Post New

The president of California Citrus Mutual said that 25% of their workers did not show up for work on Tuesday and 75% did not show up yesterday. He said new raids “have sent shockwaves through out community. People aren’t going to work, kids aren’t going to school.” He said that the new Trump ICE raids are not targeting people suspected of committing crimes - they are racially profiling and looking for anyone.

We know the targets are blue states. What percentage of agricultural workers in Texas are undocumented? Can anyone tell us if these raids are taking place in red states? Or is it just blue states? With a particularly malign focus on California? We know Trump doesn’t like California.

We know the targets are blue states. What percentage of agricultural workers in Texas are undocumented? Can anyone tell us if these raids are taking place in red states? Or is it just blue states? With a particularly malign focus on California? We know Trump doesn’t like California.

Hmm. Question.

What were all those illegals doing there working at this company in the first place? Why wasn't workplace enforcement taking place?

Because Joe Biden stopped the practice, that's why.

Why are you shedding tears for this outfit? They knew damn well who they were hiring and nobody told them to have that major a dependency on illegal workers.

More:

And the ripple effect could soon hit supermarkets, as the chaos surrounding Trump’s strict immigration policies – which already include stepped-up ICE raids – are already threatening to send food prices soaring before long, according to a report in The New Republic.

“Bakersfield, California saw a massive drop off in the number of field workers showing up for work Tuesday while ICE agents in unmarked Chevy Suburbans rounded up and detained immigrants in the area, profiling individuals they believed to be field workers,” the outlet reported...

... Casey Creamer, president of the industry group California Citrus Mutual, told CalMatters that the events “sent shockwaves through the entire community.”

“People aren’t going to work and kids aren’t going to school,” Creamer told the publication. “Yesterday about 25% of the workforce, today 75% didn’t show up.”

Richard S. Gearhart, an associate professor of economics at California State University, Bakersfield offered concern for the food industry as a whole.

“If this is the new normal, this is absolute economic devastation,” he said to CalMatters. “You are talking about a recession-level event if this is the new long-term norm.”

https://www.newsbreak.com/raw-story-2096750/377313...

Well, we'll feel this at the grocery store soon. Why do I have this feeling we're screwed - that it's inevitable Trump will set off a recession?

And more - now we investigate anyone who appears to stand in the way.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department is directing its federal prosecutors to investigate any state or local officials who stand in the way of beefed-up enforcement of immigration laws under the Trump administration, according to a memo to the entire workforce obtained by The Associated Press on Wednesday.

The memo, written by acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove, also instructs the Justice Department’s civil division to help identify state and local laws and policies that “threaten to impede” the Trump administration’s immigration initiatives and potentially challenge them in court.

The memo signals a sharp turnabout in priorities from President Joe Biden’s Democratic administration, with prosecutors told in no uncertain terms that they will be on the front lines of an administration-wide effort to crack down on illegal immigration and border crime and that they are expected to carry out the policy vision of President Donald Trump’s Republican White House when it comes to violent crimes, the threat of international gangs and drug trafficking.

https://www.newsbreak.com/raw-story-2096750/377313...

What were all those illegals doing there working at this company in the first place? Why wasn't workplace enforcement taking place?

He said the raids are simply racial profiling and sweeping up everyone- US citizens and undocumented alike. I’m not opposing the right of the government to detain undocumented workers, though the tactic employed appears to be more aimed at harming the economy of California.

Which brings me back to the second part of my question: Are these raids occurring in red states? Undocumented workers are spread pretty evenly across the country. They work on farms in Texas and California and in restaurants from Miami to Chicago.

Are these raids also taking place in Miami and Texas? Or are they only going to take place in places like California and Chicago?

We already know that Trump has threatened to withhold disaster funds from California . Is he trying to destroy that state’s economy as well?

He said that the new Trump ICE raids are not targeting people suspected of committing crimes - they are racially profiling and looking for anyone.

--------------

I call BS.

That aside there are no words that will defuse that paranoia. It will just take a few months of that not happening to make them relax. However the agitators will do everything to keep them stirred up, so meh.

that they are expected to carry out the policy vision of President Donald Trump’s Republican White House when it comes to violent crimes

---------------

Wrong

They are expected to not interfere with ICE as they carry out lawful arrests. There are statutes that make certain of these activities a crime and if laws are broken, the DOJ will investigate. After all no one is above the law, even a sanctuary state mayor.

Is he trying to destroy that state’s economy as well? - Bill

--------------

No, I think (and was probably lied to when I heard Trump say with his own mouth), he wants Gavin to send some of its vast water supply in the North to the parched cities in the South.

Nothing against the delta smelt but the needs of the people should prevail.

He said the raids are simply racial profiling

Lulz. That's bollocks and you know it if that high a percentage of his workforce is illegal. And he knows that if the DOJ wants to, they have him dead to rights for hiring loads of illegals.

You ducked the rest of the post, not surprisingly.

Why do you support the hiring of illegals to that degree by obviously unscrupulous employers?

That aside there are no words that will defuse that paranoia.

Right. The proof will be in the pudding. The actions of ICE will let us know what is really going on.

Are they rounding up everyone with a Mexican name or a Mexican look?
Are they going to the employer and asking to examine the employer's records that are supposed to show documentation that each employee provided some proof of their right to work in the US? And then maybe using that information to decide who to detain.
How many citizens or legal residents are being caught up in proportion to the numbers of those found to be here illegally? How long is it taking to sort them out?
How many errors are being made - both legal folks being incorrectly detained and those here illegally being let go?
Are employers being punished for hiring people who do not have the right to work in the US? (If you go to a farm and find that half the workers do not have the right to work in the US, that tells me something is wrong in the employer's hiring practices and that they need to be penalized as well.)
Are the raids happening in a somewhat even manner? (Like the concern that raids could happen in CA but not in TX even though there are likely plenty of potential targets in both states.)

Lots of questions and concerns. No answers yet. But we should be able to get those answers in due course. And if that data is not being kept or is being unduly withheld, well, that tells us something, too.

--Peter

After all no one is above the law, even a sanctuary state mayor.

Except the President. The President is above the law. The USSC says so.

Nothing against the delta smelt but the needs of the people should prevail.

The people of California elected Newsom. If the people of California don't like what he's doing, they can recall him or vote him out of office. We don't need the federal government telling us what choices we should make, when those choices do not violate either Federal or CA law. We get to prioritize smelt wherever the hell we want to prioritize them.

In short, butt out, Trump. It's none of your damn business.

