Legalizing Illegal immigrants

[BrentAllen 10]

Suspending Davis Bacon was the smartest thing Bush has done! But this does not suspend local, state or federal labor laws - it does not remove OSHA requirements. Davis Bacon has very little to do with worker safety. The main thing suspending Davis Bacon does is remove union wages from the project, and opens the rebuilding job up to more contractors.

Under Davis Bacon, there is no such classification as a "helper." Most electricians or plumbers have workers who are learning the job, but aren't journeymen yet. They do not pay these workers the same pay as journeymen, but they still make pretty good pay. Under Davis Bacon, if one of these non-journeymen electricians installs a switch or an outlet, he must be paid electrician wages, which are probably around $20 - $23/hour, instead of around $10 - $12/hour for the non-journeyman. Only union contractors can afford to pay those wages, which means higher costs. Not many non-union contractors would be able to participate in the rebuild if Davis Bacon was still in place.

[Rooster7 11]

As a die-hard conservative, and a huge Bush fan, I dont know enough about the border situation to counter your argument. That is to say, with thousands of miles of international borders (between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico) I dont know what is realistic and what is not. Perhaps you are in a position to know and offer some real helpful advice. I am not. I have placed my trust in the current administration. Certainly, I believe without hesitation, the Bush administration recognized the recurring threat of terrorism more quickly than those speaking for the Democratic Party four years ago and since. Theres been plenty of criticism from that side of the isle (in regard to the border situation and to the war on terrorism), but in the aftermath of 911, no one has offered any earth shaking ideas. Instead they cavalierly spew condemnation. Rather than being constructive and helpful to the current administration, they seem to prefer to malign the Presidents actions and motives, and as a result denigrate our nation in the worlds eyes. They are myopically focused on the next election and thus their efforts are always aimed accordingly. So for this reason alone, I prefer conservative politicians over liberals. At least conservatives understand that their words have weight, meaning, and consequences - not only for the American electorate, but for the rest of the world.

 

In the end, without the intelligence and resources that the federal government offers our leaders, I think most so-called solutions offered by anyone in the media and/or the general public are nave, if not outright ignorant. If this is true (and Im sure many will not take it as a given), then the only thing we can do is trust those empowered in our government to obtain the necessary knowledge and to make the proper decisions. If thats true, then the character issue goes much deeper than some would like to think. So if you truly believe that Bush is an inept self-serving idiot who in effect is a puppet of the oil gods, then I guess you lose a lot of sleep at night. I happen to think that hes a sincere, intelligent, down-to-earth, unpretentious, God fearing man who loves our country. With that said, I sleep very well.

 

[scoutingagain 20]

Davis-Bacon only requires employers pay the "prevailing wage", which for practical purposes is the prevailing union wage. It does not require contractors use union labor or comply with union labor rules. It is not uncommon for non-union contractors bid on, win and complete work under Davis-Bacon requirements. In fact, in some areas where some labor categories are in short supply, the "prevailing union wage" is actually lower than the current market wage. Electricians are a good example. Most are reluctant to work on projects covered by Davis-Bacon because they can make more $$ on projects that are not. (Hint: If you know of someone who is not quite college material but is relatively smart, have them look into the skilled building trades. There is very good money to be made, and I mean better than most college graduate money, for those willing to learn and apply a skilled trade.)

 

As a practical matter it is not the skilled labor categories that will be at issue. It will be primarily the unskilled cleanup crews that do demo work, literally mop up, scrub and clean and do manual labor. If an employer is suffienciently unscrupulus to hire "undocumented" aliens, which was against the law, now it just won't be enforced, why would they bother to obey OSHA regs? or pay even the legal minimum wage or provide worker's comp insurance for their employees? If they don't, do you think they are explaining to their illegal labor force that they can call an agency of the government to enforce those rules?

 

SA

[BrentAllen 10]

SA,

All I can tell you is we live in different worlds. BTW, I draw my paycheck as a consultant monitoring over $40 million in Community Development Block Grants, which covers around 80 projects. Each and every one of those must follow Davis Bacon, and it is my job to monitor that they are, so I am just a little familiar with Davis Bacon. "Prevailing wages" is correct, and when those prevailing wages are surveyed from a metropolitan (Entitlement) area, they are going to be union wages. In nearly 15 years, I have never seen an exception to this.

Here in the South, I have also never seen non-union wages come anywhere near to matching union wages, except for the owner of the company and maybe his brother. We have trouble getting contractors to bid on jobs where the prevailing wages are at the union level. When they do, we then hear plenty of complaints after they find out the actual situation they are in, and how much they have to pay their helpers. The real problem comes when the contractor finishes the job and goes on to other non-federal work - the employees want the high wages Davis Bacon forced the contractor to pay. They can't stay in business paying those wages for regular work. If you are pro-union, you probably love Davis-Bacon. If not, you probably hate it.

