"JJ" wrote in message
...
Kim W5TIT wrote:

Consider this. I've been toying with the idea over the last few years
that
it will the "menial" (as was put by someone else--I don't agree with the
term) jobs that will gradually grow to the higher paid jobs in this
country...because there will be less and less people who *will* do them.
The "services" of a migrant worker or a fast food person, or a municipal
worker or construction worker will become so highly needed, that they
will
be able to demand a pretty penny for their work.


And when this happens your taco and a coke at Taco Bell will cost you $15.


Yep, my point exactly...

Kim W5TIT

In article . net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:


If the Civil War was about slavery, then why was there a war at all? Prior
to the war, the slave states were the majority in both the House and Senate,
insuring no legislation could be passed to end slavery. Slavery was only
abolished after the war by not allowing the former Confederate States (which
included several, but not all, of the slave states) to participate in that
vote.


(snip) why, in it's aftermath, did one of the most famous
Confederate Generals, Nathan Bedford Forrest,
organize the Ku Klux Klan? (snip)


When you answer that, perhaps you can also answer why so many Northerners
join the KKK.

Dwight:

I consider the KKK to be about racism, not slavery. It was originally
started as a response to the heavy-handed political disenfranchisement
of the former Confederate states by Northern "Carpetbaggers" who
essentially swept into the South and took over in the aftermath of the
Civil War. I don't believe that was right and never said so. However,
the KKK, instead of targeting the mostly white Yankee politicians
who violated the constitutional rights of the citizens of the Southern
states, chose instead to target ethnic and religious groups, such as
blacks, Catholics, and particularly Jews. Therefore, their motives were
wrong from the start.

The South has a lot to answer for, IMHO. (snip)


Why would they have any more to answer for than the Northern states that
profited from the sale of slaves? Or more to answer for than those who used
indentured or bound black workers in the North, even into the early 1900's?
Or more to answer for than the many countries around the world which
practiced slavery in this last century (the 1900's), the previous century,
or in the many centuries before that?

I never said that slavery wasn't practiced in the North.

(snip) Modern-day Rebels with the Confederate flags on
their pickup trucks don't do much to heal the wounds of
the past. (snip)

Perhaps because they have absolutely no responsibility for what happened
in a past long before they were born.

However, in the context of our modern and presumably more enlightened
times, they represent something that is, best, an anachronistic example
of age-old prejudices. We should all be united under one flag, and that
flag has 50 stars and 13 stripes -- not a big "X" running through it.

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article , "Jim Hampton"
writes:


Larry,

I'd gently remind you that there wouldn't be any citizens (well, very few -
only the decendents of the original folks after the revolutionary war) at
all under those rules. My great-grandfather and my grandfather (when he was
7) immigrated to the US in the late 1800s (my dads side). My mother's
grandfather (my great-grandfather) immigrated from Canada. If their
children couldn't become citizens, I wouldn't be one now. Heck, how could
they hold a draft back in WWII with no citizens? Only draft foreigners?

73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA

Jim:

The United States, like any other nation, has a right and a responsibility
to control it's immigration policies. I don't believe that in these modern
times it makes sense to grant automatic, natural citizenship to the
children of people from other countries who have not undergone the
legal immigration and naturalization process. Yes, it is true that we
are all the descendants of immigrants; however, the immigrants I
descended from all came into this country legally, and were legally
naturalized under the existing law. Considering how much this country
has to offer, especially in terms of welfare benefits which would turn
a poor immigrant from an impoverished nation into a person who would
be wealthy by comparison to those from his home country, I don't
believe it is too much to ask for them to obey the law.

As I stated previously, liberal immigration policies usually serve a political
purpose, rather than a purely humanitarian one. For this reason, I
think closing some of the loopholes and requiring that those who wish
to come to the U.S. and become citizens to follow the correct immigration
and naturalization procedures, makes good sense from a "homeland
security" standpoint.

73 de Larry, K3LT

"N2EY" wrote:

I think that when Kim writes "no one" in a context like
that, she really means "almost no one" or "hardly anyone"
rather than the literal standard meaning "not a single
person" or "nobody at all".