--Peter

PS. That's terrible sentence construction, there. Terrible. Pretty much a crime against words, if you ask me. But it's late at night and I'm too tired to rewrite it. F#$K it. Release all of the sentences to be free and offend grammarians everywhere. ;-)

No, I think (and was probably lied to when I heard Trump say with his own mouth), he wants Gavin to send some of its vast water supply in the North to the parched cities in the South.

Short of building a vast,new infrastructure to move that water from northern to Southern California, because that watershed is not currently connected, how is that going to be accomplished?

And that crazy smelt isn’t even in that river system- different area.

Short of building a vast,new infrastructure to move that water from northern to Southern California, because that watershed is not currently connected, how is that going to be accomplished?

By...building something?

https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web-Pages...

They've had this thing and versions of it on the drawing board for years.

Why do you support the hiring of illegals to that degree by obviously unscrupulous employers?

If they were serious about stopping the problem, they’d go after those “unscrupulous employers” problem solved. No jobs, the undocumented workers go back to Mexico.

But they don’t, because crops would rot in the ground, grocery prices would rise, and Big Ag would lose money.


So the system continues and every fee years they yell alot about illegals, but make sure that any legislation that might address the situation fails to pass. This is the fail safe Republican election issue and has been for years. Why would they change it?

So is Trump only going to run these Chinese fire drills only in blue states? That was part of my opening question and so far you haven’t touched it.

If they were serious about stopping the problem, they’d go after those “unscrupulous employers” problem solved. No jobs, the undocumented workers go back to Mexico.

And here's hoping they will. All that has to happen is to get serious about enforcing e-Verify. Boom.

Richard S. Gearhart, an associate professor of economics at California State University, Bakersfield offered concern for the food industry as a whole.

“If this is the new normal, this is absolute economic devastation,” he said to CalMatters. “You are talking about a recession-level event if this is the new long-term norm.”

No one should be surprised.

And yet, many (most?) of those California farmers voted for Trump. As I drove through the agricultural areas of the southern San Joaquin Valley and along I-5 there were many Trump signs. Of course, what they wanted from Trump was more water (water that probably just isn't going to be there, new dams or not), but they must have thought their orange messiah would leave them their undocumented workers.

Nothing against the delta smelt but the needs of the people should prevail.

The smelt is a red herring (couldn't help that) and you would know that if you listened to anything but RW propaganda.

As I drove through the agricultural areas of the southern San Joaquin Valley and along I-5 there were many Trump signs.

Many? LOL

We have one son in SF and the other is in Burbank. Driven I-5 lots of times, back and forth.

Nothing but Trump and anti-Newsome signs for hours of driving. Trump bailed out the Midwest soy farmers for billions after he screwed them with tariffs. No bail out for these idiots.

California:
It supplies one-third of U.S. vegetables and three-quarters of its fruit and nuts. California is the country’s biggest milk producer, producing nearly 20 percent of the nation’s milk. And of all crops grown in the U.S., 19 of them – including almonds, pistachios, walnuts, raisins, olives, plums and table grapes – are grown only in California.

Absolutely a brilliant idea to screw with California’s farm economy. What could possibly go wrong?

We know the targets are blue states. What percentage of agricultural workers in Texas are undocumented? Can anyone tell us if these raids are taking place in red states? Or is it just blue states? With a particularly malign focus on California? We know Trump doesn’t like California.

****

And Sheeple doesn't like Texas.

The Civil War and Tribalism the Leader predicted....is only starting to take hold.

Hopefully future Putins and Bibs exploit these tribes :)

lol@fruits and nuts in Cali Phornia

Absolutely a brilliant idea to screw with California’s farm economy. What could possibly go wrong?

Don't worry, the needed labor will come from US citizens. Just kidding, we are all too spoiled to take on those jobs.

This is a real problem. It's hard work and low wages. When there have been labor shortages in the agricultural sector, USians have not been there to fill the gap. Thus undocumented workers.

In the 1960's when I was a teenager in central California my friends and I (and really most of the high school kids) found summer jobs in the ag sector. I worked in a peach cannery, a packing shed for tomatoes and peppers, an onion and garlic dehydrating plant, hoeing grape vineyards, and picking peaches. (I'll admit I did not last long picking peaches).

Maybe the most interesting of those jobs was the onion and garlic dehydrating plant. This was summer work and the already high temps were made hotter by the huge gas jets that were used to heat enclosed conveyer belts where the onions and garlic were dehydrated. As a new hire I was given some of the worst jobs: standing at a station where the product would jam up and using my hands to keep the masses of product moving; climbing through an opening in the big ducts to clear out jams when the onions would pile up and stop moving, this done with a big snow shovel and in a space just barely big enough to work on hands and knees. Fun. It took a week or so after the end of that job for the garlic smell to finally get flushed from my pores.

Don't worry, the needed labor will come from US citizens. Just kidding, we are all too spoiled to take on those jobs.

This is a real problem. It's hard work and low wages. When there have been labor shortages in the agricultural sector, USians have not been there to fill the gap. Thus undocumented workers.

We don't even need to cast aspersions on US workers, like calling them spoiled. It actually makes good economic sense. Nearly every US person is literate, and nearly all of us graduate high school. It doesn't make a lot of sense to have workers with that level of education doing untrained, unskilled manual labor (like field workers). That's not the most productive way to deploy them.

In a world with global trade flows, an efficient economy will try to source food production that requires field workers to economies that have lots of uneducated workers, and other production to economies that don't. But that's a problem, because unlike most other types of capital, land can't move. Ag land can't go to where the workers are - the workers would have to come to the land. If the workers can't come to the land, then you end up at an equilibrium where you have suboptimal use of ag land, but most food production is in economies with "next best" land and poorly educated workers working as field hands. Unlike land, food can trade. So if you don't "import" field workers, then you'll end up importing food as your food production shifts overseas - domestic land can't compete with overseas food production costs using domestic workers.

We don't want that, of course. Partially because there's a lot of non-field worker jobs that are associated with ag production that we'd like to keep, but mostly because food security is part of national security. You want to be at least independent on food, and there are advantages to being a food exporter.

Which is why our current system arose as a kludge. We can't produce certain types of food at current costs using domestic workers, because it's not cost effective. So we "import" low-education workers that will work at below-market wages to make the economics work, and that way our food production doesn't move overseas.

Trump is now about to break that kludge - or at least try to. It will be interesting (and not in a good way) to see what happens to American agricultural production in products that require large amounts of unskilled labor.

[BTW, the same thing applies to any land-based services - jobs that don't require a high-school education that are tied to a specific location - such as cleaning and housekeeping, landscaping, construction, and other types of food services. The service is 'non-tradable' (can't be imported or exported), so the labor has to come to the land.

