Colleges knowingly admit Illegal Aliens

[GarfieldJL]

I just read through an article that colleges are admitting illegal immigrants (at taxpayer expense). This is in my opinion highway robbery, disenfranchising those that pay taxes. (I'm not talking about the children of illegals that are born in the USA (because those children are US citizens)

 

According to comments to the article, it sounds like some colleges even try to find ways to get these people admitted.

 

 

I don't have a problem with people being admitted to college as long as they are in the country legally.

 

http://chronicle.com/news/article/6139/most-colleges-knowingly-admit-illegal-immigrants-as-students-survey-finds

[SW01]

colleges that responded to a recent survey said they knowingly admit illegal immigrants to degree or diploma programs under certain circumstances

 

Well isn't that interesting? 'Certain circumstances', eh? So you don't just show up and get accepted?

 

Among the special circumstances colleges consider when deciding whether to accept undocumented students is whether they graduated from an in-state high school and whether they had certified their intention to seek legal status.

 

At least this lot had the good grace to actually consider, if only fleetingly, what those special circumstances were.

 

According to comments to the article, it sounds like some colleges even try to find ways to get these people admitted.

 

After a quick glance at the comments of randomers, which really should not be considered a source in the best of situations, I think little of their credibility. They are not helped any further by labelling institutions of higher learning as 'liberal indoctrination factories', and harping on about 'the degree of liberalism being forced upon our youth'.

 

I do not agree with a person entering a state illegally and sponging off a welfare system, but equally I do not agree with such hysteria over would-be immigrants going off to study under the 'special circumstances' considered, both of of those mentioned in passing seeking assurance of some link to the country/state, such as a history of education in said state, or the certified intent to seek legal status.

[Darth Avlectus]

Okay, a nuanced point of view, yes.

 

I'll kindly follow up.

 

Well isn't that interesting? 'Certain circumstances', eh? So you don't just show up and get accepted?

 

At least this lot had the good grace to actually consider, if only fleetingly, what those special circumstances were.

 

If I had to say, guessing by your responses, I would estimate you don't just simply support wanton/wholesale indiscriminant 'dumping in' enrollment of illegals either? Challenge: A running tactic such as that provides much greater enrollment numbers and if it doesn't generate revenue it generates increased government funding--So why not support it?

 

I do not agree with a person entering a state illegally and sponging off a welfare system,

Being that I have been around illegals so much, hearing them say stuff...I'll (basically minus aggravation) emulate their more extreme sentiments taking exception to that and I want your refutations to each of them:

 

1) The only ones who support borders policy are racist people trying to turn outsiders against each other. They are the ones who have agendas and use people. The man is the enemy.

 

2) Don't pull that 'respectful' crap on me, your society had to murder to become what 'nation' it is today. It doesn't deserve any respect, not its flag nor its borders.

 

3) Since when does anyone "own" land? The establishment of current society had to steal it and kill/rape/torture to get it. They don't "own" it--no such thing. They owe it to us. So unless you are greedy, share it now.

 

4) There is no such thing as "illegal". It's just your label to hold us down. Greed and oppression to keep us back.(followed, usually, with accusations)

 

5) We only take the jobs that you won't do (usually inserts some kind of smear or hasty generalization about you, with some 'woe is me/my people' tale to try to soften you up)--Hint: I think this thread and article negates the part of only in their argument

 

6) We have children, and the children need it. You support borders and laws restricting support and freedom before you'd help the children. Just simple yes or no: You wouldn't harm children now, would you? (hint: a fallacy which discourages further discussion beyond yes/no)

 

What are your replies to each?

 

but equally I do not agree with such hysteria over would-be immigrants going off to study under the 'special circumstances' considered, both of of those mentioned in passing seeking assurance of some link to the country/state, such as a history of education in said state, or the certified intent to seek legal status.

 

Careful now, you might be seen as insensitive.

 

Actually, people generally dislike the illegal status as they see it as more an intrusion the longer they stay without, as you said, certified intent.

Their attitude (which you have sort of hinted at) is accepting of those who especially want to integrate, to assimilate and become a part of society--rather than merely loitering in it for their own purposes and acting exclusive of it at the same time. A 'reciprocal' relationship, if you will.

 

It is quite messy nowadays with all the terms flying around. "Would be immigrants" is huge, there. I think you mean to say that the word immigrant carries/implies some kind of definition of being legalized prior to or upon entering the country, if not attaining it as per meeting (other) requirements. I very much agree with that assertion.

