White men used to work. Now, for example, farmers have 2 or more messicans. Heck, even black men don't want to work on farms anymore.
Right so your concern is that Mexicans can continue to be exploited as you have confirmed they get underpaid. Just like the labor in China.
No I’m talking about the market. The free market determines wages.....unless you’re a democrat in drag touting the minimum wage. Free trade over the last 70 years is what has raised our wealth across the board even though wages have been fairly stagnant. That’s why anyone can buy a 50” flat screen HD TV for less than his father paid for a 19” black & white. How much do you think an iPhone or iPad would cost if it were made here? Free trade and competition is what spurred steel and car companies to improve their products so they can compete on the world market. Get in the game sport you’re floundering
You can’t even have a debate. You lack actual knowledge of the words you use. You on one hand cite the cheap Chinese labor to make my iPhone cheep and call it free trade. Lunacy. Free trade is just globalist bullshit. It’s not free. Free doesn’t exist.
@LaSalle, this is mostly for you but great reading for all. John Eastman is a true Constitutionalist. "The law could not be more clear. Section 1182(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act authorizes the president to “suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens” whenever he “finds” that their entry “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.” Every president since that law was enacted in 1952 has exercised the authority conveyed by it, without serious challenge. One—President Jimmy Carter in 1979—exercised it against Iran, one of the very same countries covered by Trump’s executive order. Indeed, given the role the nation’s chief executive has in protecting the nation from foreign threats, it is very likely that the president could exercise such authority even in the absence of the federal statute. The president has “plenary and exclusive power … as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations,” the Supreme Court noted more than 80 years ago in the case of United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. And that power “does not require as a basis for its exercise an act of Congress.” Today, the Supreme Court gave effect to the textual clarity of the statute, holding that “by its plain language, §1182(f) grants the President broad discretion to suspend the entry of aliens into the United States.” The court then systematically dismantled each of the specious arguments offered by the plaintiffs—and too readily accepted by the courts below—that the plain language does not mean what it says. The statutory requirement of presidential “finding” was easily met, held the court, because the “12-page Proclamation—which thoroughly describes the process, agency evaluations, and recommendations underlying the President’s chosen restrictions—is more detailed than any prior order a President has issued under §1182(f),” including President Bill Clinton’s one-sentence order suspending entry of members of the Sudanese government and armed forces. Second, although the court agreed that the statutory term “suspend” often connotes a deferral until later, it held that the word did not require this president to announce ahead of time a fixed end date to the suspension, any more than President Barack Obama’s (or any other prior president’s) indefinite suspensions needed to have a precise end date. And the third restriction plaintiffs sought to tease out from the text—that “any class of aliens” could not cover nationality—was equally dismissed. “The word ‘class’ comfortably encompasses a group of people linked by nationality,” said the court, particularly when the statutory text itself allows the president to suspend the entry of “all aliens.” http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/06/symposium-repudiating-the-judicial-coup-detat/