Trump is now about to break that kludge - or at least try to. It will be interesting (and not in a good way) to see what happens to American agricultural production in products that require large amounts of unskilled labor.

It's amazing to me how ingrained the notion that having an illegal workforce is somehow something we just have to accept.

It's amazing to me how ingrained the notion that having an illegal workforce is somehow something we just have to accept.

It's not something we have to accept.

But there are real world trade-offs here that can't just be wished away. Any functioning free market economy is going to create very powerful incentives for labor to be used efficiently. That means that workers with a high school education or higher (like nearly all U.S. citizens) are not going to ever efficiently work as field hands for any wage that an agricultural producer can pay.

You can't have both. Low-educated unskilled workers are a necessary factor of production for certain types of agricultural products. You can't have domestic agricultural production for labor-intensive food and prevent the flow international of low-educated unskilled workers.

So - you don't have to bring in those low-educated unskilled workers illegally. You can set up programs where they can come in and work on a temporary basis (like the old bracero programs). Or you can allow enough legal immigration that you have a steady supply of low-educated unskilled folks to serve as farm hands. Or you can allow those segments of domestic agriculture (and other fields that require low-educated unskilled labor) to disappear.

But you don't get to wish away economic realities because they are inconsistent with one's worldview on immigration. If you don't import a necessary factor of production for an industry, and you don't have it domestically, you don't get to have that industry in your country.

But there are real world trade-offs here that can't just be wished away.

Any change is going to cause disruption. Take this thread. Is it remotely okay for some guy have 75% of his workforce be illegal? That's in Come on, man territory. If you're coloring that far outside the lines then yes, you can expect a lot of issues.

You can set up programs where they can come in and work on a temporary basis (like the old bracero programs). Or you can allow enough legal immigration that you have a steady supply of low-educated unskilled folks to serve as farm hands.

A Gues Worker program, where people have to register so we know who they are, and who if while here commit serious crimes can be kicked out the of US, is something that's long overdue.

Any change is going to cause disruption. Take this thread. Is it remotely okay for some guy have 75% of his workforce be illegal? That's in Come on, man territory. If you're coloring that far outside the lines then yes, you can expect a lot of issues.

Indeed - but you can't just make those issues disappear with a "Come on, man." Again, if low-educated workers are a necessary factor of production for your industry , then there probably won't be a way to operate with a nearly entirely legal workforce if your domestic economy has an entirely high-school educated workforce. That's the choice we face as a society - you can have the industry and let them bring in the uneducated workforce, or you can get rid of the industry. You can't have both.

A Gues Worker program, where people have to register so we know who they are, and who if while here commit serious crimes can be kicked out the of US, is something that's long overdue.

But no one's willing to approve that. Many Democrats don't want it, because the idea of "second class workers" subject to exploitation run contrary to some of their beliefs. Many Republicans don't want it, because the idea of foreign workers here lawfully (and thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States) will inexorably lead to some of those workers getting married or having children here in the U.S., and create domestic pressure to allow people who have been living and working here for a long time to have a path to citizenship.

Again, that's why this is a kludge. Historically, it has been a de facto guest worker program - off the books, but serving the essential economic function of providing domestic agricultural firms (and other industries) with the uneducated labor they need in order to remain in the country. Since no one will approve a de jeure system, you have to pick among the options that exist without it: i) illegal workforces; or ii) lost of segments of the domestic agricultural industry that need uneducated workers. There is no magic third option that lets you have the domestic industry and robust enforcement against illegal workers.

The kludge is what lets you have the domestic industry. Trump is going to try to break the kludge. There will inexorably be economic consequences - and they don't mean that Americans are "spoiled," just much more uniformly highly educated than the workforces in other countries.

Indeed - but you can't just make those issues disappear with a "Come on, man."

The guy Bill mentioned is a particularly egregious example of an employer who's been cheating for years. He did that himself; nobody told him to hire illegals for 3 out of every 4 of his employees.

I don't feel bad for this dude.

But no one's willing to approve that.

Who? Bear in mind that in the inevitable disruption that happens, there will be an opportunity to do something different.

It's amazing to me how ingrained the notion that having an illegal workforce is somehow something we just have to accept.

Every action has an opposite and equal reaction and pointing that out should not cause amazement.

This is the kind of guy they're rounding up and getting rid of:

https://x.com/TheBrandonMorse/status/1882450413947...

Gang member with 17 arrests. Never deported.

On his way into the squad car he did praise Obama and Biden, though.

Every action has an opposite and equal reaction and pointing that out should not cause amazement.

The left is screaming its collective head off about...wait for it...actual law enforcement.

Bear in mind that in the inevitable disruption that happens, there will be an opportunity to do something different.

Absolutely.

Unfortunately, every “something different” is opposed by one of the political parties (so it won’t get done) OR it will produce lower supplies and therefore, higher prices.

No one ever confused Trump with someone who actually thinks things through in an intelligent manner.

This is the kind of guy they're rounding up and getting rid of:

Glad they're getting rid of him. But what makes you think this new right wing poster boy is actually representative of those being rounded up?

Gotta break a few eggs or something like that?

It's amazing to me how ingrained the notion that having an illegal workforce is somehow something we just have to accept.

It's not. Previous administrations have attempted to change immigration laws in a way that would make this workforce legal and/or allow legal immigration to replace the illegal immigration. But those efforts were largely blocked by your side of the aisle.

That is the insanity (or stupidity) that annoys a lot of people. As albaby put it so succinctly, there are tradeoffs here. Those tradeoffs are dictated by economic laws that are just as immutable as the laws of science. (Which is a whole other area affected by the same insanity/stupidity.)

--Peter

CA growers should retaliate. If you live in a state that went for the Felon, you don't get any produce from CA. And that includes Washington D.C.

Just ship to the states that went for Harris.

Yes, I realize that would mean no produce for me (AZ). But if they want to harm CA's economy, and the food supply, then they should feel the brunt of it.

The left is screaming its collective head off about...wait for it...actual law enforcement.


It's the ones tasking law enforcement to do what they're doing.... Donald Trump, Steven Miller and the other clueless pranksters in the White House.

That noise you hear is called peaceful dissent.

The left is screaming its collective head off about...wait for it...actual law enforcement.

Sorry. You've lost the right to complain about law enforcement when Trump pardoned and commuted roughly 1500 criminals on his first day in office. Your complaints about law and order are meaningless in light of that act.

--Peter

Who? Bear in mind that in the inevitable disruption that happens, there will be an opportunity to do something different.

Both Democrats and Republicans. On the Democratic side, it's been the progressive wing. They were philosophically opposed to the idea of a permanent "underclass" of residents who neither had the rights of citizenship nor could ever achieve citizenship, but did the dirty, difficult, and/or dangerous work that often falls to uneducated workers. They also felt that such workers would be vulnerable and exploited by their employers, since they would have such tenuous footing in their jobs. Echoes of the H-1B complaints we've seen recently.

