Ethnic Hierarchies, Abuse, and Only Getting Paid 10 Dollars A Day?

I came across this article today on Facebook. Read a little bit of it and I have to say, I'm appalled. I never knew things like this were happening behind the curtain when it came to nail salons.

Here's the article, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/10/n...rists-are-underpaid-and-unprotected.html?_r=0

What are your thoughts on all of this?

 

The practices of their employers is abhorrent, at best. I'm glad that the Department of Labor is investigating, but I sincerely hope that they step up their efforts and actively prosecute owners who are shown to be in violation of the law and whom practice abusive and extortionist policies in their shops.

But this really points to a much larger issue at a national level: immigration reform. We really need a better and easier path to citizenship in the U.S. And we shouldn't allow those who are here illegally to go abused and extorted within our borders. Regardless of their nationality, they are in our nation, contributing to our economy. Why should it not be their nation as well? How can we allow such a lapse in basic human decency due to bureaucracy and nationality?

 

Yeah I realised the amount of immigrants you guys get here. America needs detention centers like we do here to control the immigrants.

 

That would probably never happen. The risk of some sort of uproar would be too high.

I personally think the detention centers could be beneficial in some ways, but it would never last on an ethical point since we're already so horrid to the immigrants that are already suspected of being illegal, let alone the ones we do know are illegal.
I mean, we've got the border down in Texas but I've heard stories about how boarder patrol is just god awful and horrid with dealing with things.

 

You guys are a bit corrupt right?

 

More than a bit. =/

I don't think detention centers is the answer. In truth, we have more than enough land and more than enough room to grow our economy to allow much more relaxed immigration. What we really need is reform. We need to have an easier path to citizenship and make it easier to immigrate through legitimate channels.

Basically, if you're not from Canada or the EU it's not easy to immigrate here. And that's the case with a lot of European nations as well, especially the UK. But the U.S. is much larger than nearly any European nation. We don't even use over half of our land, and there is certainly work to be had here. Especially if we would get around to fixing our 1920's infrastructure. =P

 

Excuse me, it's 1950s infrastructure. Eisenhower is crying in the afterlife right now. He didn't make our interstates for nothing good sir. Our dams are older though. That's 1930s infrastructure.
How far would you allow relaxed immigration? An increase of the quotas currently established or a return to pre-1921 unlimited immigration that was the great turning point on the story of immigration.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Quota_Act
Personally, I really think that nativism is largely ignorant of the potential benefits immigrants can have upon a society and economy.
Sigh, sometimes I think I should've been a history major....

 

@BaconMan8910 & @Shogun13 as a miner who works in the copper industry, I fully support a complete revamp of our infrastructure! Hell, the Chinese housing market boom raised the price of metal through the roof! Kind of off topic here, but it struck close to home when you said infrastructure.

 

1950's in developed areas. =P Much of the rest of the nation, especially dams, is still 1920's-1930's. But, regardless, the point remains that our infrastructure is not only crumbling in many areas, but in drastic need of updating, expansion, and repair.

I would return to unlimited immigration, in the sense that we would have no quota as to what percentage of people may immigrate from certain countries. I do, however, believe that we are becoming more and more globalized and so the idea of trying to close off our borders to people who could contribute to our economy or who are willing to pursue legitimate channels for immigration shouldn't be denied and should have an easier time applying for and going through immigration.

I would also like to see those whom have already immigrated here illegally be given a chance to become citizens.

Pursuing a history major sounds fun until I realize that I have no desire to pursue a teacher/historian career. For me, it's more of a hobby. :3

 

Well the interstates which make up a lot of highways in at least the major cities were made in the 1950s so yeah....
I'm not sure where I stand on the topic of immigration. I believe that the quotas currently in place are quite draconian, but at the same time current modes of travel make it so that an unlimited system might lead to an excessive amount of immigration due to it's current ease and speed. Unfortunately, barring some type of second homestead act, the amount of money needed to settle an empty piece of land would be prohibitively expensive for such people leading to an increase in the urban poor... So if I have a preferred solution, it would be to allow for less selective and larger quotas.
I also believe that there should be a path to citizenship for those currently illegally here.

