JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
nk.net...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"jerryl" wrote in message
news:MnhIh.5146$B7.3412@bigfe9...

Well, my ancestors came over in the late 1800's and early 1900's and had
to jump through all of those hoops before they were allowed in. They had
to have someone here sponsor them. They had to have a place to live and
a job, BEFORE THEY WERE ALLOWED IN. They were not allowed to go on any
welfare or relief systems. If they couldn't support themselves then
their sponsors had to.

Luckily, nothing about the U.S. or Mexico has changed at all since the
late 1800s, so it should be simple to apply identical solutions.
If anything, what has changed ought to make us *more* restrictive than in
the past, not less.


What about our population and the resulting demand for services?

What about it? Demand for services isn't static. Many
services currently done by people could and would be
done by machines. In the 1970s, during an earlier wave
of illegal immigration, I saw formerly fully automated
carwashes from which the washing machinery had been
stripped, and a line of Hispanic workers stood in their
place. It had become cheaper to use people than
machinery. If the labor supply tightened up due to
enforcement of immigration laws, the machinery would
come back.

There are undoubtedly some agricultural functions that
can be achieved either mechanically or by hand labor.
If the labor costs rise a little, from their current
artificially depressed lows, machinery would move in.

Demand for current services does not mean those
services must always be provided. Up through the first
third of the last century, even decidedly "middle"
families in the middle class made extensive use nearly
full-time domestic servants, e.g. maids and cooks. As
better paying opportunities in industry and then
commercial services arose, people abandoned those jobs,
and today only extremely rich families have that kind
of domestic help (even if lots of middle income
families have an occasional cleaner and/or gardener
come to the house.) The country did not tank when the
middle class could no longer afford domestic servants.


I'm not
justifying the situation, just suggesting reasons.

What about overpopulation and a twisted government in a neighboring country?

That's not how I would describe Canada, but I guess
your perception is different.

"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
thlink.net...


There are undoubtedly some agricultural functions that can be achieved
either mechanically or by hand labor. If the labor costs rise a little,
from their current artificially depressed lows, machinery would move in.



Erase that idea from your head. Farm machinery manufacturers have been
working for decades to find ways to harvest certain delicate crops. If they
could build such things, farmers would buy them in a heartbeat.

Take away migrant labor, and you'd better be ready for your kids to hit the
fields to do the harvesting. Nasty, hot dirty work. It wrecks your back even
if you're young and in shape. I'll bet a year's pay you'd hide your kids in
Canada if our government required that kids put in a year of this type of
work.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
thlink.net...

There are undoubtedly some agricultural functions that can be achieved
either mechanically or by hand labor. If the labor costs rise a little,
from their current artificially depressed lows, machinery would move in.



Erase that idea from your head. Farm machinery manufacturers have been
working for decades to find ways to harvest certain delicate crops. If they
could build such things, farmers would buy them in a heartbeat.

*Some* things are amenable to cultivation and
harvesting by entirely mechanical means, but if the
cost of labor is low enough, it will be used in place
of machinery. If the cost of labor rises enough,
machinery will be used.


Take away migrant labor, and you'd better be ready for your kids to hit the
fields to do the harvesting. Nasty, hot dirty work. It wrecks your back even
if you're young and in shape. I'll bet a year's pay you'd hide your kids in
Canada if our government required that kids put in a year of this type of
work.

Governments in democratic market-oriented societies
don't ever "require" that people do certain tasks,
apart from (occasionally) military service. That's a
pretty stinky red herring you trotted out there.

Europe manages to grow a lot of food, including a lot
for export, without a large pool of illegally resident
farm workers. In addition, an already large and still
growing majority of illegally resident immigrants in
this country do not work in agriculture. We are
increasingly hearing stories of farmers allegedly
unable to get their crops harvested because of labor
shortages, even *with* undocumented immigrants.

The fact is, people are going to have to pay the price
for their food, and that price is probably going to
rise. Nothing inherently wrong with that. People eat
far too much food as it is, and a price rise will get
them to eat less.

wrote in message
oups.com...
What morons.

You pretty much summed up the pro-illegal immigration debate right there...

bill allemann wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
What morons.

You pretty much summed up the pro-illegal immigration debate right there...

I wouldn't say that. I don't think there's any
legitimate legal or moral basis to the pro-illegal
immigration side, but there *is* a political logic to
it, and those who are promoting illegal immigration as
a goal are not stupid or moronic about their use of the
political and legal systems to attain their goal.

I think the biggest problem is that on this issue,
there is an ugly, unholy political alliance between two
groups - business-oriented conservatives and
identity-politics liberals - who on most other issues
are indifferent to one another at best, or bitter
enemies. Business wants cheap labor; identity-politics
liberals - the PC crowd - want immigrants' votes.

"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
thlink.net...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
thlink.net...

There are undoubtedly some agricultural functions that can be achieved
either mechanically or by hand labor. If the labor costs rise a little,
from their current artificially depressed lows, machinery would move in.



Erase that idea from your head. Farm machinery manufacturers have been
working for decades to find ways to harvest certain delicate crops. If
they
could build such things, farmers would buy them in a heartbeat.

*Some* things are amenable to cultivation and
harvesting by entirely mechanical means, but if the
cost of labor is low enough, it will be used in place
of machinery. If the cost of labor rises enough,
machinery will be used.


Take away migrant labor, and you'd better be ready for your kids to hit
the
fields to do the harvesting. Nasty, hot dirty work. It wrecks your back
even
if you're young and in shape. I'll bet a year's pay you'd hide your kids
in
Canada if our government required that kids put in a year of this type of
work.

Governments in democratic market-oriented societies
don't ever "require" that people do certain tasks,
apart from (occasionally) military service. That's a
pretty stinky red herring you trotted out there.

Europe manages to grow a lot of food, including a lot
for export, without a large pool of illegally resident
farm workers. In addition, an already large and still
growing majority of illegally resident immigrants in
this country do not work in agriculture. We are
increasingly hearing stories of farmers allegedly
unable to get their crops harvested because of labor
shortages, even *with* undocumented immigrants.

The fact is, people are going to have to pay the price
for their food, and that price is probably going to
rise. Nothing inherently wrong with that. People eat
far too much food as it is, and a price rise will get
them to eat less.

Addressing your comments out of order:

The foods people might eat less of are exactly the ones they should eat more
of: Crops that are harvested by human hands. As far as crops and machinery,
certain crops CANNOT be harvested by any known machinery, and it has nothing
to do with whether farmers want the machinery or not. The companies who
design the stuff have never been able to figure out how to harvest certain
crops without damaging them beyond being saleable. You won't believe this,
so call John Deere, Massey Ferguson and whoever else you can think of, and
ask.

Now, for required work: The U.S., a democratic country:

"The first peacetime conscription came with the Selective Training and
Service Act of 1940. Active conscription ("the draft") ended in 1973.
Currently, male U.S. citizens, if aged eighteen through twenty five, are
required to register with the Selective Service System, whose mission is "to
provide manpower to the armed forces in an emergency" including a "Health
Care Personnel Delivery System" [4] and "to run an Alternative Service
Program for men classified as conscientious objectors during a draft."

I see no reason why we could not have a conscription arrangement (obviously
with pay equivalent to what migrants make) for agricultural work, or
cleaning hotel room, public bathrooms, and doing the grunt work in
restaurant kitchens. It would pay better than what the military pays new
recruits.

Other countries with required service. Not all democracies, but plenty that
you probably consider OK:

Austria
Austria has mandatory military service for fit male citizens from 18 to 35
years of age. Service lasts for six months since 2006. Conscientious
objectors can join the civilian service (called Zivildienst) for nine
months.

Since January 1, 1998, females can join the military service voluntarily.


[edit] Belarus
Belarus has mandatory military service for all fit men from eighteen to
twenty-seven years of age. Military service lasts for eighteen months for
those without higher education, and for twelve months for those with higher
education.


[edit] Bermuda
Bermuda, although an overseas territory of the United Kingdom, still
maintains conscription for its local force. Males between the age of
eighteen and thirty-two are drawn by lottery to serve in The Bermuda
Regiment for a period of thirty-eight months. The commitment is only on a
part time basis, however. Anyone who objects to this has the right to have
their case heard by an exemption tribunal.


[edit] Brazil
Males in Brazil are required to serve 12 months (24 months in the air force,
36 in the navy) of military service upon their 18th birthday. Most often,
the service is performed in military bases as close as possible to the
person's home. The government does not require those planning to attend
college or holding a permanent job to serve. There are also several other
exceptions, including health reasons, for which one may not have to serve.
Those who intend to attend to the military academies entrance tests are
often discharged with a "Fit for Military Service" certificate.


[edit] Bulgaria
Bulgaria has mandatory military service for male citizens from eighteen to
twenty-seven years of age. Currently (2004) the duration of the service
depends on the degree of education. For citizens studying for or holding a
bachelor degree or higher the service is six months, and for citizens with
no higher education it is nine months.[6] During the last ten years the
duration of service has rapidly dropped (from two years in 1994) and, as
Bulgaria adopts a professional army, mandatory service will be replaced with
voluntary service on 1 January 2008.[5]


[edit] Chile
Chile has mandatory military service for male
(https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications...k/geos/ci.html) citizens
between eighteen and forty-five. The duration of service is twelve months
for the army and twenty-four months for Navy and Air Force.


[edit] China (PRC)
Conscription has existed in theory since the establishment of the People's
Republic of China in 1949; however, because of China's huge population and
therefore the large number of individuals who volunteer to join the regular
armed forces, a draft has never been enforced.

Conscription is enshrined in Article 55 of the Constitution, which states:
"It is a sacred duty of every citizen of the People's Republic of China to
defend his or her motherland and resist invasion. It is an honoured
obligation of the citizens of the People's Republic of China to perform
military service and to join the militia forces." [2]

The present legal basis of conscription is the 1984 Military Service Law,
which describes military service as a duty for "all citizens without
distinction of race (...) and religious creed." This law has not been
amended since it came into effect. [1] [4]

Military service is normally performed in the regular armed forces, but the
1984 law does allow for conscription into the reserve forces.

Hong Kong and Macau SAR residents however, as of 1997 and 1999 are forbidden
from joining the military.


[edit] Croatia
Croatian law prescribes military service for male citizens from eighteen to
twenty-seven years old. The duration of the normal military service is six
months (as of 2004), while conscientious objectors can apply for civilian
service which lasts for eight months. Conscription is regularly postponed
for students until the end of their studies, as long as they apply before
they turn twenty-eight years of age.

