Should Illegal Immigrants receive safe harbor in US cities?

[masterrig 1]

Quote

>What I want to know is, with all those mortgages and housing to
>be built... who's going to feed them?

Von's. Which will mean they need more produce. Which will mean more farming. And those farms will need more labor. Where will they get this labor? Hmmmm . . . .
____________________________________

With farm and ranchland shrinking by the thousands of acres, on a weekly basis... where will the land be to grow the produce? No farmland... no need for labor. We're turning deserts and swampland into housing and business development. In this part of Texas, it takes about 20-acres to graze one cow!

>What about the loss of farm and ranchland we are facing at the rate
>of thousands of acres being lost to 'expansion'?

More farms will open. The value of farmland will go up; this will deter developers from using farmland as opposed to undeveloped land. Developers will instead choose unimproved property.
_______________________________________

If, the farm and ranchland is being used for expansion of cities and housing, where is this farm and ranchland going to come from?

>All those folks are thinking about is the money they are going to
>put in their pocket.

Which makes them perfectly suited to be americans.

________________________________________

Exactly! Do't worry about tomorrow, when you can make it all today!


Chuck

[GravityGirl 0]

Quote

Quote

If, a person wants to immigrate to this country and go through the process of becoming a citizen... great

Would I be ranting if I pointed out that the INS holds double standards as to how they treat people coming from different countries? If you're from a certain part of the world and you have the right skills, the INS has an open door policy towards allowing people in and becoming permanent residents and citizens if they want. If you're from another country that has so called free-trade agreements, they'll let you in as a temporary resident (assuming you meet the oppropriate skill set), but bring up the idea of trying to obtain permanent status and the INS does everything in their power to show you the door and even threatens you with permanent bans. And if you're an illegal from Mexico, well they just turn a blind eye.

Okay yes I was ranting.

You're just bitter, because they didn't let you in.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peace and Blue Skies!
Bonnie ==>Gravity Gear!

[billvon 2,400]

>With farm and ranchland shrinking by the thousands of acres, on
>a weekly basis... where will the land be to grow the produce?

Locally? They will expand the cropland in the California central valley. There are literally millions of acres in the Northwest (for example, near Bend, Oregon) that aren't yet used. Next time you take a flight across the country, look out the window and compare the open land to the developed land and the farmland. Open land far, far outweighs the developed land.

Now, most people stick to developed areas, so they never see the open land, they just see the new developments.

Also, once food prices go up, the shrinkage of ranchland will stop rapidly. Ranchers will make more per acre, so they won't sell out to developers. It will be in their economic best interests to hold onto the land.

>If, the farm and ranchland is being used for expansion of cities
>and housing, where is this farm and ranchland going to come from?

a) it will no longer be used for expansion due to normal economic forces

b) new farms will open up. There's a pretty cool Google Earth thing going now where you can look all across the US. Pick any square at random, and you'll likely see open plains.

[Richards 0]

No. The whole point of having a law is that we have found a need for it. If we create laws designed to circumvent our original laws then we are implicitly stating our laws are wrong and therefore should change them. If there is really a need for more immigrants than the system allows then change the policy. Untill then it sets a bad precident to be designing our system to make it easier to break the laws.

The don't ask don't tell laws that some states have with regards to this do a disservice to the taxpayers who's services are being used up by illegals who on average use them at a higher rate than citizens (www.cis.org).

Immigration is neither good nor bad. It is simply a policy tool like taxation. It is the implementation that is good or bad. For a rich nation to utilize illegals, because they do not want to pay minimum wage is deplorable. There is a reason why minimum wage laws were brought in, so we can make sure that our lowest socio-economic types can at least live at a somewhat liveable standard.

Studies have shown that use of excessive immigration (or implicit acceptance of illegal immigration) do not increase productivity contrary to polular misconception, they simply decrease the cost of it via lower wages. Therefore it only accomplishes a transfer of wealth from labour to business.

Policies such as DADT, or amnesty only encourage the problem.

Richards

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

[masterrig 1]

Quote

>With farm and ranchland shrinking by the thousands of acres, on
>a weekly basis... where will the land be to grow the produce?

Locally? They will expand the cropland in the California central valley. There are literally millions of acres in the Northwest (for example, near Bend, Oregon) that aren't yet used. Next time you take a flight across the country, look out the window and compare the open land to the developed land and the farmland. Open land far, far outweighs the developed land.

Now, most people stick to developed areas, so they never see the open land, they just see the new developments.

Also, once food prices go up, the shrinkage of ranchland will stop rapidly. Ranchers will make more per acre, so they won't sell out to developers. It will be in their economic best interests to hold onto the land.

