people who could put a
gullible kid at risk with proximity to violence, recreational
pharmecuticals, disease vectors related to drug use or coerced sex, ad
infinitum. Of course white collar druggies and corrupt politicians are scum,
but they are far less likely to put a kid at actual risk, with the
occasional exceptions like the young lady Teddy drove off a bridge. The risk
could be offset by the education of seeing how success means more than
money, and even famous people can do stupid things.

aem sends...