Over the last decade or so, the duration of military service has been halved
and civilian service was introduced together with the streamlining of the
professional army. Should this trend continue, the mandatory service may
eventually be completely replaced with voluntary service.


[edit] Cyprus
Main article: Conscription in Cyprus
Cyprus has compulsory military service for all Greek Cypriot men between the
ages of eighteen and fifty. Military service lasts for twenty-five months.
After that, ex-soldiers are considered reservists and participate in
military exercises for a few days every year. Conscientious objectors can
either do thirty three months unarmed service in the army or thirty eight
months community work. See official pages by the Greek Cypriot National
Guard. Legislation and practice relating to civilian alternatives to
military service remained punitive in nature, although new legislation which
came into force in 2004 reduced the length of such alternative service. The
Special Committee, which makes recommendations on applications for
conscientious objection, proposed a blanket rejection of applications based
on ideological grounds where applicants do not declare particular beliefs.
AI called for a re-evaluation of the Committee's methods and for the
authorities to establish an alternative to military service of a purely
civilian nature, outside the authority of the Ministry of Defence. Amnesty
International The Annan Plan for Cyprus that was rejected in the 2004
reunification referendum mandated the demilitarisation of the island and the
disbanding of both Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot forces.


[edit] Denmark
As described in the Constitution of Denmark, § 81, Denmark has mandatory
service for all able men. Normal service is four months, and is normally
served by men in the age of eighteen to twenty-seven. Some special services
will take longer. Danish men will typically receive a letter around the time
of their 18th birthday, asking when their current education (if any) ends,
and some time later, depending on when, they will receive a notice on when
to attend to the draft office to be tested physically and psychologically.
However, some may be deemed unfit for service and not be required to show
up.

Even if a person is deemed fit, or partially fit for service, he may avoid
having to serve if he draws a high enough number randomly. Persons who are
deemed partly fit for service will however be placed lower than those who
are deemed fit for service, and therefore have a very low chance of being
drafted. Men deemed fit can be called upon for service until their 50th
birthday in case of national crisis, regardless of whether normal
conscription has been served. This right is very rarely exercised by Danish
authorities.

Conscientious objectors can choose to instead serve six months in a
non-military position, for example in Redningsberedskabet (dealing with
non-military disasters like fires, flood, pollution, etc.) or foreign aid
work in a third world country. [6].


[edit] Egypt
Egypt had a mandatory military service program for males between the ages of
eighteen and thirty. Females of comparable age serve in a civilian program.
Conscription is regularly postponed for students until the end of their
studies, as long as they apply before they turn twenty-eight years of age.
By the age of thirty a male is considered unfit to join the army and pays a
fine. Males with no brothers, or those supporting parents are exempted from
the service. Males serve for a period ranging from fourteen months to
forty-eight months depending on their education; high school dropouts serve
for forty-eight months during which they finish their high-school education.
College graduates serve for lesser periods of time, depending on their
education, and college graduates with special skills are still conscripted
yet at a different rank and with a different pay scale with the option of
remaining with the service as a career. Some Egyptians evade conscription
and travel overseas until they reach the age of thirty, at which point they
are tried, pay a $580 fine (as of 2004), and are dishonorably relieved of
their obligation to serve in the army. Such an offense, legally considered
an offense of "bad moral character", prevents the "unpatriotic" citizen from
ever holding public office.


[edit] Eritrea
Eritrea has a mandatory military service program for both men and women aged
eighteen through forty. The term of service is eighteen months. There is no
alternate service. The Eritrean government is well-known for hunting down
draft evaders. Draft evaders often flee the country to nearby countries.


[edit] Finland
Finland has mandatory military service for men of a minimum duration of six
months (180 days), depending on the assigned position: those trained as
officers or NCOs serve for twelve months (362 days), specialist troops serve
for nine (270 days) or twelve months, while rank and file serve for the
minimum period. Unarmed service is also possible, and lasts eleven months
(330 days). Since 1995, women have been able to volunteer for military
service. During the first 45 days, women have an option to quit at will.
Having served for 45 days, they fall under the same obligation to serve as
men except for medical reasons. A pregnancy during service would interrupt
the service but not automatically cause a medical discharge.

Non-military service of thirteen months (395 days) is available for men
whose conscience prevents them from serving in the military. Men who refuse
to serve at all are sent to prison for six and a half months (197 days) or
half the time of their remaining non-military service at the time of
refusal. In theory, male citizens from the demilitarized Åland region are to
serve in customs offices or lighthouses, but since this service has not been
arranged, they are always exempted in practice. Jehovah's Witnesses' service
is postponed every two years until they, at the age of twenty-eight, are
exempted from service. Military service has been mandatory for men
throughout the history of independent Finland since 1917. Soldiers and
civilian servicemen receive a daily salary of 3.80 ? (days 1 - 180), 6.50 ?
(days 181 - 270) and 9.00 ? (onward from day 271).

Approximately 20% are trained as NCOs (corporals, sergeants), and 10% are
trained as officers-in-reserve (second lieutenant). In wartime, it is
expected that the officers-in-reserve fulfil most Company Commander
positions. At the beginning of the service, all men go trough same basic
training of eight weeks. After this eight week period it is decided who will
be trained as NCOs or officers.

Having completed the initial part of the service as a conscript, the soldier
is placed in the reserve. Reservists may be called for mandatory refresher
exercises. Rank and file serve a maximum of 40 days, specialists 75 days and
officers and NCOs 100 days. Per refresher course day, the reservists receive
a salary of about fifty euro. The service is mandatory; it is not possible
to refuse an order to attend the refresher exercise, only postpone. As of
late though, the option to opt for non-military service has been made
available as the Finnish Defence Forces has made ongoing budget cuts,
reflected in the number of reservist exercises annually.

The length of non-military service has been criticized as "punitive and
discriminatory" by Amnesty International[7] because it is over twice as long
as the minimum six-month military service. Several motions to shorten it
have been made in the Finnish Parliament but none have passed. Proponents
point out that those serving as conscripts serve in theory 24 hours per day
(especially when in the field), as opposed to those who have opted for
non-military service, who (depending on the post) typically serve only
during office hours. The Commander of the Defence Forces incumbent, Juhani
Kaskeala, recently criticized the role of the civilian service as a
punishment and as a way to avoid duty. He proposed that its length should be
12 months or, in par with the longest military service, and the tasks should
related directly to security.

There are no general exemptions for the conscription. Study, work or other
civilian activity is not grounds for exemption nor automatic postponing. The
law requires employers, landlords etc. to continue any pre-existing
contracts after the service. For medical reasons, exemption or postponing
can be given only by a military doctor. If the disability is expected to be
cured, there is no exemption, and the service is postponed.

Over 80% of Finnish males serve in the military. Often there is great
pressure from family members to do armed instead of civilian service.
Finnish World War Two veterans are highly respected in Finland, and not
undertaking military service may be considered an offence towards veterans
in the family. There has also been a prevailing social assumption that
masculinity can only be proved by army service, and, consequently, not doing
so can lead to the stigmatisation of non-conscripts as not "real men". This
has recently started waning as being considered an old-fashioned
perspective, but it still holds in some more traditional occupations such as
teaching. Additionally, the youth are often frightened that employers do not
hire men who have performed civilian service.

The national security policy of Finland is based on a credible independent
defence of all Finnish territory. The Constitution of Finland expressly
permits only United Nations or OSCE military operations abroad. Furthermore,
the maximum number of military personnel abroad is limited to 2,000 (out of
the 900,000 available reserve). Contributions to the UN troops comprise only
professional soldiers and trained, paid reservists who have specifically
applied to such operations. Therefore, there is no "expeditionary wars"
argument against conscription.

Political opposition to conscription is rather marginalized and heavily
associated with Communist or anarchist groups. Particularly, the "Defenders
of Peace" (Rauhanpuolustajat), who opposed military readiness, were
supported by the Soviets during the Cold War era. Therefore, opposition to
conscription is still heavily associated with anti-patriotism and Communism.


[edit] Germany
Main article: Conscription in Germany
Germany has mandatory military service of nine months for men. Women may
volunteer and are allowed to perform similar jobs as men. A conscientious
objector may petition for permission to do civilian alternative service,
"civilian service" (Zivildienst) instead for nine months, which is usually
accepted. A third option is to become a foreign development aide
(Entwicklungshelfer) for at least eighteen months. Overall, however, during
the past few years, the number of men being drafted has declined
significantly.

Besides several exceptions, military service is compulsory for all men
between the ages of eighteen and twenty-three years. Those who are engaged
in educational or vocational training programs prior to their military
assessment are allowed to postpone service until they have completed the
programs and can be called upon to perform their national duty at any time
thereafter. This, however does not apply for students who want to take up
courses at university.


[edit] Greece
Main article: Conscription in Greece
As of 2006, Greece (Hellenic Republic) has mandatory military service of
twelve months for men. Although, Greece is developing a professional army
system, it continues to enforce the 12-month mandatory military service
despite earlier promises that the draft will be reduced to six months. Women
are accepted into the Greek army, they are not obliged to join as men are.
Soldiers receive full health insurance and a salary of approximately nine
euro per month for privates and twelve euro for the rank of draft corporal
and draft sergeant. The wages are not sufficient to sustain a draftee
serving his tour away from his place of residence and most draftees depend
on their parents to support them financially while they are on their tour.
Conscientious objection to military service

The length of alternative civilian service for conscientious objectors to
military service remained punitive at 42 months. Amnesty International was
also concerned that the determination of conscientious objector status fell
under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Defence, which breaches
international standards that stipulate that the entire institution of
alternative service should have a civilian character.(Amnesty International)


[edit] Iran
Iran has mandatory military service for men. Duration of military service is
dependent on some conditions and circumstances, but it is usually 21 months
in normal conditions on top of the three months of initial training.
Exceptions are those who cannot serve because of injury or disability or
some social conditions. More information can be found at Police Web Site (in
Persian). Students are excempt as long as they are attending school. The
higher the education of a man, the higher his rank will be in the military.
These days, students who have admission plus financial support from a
foreign university, can get exception by putting a bail (about $5000). Many
times, when the government has financial problems, those who are living
abroad or even those who are inside the country who have to serve in the
military can get permanent exemption by paying about $5000 to the
government.


