Comments on: Ohne Gastarbeiter, bitte.

By: Matt

Matt — Tue, 18 Apr 2006 22:39:27 +0000

Some more questions:
We already have, of course, guest worker programs in the US- H visas, which I suspect that at least a few of your colleagues at UCLA are on, are temporary work visas. They are actually much more onerous in many ways than the temporary work visas proposed by the McCain/Kennedy bill. Do you oppose these, too? I’d guess not. Similarly, student visas have most of the features that people find offensive in guest worker programs. Do you oppose these? Do you think that a student visa should give one the right to a green card, or should only be given to those we want to give green cards to? Again, I suspect not. The discussion of guest-worker programs is distorted by the obviously bad and unjust German situation. But, that’s not the only option. It’s at least somewhat irresponsible to not make this clear.
You might also look at this ariticle by Howard Chang. I think it’s still too negative on guest worker programs, but at least it’s a reasonable discussion:
Liberal Ideals and Political Feasibility: Guest-Worker Programs as Second-Best Policies, 27 N.C.J. INTL L. & COM. REG. 465

By: SteveAudio

SteveAudio — Tue, 18 Apr 2006 03:56:52 +0000

“Kaffee ohne Sahne, bitte” for example, means “Coffee without cream, please.”
Regardless, Guestworkers is not only a corrupt idea, but also an oxymoron. Indentured servants is a more accurate description.
But the practice is already alive and well here in the good ol’ USofA for citizens. WallMart and Microsoft both have used thousands of temp employees, some working for years with that status. Thus, the employer has a full-time worker with none of the reciprocal obligation of a benefits package. The worker is paid below prevailing wage, and is just out in the cold.
Except, as the right would say, they can simply go get another job. Bastards.

By: Mark Kleiman

Mark Kleiman — Mon, 17 Apr 2006 05:09:00 +0000

I’ve added the link to Matt’s post.
The orginal headline, in what I’m reliably informed was hilarioulsy faulty German, has been changed. I hope it now says what I meant it to say: “Thank you, but no guestworkers [for me],” or “[I'll have mine] without guestworkers, please,” rather than “No guestworkers!” or “No to guestworkers!” or “Guestworkers forbidden!”

By: rilkefan

rilkefan — Sun, 16 Apr 2006 18:50:29 +0000

Maybe you want “Keine Gastarbeiter” or “Nicht gastarbeiten”.
Anyway, yeah, I hate the idea of my country, which was life itself to my grandparents, using people and then disposing of them.

By: Matt

Matt — Sun, 16 Apr 2006 13:35:44 +0000

First, which post by MY are you refering to? There’s no link here and so I’m not sure. Secondly, I disagree. Obviously there is no reason to support a guest-worker program if that means the same thing that existed in German. But, there’s no reason to think that this is the only possible sort of Guest-worker program. (Already the fact that there is birthright citizenship mutes the worst parts of the German system in the US.) Since the realistitic alternatives to a guest-worker program are almost certainly worse for both the US and for potential workers, to refuse to have one seems too strong. The question is whether one can have such a program that doesn’t violate basic liberal principles in the way that Germany’s did. I believe this is possible. If so, this seems a reasonable step to me. It’s too quick to rule it out all together, especially on the basis of a reference to the German experience (as suggested by your title) since that’s not the only way to set up a guest-worker program, and since the US constitution already rules out the worst aspects of the German experience (i.e.- generations of ‘guests’ born in the country who are not and cannot become citizens.)