 

Isn't most of your land just barren and dry? Like our country, the majority of Australia is just desert.

 

That's a fair point. But, the thing is, as the Earth's population increases (and if we don't do something about climate change) we're going to have to settle more of our less populated areas, anyway. There are certainly ways around this. But it does require expanding settlements, cities, and towns and possibly constructing new ones. It would also require an expansion of our infrastructure into more (currently) rural areas.

That being said, Areas which are currently well developed or which are currently developing (suburbs, smaller cities) aren't without room to house more people.

But room isn't really the issue. When we talk about immigration, the main problem people bring up is economical. Worrying about natives or current citizens getting laid off in favor of newcomers. Much of this fear extends to, and focuses primarily on, illegal immigrants who can work for less than minimum wage, making citizens, which are required to be paid a certain wage, uncompetitive. The interesting thing is, however, that relaxing immigration laws actually helps to resolve the latter issue. But the knee-jerk reaction to this is just to seal up our borders and deny even more people visas and access to citizenship.

There's a decent portion that is made up of desert. Much of it, however, is simply plains that are devoted mostly to farm land or which lie empty or sparsely populated due to an increased number of natural disasters (tornadoes) in those areas.

 

Then could you really use those areas for urbanisation?

 

Technically speaking, yes. =P

But see my above post. My point about land that we're not using isn't just about the center of the country. It's also important to note we have plenty of areas which are already developing on both the east and west coast that can stand further development.

 

But government funding can only last so long.

 

Government funding for what, exactly? I don't think anyone is suggesting that all immigrants go on welfare. At least not permanently.

 

I meant government funding for developing towns and states, it can only go for so long.

 

I concur with @BaconMan8910. A huge chunk of arizona is uninhabited. Same could be said for new Mexico, Utah, Nevada, Wyoming, Montana. Tons of land not in the Midwest that's empty. Also, arizona, while primarily desert, still has tons of farm land and ranch land as well.

 

I talked about a tiered path to citizenship: 10 years, taxes payed (no breaks), no crimes other then minor traffic offences, (tickets payed, court dates met) and English classes. You may apply for social security number and medicare benefits. After another 10 years (same conditions) full benefits allowed. To the individuals above that talked about the Midwest being "empty" Most of the grain, soy and corn is grown there. Cutting away forests(taking prime hunting lands away), polluting waterways(killing fishing and destroying wetlands) and overcrowding land to kill it may be acceptable to you, but to those that live there (like I do) to us that take care of this land and feed the masses that answer is unacceptable. Majority of the grains we produce gets shipped overseas to feed other countries gets put in to the cows or turkeys you in turn consume or is used in the cereal consumed in the morning. Overcrowding creates a myriad of problems even the best of conservation programs can't solve. The quotas are there for a reason and that reason is conservation of resources.

 

Ah. You're right. But we're currently in the process of developing affordable housing in most major cities, anyway. And not just slums, either. NYC is currently at the forefront of this, but there is still a long way to go. When I say development, that's what I mean. I'm not talking about some grand construction project. But as our population naturally increases, our cities and towns will, naturally grow. And it only makes sense for us to support that. Hell, we might even be able to talk the private sector into assisting with it.

I feel like my speculation on urban development may have gotten misconstrued or lost in translation at some point.

No one is talking about cutting down forests or destroying farm land. =P I'm just as much for preserving the environment as anyone else.

Although, a 20 year system is ludicrous. Even the UK (who are strict on immigration due to their limited land) only has a 7 year path to citizenship. As far as new immigrants paying taxes, I'm fine with that. But I say that they should be afforded any breaks that their income bracket (or other qualifiers) are eligible for. Otherwise you're just making immigration more difficult and placing an unfair burden on the poor. And not just the poor, but certain demographics of the poor, which isn't okay.