[scoutingagain 20]

Brent,

 

We may live in two different worlds. Here in the Northeast most non-union contractors pay as much or more than union contractors...for the skilled trades. They have to, otherwise they'd go off join the union and work union projects. Non-union contractors do have an advantage though, since they do not have to live up to union labor rules, which as you have pointed out can be restrictive. For the record I'm neither pro or con with respect to labor unions. Have worked on both sides.

 

Be that as it may, my greater issue is less the Davis-Bacon Issue than the suspension of penalties for using illegal workers, which makes the Davis Bacon issue irrelevant. No business owner is going to hire illegal aliens and then worry about complying with Davis Bacon or any other labor requirement. While it undermines opportunities for Americans currently needing work in the area it also sets up the exploitable underclass I mentioned.

 

And Rooster,

 

"the character issue goes much deeper than some would like to think" I agree and no I don't sleep well at night. I believe George Bush is a sincere, down-to-earth, unpretentious, God fearing man who loves our country who has been taken advantage of by elements within the Republican Party(and it's not the Christian Right). I have no desire to discuss liberal or conservative politicians. I view both with equal skepticism.

 

Good night, and may God Bless us, everyone.

 

SA

 

 

[Prairie_Scouter 10]

I agree with the idea the the President is a sincere, down-to-earth, unpretentious, God-fearing man who loves his country. I just don't think that those attributes, on their own, qualify him to be the President. His actions, and some of his appointments, seem to confirm this.

 

When he was Candidate Bush, didn't the President make some sort of campaign promise to grant a general amnesty to illegal aliens already in the country? I seem to remember something about that, although I might not be remembering that correctly.

 

Regards criticism. It is the right and responsibility of every citizen to keep a watchful eye on their leaders and take them to task when those citizens feel that their government is acting improperly. There seems to be no end of suggestions as to how to correct current situations, but I'd have to say that this Administration is singularly disinterested in any ideas not coming from their own inner circle.

 

Regards terrorism specifically, I'm not sure how Rooster can say that the Bush Administration and the Republicans recognized the terrorism threat earlier than those "across the aisle". Intelligence reports detailing the possibility of an attack very similar to 911 have existed since the mid-90's, and while the Clinton administration can be faulted for not taking further steps on this, the information was passed on to the Bush Administration at the time of the change of administration. In point of fact, the Bush administration was cutting funds for anti-terrorism prior to the attacks on 9/11. There is plenty of blame to go around, and neither party took the threat seriously enough. Air safety experts had recommended to Congress that secure, bulletproof doors to the cockpit be installed in all airliners in about 1995. Airline industry lobbyists lobbied against this and the effort was derailed. After the attacks on 911, the Bush Administration did an effective job of tracking the terrorists to Afghanistan and taking the battle to them. Invading Iraq without solid evidence of their participation was ill-advised. The Administration has been deceptive in funding the war, first saying it would pay for itself in oil revenues, and then hiding the costs in emergency funding actions that leave the numbers out of the national budget. You could say that the Democrats are clueless if you wish, and I won't really argue the point, but to assert that the Republicans have had the matter well in hand and are acting in a wise and thoughtful manner is, well, wishful thinking.

 

Correction: The actual date of the report detailing a 911 attack for the Intelligence committee was 1999, which was passed on to the incoming Bush Adminstration, who commented in early 2001 that the Clinton administration had placed too much emphasis on efforts to counter Osama bin Laden.(This message has been edited by Prairie_Scouter)

[Rooster7 11]

I never claimed that Bush had things well in hand (whatever that might possibly mean) or even that Democratic politicians are clueless (no matter how apparent that may be). I basically said that I like Bush, as a man and as our leader. I trust his motives and his ability to make informed decisions. I earnestly believe Bush and his administration are doing as well as anyone has a right to expect. When all is said and done, I dont presuppose every action we take as a nation will lead to a positive result. No matter how financially prosperous, technically advanced, politically influential, militarily powerful, and culturally refined we may think we are as a nation, there are no guarantees in life. The best that I can hope for is that our leaders are intelligent, sincere, and determined to do what is good and right. I feel we have that in our current President. Others dont. So be it.

 

But for the record, my post never stated or inferred that someone was responsible for 911. Frankly, without a crystal ball, I seriously doubt if anyone could have prevented the 911 attack. Even if we were able to anticipate their plan, I am convinced that they would have eventually found another avenue to bring about terror. Truth be told - we cannot stop common, everyday felons with very predictable if not clearly known behavior patterns, from committing crimes on a daily basis. That being the case - given a large supply of suicidal idiots, who have unlimited time and financial resources, and are willing to perform any heinous act to further the goals of Islam and to bring about the downfall of The Great Satan - I can imagine a myriad of ways in which they could inflict terror in this country. Pointing the finger of blame at one another for terrorist acts (and natural disasters for that matter) seems to be a pointless exercise. Not everything is within our control, as much as wed like to believe otherwise.