I know what she means, but it's not what she wrote, Jim. And if we can't
get past the absoluteness of that "no one," there is little way to continue
the discussion. If we're instead talking about "almost no one" or "hardly
anyone," then the obvious question becomes why bring in immigrants to take
even those few people's jobs or drive down their wages. Of course, I don't
really expect Kim to answer those questions. Few seem to care about the
Americans who are losing their jobs, or are seeing their wages reduced, as a
result of immigration and other government policies. They have their
pro-immigration blinders on and refuse to see the obvious fallout of these
government policies.

I look around and see many in my hometown (a small town) unemployed or
working in low paying jobs while every factory in the area closes and
immigrants move in to take jobs. A friend, who has been doing lawn care for
almost three decades, recently lost a long-standing contract to another
out-of-state company using all immigrant employees. As a result, he filed
for bankruptcy and had to fire his entire workforce - Americans who were
willing to work.

I'm feeling the pressure right now. One of my companies (wetland
maintenance) is facing competition from a company with almost all illegal
immigrant employees. I just barely held onto a county contract last time,
but profits are now dismal. To hold onto that contract next time, either I
cut my employee's wages sharply or I replace them with illegal immigrants.
The only other option is to not even bid at all, which means the other
company (with it's illegal immigrants) is assured the contract (and I let
employees go).

The economy of this country is quickly heading to hell in a handbasket and
few seem to even notice or care.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Robert Casey" wrote:

I'm a city boy, so I don't know much about farming,
except for a vague idea that farmers grow stuff that
gets converted to food sold at supermarkets. And
that there are massive government subsidies for farmers.
To make for cheap food in the USA. Or something
like that........


Most of those subsidies are in the form of market management, Robert. In
other words, they're designed to prevent gluts or shortages of farm goods.
Perhaps the easiest way to understand it is to look at an example. Lets say
there is a shortage of green beans this year, which has driven up the costs
(and, for the farmer, sale price) of green beans. At the same time, there
are too many tomatoes on the store shelves this year, driving down costs
(and the sale price for farmers). Obviously, farmers want to make maximum
profits, so farmers throughout the country next year will decide not to grow
tomatoes and to grow green beans instead.

Of course, if this happens, there is going to be an extreme shortage of
tomatoes next year and way too many green beans. To prevent this, the
government steps in to ask some farmers to grow tomatoes instead of green
beans. But, to comply, the farmer has to give up any potential extra profit
he might make if he can beat other farmers to market next year before the
price of green beans fall as a result of the glut. And, of course, there
won't be any extra profits from the sale of tomatoes next year if the
government is successful in getting some farmers to grow them.

In the end, few farmers are going to agree to grow tomatoes. At this
point, the government sweetens the deal by offering money to some farmers in
the form of farm subsidies to encourage them to grow tomatoes instead. Since
this extra money is a sure thing, the farmers agree to grow tomatoes. The
end result is that there are both tomatoes and green beans on the store
shelves next year.

This is one form of market management. It also happens when the profits of
one product are always lower than the profits of another. For example, there
is always more profit in growing corn than watermelons (even with the
different prices in the stores). Watermelons are a low yield crop while corn
is a high yield crop, meaning yon can grow much more corn then watermelons
on the same amount of land. Without farm subsidies to encourage farmers to
grow watermelons, very few farmers would.

End of Government Agriculture Management, Lesson 101. ;-)

As far as I know, my grandmother has never received farm subsidies. In
fact, subsidies are rarely even available to farmers with family, small, or
mid-size farms since their contributions to the overall market is relatively
small. My grandmother's farm was considered a mid-sized farm.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"N2EY" wrote:

Agreed! But there's a difference between doing it
for a summer at a relative's place, and doing it all
year long at various locations all over the country
or all over a region. And there's a difference
between doing it for a relative and doing it for
one's living.


Okay, if you want to make that fine of a distinction, while it is
certainly true I never worked a farm laborer job as my sole income, let me
also add that I did work for other farmers in the area while both a teenager
and young adult, as nothing more than another paid laborer (no family
connections). Many teenagers in the area did it during the summer to earn
extra money and many young adults made a living as farm laborers (I
continued to do it occasionally as a young adult to subsidize my income).