On the GOP side, it's been the cultural conservatives/nativists who don't want the U.S. to open up to large numbers of immigrants. If you bring in a few million people as guest workers, a non-trivial number of them will (over time) have children or get married or make community ties or a host of other things that makes them likely to stay. Or just overstay their guest worker visa. They want to keep them out.

Would a disruption that undermines the status quo create an opportunity to do something different? Probably not. The reason that our immigration system is a kludge isn't because a majority of people like the current system. It's because there are too many alternatives, and none of the alternatives has anything close to majority support - and since our political system almost always results in inaction when there isn't a majority consensus in favor of action, the most likely outcome is usually inaction.

But what makes you think this new right wing poster boy is actually representative of those being rounded up?

I'm sure the MSM will find somebody they swept up to make the face of the anti-Trump movement.

BTW. You guys are upset about change. Wait until Fiscal Austerity gets here.

That noise you hear is called peaceful dissent.

No, it's a bunch of caterwauling in support of an unsustainable status quo that creates victims and really doesn't help anybody.

Your complaints about law and order are meaningless in light of that act.

Says the guy who supports the clemency for a double FBI agent executioner. Sorry, but I needn't hear from you on this topic.

CA growers should retaliate. If you live in a state that went for the Felon, you don't get any produce from CA.

Love the sentiment. Never gonna happen.

CA growers largely voted for Trump. The agricultural area in the central valley of California is very conservative. Remember, that is the home of former Speaker McCarthy and former Rep. Devin Nunez and his famous cow. Most of the other US Reps from that area are similarly inclined, if not quite as well known.

They are also the loudest whiners about water (and probably where Trump learned about the delta smelt). They don't want the water going to So Cal, they want it for their own somewhat wasteful watering practices because it would cost money to switch to more water-wise methods. (There's a joke in there about being wise, but I'm going to leave that alone for now.) They also complain a lot about taxes, while enjoying all the benefits those taxes provide. (All while they are the largest beneficiaries of Prop 13, which keeps their property taxes lower that much of the rest of the country.) Little things like sane government working for all of the people of the state and not just the rich.

Besides, you've got a decent Ag economy in AZ. You'll have plenty to eat at good prices. Only some items would get expensive. I know we can't send our citrus to you because CA has a parasite that you've kept out of AZ. Doesn't affect the food quality, but it does make the skin of citrus look bad.

--Peter

White Liberals.....


#1 Advocates for business when it wants cheap labor.


Inconvenient truths are coming out :)


The Hero Bishop correlated immigrants with crop picking and toilet cleaning. What a REAL White Liberal she is! Kinda like you people.

A Gues Worker program, where people have to register so we know who they are, and who if while here commit serious crimes can be kicked out the of US, is something that's long overdue.

Finally something we agree on.

So where is it? When was the last time a conservative proposed such a thing? Any attempts at immigration reform are shot down, usually by conservatives.

Any attempt to immigration reform for the past 20 years (or more) gets nowhere.

To get that, you'll need a House dem majority, a 60-seat dem majority in the Senate, and a dem POTUS. And even then, to be honest, there are enough factions within the Dem party that it still might not get done. Reps will never approve a guest worker program. I could speculate why, but I won't.

CA growers largely voted for Trump.

Yes. But the OP was about the beginnings of buyer's remorse. They were "rah rah Felon!", and then "oh, wait...you're taking away our illegal workers??!!". I suspect money is going to trump (no pun intended) loyalty to the Felon. They'll turn on him if their workforce disappears. CA provides an enormous amount of produce for this country. If they stop shipping to red states, their complaints will be amplified.

Didn't know about the parasite. At the border in Ehrenberg there is an agriculture inspection station...just on the CA side. They are concerned about stuff coming into CA. There is no station going the other way.

When was the last time a conservative proposed such a thing?

Bush43 and...Trump45. A deal was close until Diane Feinstein blew it up:
https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/dealmaking-daily...
“You talk about comprehensive reform,” Trump said. “If we do the right bill here, we are not very far away [from that]. . . . And if you want to take that further step, I don’t care. I’ll take the heat.”

Trump’s expressed openness to broader reform was surprising, given his anti-immigrant rhetoric during the presidential campaign. He also hedged on his past demands for a wall spanning the entire U.S.-Mexico border, noting that parts of the border have natural barriers.

Trump told the lawmakers that he trusted them to reach a good bipartisan agreement. “When this group comes back, hopefully with an agreement,” he said, “I’m signing it. I’m not going to be saying, ‘Oh, gee, I want this or I want that.’ I’ll be signing it. Because I have a lot of confidence in the people in this room.”

And then...Feinstein shot for the moon, and blew it all up.


Any attempt to immigration reform for the past 20 years (or more) gets nowhere.

Why do you think that is? The democrats never propose anything besides mass amnesty or rapid paths to citizenship for those who've jumped the line.

Finally stumbled across an article discussing this particular raid.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/column-inside-bakersfie...

A few important bits.

The raids started on January 7 and were done by the Border Patrol.

Those detained were not detained at the local ICE facilities in Bakersfield, but were transported about 300 miles to the Border Patrol's own facilities in El Centro. Any who were released after being detained were left in El Centro and not returned to the Bakersfield area.

Border Patrol claims that these were targeted operations. However, it is estimated that they stopped and talked to as many as 1,000 people, while only 78 were ultimately detained for various crimes. Advocates for immigrants believe these were not targeted stops, but racial profiling.

Didn't know about the parasite.

Got off my lazy butt (ok, still on my lazy butt, but started typing and researching), and found it. I think it's called sweet orange scab, and is a fungus rather than a parasite.

My recollections of learning about it are from long ago road trips from So Cal to visit extended family in AZ, and one trip in particular where we got to eat up all of the oranges we brought with us at the border inspection station (could have thrown them out, but why waste perfectly good food.) The inspector showed us what he was looking for and did a great job of quickly explaining the issue to a car full of curious kids. (All of my siblings and I enjoyed learning, but I was the only one who would sit down and read the Encyclopedia just for the fun of learning new things. Probably still explains my somewhat overuse of the internet today. There's so much to learn!)

Apparently since then, it has spread to AZ. That's shifted priorities from keeping it out to looking for and treating local outbreaks in the state.

--Peter

From your link:

Democratic senator Diane Feinstein then made a bold proposal to Trump: “What about a clean DACA bill now, with a commitment that we go into a comprehensive immigration reform procedure?” She was asking for a bill on a single, Democratic-favored issue—protections for Dreamers—with no other issues on which Republicans could negotiate concessions, such as border security.