[edit] Israel
Israel has mandatory military service for both men and women. All Israeli
citizens are conscripted, except;

a.. Haredim can apply for a deferral because of religious studies, which
essentially becomes an exemption.
b.. Israeli Arabs are exempt from service, although they may volunteer.
Other non-Jewish communities such as the Druze, Bedouin, and Circassians do
serve, except for women from those communities who are exempt.
c.. Religious Jewish Israeli women can apply for an exemption from army
service. Although some of them choose to serve, many opt to serve
voluntarily in Sherut Leumi (national civilian service).
d.. Young Israeli women can generally opt not to serve if they are
married, pregnant, or otherwise
e.. Candidates with certain mental or physical health problems.
Typically, men are required to serve for 3 years and women for 2 years.
Officers and other soldiers in certain voluntary duties such as Nahal and
Hesder are required to additional service. Those studying at a Mechina can
defer service for one year. See also: Israel Defence Forces.

There is a very limited percentage conscientious objection, of military
service in general, mostly refusal to serve in the West Bank. Some of these
conscientious objectors serve short prison terms lasting a few months to a
year and often subsequently receive dishonourable discharges. See also:
Refusal to serve in the Israeli military.

In addition, men are liable for up to one month per year of reserve duty
(miluim) until they are their early forties. Women are liable for it until
they are twenty-four years old, married, or pregnant, though it is only
relevant for an extremely limited number of positions, and it is rare for
one to get called up for routine reserve duty.


[edit] Korea, South
South Korea has mandatory military service of 24 to 27 months.[8] There are
no alternatives for conscientious objectors[9] except imprisonment.

There are many reported instances of American citizens of Korean descent
being forced to serve in the South Korean military. Under South Korean law,
one is considered a citizen if one's name is entered into the Korean Family
Census Register, or hojuk. At least two of these cases involved individuals
whose names had been recorded on the Korean Family Census Register, without
their knowledge. [7].


[edit] Malaysia
Main article: Malaysian National Service
As of 2004, Malaysia has mandatory national service of three months for a
selected group of both men and women. Twenty percent of 18-year-olds are
selected through a lottery system to join this program. Trainees are not
trained to use firearms. The first training date was February 16, 2004. See
Official Information from Malaysia National Service Training Department.


[edit] Mexico
Currently, all males reaching eighteen years of age must register for
military service (Servicio Militar Nacional, or SMN) of one year, though
selection is made by a lottery system using the following color scheme:
whoever draws a black ball must serve as a "disponibility reservist", that
is, he must not follow any activities whatsoever and get his discharge card
at the end of the year. The ones who get a white ball serve in a Batallón
del Servicio Militar Nacional (National Military Service Battalion) composed
entirely of one-year SMN conscripts. Those with a community service interest
may participate in Literacy Campaigns as teachers or as physical education
instructors. Military service is also (voluntarily) open to women. In
certain cities, such as Mexico City and Veracruz, there is a third option: a
red ball (Mexico City) and a Blue ball (Veracruz), which entails serving a
full year as a recruit in a Paratrooper Battalion in the case of Mexico City
residents, or an Infantería de Marina unit (Navy Marines) in Veracruz. In
other cities which have a Navy HQ (such as Ciudad Madero), it is the Navy
which takes charge of the conscripts, instead of the Army.

Draft dodging was an uncommon occurrence in Mexico until 2002, since a
"liberated" military ID card was needed for a Mexican male to obtain a
passport, but since this requirement was dropped, absenteeism from military
service has become much more common.


[edit] Norway
Norway has mandatory military service of nineteen months for men between the
ages of 18.5 (17 with parental consent) and 44 (55 in case of war).
Beginning in 2006, the armed forces will also invite females to take a
pre-service medical examination, but they will not be drafted unless they
sign a declaration of willingness. The actual draft time is six months for
the home guard, and twelve months for the regular army, air force and navy.

The remaining months are supposed to be served in annual exercises, but very
few conscripts do this because of lack of funding for the Norwegian armed
forces. As a result of this decreased funding and greater reliance on high
technology, the armed forces are aiming towards drafting only 10,000
conscripts a year. The remainder, for the most part, either are formally
dismissed after medical tests or obtain deferral from the service because of
studies or stays abroad.

Some, such as those who choose vocational course paths during high school
(for example, carpenters and electricians) opt to complete their required
apprenticeships within the military. While some Norwegians consider it
unfair that they have to complete the compulsory military duty when so many
others are dismissed, others see it as a privilege and there is normally
high competition to be allowed to join some branches of the
service.[citation needed] Employers often show favorable regard to those who
complete their military service, although many do not care.[citation needed]

The Norwegian armed forces will normally not draft a person who has reached
the age of 28. In Norway, certain voluntary specialist training programs and
courses entail extended conscription of one to eight years. Pacifists can
apply for non-military service, which lasts 12 months.


[edit] Poland
Poland has a compulsory service term of nine months for all mature men
(three months for those with higher education). However, many of them are
considered unfit for mandatory military service during peacetime.
Effectively, many tens of thousands of men are drafted each autumn.
Alternative service can be requested, e.g. in the police force. This is only
valid if you are not attending an educational facility. Students born in
1983 or later can volunteer for military preparations, so they can serve in
the military for 6 weeks during their summer break after they finish fourth
semester. After joining the European Union, many young men moved abroad in
order to avoid the draft and the quite low conditions within the Polish
Army. Also many, facing very high unemployment in the country, join the
forces voluntarily to serve the term and later gain opportunities to get
well paid jobs within the military or police. In the autumn of 2006, the
Polish parliament decided to phase out the draft by 2010 and make the Polish
army an all-volunteer army.[8]


[edit] Russia
The conscription system was introduced into Imperial Russia by Dmitry
Milyutin in the 1870s. As of 2002, Russian Federation has a mandatory
two-year draft but most Russians try to avoid it. The most widely used ways
to avoid the military service a

a.. Studying in a university or similar place. All students are free from
conscription, but they can be drafted after they graduate (or if they drop
out). Graduated students serve one year as privates, but if they have a
military education, they have the option to serve two years as officers.
Persons who continue postgraduate education, or have a doctoral degree
(Candidate of Sciences) are not drafted.
b.. Getting a medical certificate that shows that a person is unfit for
service. Sometimes such certificates are false and can be made for a bribe.
c.. Bribing military or civilian officials responsible for draft.
d.. Just not going to a draft station - draft-dodging. This can be a
criminal offence, punishable by up to two years in prison.
e.. A rarely used way is having more than two children, or one child
younger than three years. (The latter will be dropped from the law in 2008).
f.. There are other legal (described in the law) or illegal ways to evade
the draft.
In Russia, a person cannot be conscripted after he turns twenty-seven.

In 2006, the Russian government announced its plans to gradually reduce the
term of service to 18 months for those who will be conscripted in 2007 and
to one year from 2008 on and to drop some legal excuses for non-conscription
from the law (such as non-conscription of rural doctors and teachers, of men
who have a child younger than 3 years etc.).

As a result of draft evasion, Russian generals have complained on numerous
times that the bulk of the army is made up of drug addicts, imbeciles, and
ex-convicts, which in turn has lead to an overall decline of the morale and
function of the Russian armed services. Conscripts often face brutal hazing
and bullying upon their entrance into the military, known as dedovshchina,
some dying as a result. Suicide among Russian conscripts is at an all-time
high.

See also

a.. Only eleven percent of Russian men enter mandatory military service.
b.. Dedovschina.
c.. Russian draftee's legs and genitals amputated after hazing incident.
d.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atRDcEEUoj8

[edit] Serbia
This article or section needs to be updated.
Parts of this article or section have been identified as no longer
being up to date.
Please update the article to reflect recent events, and remove this
template when finished.

Main article: Conscription in Serbia
Prior to the 2006 Montenegrin independence referendum, Serbia and Montenegro
had compulsory national service for all men aged between 19 and 35, as
described below. The future situation of this service in the now independent
republic of Serbia remains unknown. As of June 2006, it seems probable that
Serbia will retain the present system.
In practice, men over 27 are seldom called up. Service is usually performed
after University studies have been completed. The length of service was 9
months but has recently been reduced to 6 months (2006). There is also an
alternative for conscientious objectors which lasts 9 months. Serbian
nationals living outside of the country were still expected to complete
national service, however, they may defer it if it will seriously impact
their career in the country where they currently reside. This can be done by
contacting the embassy in the country of residence (if under 27), or must be
done by contacting the army directly (if over 27).


[edit] Singapore
Main article: National Service in Singapore
In Singapore, the NS (Amendment) Act was passed on 14 March 1967, under
which all able-bodied male citizens of 18 - 21 years of age were required to
serve a compulsory military service of two years since 2005 (or two and a
half years before 2005). Upon completion of full-time NS, they undergo
reservist training cycles of up to forty days a year for the next ten years.

Singapore, which currently has a mandatory service period of twenty-four
months, used to have one of the longest mandatory military service periods
for males, at thirty months. It also has special policies for ethnic Malays,
because of possible conflicts in allegiances with neighbour Malaysia. Some
of the Malays are drafted into the Singapore Police Force or Singapore Civil
Defence Force.


[edit] Sweden
Since 1902 military service is mandatory in Sweden. All Swedish men between
age 18 and 47 can be called to serve with the armed forces. The number of
drafted have changed over time, but during the Cold war it was about 90%.
Today, less than one third of the country's eligible 19-year-olds are
actually drafted each year. Military service used to comprise between 8 to
15 months of training, but recent reforms have changed this to 11 months for
all.

Men may choose to do unarmed service, for instance as a firefighter.
Generally, unarmed service is longer than armed.

Since 1980 women are allowed to serve in the armed forces. As of 2002,
Sweden's government asked the army to consider mandatory military service
for women. See Sweden considers mandatory military service for women.


[edit] Switzerland
Switzerland has the largest militia army in the world (220,000 including
reserves). Military service for Swiss men is obligatory according to the
Federal Constitution, and includes 18 or 21 weeks of basic training
(depending on troop category) as well as annual 3-week-refresher courses
until a number of service days which increases with rank (260 days for
privates) is reached. Service for women is voluntary, but identical in all
respects. Conscientious objectors can choose 390 days of community service
instead of military service. Medical deferments and dismissals from basic
training (often on somewhat dubious grounds) have increased significantly in
the last years. Therefore, only about 33% of Swiss men actually complete
basic training.