>If, the farm and ranchland is being used for expansion of cities
>and housing, where is this farm and ranchland going to come from?

a) it will no longer be used for expansion due to normal economic forces

b) new farms will open up. There's a pretty cool Google Earth thing going now where you can look all across the US. Pick any square at random, and you'll likely see open plains.

__________________________________________

Do you really believe that 'new' farms and ranches will open-up? The govt. has and is making it so difficult for the farmer and rancher that there is little profit in it for the family farmer and rancher. I work for a rancher and I listen to him and other ranchers. As farm and ranch owners pass from existance, the 'kids', don't want to mess with ranching or farming so, the land gets sold to developers. I get out and see what's going on out there. After private lands, you have BLM lands, State park lands and Natl. park lands. Also, just because there is a 'vast expanse' of open lands, does not necessarily mean that the land is good for farming and or ranching. Then, you've got the conservancy folks who are taking-up farm and ranch lands for their purposes, namely money. Sure, there's parts of the country where there are vast open lands and maybe, irrigation will make that land usable for farming. How are you going to get the water there to irrigate? Pipelines, cost money. Here in West Texas, we've got a problem with folks wanting to buy the water from 5-West Texas counties to sell to the folks in Dallas and other cities because their water supplies are dwindling. The 5-counties I'm referring to have been in a drought for the past 13-14 yrs. Farmers and ranchers in those counties need all the water they can get to continue their operations. No water... no cattle or corn! Also, the farmers and ranchers 'percentage' of the profits from the sale of their cattle or produce is much less than what the guy who bought it gets. Also, without rain, grass doesn't grow. Cattle eat grass. So, the rancher has to buy feed to keep his cattle going. If, he can't afford to feed his cattle, he has to sell-off some of his stock, usually, at below market value. often times, the next step is to sell his ranch. The buyer's set the market. Farmers, go through the same things. So, if, they can't grow crops, they go under. It's not just a matter of going to Von's or Kroger's. One percent of our population feeds 100% of the population. There's no telling, what the future is going to bring. Iguess, we'll just have to wait and see.
Also, what are the 'normal economic forces'?
Also, in regard to 'illegals', they aren't looking for the Ag. jobs... they want the higher paying factory and construction jobs. There's damned few who come here just for the Ag. jobs and stay at those jobs.


Chuck

[billvon 2,400]

>Do you really believe that 'new' farms and ranches will open-up?

If demand is there, yes. Basic economics will cause new farms to open up.

>The govt. has and is making it so difficult for the farmer and rancher
>that there is little profit in it for the family farmer and rancher.

I agree. But clearly there is enough to keep them going. Now if demand for corn goes up? Prices go up. A farmer makes 10% more, which if his farm is already surviving, means additional profit. Joe Farmer, who was about to go under because he can't pay his bills, decides to keep his land instead of selling it to a developer - because now he can.

>Sure, there's parts of the country where there are vast open lands
>and maybe, irrigation will make that land usable for farming.

And there are places that you either don't need to irrigate or the land already provides water in the form of rivers/groundwater. If water is scarce in the Central Valley (which it is) then that's where they will go.

Also keep in mind that we're talking about feeding US. We currently export 2 billion bushels of corn a year; that's about 100 billion pounds of corn a year. That will feed a lot of people in the US if it has to.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

You guys talk as if the illegals only work in the farming industries. Don't forget that they are used in other places as well (fastfood, construction, etc, etc, etc).

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[billvon 2,400]

>You guys talk as if the illegals only work in the farming industries.

Not at all. The original post I was replying to was "who's going to feed [these new immigrants?]" The poster was worried that with so many new mouths to feed, we wouldn't have enough food.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

>Bill what do you think will happen when 49% of mexico's
>citizens come here ?

Legally? They would get jobs, you'd see a boom in construction. Unemployment would go up. The military would suddenly have no problem at all attracting recruits. Some people would hate them. And in 30 years, they will be as american as you or I. A mexican may well be our next JFK, or Martin Luther King, or Thomas Edison, or Madonna.

When my grandparents came here they were not welcome. "Irish need not apply," read all the papers. But the country survived. It will survive this as well. Heck, compared to our population now, we are seeing a far smaller percentage of immigrants (even if you count the illegal ones.) 4.7 million Irish came over between 1820 and 1940.

No Bill they said they would come illegally

[masterrig 1]

Quote

>Do you really believe that 'new' farms and ranches will open-up?