Seems reasonable. One issue (DACA), and a proposal to go into immigration reform for everything else. Not jumping the line, not mass amnesty. Little kids brought over the border (illegally, but they had no say in that), who grew up here. I think dealing with those folks should be a priority. It's not fair to hold them in limbo when they had no say about their situation. Not an unreasonable request at all.

Border Patrol claims that these were targeted operations. However, it is estimated that they stopped and talked to as many as 1,000 people, while only 78 were ultimately detained for various crime

Homan explained this. It's the fault of Sancturary Cities and states.

Because these places don't cooperate and notify ICE of a violator in their custody...they have to go into the neighborhoods to find them. Hence the additional contacts.

Seems reasonable.

It wasn't reasonable. The deal was based on a set list of things and Feinstein blew all of that up. To the Republican partners, they thought they had a deal. Trump thought they had a deal.

But when she asked for the moon, she broke all the work they did.

A deal was close until Diane Feinstein blew it up

She didn't blow it up. They got to a bipartisan deal. Even your own link says that. She made the Democrats' opening ask, and when that (predictably) didn't get accepted they moved on to deal-making.

That bipartisan deal-making continued, and two days later the "Gang of Six" had reached a tentative agreement around a bi-partisan deal.

What "blew it up," of course, was what often blows these deals up. There's a non-trivial cohort of Republicans that are immigration hardliners - and when Stephen Miller and John Kelley realized that Trump might sign off on a immigration deal, he brought them in to convince Trump to blow up the deal:

When Durbin and Graham arrived at the Oval Office, they were surprised to find immigration hard-liners from the Senate—Republicans McCarthy, Tom Cotton, David Perdue, and Bob Goodlatte—also in attendance. The White House summoned the conservatives at the last minute, according to the Post, because Stephen Miller, Trump’s chief immigration adviser, and White House Chief of Staff John Kelly objected to the bipartisan agreement.

Trump’s mood had darkened since his phone call with Durbin. He rejected Durbin and Graham’s deal, saying it didn’t include enough money for a border wall. And in a discussion of merit-based immigration, the president insulted African countries using vulgar language and suggested that immigrants from countries such as Norway should be admitted instead, according to the Post.

Overall, the meeting was “short, tense, and often dominated by loud cross-talk and swearing,” Democrats and Republicans told the Post—the complete opposite of the Tuesday meeting. Graham and Durbin left feeling shaken. “Tuesday we had a president that I was proud to golf with, call my friend, who understood immigration had to be bipartisan,” Graham lamented during a Senate hearing. “I don’t know where that guy went, but I want him back.”

That's from your link, BTW.

That's from your link, BTW.

Yeah, he obviously didn't read it. Though it wasn't clear to me who proposed this deal to begin with (maybe I didn't read it closely enough??). I said above that I wasn't aware of a conservative proposal for immigration reform (there have been proposals to build a wall, etc...that's not reform). If a conservative proposed this, and got the players in a room talking, then I'll have to admit I was wrong. Which, unlike some, I am OK with. I can't be right all the time, and I'm not too proud to admit it.

As albaby said, you didn't read your own link.

Though it wasn't clear to me who proposed this deal to begin with (maybe I didn't read it closely enough??).

It's of a piece for Trump. He wants to do the fun part of being in charge (Have great deals! Make big announcements!)....but doesn't seem keen on putting in the work on the hard part of getting to those agreements (Understand the politics of your coalition! Recognize and mediate disagreements with the opposition!).

Since he hadn't done any of the work in preparing for a bargain on immigration, he shot from the hip. The people who were in front of his face seemed like they could reach a deal - so he told them to reach a deal, and he would take the heat if people in his coalition didn't like it. So they went out and, in two days, reached a deal and brought it back to him.

But in the meantime - surprise surprise! - Trump actually had some more conversations and learned that immigration was hard. There were people in his coalition that didn't like this deal! And they were mad that he might do the deal! He hadn't bothered to understand that his coalition included some people with very strong opinions on immigration, and that he would actually end up taking some heat on the deal. That's not the fun part of being in charge!

So the deal blew up. Not because of Dianne Feinstein, but because there's a group of Republicans who would never agree to any deal with Democrats that wasn't maximally restrictionist on immigration, and one of Trump's chief aides on immigration (Miller) is firmly in their camp.

She didn't blow it up. They got to a bipartisan deal. Even your own link says that.

And then she blew up the framework they had set up.

Sheesh.

Yeah, he obviously didn't read it.

Okay, that's it. I have read it, only I reached a different conclusion than any of you people did.

It seems I'm the only trained negotiator in this conversation; seems like the rest of you don't have those skills or have had experience Getting To Yes.

As albaby said, you didn't read your own lin

Sorry, al's wrong. I'm surprised that for a lawyer he doesn't understand how organized negotiated frameworks are executed.

And then she blew up the framework they had set up.

No she didn't. Did you not even read your article? The first meeting started with DACA, and Feinstein suggested the clean bill on DACA at that meeting. The GOP said they wanted the bill to cover security and green cards also, so they then went out and reached a bipartisan framework on all three of those issues.

The deal was cut after Feinstein's initial ask was met with a counteroffer. They cut the deal on the counter offer.

Your timing is wrong.

>>Trump is now about to break that kludge - or at least try to. It will be interesting (and not in a good way) to see what happens to American agricultural production in products that require large amounts of unskilled labor.<<

It's amazing to me how ingrained the notion that having an illegal workforce is somehow something we just have to accept. - Dope

--------------

True, we can't have an illegal workforce. So the solution to me, is that the workers presently doing those jobs obtain a legal status that allows them to be here, work here, and go back and forth to Mexico easily. Of course if they commit a serious crime, then their card is revoked and they are deported either forever or based on the crime for a substantial time before they can re-apply.

We have work to do to set up such a system but that is an outcome that solves the labor supply problem and gives the law abiding guest worker the peace of mind they deserve. At some point, we can come down hard on Employers who still employ illegals, but this will allow a window for the workers to get legal before the employer crackdown occurs.

Sorry, al's wrong. I'm surprised that for a lawyer he doesn't understand how organized negotiated frameworks are executed.

No, you just didn't read the article carefully. Your timing is wrong. The negotiated framework was agreed to after Feinstein retreated from her ask. It was the late entry of the GOP immigration hardliners that blew up that framework that the Gang of Six agreed to - not Feinstein.

Glad they're getting rid of him. But what makes you think this new right wing poster boy is actually representative of those being rounded up? - Bill

-------------

Do the news outlets you follow show video of the actual arrests being made by ICE and the rap sheet associated with each. If you did, you should be glad these guys are off the street.