See also: Swiss Civilian Service

[edit] Taiwan (ROC)
Main article: Conscription in the Republic of China
The Republic of China has had mandatory military service for all males since
1949. Females from the outlying islands of Fuchien were also required to
serve in a civil defense role, although this requirement has been dropped
since the lifting of martial law. In October 1999, the mandatory service was
shortened from twenty-four months to twenty-two months; from January 2004 it
was shortened further to eighteen months, and from 1 January 2006 the
duration has decreased to sixteen months. The ROC Defense Ministry has
announced that should voluntary enlistment reach sufficient numbers, the
compulsory service period for draftees will be shortened to fourteen months
in 2007, and further to twelve months in 2008, if trend persists.

ROC nationals with Overseas Chinese status are exempt from service. Draftees
may also request alternative service, usually in community service areas,
although the required service period would be longer than military service.
Qualified draftees with graduate degrees in the sciences or engineering who
pass officer candidate exams may also apply to fulfill their obligations in
a national defense service option which involves three months of military
training, followed by an officer commission in the reserves and four years
working in technical jobs in the defense industry or government research
institutions.

The Ministry of Interior is responsible for administering the National
Conscription Agency. Ministry of Interior site on Consciption Administration


[edit] Turkey
Main article: Conscription in Turkey
In Turkey, compulsory military service applies to all male citizens from
twenty to forty-one years of age (with some exceptions). Those who are
engaged in higher education or vocational training programs prior to their
military drafting are allowed to delay service until they have completed the
programs. The duration of the basic military service varies. As of July
2003, the reduced durations are as follows: fifteen months for privates
(previously eighteen months), twelve months for reserve officers (previously
sixteen months) and six months for short-term privates, which denotes those
who have earned a university degree and not have been enlisted as reserve
officers (previously eight months).

For Turkish citizens who have lived or worked abroad of Turkey for at least
three years, on condition that they pay a certain fee in foreign currencies,
a basic military training of twenty-one days (previously twenty-eight days)
is offered instead of the full-term military service. Also, when the General
Staff assesses that the military reserve exceeds the required amount, paid
military service of one-month's basic training is established by law as a
stopgap measure, but has never been practised in reality.

Although women have in principle are not obliged to serve in the military,
they are allowed to become military officers.

Conscientious objection of military service is illegal in Turkey and
punishable with imprisonment by law. Many conscientious objectors flee
abroad mainly to neighbouring countries or the European Union (as asylum
seekers or guest workers).


[edit] Ukraine
The options are either reserve officer training for two years (offered in
universities as a part of a program which means not having to join the
army), or one year regular service. In Ukraine, a person cannot be
conscripted after he turns twenty-five.


[edit] References
1.. ^ Law n. 772, 15 December 1972 [1] (Italian)
2.. ^ Law nr. 226, 23 August 2004 [2] (Italian)
3.. ^ http://www.wri-irg.org/co/rtba/latvia.htm
4.. ^ "The Islamization of Morocco", by Oliver Guitta, The Weekly
Standard, October 2, 2006
5.. ^ Romania drops compulsory military service, United Press
International, 23 October 2006
6.. ^ "Bulgarian military service reduced", BBC News, May 17, 2000.
Retrieved 31 May 2006.
7.. ^ Amnesty International 2006 report about Finland
8.. ^ "Lee, Roh Pledge Political Reform", Korea Now, December 12, 2002.
Retrieved 31 May 2006.
9.. ^ "Korean pacifists fight conscription", BBC News, May 5, 2002.
Retrieved 31 May 2006.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
thlink.net...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
thlink.net...

There are undoubtedly some agricultural functions that can be achieved
either mechanically or by hand labor. If the labor costs rise a little,
from their current artificially depressed lows, machinery would move in.


Erase that idea from your head. Farm machinery manufacturers have been
working for decades to find ways to harvest certain delicate crops. If
they
could build such things, farmers would buy them in a heartbeat.
*Some* things are amenable to cultivation and
harvesting by entirely mechanical means, but if the
cost of labor is low enough, it will be used in place
of machinery. If the cost of labor rises enough,
machinery will be used.


Take away migrant labor, and you'd better be ready for your kids to hit
the
fields to do the harvesting. Nasty, hot dirty work. It wrecks your back
even
if you're young and in shape. I'll bet a year's pay you'd hide your kids
in
Canada if our government required that kids put in a year of this type of
work.
Governments in democratic market-oriented societies
don't ever "require" that people do certain tasks,
apart from (occasionally) military service. That's a
pretty stinky red herring you trotted out there.

Europe manages to grow a lot of food, including a lot
for export, without a large pool of illegally resident
farm workers. In addition, an already large and still
growing majority of illegally resident immigrants in
this country do not work in agriculture. We are
increasingly hearing stories of farmers allegedly
unable to get their crops harvested because of labor
shortages, even *with* undocumented immigrants.

The fact is, people are going to have to pay the price
for their food, and that price is probably going to
rise. Nothing inherently wrong with that. People eat
far too much food as it is, and a price rise will get
them to eat less.

Addressing your comments out of order:

The foods people might eat less of are exactly the ones they should eat more
of: Crops that are harvested by human hands.

You're trying to pass off a moral judgment as
nutritional advice. Forget it.


As far as crops and machinery,
certain crops CANNOT be harvested by any known machinery,

That's fine. But certain crops can be.


Now, for required work: The U.S., a democratic country:

"The first peacetime conscription came with the Selective Training and
Service Act of 1940. Active conscription ("the draft") ended in 1973.
Currently, male U.S. citizens, if aged eighteen through twenty five, are
required to register with the Selective Service System, whose mission is "to
provide manpower to the armed forces in an emergency" including a "Health
Care Personnel Delivery System" [4] and "to run an Alternative Service
Program for men classified as conscientious objectors during a draft."

I see no reason why we could not have a conscription arrangement (obviously
with pay equivalent to what migrants make) for agricultural work,

Most Americans see plenty wrong with it. Thankfully,
views like yours are in a decided, unsavory minority.


or
cleaning hotel room, public bathrooms, and doing the grunt work in
restaurant kitchens. It would pay better than what the military pays new
recruits.

Other countries with required service. [snip crap about military conscription]

I already covered that. We're talking about mandatory
work in areas other than military service. Democracies
don't do that.

jerryl wrote:
"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...
But do you set arbitrary limits on the front door? Do you have a
sign posted on your lawn saying "Give me your tired, your poor,
your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free. The wretched refuse
of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest tossed, to
me" --
Joseph Meehan

Dia 's Muire duit




Just because the sign is there doesn't mean they don't have to follow
the laws. Under your interpretation if I see a sign "Highway", I'd be
allowed to drive on it even if I didn't have a license. We are a
nation of laws and if you want to live here you have to obey those
laws. We have immigration laws and if immigrants bypass them, they
are illegal.

I like your highway idea. Now how would you feel if the politicians
decided that we have too many cars on the road and because building highways
is expensive and cars pollute we are going to limit who can drive. We will
allow 80% if the people in Road Island to drive and maybe 10% if those in
Texas. California may get 15%.


--
Joseph Meehan

Dia 's Muire duit

Joseph Meehan wrote:
jerryl wrote:
"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...
But do you set arbitrary limits on the front door? Do you have a
sign posted on your lawn saying "Give me your tired, your poor,
your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free. The wretched refuse
of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest tossed, to
me" --
Joseph Meehan

Dia 's Muire duit



Just because the sign is there doesn't mean they don't have to follow
the laws. Under your interpretation if I see a sign "Highway", I'd be
allowed to drive on it even if I didn't have a license. We are a
nation of laws and if you want to live here you have to obey those
laws. We have immigration laws and if immigrants bypass them, they
are illegal.

I like your highway idea. Now how would you feel if the politicians
decided that we have too many cars on the road and because building highways
is expensive and cars pollute we are going to limit who can drive.

We already do that, stupid. They're called toll roads,
or peak load pricing.

"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
link.net...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
thlink.net...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
thlink.net...

There are undoubtedly some agricultural functions that can be achieved
either mechanically or by hand labor. If the labor costs rise a
little,
from their current artificially depressed lows, machinery would move
in.


Erase that idea from your head. Farm machinery manufacturers have been
working for decades to find ways to harvest certain delicate crops. If
they
could build such things, farmers would buy them in a heartbeat.
*Some* things are amenable to cultivation and
harvesting by entirely mechanical means, but if the
cost of labor is low enough, it will be used in place
of machinery. If the cost of labor rises enough,
machinery will be used.


Take away migrant labor, and you'd better be ready for your kids to hit
the
fields to do the harvesting. Nasty, hot dirty work. It wrecks your back
even
if you're young and in shape. I'll bet a year's pay you'd hide your
kids in
Canada if our government required that kids put in a year of this type
of
work.
Governments in democratic market-oriented societies
don't ever "require" that people do certain tasks,
apart from (occasionally) military service. That's a
pretty stinky red herring you trotted out there.

Europe manages to grow a lot of food, including a lot
for export, without a large pool of illegally resident
farm workers. In addition, an already large and still
growing majority of illegally resident immigrants in
this country do not work in agriculture. We are
increasingly hearing stories of farmers allegedly
unable to get their crops harvested because of labor
shortages, even *with* undocumented immigrants.

The fact is, people are going to have to pay the price
for their food, and that price is probably going to
rise. Nothing inherently wrong with that. People eat
far too much food as it is, and a price rise will get
them to eat less.

Addressing your comments out of order:

The foods people might eat less of are exactly the ones they should eat
more of: Crops that are harvested by human hands.

You're trying to pass off a moral judgment as nutritional advice. Forget
it.

What moral judgement? What people should eat more of? Be careful answering
this.



As far as crops and machinery, certain crops CANNOT be harvested by any
known machinery,

That's fine. But certain crops can be.

The ones that can be harvested by machine ALREADY ARE. The rest are done by
hand, not because it's cheaper, but because the machinery to harvest it does
not exist. Perhaps robotics will change this in the future, but not yet. If
you think strawberries can be picked by machine, you're nuts. Same with
*all* tender produce. I think you are not a gardener, or you'd know these
things.




Now, for required work: The U.S., a democratic country:

"The first peacetime conscription came with the Selective Training and
Service Act of 1940. Active conscription ("the draft") ended in 1973.
Currently, male U.S. citizens, if aged eighteen through twenty five, are
required to register with the Selective Service System, whose mission is
"to provide manpower to the armed forces in an emergency" including a
"Health Care Personnel Delivery System" [4] and "to run an Alternative
Service Program for men classified as conscientious objectors during a
draft."