If demand is there, yes. Basic economics will cause new farms to open up.
________________________________________

With vast expanses of urban sprawl, that, takes land. The more land taken-up by urban spral, there becomes a shortage of agricultural lands. then too, you have to keep in mind that all these people, there will be many of them who will want to hunt and fish. That, takes land too. There's big money, leasing land to hunters. If, there is no land left, I don't care how much demand there is, a 'new' farm or ranch isn't just going to appear.

>The govt. has and is making it so difficult for the farmer and rancher
>that there is little profit in it for the family farmer and rancher.

I agree. But clearly there is enough to keep them going. Now if demand for corn goes up? Prices go up. A farmer makes 10% more, which if his farm is already surviving, means additional profit. Joe Farmer, who was about to go under because he can't pay his bills, decides to keep his land instead of selling it to a developer - because now he can.
___________________________________

Prices do go up for ag. products but, not necessarily to the farmer or rancher. Also, a farmer or rancher gets only one paycheck a year... when he sells his product. Then, he gets to make payments on his farm or ranch, not to mention his machinery.
The increased price we see for meat and produce, doesn't always mean that the farmer or rancher saw any increase in profit.
Right now, we're doing o.k. What aboty 10 - 20 yrs. down the road when our population is about double what it is now. Land doesn't magically appear when urban sprawl eats it up.

>Sure, there's parts of the country where there are vast open lands
>and maybe, irrigation will make that land usable for farming.

And there are places that you either don't need to irrigate or the land already provides water in the form of rivers/groundwater. If water is scarce in the Central Valley (which it is) then that's where they will go.
______________________________________

What about the demand from the big cities like L.A., San Francisco and the like? Those people need and want water too. When they start pipe-lining the water from other areas, this doesn't leave much for the farmers and ranchers. In most of the agricultural parts of this country, those areas can go a whole season with little or no rain. That ground water comes from rain.

Also keep in mind that we're talking about feeding US. We currently export 2 billion bushels of corn a year; that's about 100 billion pounds of corn a year. That will feed a lot of people in the US if it has to.

____________________________________

Not if contracts with foreign countries have to be met.
Do we just 'cut-off' foreign trade?


Chuck

[billvon 2,400]

>With vast expanses of urban sprawl, that, takes land. The more land
>taken-up by urban spral, there becomes a shortage of agricultural
> lands.

You are assuming that the only option is to build on former farms. That is not the case. Around here most new construction is on non-farm areas (like the sides of hills.)

>then too, you have to keep in mind that all these people, there will
> be many of them who will want to hunt and fish.

Are you seriously using this as a reason we can't support more immigration? There won't be enough space to hunt?

Well, in that case, we can't sell any more hunting rifles either!

>The increased price we see for meat and produce, doesn't always
> mean that the farmer or rancher saw any increase in profit.

If they can get significantly more money for their products, and their profits don't change - then they deserve to go out of business. Another, smarter farmer will take over and make money where they failed to. That's capitalism as well.

>What about the demand from the big cities like L.A., San Francisco
>and the like? Those people need and want water too. When they
> start pipe-lining the water from other areas, this doesn't leave much
> for the farmers and ranchers.

This is happening now. Result is that water prices go up, and farmers relocate to where water is cheaper. (Or they swing some deal with the federal government to subsidize their water.)

>Not if contracts with foreign countries have to be met.
>Do we just 'cut-off' foreign trade?

Nope. We just sell slightly less grain to Mexico, because those people are now here. Total number of people hasn't changed.

[billvon 2,400]

>No Bill they said they would come illegally

Like I said, make it easier for them to come legally and harder for them to come illegally. We should not be in the business of keeping people out of the US who want to come here legally; it's how we became a country to begin with.

[Buried 0]

I wonder what would have happened if the police asked each person for their greencard

Where is my fizzy-lifting drink?

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

I wonder what would have happened if the police asked each person for their greencard

Mayor Daley and his handpuppet, Blowjobabitch would have had them fired for upholding the law.

Actually it could have been done then round them all up in Soldiers Field and then deported.

Then it would be reported as a human rights violation even if they were fed, sheltered, and given new pink jammies.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

>No Bill they said they would come illegally

Like I said, make it easier for them to come legally and harder for them to come illegally. We should not be in the business of keeping people out of the US who want to come here legally; it's how we became a country to begin with.

They are already allowed to immigrate here at a level surpassing any other nation.

This is disproportionate and should be corrected.

[nathaniel 0]

Immigration is at a far lower level today than it was in the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries.

This is disproportionate and should be corrected.

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[warpedskydiver 0]

do you believe that one country's immigrants should receive preference over another?