 

Unfortunately, that word immigrant has been dulled down to just mean: "people traveling all over and living in different places..." (according to some condescending highschooler glory boy seeing fit to correct me on this definition issue).

 

I thought that was the definition for nomad long before the idea of nations and immigrating ever came along?

 

Apparently with "illegal immigrant" floating around, those two are no longer a contradiction of terms.

[SkinWalker]

12. If you admit undocumented students to degree or diploma programs under certain circumstances, what are the requirements that those undocumented students must satisfy to be eligible for admission?

 

320 institutions (52.2%) responded to this question. 60 institutions (18.8%) require attendance at an in-state high school for a specified minimum amount of time. 88 institutions (27.5%) require graduation from an in-state high school or GED. 31 institutions (9.7%) require proof of length of residence. 49 institutions (15.3%) require affidavit, statement, or certification of the student’s intent to resolve his/her immigration status. 92 institutions (28.8%) indicated other.

 

Seems reasonable to me. They are, after all, human beings seeking to better themselves.

 

With regard to undocumented aliens, the vast majority are paying taxes, buying goods and services, and many are doing jobs that residents are unwilling to do. Without their labor, our goods and services would cost more. Which is why conservatives are often so split between being xenophobic bigots at one extreme and not wanting to upset the status quo at the other.

[SW01]

If I had to say, guessing by your responses, I would estimate you don't just simply support wanton/wholesale indiscriminant 'dumping in' enrollment of illegals either? Challenge: A running tactic such as that provides much greater enrollment numbers and if it doesn't generate revenue it generates increased government funding--So why not support it?

 

I have not a thing against any person looking for a degree, and I think the idea of an 'illegal' student is odd. I support the idea of people travelling to universities in other nations, and in an absolute ideal perhaps it should be possible without needing visas and naturalisation and what-have-you (consider, for instance, the right of students in the EU to move and reside freely in other member states for the purposes of higher education - though even in that there are restrictions.)

 

I personally don't agree with 'dumping' any group into Universities. I think anyone who wishes to study a subject and meets the entry criteria should have a reasonable opportunity to do so.

 

I would be in favour of a form of international convention on education that gave students the chance to move, albeit briefly, to another State to study. Of course, then one can bring in the requirements of self-sufficiency in the financial sense (again, borrowed from EU legislation - see for example Art.7 of Directive 2004/38 EC).

 

Being that I have been around illegals so much, hearing them say stuff...I'll (basically minus aggravation) emulate their more extreme sentiments taking exception to that...

 

To clarify, I have little time for citizens who sponge off a welfare system either, by which I mean those that are perfectly capable of working but choose to live off the government - not those who have to do so for any reason. My grievance with any immigrant who also does such is based in part on the resultant perception that links itself to those who come to a country to be educated or to find work - especially those eminently qualified individuals that come to certain countries to follow their vocation to the level which they deserve.

 

Note though that the following necessarily stray far from the issue of illegal immigrants applying to Universities...

 

1) The only ones who support borders policy are racist people trying to turn outsiders against each other. They are the ones who have agendas and use people. The man is the enemy.

 

There are often very good reasons for border security, especially in the current climate. But I have not studied immigration controls beyond EC treaties, and so would not presume to comment on more strict regulations. However, I will say that while I am not a proponent of 'shutting the borders', I have a higher opinion of people who come to a country in order to either benefit it or to better themselves...much the same as my opinion of any person who does such. I am unsure what exactly to make of the statement 'the man is the enemy'. It brings to mind certain anarchic philosophies, which runs somewhat counter to my preference of law and order.

 

2) Don't pull that 'respectful' crap on me, your society had to murder to become what 'nation' it is today. It doesn't deserve any respect, not its flag nor its borders.

 

I don't think any nation is truly innocent of that charge. I am uncertain why any person should wish to reside and work in a State which s/he despises, apart from the rather obvious possibility of some malevolence, which in itself can be dangerous.

 

3) Since when does anyone "own" land? The establishment of current society had to steal it and kill/rape/torture to get it. They don't "own" it--no such thing. They owe it to us. So unless you are greedy, share it now.

 

You are actually close to a very difficult concept of ownership of land being in fact mere legal title and interest in that land, but I suspect that isn't quite what you are driving at.