I see no reason why we could not have a conscription arrangement
(obviously with pay equivalent to what migrants make) for agricultural
work,

Most Americans see plenty wrong with it. Thankfully, views like yours are
in a decided, unsavory minority.
or cleaning hotel room, public bathrooms, and doing the grunt work in
restaurant kitchens. It would pay better than what the military pays new
recruits.

Other countries with required service. [snip crap about military
conscription]

I already covered that. We're talking about mandatory work in areas other
than military service. Democracies don't do that.


So, you'd find it wrong if the government said everyone from age 18 to 21
must put in 6 months of work in certain jobs that most people hate. At the
same time, you think it's fine to require military service, where, if you
actually do anything, you're likely to be killed or maimed? AND....in the
military, your pay will be a joke compared to making minimum wage.

I'm gonna need to hear your reasoning behind this, because it's gotta be
entertaining.

On Mar 9, 2:47 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
rthlink.net...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
. earthlink.net...

There are undoubtedly some agricultural functions that can be achieved
either mechanically or by hand labor. If the labor costs rise a little,
from their current artificially depressed lows, machinery would move in.

Erase that idea from your head. Farm machinery manufacturers have been
working for decades to find ways to harvest certain delicate crops. If
they
could build such things, farmers would buy them in a heartbeat.
*Some* things are amenable to cultivation and
harvesting by entirely mechanical means, but if the
cost of labor is low enough, it will be used in place
of machinery. If the cost of labor rises enough,
machinery will be used.

Take away migrant labor, and you'd better be ready for your kids to hit
the
fields to do the harvesting. Nasty, hot dirty work. It wrecks your back
even
if you're young and in shape. I'll bet a year's pay you'd hide your kids
in
Canada if our government required that kids put in a year of this type of
work.
Governments in democratic market-oriented societies
don't ever "require" that people do certain tasks,
apart from (occasionally) military service. That's a
pretty stinky red herring you trotted out there.

Europe manages to grow a lot of food, including a lot
for export, without a large pool of illegally resident
farm workers. In addition, an already large and still
growing majority of illegally resident immigrants in
this country do not work in agriculture. We are
increasingly hearing stories of farmers allegedly
unable to get their crops harvested because of labor
shortages, even *with* undocumented immigrants.

The fact is, people are going to have to pay the price
for their food, and that price is probably going to
rise. Nothing inherently wrong with that. People eat
far too much food as it is, and a price rise will get
them to eat less.

Addressing your comments out of order:

The foods people might eat less of are exactly the ones they should eat more
of: Crops that are harvested by human hands.

You're trying to pass off a moral judgment as
nutritional advice. Forget it.

As far as crops and machinery,
certain crops CANNOT be harvested by any known machinery,

That's fine. But certain crops can be.

Now, for required work: The U.S., a democratic country:

"The first peacetime conscription came with the Selective Training and
Service Act of 1940. Active conscription ("the draft") ended in 1973.
Currently, male U.S. citizens, if aged eighteen through twenty five, are
required to register with the Selective Service System, whose mission is "to
provide manpower to the armed forces in an emergency" including a "Health
Care Personnel Delivery System" [4] and "to run an Alternative Service
Program for men classified as conscientious objectors during a draft."

I see no reason why we could not have a conscription arrangement (obviously
with pay equivalent to what migrants make) for agricultural work,

Most Americans see plenty wrong with it. Thankfully,
views like yours are in a decided, unsavory minority.

or
cleaning hotel room, public bathrooms, and doing the grunt work in
restaurant kitchens. It would pay better than what the military pays new
recruits.

Other countries with required service. [snip crap about military conscription]

I already covered that. We're talking about mandatory
work in areas other than military service. Democracies
don't do that.- Hide quoted text -



Absolutely amazing how anyone thinks forced labor, as opposed to free
markets, is the answer to illegal immigration. I guess it's partly a
result of not teaching basic economics in high school. Or of teaching
history too, for that matter.

Rudy Canoza wrote:
Joseph Meehan wrote:
bill allemann wrote:
"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...
theodoric3@lyc

Joe
You should diversify your news sourcing. You are misinformed to a
spectacular extent.

Would you like to challenge any of the specific statements I made

What "specific statements"? You posed a set of
sophomoric and loaded questions that, taken together,
indicate you think there should be no limit on
immigration; no rules at all. Your sophomoric and
loaded questions indicate an astonishingly naive
misunderstanding.

So does that mean you really don't know if any of my statements are true
or are false, only that you disagree with them or want them to be false?


--
Joseph Meehan

Dia 's Muire duit

wrote in message
ps.com...
On Mar 9, 2:47 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
rthlink.net...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
. earthlink.net...

There are undoubtedly some agricultural functions that can be
achieved
either mechanically or by hand labor. If the labor costs rise a
little,
from their current artificially depressed lows, machinery would move
in.

Erase that idea from your head. Farm machinery manufacturers have
been
working for decades to find ways to harvest certain delicate crops.
If
they
could build such things, farmers would buy them in a heartbeat.
*Some* things are amenable to cultivation and
harvesting by entirely mechanical means, but if the
cost of labor is low enough, it will be used in place
of machinery. If the cost of labor rises enough,
machinery will be used.

Take away migrant labor, and you'd better be ready for your kids to
hit
the
fields to do the harvesting. Nasty, hot dirty work. It wrecks your
back
even
if you're young and in shape. I'll bet a year's pay you'd hide your
kids
in
Canada if our government required that kids put in a year of this
type of
work.
Governments in democratic market-oriented societies
don't ever "require" that people do certain tasks,
apart from (occasionally) military service. That's a
pretty stinky red herring you trotted out there.

Europe manages to grow a lot of food, including a lot
for export, without a large pool of illegally resident
farm workers. In addition, an already large and still
growing majority of illegally resident immigrants in
this country do not work in agriculture. We are
increasingly hearing stories of farmers allegedly
unable to get their crops harvested because of labor
shortages, even *with* undocumented immigrants.

The fact is, people are going to have to pay the price
for their food, and that price is probably going to
rise. Nothing inherently wrong with that. People eat
far too much food as it is, and a price rise will get
them to eat less.

Addressing your comments out of order:

The foods people might eat less of are exactly the ones they should eat
more
of: Crops that are harvested by human hands.

You're trying to pass off a moral judgment as
nutritional advice. Forget it.

As far as crops and machinery,
certain crops CANNOT be harvested by any known machinery,

That's fine. But certain crops can be.

Now, for required work: The U.S., a democratic country:

"The first peacetime conscription came with the Selective Training and
Service Act of 1940. Active conscription ("the draft") ended in 1973.
Currently, male U.S. citizens, if aged eighteen through twenty five,
are
required to register with the Selective Service System, whose mission
is "to
provide manpower to the armed forces in an emergency" including a
"Health
Care Personnel Delivery System" [4] and "to run an Alternative Service
Program for men classified as conscientious objectors during a draft."

I see no reason why we could not have a conscription arrangement
(obviously
with pay equivalent to what migrants make) for agricultural work,

Most Americans see plenty wrong with it. Thankfully,
views like yours are in a decided, unsavory minority.

or
cleaning hotel room, public bathrooms, and doing the grunt work in
restaurant kitchens. It would pay better than what the military pays
new
recruits.

Other countries with required service. [snip crap about military
conscription]

I already covered that. We're talking about mandatory
work in areas other than military service. Democracies
don't do that.- Hide quoted text -



Absolutely amazing how anyone thinks forced labor, as opposed to free
markets, is the answer to illegal immigration. I guess it's partly a
result of not teaching basic economics in high school. Or of teaching
history too, for that matter.


If you take away an entire labor force, what do you suggest to keep
industries from collapsing? Magic? Prayer?

jerryl wrote:
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or
that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only
unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American
public." Theodore Roosevelt, 1918

I reserve my right to disagree.


--
Joseph Meehan

Dia 's Muire duit



Now just what does that have to do with illegal aliens?

Well maybe if you had not snipped out the preceding section of the
message, it would make sense.


--
Joseph Meehan

Dia 's Muire duit

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
link.net...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
thlink.net...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
thlink.net...

There are undoubtedly some agricultural functions that can be achieved
either mechanically or by hand labor. If the labor costs rise a
little,
from their current artificially depressed lows, machinery would move
in.

Erase that idea from your head. Farm machinery manufacturers have been
working for decades to find ways to harvest certain delicate crops. If
they
could build such things, farmers would buy them in a heartbeat.
*Some* things are amenable to cultivation and
harvesting by entirely mechanical means, but if the
cost of labor is low enough, it will be used in place
of machinery. If the cost of labor rises enough,
machinery will be used.


Take away migrant labor, and you'd better be ready for your kids to hit
the
fields to do the harvesting. Nasty, hot dirty work. It wrecks your back
even
if you're young and in shape. I'll bet a year's pay you'd hide your
kids in
Canada if our government required that kids put in a year of this type
of
work.
Governments in democratic market-oriented societies
don't ever "require" that people do certain tasks,
apart from (occasionally) military service. That's a
pretty stinky red herring you trotted out there.

Europe manages to grow a lot of food, including a lot
for export, without a large pool of illegally resident
farm workers. In addition, an already large and still
growing majority of illegally resident immigrants in
this country do not work in agriculture. We are
increasingly hearing stories of farmers allegedly
unable to get their crops harvested because of labor
shortages, even *with* undocumented immigrants.

The fact is, people are going to have to pay the price
for their food, and that price is probably going to
rise. Nothing inherently wrong with that. People eat
far too much food as it is, and a price rise will get
them to eat less.
Addressing your comments out of order:

The foods people might eat less of are exactly the ones they should eat
more of: Crops that are harvested by human hands.
You're trying to pass off a moral judgment as nutritional advice. Forget
it.

What moral judgement? What people should eat more of? Be careful answering
this.

What's to be careful about? Your language suggests you
see some kind of moral virtue in hand harvesting.

People can eat all kinds of mechanically harvested
vegetables. Most fruits don't lend themselves to
mechanical harvesting, but it isn't the high cost of
labor that keeps people from eating fruit.

As far as crops and machinery, certain crops CANNOT be harvested by any
known machinery,
That's fine. But certain crops can be.

The ones that can be harvested by machine ALREADY ARE. The rest are done by
hand, not because it's cheaper, but because the machinery to harvest it does
not exist. Perhaps robotics will change this in the future, but not yet. If
you think strawberries can be picked by machine, you're nuts. Same with
*all* tender produce. I think you are not a gardener, or you'd know these
things.