[masterrig 1]

>then too, you have to keep in mind that all these people, there will
> be many of them who will want to hunt and fish.

Are you seriously using this as a reason we can't support more immigration? There won't be enough space to hunt?
____________________________________

What I'm getting at is 'recreational' lands. $-wheeling, dirt bikes, horse trails, skiing, etc.

Well, in that case, we can't sell any more hunting rifles either!

>The increased price we see for meat and produce, doesn't always
> mean that the farmer or rancher saw any increase in profit.

If they can get significantly more money for their products, and their profits don't change - then they deserve to go out of business. Another, smarter farmer will take over and make money where they failed to. That's capitalism as well.
__________________________________________

There is a certain time when crops and cattle are sold. With produce, it's about the time the produce is ripe. With cattle, they are sold when the steers and heifers are sold when they are seven - eight months old. The rancher keeps-back the 'breeders' for re-population. When it comes time to sell, they sell at the market price at the time. The price is set by the buyers. What 'they' are willing to pay. It's not so much about being smarter, it's based on 'economics'. That farmer or rancher has bills to pay and a mortgage. He gets ONE paycheck a year and payday is when he sells what he has raised. An avocado producer can't hold his crop and wait for the price to go up. He does that, he's going to be sitting on a pile of rotten avocados. You'll find too, a good percentage of the farmers or ranchers or their kids who chose to stay with the farm or ranch are college educated, usually in some field of Agri-Business.

>What about the demand from the big cities like L.A., San Francisco
>and the like? Those people need and want water too. When they
> start pipe-lining the water from other areas, this doesn't leave much
> for the farmers and ranchers.

This is happening now. Result is that water prices go up, and farmers relocate to where water is cheaper. (Or they swing some deal with the federal government to subsidize their water.)
________________________________________

It's not that simple. Usually, if the price of water goes up to the farmer and he can't afford to buy water, he usually just goes broke. A similar thing happened here in the 60's. The price of fuel to run irrigation pumps went through the roof. The farmers couldn't afford it. That land has laid dormant ever since. It's not a matter of being smarter, it's a matter of being able to afford it. They got 'priced-out'.

>Not if contracts with foreign countries have to be met.
>Do we just 'cut-off' foreign trade?

Nope. We just sell slightly less grain to Mexico, because those people are now here. Total number of people hasn't changed.

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

do you believe that one country's immigrants should receive preference over another?

I believe that strong economy trumps pretty much every other concern about immigration. Strong economy wins wars.

Immigrants strengthen our economy. This is fact.

People who are against immigration are against stronger economy.

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[warpedskydiver 0]

[email]

Quote

Quote

do you believe that one country's immigrants should receive preference over another?

I believe that strong economy trumps pretty much every other concern about immigration. Strong economy wins wars.

Immigrants strengthen our economy. This is fact.

People who are against immigration are against stronger economy.

you avoided the question I posed to you

[nathaniel 0]

Fives, tens, twenties, Grants and Benjamins. Would you turn any of them down?

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[skinnyshrek 0]

When people think of illegal immigrants. They automatically think of mexicans or cubans. All walks of life come here illegal..Check your local packing mat

http://www.skydivethefarm.com

do you realize that when you critisize people you dont know over the internet, you become part of a growing society of twats? ARE YOU ONE OF THEM?

[masterrig 1]

Quote

[email]

Quote

Quote

do you believe that one country's immigrants should receive preference over another?

I believe that strong economy trumps pretty much every other concern about immigration. Strong economy wins wars.

Immigrants strengthen our economy. This is fact.

People who are against immigration are against stronger economy.

you avoided the question I posed to you

_____________________________________

Are you referring to 'legal' immigration or 'illegal' immigration. I don't know of too many folks who are against 'legal' immigration. It's the 'illegal' kind, folks are against. Immigration laws are like any other laws we have. They need to be enforced.


Chuck

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

Are you referring to 'legal' immigration or 'illegal' immigration.

The difference between the two is legislative. The economic facts go back to before we used laws to distinguish types of immigration.

Immigration is what made this country what it is today. That's not some leftie bs remark, it's economic history.

IMO, if there is a problem that we don't tax certain types of immigrants...we should tax them...problem solved. Next.

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Quote

Are you referring to 'legal' immigration or 'illegal' immigration.

The difference between the two is legislative. The economic facts go back to before we used laws to distinguish types of immigration.

Immigration is what made this country what it is today. That's not some leftie bs remark, it's economic history.

IMO, if there is a problem that we don't tax certain types of immigrants...we should tax them...problem solved. Next.

_______________________________________

Getting them to pay that tax is another chore.


Chuck