MAMEWorld Forums - The Loony Bin

Therein lies the rub: A bureaucratic technicality over what is "good" and what is "bad" immigration. The differentiation makes no difference to desperate people who want to work no matter the risks involved.

And what good are laws that punish hard-working people? People who want to provide a better future for their own families? I've mentioned the type of work involved that relies upon migrant workers simply because it's very hard and tedious work and low-cost to the company that exploits such labor. Those immigration laws only serve to act as a bigger stick to keep the workers in line on the line.

Do some research on the meatpacking and animal-rendering industries, for example. It's one of the most hazardous jobs out there. I personally wouldn't want to work there. But those jobs need to be done so why not have that industry also get around that notion of "illegal" immigration?

If that problem is to be solved then the industries involved would have to be willing to pay extra, from wages, benefits, and workplace safety, to offer such work to legal U.S. citizens. That means cuts in company profits. That means less return on investment capital. That means less money available for brib^H^H^H^Hcampaign contributions. And the cycle repeats itself.

As long as there's a free market then immigration and migrant workers will be seen as both a problem politically yet as a solution economically. The "legal" vs. "illegal" nonsense is simply that: A distraction for the sake of feel-good political pandering in order to keep things exactly the way they are.

As for the pawns pushing for tougher anti-immigration legislation I'd have more support for them if they bothered to work the lines for a while at IBP.

--Bekki

Combating functional illiteracy with latex-clad drama since the '80s, because old video games rule!