I think it's called sweet orange scab, and is a fungus rather than a parasite.

===========

Orange you say. Perfect. You guys know what to do. I look forward o it.

But what makes you think this new right wing poster boy is actually representative of those being rounded up?

I'm sure the MSM will find somebody they swept up to make the face of the anti-Trump movement.

That’s not an answer to the question I asked. Instead, you deflected with a shiny bauble of hypothetical whataboutism.



BTW. You guys are upset about change. Wait until Fiscal Austerity gets here

Enrichment for the oligarchs. Financial austerity for the rest of us.

No she didn't.

Time for the finger puppet view.

Most lawmakers argued the bill should cover just three issues: (1) protections for Dreamers; (2) beefed-up border security, including Trump’s campaign promise of a border wall between the United States and Mexico; and (3) efforts to reduce immigration based on family ties, sometimes known as chain migration.

This was the deal's framework. Left out of the article is the overarching context, of which most of you are unaware of: Ronald Reagan's famous amnesty for illegals, in which the democrats promised amnesty now, border security later. Reagan trusted them on amnesty, only to have them renege on their promise to do security later.

All the GOP lawmakers negotiating the bill were keenly aware of the nature of their opponents across the table and how far they trust their word on immigration, especially on a democrat anti-shibboleth like border security. They could trust them as far as they could say, throw a bus.

So there goes DiFi proposing the exact same deal that Reagan flubbed in the '80s. How do you think that was received?

Don't fall into the pattern of making accusatory statements about other posters; you're far better than that. The others on this thread suffer from gaps in their knowledge and lack the capacity to process complex topics but you are neither.

So the solution to me, is that the workers presently doing those jobs obtain a legal status that allows them to be here, work here, and go back and forth to Mexico easily. Of course if they commit a serious crime, then their card is revoked and they are deported either forever or based on the crime for a substantial time before they can re-apply.

And this is how it should have been all along but you'll never get the democrats to sign on to common sense. That's not how they roll.

So there goes DiFi proposing the exact same deal that Reagan flubbed in the '80s. How do you think that was received?

DiFi didn't propose the deal - it was the position of the entire Gang of Six. You said it was because she shot for the moon - but that wasn't a moon shot. It was the bipartisan framework that the GOP negotiators had also agreed to. It was the deal that Donald Trump had said in the room that he could support.

If you want to say that the Gang of Six blew up the bipartisan deal that the Gang of Six proposed by doing....well, I'm not sure how they blew it up. By proposing it? By agreeing to what Donald Trump said he would support?

No - there was an agreement between the negotiating teams from both parties, but then the immigration hardliners came in and killed the deal that they had brokered. Dianne Feinstein didn't kill the deal - the hardliners did.

And this is how it should have been all along but you'll never get the democrats to sign on to common sense. That's not how they roll.

Simply not true. The majority of dems would welcome such a system. Probably a large number of reps, too (though maybe not a majority).

It's the reps that are the problem. As albaby said earlier, there are some immigration hawks that don't want anybody coming in. They are, and have been, the roadblock for decades. Different people at various times, but the same attitude. As your link exposed, the 2017 immigration deal was torpedoed by a handful of hardline restrictionist immigration hawks on the rep side.

You think Stephen Miller would go for a program like Mike outlined? Not a chance in hell. But I would. I suspect almost every poster here would. Apparently even you would. But it will never happen because of Miller, McCarthy, Cotton, and some others. And when they leave, there likely will be a new batch of hardliners who won't go for such a plan. All on the right end of the political spectrum.

You said it was because she shot for the moon - but that wasn't a moon shot.

No.
What about a clean DACA bill now, with a commitment that we go into a comprehensive immigration reform procedure?” She was asking for a bill on a single, Democratic-favored issue—protections for Dreamers—with no other issues on which Republicans could negotiate concessions, such as border security.

“I have no problem [with that],” Trump responded. “We’re going to do DACA, and then we can start immediately on the Phase 2, which would be comprehensive [reform].”

“Would you be agreeable to that?” Feinstein said.

“Yeah, I would like to do that,” Trump said.

Which then led the GOP'ers in the room to say...uhhh...as they all had flashbacks to the 1980's.

Which then led the GOP'ers in the room to say...uhhh...as they all had flashbacks to the 1980's.

Right....and then she backed off that position. She then pivoted to an agreement that immediately provided for border security funding and revisions to the green card program.

Again, your timing is off. The sequence of events was:

1) Feinstein asked for the clean DACA bill.
2) The GOP reps in the room said no.
3) The Gang of Six reached a bipartisan agreement between Republicans and Democrats for a framework that would address DACA, border security funding, and revising the green card lottery.
4) Miller and Kelly brought in the immigration hardliners who killed the deal.

Note how the bipartisan agreement was after everyone had already moved on from Feinstein's proposal. Her proposal didn't kill the agreement - the agreement came afterwards. It was the hardliners that killed the agreement.

Simply not true.

Simply 100% accurate. Your adopted party has zero interest in giving anything but lip service to border security. They feel that any increase in the minority population is an automatic vote for them and as such they do what they do.

How'd that work out for them last time? Turns out that respect for the law, our borders and national security is one of those pesky subjects that cuts across demographic lines.

You think Stephen Miller would go for a program like Mike outlined?

A guest worker plan, where we give out "Guest worker" and taxpayer IDs to people? Where we know who they are, where they live, where they're working and how long they're going to be here?

Yes he would.

But you're asking the wrong question. Would Chuck Schumer go for that in a standalone bill?

No he wouldn't. Not a chance in hell.

Here, let's quote from the article again.

Anticipate the influence of advisers. Top leaders often take a “big picture” approach and let their close advisers negotiate the details. For this reason, it’s often wise to negotiate with those advisers directly. Lobby them for support, and encourage them to get leaders on board. If advisers won’t fall in line, look for ways to reduce their influence on the leader.
Establish a representative working group. The Gang of 6’s deal was thwarted by hard-line voices on immigration that felt excluded from the negotiations. When appointing a committee to represent a larger group, make sure it includes the full range of perspectives.

You fell into the trap of assuming that just because the Gang of 6 represented what the dems want that the GOP members could say the same about their side. In this case, they couldn't, and the deal died.

You fell into the trap of assuming that just because the Gang of 6 represented what the dems want that the GOP members could say the same about their side. In this case, they couldn't, and the deal died.

I'm not assuming anything of the sort. I'm not saying that Graham accurately represented what the GOP wanted (though he certainly thought so, given that the President backed him up in the first meeting). I'm saying that the deal died because the GOP killed it. Not Dianne Feinstein - she agreed to the deal. Trump changed his mind.