Now, for required work: The U.S., a democratic country:

"The first peacetime conscription came with the Selective Training and
Service Act of 1940. Active conscription ("the draft") ended in 1973.
Currently, male U.S. citizens, if aged eighteen through twenty five, are
required to register with the Selective Service System, whose mission is
"to provide manpower to the armed forces in an emergency" including a
"Health Care Personnel Delivery System" [4] and "to run an Alternative
Service Program for men classified as conscientious objectors during a
draft."

I see no reason why we could not have a conscription arrangement
(obviously with pay equivalent to what migrants make) for agricultural
work,
Most Americans see plenty wrong with it. Thankfully, views like yours are
in a decided, unsavory minority.
or cleaning hotel room, public bathrooms, and doing the grunt work in
restaurant kitchens. It would pay better than what the military pays new
recruits.

Other countries with required service. [snip crap about military
conscription]
I already covered that. We're talking about mandatory work in areas other
than military service. Democracies don't do that.


So, you'd find it wrong if the government said everyone from age 18 to 21
must put in 6 months of work in certain jobs that most people hate.

Yes. The government in a democracy is of, by and for
the people, and I can guarantee you that the people in
the United States do not want that.


At the
same time, you think it's fine to require military service,

No. It isn't okay. What made you think I believe it
to be okay?

wrote:
On Mar 9, 2:47 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
thlink.net...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
thlink.net...
There are undoubtedly some agricultural functions that can be achieved
either mechanically or by hand labor. If the labor costs rise a little,
from their current artificially depressed lows, machinery would move in.
Erase that idea from your head. Farm machinery manufacturers have been
working for decades to find ways to harvest certain delicate crops. If
they
could build such things, farmers would buy them in a heartbeat.
*Some* things are amenable to cultivation and
harvesting by entirely mechanical means, but if the
cost of labor is low enough, it will be used in place
of machinery. If the cost of labor rises enough,
machinery will be used.
Take away migrant labor, and you'd better be ready for your kids to hit
the
fields to do the harvesting. Nasty, hot dirty work. It wrecks your back
even
if you're young and in shape. I'll bet a year's pay you'd hide your kids
in
Canada if our government required that kids put in a year of this type of
work.
Governments in democratic market-oriented societies
don't ever "require" that people do certain tasks,
apart from (occasionally) military service. That's a
pretty stinky red herring you trotted out there.
Europe manages to grow a lot of food, including a lot
for export, without a large pool of illegally resident
farm workers. In addition, an already large and still
growing majority of illegally resident immigrants in
this country do not work in agriculture. We are
increasingly hearing stories of farmers allegedly
unable to get their crops harvested because of labor
shortages, even *with* undocumented immigrants.
The fact is, people are going to have to pay the price
for their food, and that price is probably going to
rise. Nothing inherently wrong with that. People eat
far too much food as it is, and a price rise will get
them to eat less.
Addressing your comments out of order:
The foods people might eat less of are exactly the ones they should eat more
of: Crops that are harvested by human hands.
You're trying to pass off a moral judgment as
nutritional advice. Forget it.

As far as crops and machinery,
certain crops CANNOT be harvested by any known machinery,
That's fine. But certain crops can be.

Now, for required work: The U.S., a democratic country:
"The first peacetime conscription came with the Selective Training and
Service Act of 1940. Active conscription ("the draft") ended in 1973.
Currently, male U.S. citizens, if aged eighteen through twenty five, are
required to register with the Selective Service System, whose mission is "to
provide manpower to the armed forces in an emergency" including a "Health
Care Personnel Delivery System" [4] and "to run an Alternative Service
Program for men classified as conscientious objectors during a draft."
I see no reason why we could not have a conscription arrangement (obviously
with pay equivalent to what migrants make) for agricultural work,
Most Americans see plenty wrong with it. Thankfully,
views like yours are in a decided, unsavory minority.

or
cleaning hotel room, public bathrooms, and doing the grunt work in
restaurant kitchens. It would pay better than what the military pays new
recruits.
Other countries with required service. [snip crap about military conscription]
I already covered that. We're talking about mandatory
work in areas other than military service. Democracies
don't do that.- Hide quoted text -



Absolutely amazing how anyone thinks forced labor, as opposed to free
markets, is the answer to illegal immigration.

I find it hard to believe he really does think it. I
think he just enjoys being absurdly provocative.


I guess it's partly a
result of not teaching basic economics in high school. Or of teaching
history too, for that matter.

Joseph Meehan wrote:
Rudy Canoza wrote:
Joseph Meehan wrote:
bill allemann wrote:
"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...
theodoric3@lyc
Joe
You should diversify your news sourcing. You are misinformed to a
spectacular extent.
Would you like to challenge any of the specific statements I made
What "specific statements"? You posed a set of
sophomoric and loaded questions that, taken together,
indicate you think there should be no limit on
immigration; no rules at all. Your sophomoric and
loaded questions indicate an astonishingly naive
misunderstanding.

So does that mean you really don't know if any of my statements are true
or are false, only that you disagree with them or want them to be false?

You didn't make any statements, joey. You posed a
bunch of sophomoric and loaded questions. Your
questions can't be tested for truth or falsity because
they weren't statements. They were a bunch of value
judgments that you reworded into questions.

In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:


Hardly a reason to let them come in. If they were tossed out for
being illegal, then three things would happen. Some things wouldn't get
done because at "real" wages (w/o the extra illegals) they just aren't
profitable.

Conscripted people will work for minimum wage. No need to see jobs vanish
and things not get done.

Can we at least pretend to stay within the confines of reality?



In other instances, the wages and to a greater or larger
extent prices would go up.

Not if legal replacement workers receive the same wages as illegals.

But that is assuming a repeal of the laws of supply and demand.
Again try to keep it kinda sorta real.




In still other instances alternative ways of
doing things (automation, for instance) would take root and provide jobs
for those making the stuff.

I've already been through this last part of the discussion, many time, even
to the point where my curiosity made me call 3 farm equipment manufacturers
a couple of years ago. Unanimous responses: "Believe me - if we could figure
out a way to harvest certain crops by machine, we'd build that machine in a
heartbeat".

For some crops, human hands are the only option for now.

Automation was but one of the possibilities.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
wrote in message
ps.com...
On Mar 9, 2:47 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
thlink.net...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
thlink.net...
There are undoubtedly some agricultural functions that can be
achieved
either mechanically or by hand labor. If the labor costs rise a
little,
from their current artificially depressed lows, machinery would move
in.
Erase that idea from your head. Farm machinery manufacturers have
been
working for decades to find ways to harvest certain delicate crops.
If
they
could build such things, farmers would buy them in a heartbeat.
*Some* things are amenable to cultivation and
harvesting by entirely mechanical means, but if the
cost of labor is low enough, it will be used in place
of machinery. If the cost of labor rises enough,
machinery will be used.
Take away migrant labor, and you'd better be ready for your kids to
hit
the
fields to do the harvesting. Nasty, hot dirty work. It wrecks your
back
even
if you're young and in shape. I'll bet a year's pay you'd hide your
kids
in
Canada if our government required that kids put in a year of this
type of
work.
Governments in democratic market-oriented societies
don't ever "require" that people do certain tasks,
apart from (occasionally) military service. That's a
pretty stinky red herring you trotted out there.
Europe manages to grow a lot of food, including a lot
for export, without a large pool of illegally resident
farm workers. In addition, an already large and still
growing majority of illegally resident immigrants in
this country do not work in agriculture. We are
increasingly hearing stories of farmers allegedly
unable to get their crops harvested because of labor
shortages, even *with* undocumented immigrants.
The fact is, people are going to have to pay the price
for their food, and that price is probably going to
rise. Nothing inherently wrong with that. People eat
far too much food as it is, and a price rise will get
them to eat less.
Addressing your comments out of order:
The foods people might eat less of are exactly the ones they should eat
more
of: Crops that are harvested by human hands.
You're trying to pass off a moral judgment as
nutritional advice. Forget it.

As far as crops and machinery,
certain crops CANNOT be harvested by any known machinery,
That's fine. But certain crops can be.

Now, for required work: The U.S., a democratic country:
"The first peacetime conscription came with the Selective Training and
Service Act of 1940. Active conscription ("the draft") ended in 1973.
Currently, male U.S. citizens, if aged eighteen through twenty five,
are
required to register with the Selective Service System, whose mission
is "to
provide manpower to the armed forces in an emergency" including a
"Health
Care Personnel Delivery System" [4] and "to run an Alternative Service
Program for men classified as conscientious objectors during a draft."
I see no reason why we could not have a conscription arrangement
(obviously
with pay equivalent to what migrants make) for agricultural work,
Most Americans see plenty wrong with it. Thankfully,
views like yours are in a decided, unsavory minority.

or
cleaning hotel room, public bathrooms, and doing the grunt work in
restaurant kitchens. It would pay better than what the military pays
new
recruits.
Other countries with required service. [snip crap about military
conscription]
I already covered that. We're talking about mandatory
work in areas other than military service. Democracies
don't do that.- Hide quoted text -


Absolutely amazing how anyone thinks forced labor, as opposed to free
markets, is the answer to illegal immigration. I guess it's partly a
result of not teaching basic economics in high school. Or of teaching
history too, for that matter.


If you take away an entire labor force, what do you suggest to keep
industries from collapsing? Magic? Prayer?

What basis do you have for thinking the industries
would collapse?

In article et,
Rudy Canoza wrote:


Of course it did. There have been limits on immigration for most of
the history of the US
False.

True.

No, it's false.


I put the reasons for my statement

Your ahistorical bull****.

Okay. If you can't defend your position by anything other than
invective and smoke, I'm cool with that.

"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
link.net...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
link.net...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
thlink.net...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
thlink.net...

There are undoubtedly some agricultural functions that can be
achieved
either mechanically or by hand labor. If the labor costs rise a
little,
from their current artificially depressed lows, machinery would move
in.

Erase that idea from your head. Farm machinery manufacturers have
been
working for decades to find ways to harvest certain delicate crops.
If they
could build such things, farmers would buy them in a heartbeat.
*Some* things are amenable to cultivation and
harvesting by entirely mechanical means, but if the
cost of labor is low enough, it will be used in place
of machinery. If the cost of labor rises enough,
machinery will be used.