 

4) There is no such thing as "illegal". It's just your label to hold us down. Greed and oppression to keep us back.(followed, usually, with accusations)

 

If it is contrary to the law, it is - unsurprisingly - illegal. Greed and oppression, though...such would need to be evidenced by overly stringent, imbalanced and placing an unacceptably high-threshold for applicants for legal residence to meet.

 

5) We only take the jobs that you won't do (usually inserts some kind of smear or hasty generalization about you, with some 'woe is me/my people' tale to try to soften you up)--Hint: I think this thread and article negates the part of only in their argument

 

I have always held it that this is more to do with the arrogance (mostly utterly unjustified) on the part of the citizens of some nations whose people think they are above particular occupations - also see my earlier point on those who choose to avoid work. That and certain companies hiring illegal immigrants to do such jobs in order to be capable of paying an absolute pittance, far below the statutory minimum wage demanded by any citizen/legal resident.

 

6) We have children, and the children need it. You support borders and laws restricting support and freedom before you'd help the children. Just simple yes or no: You wouldn't harm children now, would you? (hint: a fallacy which discourages further discussion beyond yes/no)

 

Like many of these scenarios (and I understand that they are not necessarily your own viewpoints on the matter), this is a nonsense argument. There can be only one clear answer to it.

 

Actually, people generally dislike the illegal status as they see it as more an intrusion the longer they stay without, as you said, certified intent.

 

Of course it is. It is hard to conceive of a situation in which one would be glad to be outside the law.

 

Their attitude (which you have sort of hinted at) is accepting of those who especially want to integrate, to assimilate and become a part of society--rather than merely loitering in it for their own purposes and acting exclusive of it at the same time. A 'reciprocal' relationship, if you will.

 

It is quite messy nowadays with all the terms flying around. "Would be immigrants" is huge, there. I think you mean to say that the word immigrant carries/implies some kind of definition of being legalized prior to or upon entering the country, if not attaining it as per meeting (other) requirements. I very much agree with that assertion.

 

That's it precisely, and is exactly the point I was trying to make on the topic - the universities, by the fact of the few conditions hinted at in that source, seemed to make such the crux of their acceptance of non-visa (or is it 'greencard'? Or are they one in the same?) holding applicants, that they display characteristics showing a degree of integration and some intent of becoming 'legalised' immigrants

[EnderWiggin]

Seems reasonable to me. They are, after all, human beings seeking to better themselves.

 

With regard to undocumented aliens, the vast majority are paying taxes, buying goods and services, and many are doing jobs that residents are unwilling to do. Without their labor, our goods and services would cost more. Which is why conservatives are often so split between being xenophobic bigots at one extreme and not wanting to upset the status quo at the other.

 

QFE.

 

_EW_

[Tommycat]

Horse pucky on taking jobs that Americans won't do.

 

Illegals that I have seen are taking construction jobs. A friend of mine is a construction worker, and he wants the jobs they are taking. What they succeed in doing is driving down the costs for one business that is hiring slave labor illegals. This doesn't affect the cost of goods as people think. It just puts more money in the pocket of the owner who charges the same amount either way. I resent the representation of those of us that oppose illegal immigration as xenophobic bigots. Perhaps I should equate everyone that supports illegal immigrants as proponents of slave labor and rape.

[SkinWalker]

The sad truth is, however, that one of the only effective ways to solve the problem of undocumented workers is to enforce penalties of hiring these undocumented workers. With that in mind, you could go on letting them obtain whatever academic pursuits they can afford since the employers who take advantage of them would face far stiffer penalties (like steep fines, imprisonment, loss of licenses or certifications, tax penalties, etc.)

 

Then, you won't have construction firms getting day labor, the wealthy class using undocumented domestic help, growers taking advantage of undocumented migrant work, etc.

 

But the cost of goods and services will double if not triple as a result. At least for the short term.

 

Another recourse would be to do away with free trade agreements which undercut goods and services in places like Mexico and other Central American nations so that it could again be profitable to sell domestic farm goods in these countries. As it is, its cheaper to sell imported goods in many cases than it is to grow or manufacture domestically in Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador.

 

And, speaking of slave labor, these same free trade agreements have resulted in U.S. manufacturers moving jobs to these countries where textiles can be assembled at a slim fraction of the cost of doing business with American workers. So if they ever want a hope of escaping "slave labor," their best opportunity lies with the American Dream (whatever that is).