Whether you think he was right to change his mind, or whether Miller and Kelly were right to bring the hardliners in, or whether the hardliners have the better position substantively - it's still the GOP that decided to pull the plug on the deal. Not Feinstein.

I'm not assuming anything of the sort.

Yes, you are. You're making the same mistake you all made on the last "bipartisan" border bill: That it would be acceptable to any Republican besides James Lankford. As we laid out for you on this very board that bill had several holes in it that we immediately, and obviously, unpalatable to anybody on the GOP side that follows border issues.

Yes, you are. You're making the same mistake you all made on the last "bipartisan" border bill: That it would be acceptable to any Republican besides James Lankford.

Again, that doesn't mean that Dianne Feinstein killed the agreement. You keep trying to pivot, but that's the point where you're wrong. Feinstein didn't kill the agreement. She supported the agreement. Just like you'd be wrong if you suggested that James Lankford killed the other bill, you're wrong when you say Feinstein killed this agreement.

Did you not even read your article?

I choose to believe that Dope read it. He's posted plenty of other articles before, and I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt on that.

The real question to ask is, "Did you understand what you read?" Reading an article is not sufficient. You have to understand and comprehend what you read.

My son struggles with comprehension, so I've seen it up close. He reads individual words, but does not always connect those words into a sentence and comprehend what he read. But when I (or someone else) reads the passage to him, he comprehends very well.

Now I'm not saying this is Dope's problem. But just like I can't rule out that he is a troll, I can't rule out that he has difficulty with reading comprehension.

--Peter

So the solution to me, is that the workers presently doing those jobs obtain a legal status that allows them to be here, work here, and go back and forth to Mexico easily. Of course if they commit a serious crime, then their card is revoked and they are deported either forever or based on the crime for a substantial time before they can re-apply.

From your lips to Trump's and Johnson's and the whole MAGA caucus' ears.

I'd be behind this 100%.

--Peter

No, I think (and was probably lied to when I heard Trump say with his own mouth), he wants Gavin to send some of its vast water supply in the North to the parched cities in the South.

Nothing against the delta smelt but the needs of the people should prevail.
-------------------------------------
There already are plans. One of the interesting things about the plans is building a long water tunnel

"2022 single tunnel design

In 2022, the project was re-named to the Delta Conveyance Project. It continued to propose a tunnel that would take water from the Sacramento River and would bypass the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, taking water to Bethany Reservoir, then to the California Aqueduct.[20] The 2022 plan was scaled-down from earlier proposals, and consists of a single concrete tunnel with a diameter of 36 feet, built 140 to 170 feet underground.[21] Gov. Newsom is supporting the project.[21] On December 21, 2023, the project was approved by the California Department of Water Resources. The approval was denounced by Congressman Josh Harder, who called it a "disastrous water grab to steal our Valley water."[22] "

The smelt water release was cancelled recognizing the smaller supply of water well before the bruhaha over it.

1. Your adopted party has zero interest in giving anything but lip service to border security.

2. They feel that any increase in the minority population is an automatic vote for them and as such they do what they do.

Two blatant falsehoods in one paragraph, strung together to butress a prime right wing conspiracy theory.

Same ole dope

The 2022 plan was scaled-down from earlier proposals, and consists of a single concrete tunnel with a diameter of 36 feet, built 140 to 170 feet underground.

----------------

I am sure this was factored in by the engineers but with all the earthquakes and fault lines all up and down California, that a large brittle concrete tube would be getting cracked and broken almost all the the time.

Two blatant falsehoods in one paragraph

Nope. Sorry.
You people have never been about border security. Ever. You're lying to yourselves about so many things.

Here. Just for you:
https://budget.house.gov/press-release/gao-confirm...

GAO’s decision did, however, note that DHS has yet to obligate over $660 million and has spent the majority of the funding on environmental planning and other non-barrier construction. DHS continues to play political games that stall contractors and prevent barriers from being built, effectively finding a way to dodge the law.

Fail.

I am sure this was factored in by the engineers but with all the earthquakes and fault lines all up and down California, that a large brittle concrete tube would be getting cracked and broken almost all the the time.

Steel-reinforced concrete can take tensile loads, so yes it was.

obtain a legal status that allows them to be here, work here, and go back and forth to Mexico easily.

Mike, that's been being talked about for 30 years and I don't know what the hold up is, but I can guess. These folk get apid low wages, but usually get food and a bunk. If it's $3 an hour for 10 hours that's $30 a day, food $10, Bunk $10 - that's $50 a day for 10 hours of work. Just a guess example. That doesn't look good and now the Feds are involved in it, sanctioning it in effect. I'm not sure that's why, but it does look bad to me.

Mike, that's been being talked about for 30 years and I don't know what the hold up is, but I can guess.

It's not hard to figure out. You just saw it with the Steve Bannon/Laura Loomer broadside against H-1B visas (joined by Bernie Sanders).

There's a part of the GOP base that's against letting people from other countries come here to work - that insist that the American economy should be reserved solely for American citizens, not foreigners. There's also part of the Democratic base that's still deeply concerned about the economic impacts of what they see as an exploitative labor relationship (the Democratic side got squelched a little bit during the ascension of immigrant activists within the progressive coalition - but they're still out there).

That's enough to kill a guest worker program. There's enough opposition to make this a bit of a lift. Also, since it's mostly perceived by both sides as helping the industries that employ these workers rather than anyone else, neither party wants it enough to just do it as a standalone; they want to fold it into a larger bill, and use it as coalition bait to get some powerful domestic groups (especially farmers) to support their other priorities.

That's enough to kill a guest worker program

Thanks Albaby. :)

No, I think (and was probably lied to when I heard Trump say with his own mouth), he wants Gavin to send some of its vast water supply in the North to the parched cities in the South.

That's horseshit.

Trump's motive is to send more water to the largest corporate ag companies in western states that export water intensive crops. Cotton/rice/almonds/alfalfa.

Californians understand that we simply do not have enough water to sustain export ag growth without wiping out the native species that depend on cool flows to migrate and spawn.

The smelt is a canary in the coal mine; an indicator species.

Why does Trump care about Big Ag? Big Ag is conservative. Farmers with G35 jets and corporate lobbyists. They pump money into his coffers, same as big oil and now, big tech.

Trump didn't give a shit about small family farms getting destroyed by his 1st term tarrifs. He didn't give a shit about the record bankruptcies and suicide rates of small farmers.

Big Ag gas destroyed the central valley aquifers. Land subsidence is bottoming out and the aquifers are not replenishing.