Take away migrant labor, and you'd better be ready for your kids to
hit the
fields to do the harvesting. Nasty, hot dirty work. It wrecks your
back even
if you're young and in shape. I'll bet a year's pay you'd hide your
kids in
Canada if our government required that kids put in a year of this
type of
work.
Governments in democratic market-oriented societies
don't ever "require" that people do certain tasks,
apart from (occasionally) military service. That's a
pretty stinky red herring you trotted out there.

Europe manages to grow a lot of food, including a lot
for export, without a large pool of illegally resident
farm workers. In addition, an already large and still
growing majority of illegally resident immigrants in
this country do not work in agriculture. We are
increasingly hearing stories of farmers allegedly
unable to get their crops harvested because of labor
shortages, even *with* undocumented immigrants.

The fact is, people are going to have to pay the price
for their food, and that price is probably going to
rise. Nothing inherently wrong with that. People eat
far too much food as it is, and a price rise will get
them to eat less.
Addressing your comments out of order:

The foods people might eat less of are exactly the ones they should eat
more of: Crops that are harvested by human hands.
You're trying to pass off a moral judgment as nutritional advice.
Forget it.

What moral judgement? What people should eat more of? Be careful
answering this.

What's to be careful about? Your language suggests you see some kind of
moral virtue in hand harvesting.

People can eat all kinds of mechanically harvested vegetables. Most
fruits don't lend themselves to mechanical harvesting, but it isn't the
high cost of labor that keeps people from eating fruit.

This isn't a moral judgement about how it's harvested! I don't care how it
is removed from the plant. The point is that much of what is REQUIRED for a
healthy diet cannot be harvested by machines. Take away the hand harvesting,
and say goodbye to a lot of what you see in the stores. Hire people who
insist on real money, and you'd better get happy with paying more per pound
for a lot of the stuff you now take for granted.




Other countries with required service. [snip crap about military
conscription]
I already covered that. We're talking about mandatory work in areas
other than military service. Democracies don't do that.


So, you'd find it wrong if the government said everyone from age 18 to 21
must put in 6 months of work in certain jobs that most people hate.

Yes. The government in a democracy is of, by and for the people, and I
can guarantee you that the people in the United States do not want that.


At the same time, you think it's fine to require military service,

No. It isn't okay. What made you think I believe it to be okay?


Does your attitude perhaps stem from a "military service is honorable" idea,
and other service to the country is less honorable?

"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
link.net...


If you take away an entire labor force, what do you suggest to keep
industries from collapsing? Magic? Prayer?

What basis do you have for thinking the industries would collapse?


Farmers have real problems selling their crops if they can't harvest them.
If there aren't enough humans to harvest them, the farmers can't sell the
crops. This already happened in California last year, due to shortages of
workers.

OK now?

"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
link.net...


Absolutely amazing how anyone thinks forced labor, as opposed to free
markets, is the answer to illegal immigration.

I find it hard to believe he really does think it. I think he just enjoys
being absurdly provocative.


If the country needed soldiers badly enough, you'd be fine with
conscription. If the country's food supply was at risk, you'd have problems
with requiring people to serve the country with a pay scale equal to other
jobs they might get.

So, if we got rid of migrant workers, many of whom are illegals, how would
you propose getting strawberries and lettuce out of the fields and into
trucks? Prayer?

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:


Hardly a reason to let them come in. If they were tossed out for
being illegal, then three things would happen. Some things wouldn't get
done because at "real" wages (w/o the extra illegals) they just aren't
profitable.

Conscripted people will work for minimum wage. No need to see jobs vanish
and things not get done.

Can we at least pretend to stay within the confines of reality?

Which part of the ABOVE do you consider to be a departure from reality? 18
year olds already work **** jobs and they're happy to get them. They rarely
stick around for more than a year anyway.



In other instances, the wages and to a greater or larger
extent prices would go up.

Not if legal replacement workers receive the same wages as illegals.

But that is assuming a repeal of the laws of supply and demand.
Again try to keep it kinda sorta real.

We're discussing a hypothetical situation he All the meat heads who want
the illegals out - they get their wish and they're gone tomorrow, just in
time for planting season across much of America. How do you replace them,
and what do you pay them?

You said "Automation was but one of the possibilities." What others do you
suggest?

Joseph Meehan wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 9, 5:33 am, wrote:
If you know of employers who hire ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS of ANY
NATIONALITY...
...
NOW I KNOW BETTER NOWand SO DO YOU.
FYI

greg

Why do you see so much hate and fear?

Why is our reaction always negative?

Why don't we remember that this country was founded on the principle of
immigrants being welcome Why can't we remember that nearly all of us here
have ancestors who were immigrants and who would have been illegal under the
current restrictive laws?

Why don't we welcome them and insist that our government eliminate the
hateful fearful barriers?

Why can't people realize that most immigrants are some of the best
people who are looking for a better life and are willing to work for it.

Why have we forgotten the words inscribed on the Statue of Liberty?

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to breathe
free. The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless,
tempest tossed, to me"

What has happened to this country?



WHAT IS SO ****ING HARD ABOUT DIFFERENTIAING BETWEEN LEGAL IMMIGRANTS
AND ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS? IF YOU JUMP THROUGH ALL THE HOOPS AND QUALIFY,
THEN WELCOME. IF YOU GOTTA COME IN ILLEGALLY THEN YOU AREN'T WELCOME.
WHAT MAKE YOU THINK YOU ARE SO SPECIAL THAT THE RULES DON'T APPLY TO YOU?

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article et,
Rudy Canoza wrote:


Of course it did. There have been limits on immigration for most of
the history of the US
False.
True.
No, it's false.


I put the reasons for my statement
Your ahistorical bull****.

Okay. If you can't defend your position by anything other than
invective and smoke,

You made a factually untrue statement that there have
been limits on immigration for most of the history of
the U.S. The first immigration law you cited, the
Immigration Act of 1891, rather obviously came in over
a century after the conclusion of the War of
Independence. It has now been a little more than a
century since that act, so in fact, what you showed is
that there has been some kind of limit placed on
immigration for about 50% of the duration of the
country. Of course, there was a century and a half of
unrestricted immigration to the colonies prior to the
War of Independence.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
link.net...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
link.net...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
thlink.net...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
thlink.net...

There are undoubtedly some agricultural functions that can be
achieved
either mechanically or by hand labor. If the labor costs rise a
little,
from their current artificially depressed lows, machinery would move
in.

Erase that idea from your head. Farm machinery manufacturers have
been
working for decades to find ways to harvest certain delicate crops.
If they
could build such things, farmers would buy them in a heartbeat.
*Some* things are amenable to cultivation and
harvesting by entirely mechanical means, but if the
cost of labor is low enough, it will be used in place
of machinery. If the cost of labor rises enough,
machinery will be used.


Take away migrant labor, and you'd better be ready for your kids to
hit the
fields to do the harvesting. Nasty, hot dirty work. It wrecks your
back even
if you're young and in shape. I'll bet a year's pay you'd hide your
kids in
Canada if our government required that kids put in a year of this
type of
work.
Governments in democratic market-oriented societies
don't ever "require" that people do certain tasks,
apart from (occasionally) military service. That's a
pretty stinky red herring you trotted out there.

Europe manages to grow a lot of food, including a lot
for export, without a large pool of illegally resident
farm workers. In addition, an already large and still
growing majority of illegally resident immigrants in
this country do not work in agriculture. We are
increasingly hearing stories of farmers allegedly
unable to get their crops harvested because of labor
shortages, even *with* undocumented immigrants.

The fact is, people are going to have to pay the price
for their food, and that price is probably going to
rise. Nothing inherently wrong with that. People eat
far too much food as it is, and a price rise will get
them to eat less.
Addressing your comments out of order:

The foods people might eat less of are exactly the ones they should eat
more of: Crops that are harvested by human hands.
You're trying to pass off a moral judgment as nutritional advice.
Forget it.
What moral judgement? What people should eat more of? Be careful
answering this.
What's to be careful about? Your language suggests you see some kind of
moral virtue in hand harvesting.

People can eat all kinds of mechanically harvested vegetables. Most
fruits don't lend themselves to mechanical harvesting, but it isn't the
high cost of labor that keeps people from eating fruit.

This isn't a moral judgement about how it's harvested! I don't care how it
is removed from the plant. The point is that much of what is REQUIRED for a
healthy diet cannot be harvested by machines. Take away the hand harvesting,
and say goodbye to a lot of what you see in the stores. Hire people who
insist on real money, and you'd better get happy with paying more per pound
for a lot of the stuff you now take for granted.




Other countries with required service. [snip crap about military
conscription]
I already covered that. We're talking about mandatory work in areas
other than military service. Democracies don't do that.

So, you'd find it wrong if the government said everyone from age 18 to 21
must put in 6 months of work in certain jobs that most people hate.
Yes. The government in a democracy is of, by and for the people, and I
can guarantee you that the people in the United States do not want that.


At the same time, you think it's fine to require military service,
No. It isn't okay. What made you think I believe it to be okay?


Does your attitude perhaps stem from a "military service is honorable" idea,
and other service to the country is less honorable?

I don't believe in involuntary servitude for any purpose.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
link.net...

If you take away an entire labor force, what do you suggest to keep
industries from collapsing? Magic? Prayer?
What basis do you have for thinking the industries would collapse?


Farmers have real problems selling their crops if they can't harvest them.

Farmers might just have to pay the cost of getting the
crops harvested.


If there aren't enough humans to harvest them, the farmers can't sell the
crops. This already happened in California last year, due to shortages of
workers.

I kept hearing stories about it, including ones that
seemed very suspicious about the pear crop in the
northern counties, but I never noticed any shortage of
pears in the markets, and the prices didn't seem all
that high to me compared to previous years.

It wasn't due to any clamp-down on illegal immigration
that there might have been some temporary shortages of
farm labor. If farmers want workers, they're going to
have to pay high enough wages to get people out there
to do the work. If they want tractors, they're going
to have to pay the market price for tractors. Labor is
not, and should not be, any different from other
resource inputs to firms.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
link.net...


Absolutely amazing how anyone thinks forced labor, as opposed to free
markets, is the answer to illegal immigration.
I find it hard to believe he really does think it. I think he just enjoys
being absurdly provocative.


If the country needed soldiers badly enough, you'd be fine with
conscription.

False.


If the country's food supply was at risk, you'd have problems
with requiring people to serve the country with a pay scale equal to other
jobs they might get.

The country's food supply is not at risk. Involuntary
servitude is always wrong. We have a constitutional
amendment against it. You could look it up.