 

I doubt we'll ever see the common sense and rational method of dealing with undocumented immigrants through labor enforcement since the industries involved have too much at stake and their lobbyists work hard on both sides of the aisle.

[Darth Avlectus]

I have not a thing against --<*brevity*> (consider, for instance, the right of students in the EU to move and reside freely in other member states for the purposes of higher education - though even in that there are restrictions.)

Sounds to me like you are not necessarily against those. Can I generally guess that is because of the certain concept that standards and expectations yield results of admitting more desirable individuals to society? (opposed to more malevolent ones)

I personally don't agree with 'dumping' any group into Universities. I think anyone who wishes to study a subject and meets the entry criteria should have a reasonable opportunity to do so.

Though people's opinions on that 'reasonable opportunity' differ greatly (I don't wish to split the proverbial hairs), possibly the degree of which depends on situations and factors, I thank you.

To clarify, I have little time for citizens who sponge off a welfare system either, by which I mean those that are perfectly capable of working but choose to live off the government - not those who have to do so for any reason.

So if I were to say "lazy individuals", the former group wuld come to mind?

 

Can I guess the latter group extends to, say:

1) children who are/may be wards of the state?

2) the elderly?

3) the disabled (of varying degrees but let's just just say primarily that which would preclude an otherwise average ability to sustain oneself)?

My grievance with any immigrant who also does such is based in part on the resultant perception that links itself to those who come to a country to be educated or to find work - especially those eminently qualified individuals that come to certain countries to follow their vocation to the level which they deserve.

 

Note though that the following necessarily stray far from the issue of illegal immigrants applying to Universities...

Ah, so there are discernible differences, yes?

 

There are often very good reasons for border security, especially in the current climate. <snip>

Reasons being?

 

I paraphrase the general idea

However, I will say that while I am not a proponent of 'shutting the borders', I have a higher opinion of <snip>any person who wants to better oneself, citizen or foreigner, regardless.

Fair enough.

I am unsure what exactly to make of the statement 'the man is the enemy'. It brings to mind certain anarchic philosophies, which runs somewhat counter to my preference of law and order.

 

It is an idea that the people in charge wish to oppress and enslave you indefinitely. That faceless, mean-spirited entities, somewhat stereo-typified as dictators or more appropriately slaveholders are in the ranks with ominous intentions. Usually this is attached to/associated with a person or group of persons which could be in a variety of categories. Specifics dependent on location, history, and situation. I'd estimate found largely amongst those with contempt with authority. Can be foreigners or citizens. In this case foreigners which as you said:

necessarily stray far from the issue of illegal immigrants applying to Universities...

being a good number of them. Illegal aliens, but close enough. Though an overlap between the two is certainly possible. There are also some naturalized foreigners who sympathize with this as well as the more malevolent types. Though I suspect these to be rarer and found in certain locations and positions where that kind of behavior is profitable.

 

I don't think any nation is truly innocent of that charge.

There are those which, regardless, will continue to use that line of thought. Those who may be embittered about history and use it to attack status quo despite the times changing and things now being quite conducive and friendly... compared to the time of historical event in question.

 

I am uncertain why any person should wish to reside and work in a State which s/he despises, apart from the rather obvious possibility of some malevolence, which in itself can be dangerous.

Fascinating. Well I sort of covered this one above, and 'drive at it' below as well. Taking those into consideration, what do you think, now?

 

 

You are actually close to a very difficult concept of ownership of land being in fact mere legal title and interest in that land, but I suspect that isn't quite what you are driving at.

That is it in part. I think a full exploration of the idea is beyond the scope of this thread, but if you wish to shed light on the crux of it, go ahead.

 

What I am 'dirving at' is also as a sort of mentality and/or justification of sorts. I think you hit the nail on the head with malevolence, but perhaps also a grudge that may well extend to their race and the nation from which they came from. For historical reasons. 'Living in the past' as opposed to here and now, comes to mind. They may be taking part in your country's economy because it is better off than theirs, but in reality believe its land 'belongs' to them.

 

If it is contrary to the law, it is - unsurprisingly - illegal. Greed and oppression, though...such would need to be evidenced by overly stringent, imbalanced and placing an unacceptably high-threshold for applicants for legal residence to meet.

So they can pretty much say whatever they wish, but if it is to be taken seriously as merited, it needs to be proven beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt?