It's all about big ag and support money for big orange.

We drove from San Luis Obispo to Palo Alto through the Salinas Valley Tuesday. We have family in the bay area so drive this route a lot
|
We always stop for lunch at in Salinas at La Costa, our favorite taqueria; a bustling place with excellent tacos de lengua, bucho, cocteles de camarones , pulpo, .... always packed at lunchtime with latinos. I thought it was closed because the parking lot only had a couple cars. No line at the window???

Coming home the same route yesterday, Wednesday, I remarked to my wife that all the tractors and truck the graders...all the big equipment was parked in rows, the tractor trucks parked, nobody in the huge fields....

Missing on the highway were the crew busses towing portapotties, driving crews from field to field.... year-round. There's always something being planted, something being fertilized, something being picked, and something being shipped.

I just realized there were not a single fucking produce shipping truck turning onto or off the highway!!! They transport fresh picked to the packing buildings where it's cleaned, packed, loaded onto semis and off to the big distributors. Not one. All the semis were parked and nobody by the packing plants!!!

Fastest drive we've EVER made through the Salinas Valley.

And yes, we saw the unmarked white vans.

This is gonna be ugly. If the fields are being tended -prepped planted fertilized weeded picked packed and shipped, the US ain't getting the produce it expects.

He'll fix it alright.

Are these raids also taking place in Miami and Texas? Or are they only going to take place in places like California and Chicago?

Has anybody noticed that Trump never mentions the horrifically violent Russian/East Euro mobsters that operate across the USA?

Why would he? They're white.

"RUSSIAN ORGANIZED CRIME IN THE UNITED STATES By
James O. Finckenauer, Ph.D.
International Center National Institute of Justice
-Organizational Structure
Russian organized crime (ROC) is an umbrella phrase that captures a variety of crime groups and criminal activities. Our focus in this report is on the groups and the activities present in the United States. In some
instances, the crimes and the forms of criminal organization here differ from those of ROC in Russia or elsewhere in the world. This may be a result of differing external environments and criminal opportunities,
but is nevertheless something to be kept in mind. Because of the proliferation of groups, there is not a specific organizational structure that can be delineated as if it described one criminal organization. Even
the characterization "Russian" is used generically to refer to a variety of Eurasian crime groups - many of which are not Russian. Among the active criminals in the U.S. are Armenians, Ukrainians, Lithuanians, and persons from the Caucasus region of the former Soviet Union (Chechens, Dagestanis, and Georgians). The media and law enforcement call these groups various names - Russian mafia, Russian
mob, Organizatsya, Bor, Bratva, etc. Some of the group names refer to geographical locations in Russia - Izmailovskaya, Dagestantsy, Kazanskaya, and Solntsenskaya. The latter are indicative of the local geographically defined roots of some Russian crime groups.
It is estimated that approximately 15 of these loosely categorized criminal groups are operating in the United States, and that 8 or 9 of them maintain links to Russia. The estimated membership of those groups is 5 - 6,000 members.

Of course, what they wanted from Trump was more water (water that probably just isn't going to be there, new dams or not), but they must have thought their orange messiah would leave them their undocumented workers.

Yes, they wasnt more water (which is why they whine SMELT are depriving people of long showers!) but also more corporate tax cuts, subsidies if things go south Asia again says "shove yer soy where the sun don't shine", less environmental regulations (valley air is notoriously polluted by big ag), and weaker labor associations.

It took a week or so after the end of that job for the garlic smell to finally get flushed from my pores.

And while you were back at your desk, Juan and Maria took your place for the remainder of the year.

Many folks in my town are thrilled that the offshore wind energy fields may be scuttled... the fed already got ther $750,000,000 for the lease, and survey ships have been working for a year non-stop, plowing the 300 sq miles off the central coast where semi-submersible deep water turbine rigs may someday be mooredl

Dopey:It's amazing to me how ingrained the notion that having an illegal workforce is somehow something we just have to accept.

Who is this 'we' you keep mentioning?

Ever since the labor streamed north to work the fields while our boys were off killing Nazis, the big ag employers have fought the establishment of regulations wrt immigrants.

Why? Because a regulation is a 2 way street and the big employers can't screw labor like they can in the absence of regulations and unions.

But you don't get to wish away economic realities because they are inconsistent with one's worldview on immigration.

Trump lies about it and MAGA swallows it.

So the solution to me, is that the workers presently doing those jobs obtain a legal status that allows them to be here, work here, and go back and forth to Mexico easily.

Both men and women work here. Women have babies here. They're citizens.

Whoops.

Only allow women who promise to use birth control or what?

[me] It took a week or so after the end of that job for the garlic smell to finally get flushed from my pores.

[sano] And while you were back at your desk, Juan and Maria took your place for the remainder of the year.

Indeed. I went back to school. A very large part of the work in the Central Valley was seasonal, so workforce was cut way back in the off season, but, yes those still working were often 'Juan and Maria' as you put it.

The work was often physically demanding but what really made the jobs so hard to endure was the sheer unending monotony of the work. But I knew that for me it was only for weeks or a few months. For others it was the work they were going to do for years.

Not sure how the canneries operate now given the increased use of robotics, but back in the day there were still many people making the process work. It was all women that worked at the most tedious and repetitive jobs. From where I often worked I could observe a line of women at the front end of the processing where the fruit came in and was cut and pitted by machines. Their job was to check the quality of the fruit, toss out what didn't pass, make sure the machines had properly sliced the peaches and keep the assembly line running smoothly. All day they did the same repetitive task over and over again.

It made me appreciate my own situation and to feel empathy for those tied to this kind of work for years not weeks or months.

From where I often worked I could observe a line of women at the front end of the processing where the fruit came in and was cut and pitted by machines.

Yep. And even if they have green cards or visas, if the have a child, Trump will deny that child citizenship? Once it's no longer a fetus it's an illegal alien? Mama can go back to work, the infant goes to a Mexican orphanage?

I worked with a few ICE agents that were like these guys.... jacked up on Red Bull and very full of themselves. From San Diego to Los Angeles, I've never seen a boatload of immigrants or drug runners with guns. They don't fight. After the long slog against wind and waves in a small boat from Baja California, they are exhausted. If they're busted, they either just sit down on the beach or run to hide if there's a neighborhood nearby.

That the agents fidgeted with their rifles at high ready on the beach made me more than a little nervous.

https://www.turnto23.com/news/in-your-neighborhood...

It was all women that worked at the most tedious and repetitive jobs.

Several years ago I read about a study that said women were better at those kind of jobs. They had better focus, and their minds didn't wander as much.

Tangential to this thread, but I always found it interesting that there were such differences in genders, beyond the obvious.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.