So, if we got rid of migrant workers, many of whom are illegals, how would
you propose getting strawberries and lettuce out of the fields and into
trucks? Prayer?

No. Labor, as in the past. Farmers will just have to
pay more for it. Some of that cost they'll pass on to
the consumer, and some of it the farmers will have to
eat. That's how it goes in other industries; no reason
for agriculture to be any different.

Charlie Morgan wrote:
On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 20:13:17 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
link.net...


Absolutely amazing how anyone thinks forced labor, as opposed to free
markets, is the answer to illegal immigration.
I find it hard to believe he really does think it. I think he just enjoys
being absurdly provocative.

If the country needed soldiers badly enough, you'd be fine with
conscription. If the country's food supply was at risk, you'd have problems
with requiring people to serve the country with a pay scale equal to other
jobs they might get.

So, if we got rid of migrant workers, many of whom are illegals, how would
you propose getting strawberries and lettuce out of the fields and into
trucks? Prayer?


Joe, relax...

http://www.myspace.com/rudycanoza

You are being trolled

He isn't being trolled.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:


Hardly a reason to let them come in. If they were tossed out for
being illegal, then three things would happen. Some things wouldn't get
done because at "real" wages (w/o the extra illegals) they just aren't
profitable.
Conscripted people will work for minimum wage. No need to see jobs vanish
and things not get done.

Can we at least pretend to stay within the confines of reality?

Which part of the ABOVE do you consider to be a departure from reality? 18
year olds already work **** jobs and they're happy to get them. They rarely
stick around for more than a year anyway.

They don't do it at the point of a gun.


In other instances, the wages and to a greater or larger
extent prices would go up.
Not if legal replacement workers receive the same wages as illegals.
But that is assuming a repeal of the laws of supply and demand.
Again try to keep it kinda sorta real.

We're discussing a hypothetical situation he All the meat heads who want
the illegals out - they get their wish and they're gone tomorrow, just in
time for planting season across much of America. How do you replace them,
and what do you pay them?

Farmers just have to pay higher wages, that's all.



You said "Automation was but one of the possibilities." What others do you
suggest?

"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
hlink.net...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
link.net...

If you take away an entire labor force, what do you suggest to keep
industries from collapsing? Magic? Prayer?
What basis do you have for thinking the industries would collapse?


Farmers have real problems selling their crops if they can't harvest
them.

Farmers might just have to pay the cost of getting the crops harvested.


Good. Now we're getting somewhere. Now you can tell me why you don't see
nice white American kids busting their asses picking vegetables. And, you
can tell me how you'd replace migrants if they were all sent back to their
native countries.

"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
link.net...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
link.net...


Absolutely amazing how anyone thinks forced labor, as opposed to free
markets, is the answer to illegal immigration.
I find it hard to believe he really does think it. I think he just
enjoys being absurdly provocative.


If the country needed soldiers badly enough, you'd be fine with
conscription.

False.


If the country's food supply was at risk, you'd have problems with
requiring people to serve the country with a pay scale equal to other
jobs they might get.

The country's food supply is not at risk. Involuntary servitude is always
wrong. We have a constitutional amendment against it. You could look it
up.


So, if we got rid of migrant workers, many of whom are illegals, how
would you propose getting strawberries and lettuce out of the fields and
into trucks? Prayer?

No. Labor, as in the past. Farmers will just have to pay more for it.
Some of that cost they'll pass on to the consumer, and some of it the
farmers will have to eat. That's how it goes in other industries; no
reason for agriculture to be any different.


Some farmers pay illegals the legal minimum wage. 18 year old nice white
genuine Americans get the same money working at McDonald's for the same
money. Why don't you think they even apply for farm work?

"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
link.net...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:


Hardly a reason to let them come in. If they were tossed out for
being illegal, then three things would happen. Some things wouldn't
get
done because at "real" wages (w/o the extra illegals) they just aren't
profitable.
Conscripted people will work for minimum wage. No need to see jobs
vanish
and things not get done.

Can we at least pretend to stay within the confines of reality?

Which part of the ABOVE do you consider to be a departure from reality?
18 year olds already work **** jobs and they're happy to get them. They
rarely stick around for more than a year anyway.

They don't do it at the point of a gun.


In other instances, the wages and to a greater or larger
extent prices would go up.
Not if legal replacement workers receive the same wages as illegals.
But that is assuming a repeal of the laws of supply and demand.
Again try to keep it kinda sorta real.

We're discussing a hypothetical situation he All the meat heads who
want the illegals out - they get their wish and they're gone tomorrow,
just in time for planting season across much of America. How do you
replace them, and what do you pay them?

Farmers just have to pay higher wages, that's all.

Are you ready for $8.00 per pound lettuce & broccoli? How do you think that
would affect low income people?

Why don't we remember that this country was founded on the principle of
immigrants being welcome Why can't we remember that nearly all of us here
have ancestors who were immigrants and who would have been illegal under the
current restrictive laws?

So illegal immigrants are the same as legal ones?

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
hlink.net...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
link.net...

If you take away an entire labor force, what do you suggest to keep
industries from collapsing? Magic? Prayer?
What basis do you have for thinking the industries would collapse?

Farmers have real problems selling their crops if they can't harvest
them.
Farmers might just have to pay the cost of getting the crops harvested.


Good. Now we're getting somewhere. Now you can tell me why you don't see
nice white American kids busting their asses picking vegetables.

It has never been any mystery.


And, you
can tell me how you'd replace migrants if they were all sent back to their
native countries.

You wouldn't replace all of them. Because input costs
of producing some crops would rise a lot, the prices of
those goods in stores would also rise. Because of the
price rise, people would consume less of them. Because
people are consuming less, the amount produced would
fall. Because less is produced, less labor is needed.

If one understands basic theory of consumer demand and
basic theory of the firm - with seven years of
economics under my belt, including three at the Ph.D.
level, I understand them; how about you? - then there
is no great mystery to how this would play out at all.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
link.net...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:


Hardly a reason to let them come in. If they were tossed out for
being illegal, then three things would happen. Some things wouldn't
get
done because at "real" wages (w/o the extra illegals) they just aren't
profitable.
Conscripted people will work for minimum wage. No need to see jobs
vanish
and things not get done.

Can we at least pretend to stay within the confines of reality?
Which part of the ABOVE do you consider to be a departure from reality?
18 year olds already work **** jobs and they're happy to get them. They
rarely stick around for more than a year anyway.
They don't do it at the point of a gun.


In other instances, the wages and to a greater or larger
extent prices would go up.
Not if legal replacement workers receive the same wages as illegals.
But that is assuming a repeal of the laws of supply and demand.
Again try to keep it kinda sorta real.
We're discussing a hypothetical situation he All the meat heads who
want the illegals out - they get their wish and they're gone tomorrow,
just in time for planting season across much of America. How do you
replace them, and what do you pay them?
Farmers just have to pay higher wages, that's all.

Are you ready for $8.00 per pound lettuce & broccoli?

I doubt it would go that high. I think those two
crops, for one things, are things that *do* lend
themselves to more mechanization.


How do you think that
would affect low income people?

Worse than it would affect higher income people. Most
price increases affect poor people more than rich people.

You're not suggesting that massive illegal immigration
is countenanced as a policy goal of providing cheap
food for poor people, are you?

Our ancestors came here LEGALLY. They assimilated by learning ENGLISH
and becoming Americans. These new immigrants just want to take and
epect us to cater to them. Put them in cargo containers and drop them
into the ocean!!!

On Mar 9, 9:21 am, "Joseph Meehan" wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 9, 5:33 am, wrote:
If you know of employers who hire ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS of ANY
NATIONALITY...
...
NOW I KNOW BETTER NOWand SO DO YOU.

FYI

greg

Why do you see so much hate and fear?

Why is our reaction always negative?

Why don't we remember that this country was founded on the principle of
immigrants being welcome Why can't we remember that nearly all of us here
have ancestors who were immigrants and who would have been illegal under the
current restrictive laws?

Why don't we welcome them and insist that our government eliminate the
hateful fearful barriers?

Why can't people realize that most immigrants are some of the best
people who are looking for a better life and are willing to work for it.

Why have we forgotten the words inscribed on the Statue of Liberty?

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to breathe
free. The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless,
tempest tossed, to me"

What has happened to this country?

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia 's Muire duit

"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
link.net...


Are you ready for $8.00 per pound lettuce & broccoli?

I doubt it would go that high. I think those two crops, for one things,
are things that *do* lend themselves to more mechanization.

You can stop saying that now. It's getting old, and it is in no way
connected with the reality of how things grow.






How do you think that would affect low income people?

Worse than it would affect higher income people. Most price increases
affect poor people more than rich people.

You're not suggesting that massive illegal immigration is countenanced as
a policy goal of providing cheap food for poor people, are you?


No, but is sure as hell is the way the economy has been structured over the
past 50-75 years. When meat heads wail about throwing out migrant workers,
they don't consider that it'll take quite some time to adjust. The biggest
adjustment will be convincing people that someone has to do "that kind of
work", and I don't care WHAT you pay them - you won't be able to accelerate
the cultural adjustment.

wrote:
Our ancestors came here LEGALLY.

For many, there was no legal issue to consider: in the
first have of the life of the country, there was
essentially no legal restriction or regulation of
immigration. If you go back to colonial days,
unrestricted immigration has been in effect for more
than 2/3 of the time the North America has had a major
English speaking presence.

They assimilated by learning ENGLISH
and becoming Americans. These new immigrants just want to take and
epect us to cater to them. Put them in cargo containers and drop them
into the ocean!!!

That's murder.


On Mar 9, 9:21 am, "Joseph Meehan" wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 9, 5:33 am, wrote:
If you know of employers who hire ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS of ANY
NATIONALITY...
...
NOW I KNOW BETTER NOWand SO DO YOU.
FYI
greg
Why do you see so much hate and fear?

Why is our reaction always negative?

Why don't we remember that this country was founded on the principle of
immigrants being welcome Why can't we remember that nearly all of us here
have ancestors who were immigrants and who would have been illegal under the
current restrictive laws?

Why don't we welcome them and insist that our government eliminate the
hateful fearful barriers?

Why can't people realize that most immigrants are some of the best
people who are looking for a better life and are willing to work for it.

Why have we forgotten the words inscribed on the Statue of Liberty?

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to breathe
free. The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless,
tempest tossed, to me"

What has happened to this country?

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia 's Muire duit