 

I have always held it that this is more to do with the arrogance (mostly utterly unjustified) on the part of the citizens of some nations whose people think they are above particular occupations

As a menial laborer my whole life, I can say that I too have seen this arrogance and complacency. These are beneath nobody's dignity and it is the work that often needs doing. One is in fact the better for it in my opinion. <sigh> Alas, "may love you that which may do evil unto you, may hate you that which is good for you" You not only being oneself but community, nation, and possibly higher.

 

Interesting. Where do you think the arrogance might stem from?

 

- also see my earlier point on those who choose to avoid work.

Oh, I've seen plenty of that in my lifetime. It's despicable, regardless who does it. I agree with the assertion that one should have little time for these contemptible individuals.

 

That and certain companies hiring illegal immigrants to do such jobs in order to be capable of paying an absolute pittance, far below the statutory minimum wage demanded by any citizen/legal resident.

OOH! Cirtical hit! Charging the same but pocketing the difference? That would seem to run contrary to the general argument that hiring them lowers costs. Also such things run contrary to ethical business standards. Behaving in a responsible, mutually respectful manner. Setting a very bad example.

 

What do you reply to those who say "but it's the free market" as a cover excusing and justifying such actions? (Something which I might also add goes beyond political party lines. Profits are profits no matter how ill-gotten.)

 

Like many of these scenarios (and I understand that they are not necessarily your own viewpoints on the matter), this is a nonsense argument. There can be only one clear answer to it.

 

You are correct, these are not my viewpoints, but rather common sentiment I have encountered. Thanks for the discernment, my friend. Why is it a nonsense argument? (Hint: Name the fallacy or fallacies, it might help to reach the actual issue.)

 

Of course it is. It is hard to conceive of a situation in which one would be glad to be outside the law.

I think covered some paces up...I think I misspoke, or maybe I misunderstand the answer. What I was getting at was that citizens see the illegal status of foreigners as intrusive.

 

To elaborate: Foreigners who mean well would not want to keep illegal status, no. I wouldn't think so anyway. As for the more malevolent types...well...

 

That's it precisely, and is exactly the point I was trying to make on the topic - the universities, by the fact of the few conditions hinted at in that source, seemed to make such the crux of their acceptance of non-visa (or is it 'greencard'? Or are they one in the same?) holding applicants, that they display characteristics showing a degree of integration and some intent of becoming 'legalised' immigrants

Hey, glad I could help.

 

Green card and visa might as well be one. For laughs, click here.

[mur'phon]

Charging the same but pocketing the difference? That would seem to run contrary to the general argument that hiring them lowers costs.

 

It lowers costs asuming there is a free market. Are you familiar with game theory? I'll use a simplified example to ilustrate.

Lets asume the market is free, and company A and B are using ilegal imigrants which lower their production costs. Now company A can do two things, decrease the price or keep it at the same high level, while company B has the exact same choices. If A keeps the price high while B do the same, both are earning far more than they used to. However if A keeps the price high, and B decreases it, B will capture much of A's market share and A will loose enormously, and vice versa. If both decrease the price, they'll earn more than if they where the only to keep the price high, but less than in any of the other scenarios. However, since A, no matter what B does will earn more by decreasing the price, and vice versa, they both end up doing so.

 

However this asumes that there is a free market, if A and B decide to share the market betwen them, prices stay high. So, do ilegal imigrants cause prices to go down? It depends on the business, but as a rule of thumb if there are few providers of a service, it'll have a small/no impact as it's easy for businesses to cooperate, and they are likely to trust each other allready, which is important when you consider that whoever drops the price first is likely to gain a larger share of the market. If however thare are many producers, they'll have a much harder time, not least because cartell laws tend to be more harsh than those for hiring ilegal imigrants.

[Jae Onasi]

GarfieldJL, this is a debate forum. It is not a casual discussion forum like Kavar's is. The definition of what is considered flaming and baiting in Kavar's are very strict and are clearly delineated as limited to Kavar's only. The standards for argumentation/debate are different here, and the definition of flaming/baiting is much more relaxed in this forum. You have to adapt to those standards. Getting called on fallacious arguments is not an insult here, or even remotely considered baiting or flaming.

 

If I may be so bold, after having the stress of a family tragedy, for which you have my sympathy, sometimes it's better to take time off from arguments like this. It's very easy for the emotions of very stressful events to make one imagine an insulting tone in posts where none are meant, and react more emotionally than one might ordinarily under calmer circumstances. Just a thought.

[Darth Avlectus]

Ugh, this thread has totally errupted like I hoped it wouldn't.