Of course, I just don't see the fine distinction you're suggesting here. A
day, week, or month's work on the farm is a day, week, or month's work on
the farm. If you're doing laborer work, the work doesn't change based on who
you are or where you live other times of the year. If anything, while
working for my grandmother, I felt I had to work harder to earn the other
workers' respect of my worth to get the same pay (and to prove I wasn't just
a city boy). And I continued to work after they went home for the day. Farm
equipment had to be cleaned and put away. Machinery had to be cleaned,
fueled, and oiled for the next days' work. Barns had to be monitored. The
other normal chores around the farm continued. Later, after those laborers
left for the year, fields had to be plowed for next years' crops. For the
farmer, work doesn't end with just pulling the crops out of the fields.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"N2EY" wrote:

I would point out that back in 1906 there were
people criticizing the immigration of those times.
Particularly immigrants who weren't from the
"right" parts of northern and western Europe...


Part of the problem was that immigration was being sold at the time as a
way to grow and further tame the West, while many immigrants simply couldn't
afford to move West once they got here - something the government seemed to
have overlooked. The result was a flood of new immigrants into Eastern
cities. Of course, the government did eventually get what it wanted as many
in the East simply moved West to get away from the new immigrants. Just
kidding (I think). ;-)


Immigration quotas were enacted early in the 20th
century for all these reasons and more.


Many of those quotas lasted well into the 1960's (my wife is a history
major and she was just reading about them a few days ago).


I think that for the reason of national security alone,
we have to:

- change the criteria for legal immigration
- reduce/eliminate illegal immigration and visa abuse
- work towards better labor practices through both
government and marketplace action


I agree. There isn't going to be an easy solution. Multiple steps, in just
the areas you describe, will have to be taken to insure a lasting solution
instead of a quick fix that falls apart in a few months. Sadly, we don't
seem to have any long term plans in this country - a game plan that
stretches out beyond just the next year or so. Bush is gearing up for next
year's election, but what about the month or year after that election? What
about ten years from now?


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"charlesb" wrote:

OH, I see! - You're talking about the government
being intelligent enough to keep it's hands off of the
economy so that it can mature and grow! I couldn't
agree with you more. - And you have history on
your side, in this arguement. Every recorded instance
of governmental meddling with the parameters of the
economy has resulted in fiasco, a net loss. (snip)


I'm arguing for a change in the ways things are done now, Charles. Not for
more of the same garbage. If you're truly that dissatisfied, you should want
some form of change. Instead, you seem to arguing to keep the existing
status quo.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

Larry Roll K3LT wrote:


However, in the context of our modern and presumably more enlightened
times, they represent something that is, best, an anachronistic example
of age-old prejudices. We should all be united under one flag, and that
flag has 50 stars and 13 stripes -- not a big "X" running through it.

73 de Larry, K3LT


Just saw on the news that more blacks are leaving the North for the
South than blacks leaving the South for the North. Reason? More jobs in
the South and less racism.

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:

I consider the KKK to be about racism, not
slavery. It was originally started as a response
to the heavy-handed political disenfranchisement
of the former Confederate states by Northern
"Carpetbaggers" who essentially swept into the
South and took over in the aftermath of the Civil
War. I don't believe that was right and never said
so. However, the KKK, instead of targeting the
mostly white Yankee politicians who violated the
constitutional rights of the citizens of the Southern
states, chose instead to target ethnic and religious
groups, such as blacks, Catholics, and particularly
Jews. (snip)


The "particularly Jews" is news to me. I know the KKK doesn't especially
like Jews today (to put it mildly), but I've read a lot about the early KKK
and don't remember seeing anything about Jews being targeted, especially
"particularly" targeted. Can you provide a source where I can read more
about this?


However, in the context of our modern and presumably
more enlightened times, they represent something that
is, best, an anachronistic example of age-old prejudices.
We should all be united under one flag, and that flag has
50 stars and 13 stripes -- not a big "X" running through it.


I think you're interpreting the whole thing wrong, Larry. Very few in the
South see that flag as a statement about slavery or racism. From my
observations, most see it as a way to stick up their middle finger at a
government they don't particularly like. For example, the flag is displayed
most often when a liberal is in the White House and less often when a
conservative is in the White House. A few years ago, during the Clinton
years, you could see that flag everywhere (vehicles, yards, and so on).
Today, it has virtually disappeared. When another liberal gets in the White
House, that flag will suddenly show up on everything again. The more liberal
that person is, the more you'll see that flag displayed.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/