 

What we need is some meat and potatoes ideas to counteract future attempts to inflict harm upon our country. Unfortunately, most of what Im seeing is political posturing, even when it means undermining a President who is trying to fight a very nasty enemy in an ugly war (one that needs to be fought today and not tomorrow).

 

Okay, wasn't this thread entitled "Legalizing Illegal immigrants"?

 

I say - Maybe.

 

I understand the complaints made by many Americans that these folks are presenting a financial burden on our nation. Also, while many of these immigrates provide a source of cheap labor that would otherwise not be available to many employers - an argument can be made, if illegal immigration was impeded, hourly wages would rise. Employers would be forced to offer higher wages to legal citizens of this country, drawing out those individuals who otherwise would not be willing work such jobs. Then again, a counter argument to that line of reasoning is - increased hourly wages would lead to inflation. Regardless, my heart mainly lies with the Mexicans that I have met in my area of the country. Despite some previous posts made by others, I have found these folks to be generally - very sincere, friendly, and hardworking - people who I truly appreciate and admire on a number of levels. In short, I think most immigrates from the south (legal or not) are making positive contributions to our country. On the other hand, theres this little thing called the rule of law, which I believe should not be ignored. I see both sides. What I dont see or understand is some of the venom expressed towards some of these illegal immigrates (not necessarily expressed in this forum). We are blessed as a country. Perhaps we need to remind ourselves just how much at least enough to understand why others are desperately seeking to come here. We should be protective of this country, but we should never lose our compassion for others in the process. How do we do that? Thats the trick I havent figured it out yet.

[Denalon 10]

I would like to point out to the forum that quite a few illegals in the USA are from Ireland. I listened to a programme the other day on Irish Radio. It was all about illegal immigrants in America. Some of those on the show were in America for years and had their own business, mostly in the building trades. They pay taxes and one guy even said that he successfully tendered for State contracts. The reality is that these are good tradesmen and have no problem getting work. They all want to be legal and hope for the day when the entry requiremnets will be relaxed. I know several young people from my own locality here, all well educated and willing to work, who are illegally in the USA. Since 9/11 things have got extremely difficult for them. They can't return home to Ireland for visits as they fear being found out and refused re-entry. Some of these have been unable to return for major family events such as deaths of relatives etc.

Because of a booming Irish economy, we are now experiencing illegal immigration into Ireland by Eastern Europeans and Africans. I would like to think that we would treat these people as humans with some respect and dignity just as we would wish for our own to be treated in America. Ireland has a long and sad history of forced emigration from our shores. Our people were not always welcome in America, in the early days, but by dint of hard work and ambition they earned their place in your society.

[Trevorum 24]

Rooster (always a good source of material) said, "What we need is some meat and potatoes ideas to counteract future attempts to inflict harm upon our country." Well, I agree with him (at least on this limited point!). That's why I support the idea of a national identity card. There is some amazing technology available and some pretty interesting ideas on how to implement it in order to maximize security and minimize invasion of privacy. While no system will ever be fool-proof (even the CIA and FBI, with all their rigorous background checks, have their moles), a sufficiently robust and standardized personal ID system is desperately needed. Getting a system up and running would be painful, but the ultimate security rewards would be worth it. IMHO, of course.

 

However, I doubt that any politician, left or right, would have the courage to sponsor such a proposal. The issue is almost as lethal a "third rail", as is social security reform.

[Hunt 11]

Trevorum, I think you're right that the idea of a national identity card is a "third rail" issue--it's anathema to both the left and right extremes of the political spectrum. Only people in the middle can see that it's a sensible idea.

[Rooster7 11]

I haven't made up my mind on national ID cards yet. But thank you for informing me that not supporting such an idea, is an indication that one is unreasonable and an extremist. I guess should factor that wisdom in my decision making process, before I draw a conclusion.

[packsaddle 753]

As has been discussed in various other threads at times, we already have a national ID card of sorts. It's called the Social Security Card. Just try to do most things of a legal nature without it (and sometimes the birth certificate as well). That brings us back to the original post.

Also, "...extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice." A great TRUE conservative said this. The 'liberty' aspect is what makes it timeless.

[Hunt 11]

Well, I guess I do think that extremists are generally unreasonable. I think folks on the far right are against national ID cards because they fear communist overlords, and folks on the far left are against them because they fear fascist overlords.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

its during discussions like this I am reminded of the the following quote

 

"The streets of our country are in turmoil. The universities are filled with students rebelling and rioting. Communists are seeking to destroy our country. Russia is threatening us with her might and the republic is in danger. Yes, danger from within and without. We need law and order."

[packsaddle 753]

Hitler. I can't remember when but he was running for elected office.

It continues something like, "...without law and order our country can't survive. We will maintain law and order." I probably mangled that but I think this was the general idea. And he sure did take control and, I suppose, brought law and order to his country.