 

It lowers costs asuming there is a free market. Are you familiar with game theory? I'll use a simplified example to ilustrate.

Lets asume the market is free, and company A and B are using ilegal imigrants which lower their production costs. Now company A can do two things, decrease the price or keep it at the same high level, while company B has the exact same choices. If A keeps the price high while B do the same, both are earning far more than they used to. However if A keeps the price high, and B decreases it, B will capture much of A's market share and A will loose enormously, and vice versa. If both decrease the price, they'll earn more than if they where the only to keep the price high, but less than in any of the other scenarios. However, since A, no matter what B does will earn more by decreasing the price, and vice versa, they both end up doing so.

Interesting.

However this asumes that there is a free market, if A and B decide to share the market betwen them, prices stay high. So, do ilegal imigrants cause prices to go down? It depends on the business, but as a rule of thumb if there are few providers of a service,

Most jobs in the USA are becoming service oriented jobs if they haven't already. So, what here?

it'll have a small/no impact as it's easy for businesses to cooperate, and they are likely to trust each other allready, which is important when you consider that whoever drops the price first is likely to gain a larger share of the market. If however thare are many producers, they'll have a much harder time, not least because cartell laws tend to be more harsh than those for hiring ilegal imigrants.

Trust? HAH! We've generally moved beyond that point by large measure, I think.

 

With regard to undocumented aliens, the vast majority are paying taxes, buying goods and services, and many are doing jobs that residents are unwilling to do. Without their labor, our goods and services would cost more.

I am beginning to wonder if that hasn't caused some of the arrogance and complacency I mentioned previously. I'd be a fool to deny that these are the benefits (else there would be little purpose in hiring them I think). The undeniable downside to this status quo is that in current times where jobs are declining it adds to the 'more people than jobs' problem. For short terms this seemed acceptable, for longer......we'll see how it plays out...EDIT:Feel free to agree or disagree, it is only a theory

 

(@ mur'phon You may even consider this in the protectionism thread. However this is one of many problems plaguing the situation, so I am not altogether sure how it factors in.)

 

Which is why conservatives are often so split between being xenophobic bigots at one extreme and not wanting to upset the status quo at the other.

Gee, thanks. I don't suppose your views allow for a third option? (well, I am to the right, but then again, I'm not so sure if I am extremist...at the very least I try to be reasonable.)

 

One of the problems I have with illegals is more to do with exploiting. That and I have to compete with them. While work wise it is what I have always known and done and I do it proudly, the reason I am only hired for small bouts is the liability on the other end--if jose is injured, its chattel; If I fall 60 ft, it's liability.

 

The sad truth is, however, that one of the only effective ways to solve the problem of undocumented workers is to enforce penalties of hiring these undocumented workers.

Wouldn't eVerify have done great of keeping track for this?

With that in mind, you could go on letting them obtain whatever academic pursuits they can afford since the employers who take advantage of them would face far stiffer penalties (like steep fines, imprisonment, loss of licenses or certifications, tax penalties, etc.)

Which happens even here and now but it sure takes some pulling teeth.

 

Then, you won't have construction firms getting day labor, the wealthy class using undocumented domestic help, growers taking advantage of undocumented migrant work, etc.

 

But the cost of goods and services will double if not triple as a result. At least for the short term.

 

Another recourse would be to do away with free trade agreements which undercut goods and services in places like Mexico and other Central American nations so that it could again be profitable to sell domestic farm goods in these countries. As it is, its cheaper to sell imported goods in many cases than it is to grow or manufacture domestically in Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador.

Get rid of CAFTA? There are many who believe in doing that--on both sides of the aisle. And there are many proponents. This is a very icky issue.

 

I'm for free trade, yes, but I have always believed it must be done responsibly. So I am conservative, in a way to protect liberties. Personal responsibility upfront. Unfortunately, this being of right wing values was such a long time ago.

 

Before big $$$ became their thing, and business was a forward moving proposition--or how you call it, progressive?

 

And, speaking of slave labor, these same free trade agreements have resulted in U.S. manufacturers moving jobs to these countries where textiles can be assembled at a slim fraction of the cost of doing business with American workers.

I can attest, since I've had some tech/manufacturing type jobs taken right out from under me. More in the electronics, but still. The uneven playfield being taken advantage of causes footholds for those that can and do first.

 

So far as common sense, yeah. We are in sore need of it. It has been tossed out the window.