August 26, 2005
Stop Illegal Immigration - Arrest Illegal Employers
According to The New York Times, the United States spends $7.3 billion annually to secure its borders, an increase of 58% since the terror attacks of 9/11. What do we get for our $20,000,000 per day? We get emergency declarations from the governors of New Mexico and Arizona telling us that the international borders of their states are as porous as sieves.
Last Tuesday, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff responded to these emergency declarations by admitting the failure of his department to staunch the flow of illegal immigrants and by suggesting that we need to completely rethink our entire approach to illegal immigration.
"We have decided to stand back and take a look at how we address the problem and solve it once and for all," Mr. Chertoff said at a breakfast meeting with reporters. "The American public is rightly distressed about a situation in which they feel we do not have the proper control over our borders."I couldn't him agree more. Nevertheless, I'm pessimistic about our prospects of resolving the problem of illegal immigration anytime soon because the federal government is only confronting one aspect of it. We must institute a comprehensive approach if we want to stop illegal immigration "once and for all."
Until the mid-1980s, America's immigration regulations concentrated on reducing the supply of inexpensive workers by prohibiting or restricting the number of foreign nationals permitted to migrate to the United States. As huge numbers of college-educated baby boomers began to enter the workplace in the mid-1960s, the price of unskilled labor began to rise rapidly, approaching annual growth rates during the 1970s of double digit percentage increases. These increased costs began to create a thriving black market for cheap and illegal labor, and illegal immigrants began to pour into the United States.
By 1986 Congress was forced to do something to staunch the flow of illeal immigrants, and it passed the Immigration Control and Reform Act (ICRA). In addition to providing amnesty for millions of undocumented workers, this law stipulated that employers were required to ensure that their employees were permitted to work in the United States legally. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) was selected to enforce the ICRA and investigate employers of illegal alien workers. The INS could prosecute those employers who were found to be in willful violation of the ICRA between $250 and $10,000 per illegal worker and even imprison flagrant recidivists for up to six months.
Even the best laws must be enforced to be effective, however. Although it rarely, if ever, instituted criminal prosecutions against the employers of illegal workers, the INS did enforce the ICRA by imposing civil penalties, albeit anemically, throughout the 1990s. By 1996, however, Congress reverted to its traditional and politically expeditious approach of immigration control: sealing the borders and attacking the defenseless immigrants themselves. Congress doubled the size of the Border Patrol, increased its technological resources, and restricted the access of non-citizens to numerous social welfare programs such as Medicaid and food stamps regardless of any federal income taxes that these workers might have paid. Finally, as the primary focus of law enforcement shifted back onto the undocumented workers, the prosecution of the domestic employers of illegal immigrants deteriorated from negligible to virtually non-existent. In 1992 the INS fined more than a thousand companies for violating the ICRA, but the number of prosecutions dwindled throughout the 1990s. By 2002 the INS estimated that more than 7,500,000 illegal aliens lived in the United States, and it fined all 13 of their employers.
Thankfully, the INS was not the only federal bureau responsible for the enforcement of federal laws intended to preclude the employment of illegal workers. Federal law also empowers the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to fine employers who submit W-4 forms with incomplete or incorrect employee identification information such as inaccurate Social Security Numbers. According to the Government Accounting Office, (GAO) the IRS estimated that 353,000 illegal workers paid federal income taxes in 2000 and that more than 265,000 of them did so by using fallacious Social Security Numbers.
Unlike the INS, however, the enforcement of federal law by the IRS has not diminished recently. Surprisingly, the GAO found that IRS had fined exactly same number of companies in 2003 as it had in 2002 and 2001 and 2000. Unfortunately, that number was zero. Yes, zero as in absolutely none. In fact, since the IRCA became federal law nearly twenty years ago, the GAO reported that IRS has not fined a single company for filing incomplete or incorrect Social Security Numbers. Ever. Although the IRS has been totally negligent in enforcing federal immigration statutes, instead of merely perfunctory like the INS, its policy does contain the virtue of consistency.
Moreover, the enforcement of the employer provisions of American immigration law is likely to continue to deteriorate. As a response to the terrorist attacks of September 11th, the Congress created the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2002. It removed the INS from the Department of Justice (DOJ) and placed it within the DHS, renaming it Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) in the process. According to the DHS, however, the priorities of the CIS are
"to promote national security, continue to eliminate immigration case backlogs, and improve customer services."Thus, the enforcement of the immigration regulations of the United States government has shifted from criminal prosecution in the DOJ to the quasi-military function of national security in the DHS. The CIS is charged with protecting America's national borders from illegal incursions and ensuring, to the greatest extent possible, that every foreign national in the United States has entered this country legally. Thus, the CIS focuses on preventing illegal immigration, deporting illegal immigrants and prosecuting their domestic abettors; it does not focus on eliminating the inducement that gainful employment offers to destitute aliens by prosecuting their criminal employers.
Although the investigative divisions of the CIS and IRS must focus on securing our borders and collecting our taxes respectively, one organization within the federal government is concerned with enforcing American labor regulations: the Employment Standards Administration of the aptly named Department of Labor. Its Wage and Hour Division (WHD) is responsible for "enforcing a number of federal laws which set basic labor standards," including issues that pertain to migrant and immigrant workers. In 2003, the WHD spent over one million hours conducting nearly 40,000 investigations, more than eighty percent of which pertained to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) of 1938. Furthermore, it conducted nearly 13,000 investigations in industries that hire undocumented workers frequently such as agriculture, lodging, restaurants and healthcare.
Thus, simple logic dictates the Congress must relocate the enforcement of the employer provisions of the IRCA from the Department of Homeland Security to the Department of Labor immediately. In short, Congress must equate a violation of the ICRA with a violation the FLSA and demand that the Department of Labor enforces this law assiduously.
Amoral employers who sought cheap and docile unskilled workers a century ago would often employ young children as menial labors in atrocious conditions. As an employment practice, child labor was considered to be a social rather than economic issue during the Nineteenth Century and, hence, beyond the purview of the federal government. In fact, federal statutory prohibitions against the employment of juvenile workers were deemed to be unconstitutional not once but twice by the Supreme Court in the early Twentieth Century. This attitude changed during the New Deal, however, and the scourge childhood labor was eradicated by the FLSA.
As a method of exploiting employees and deflating the wages of adult American, child labor differs very little from the employment of illegal immigrants. Child labor was eradicated by prosecuting exploitative employers, not victimized employees. Similarly, the federal government must shift its enforcement policies of the IRCA. Instead of persecuting hapless and vulnerable undocumented workers who migrate here illegally in order to improve their standard of living, the federal government must prosecute their unscrupulous American employers who hire them in order to improve their profit margins unfairly and illegally. In this way, and this way only, can the federal government begin to eliminate the scourge of illegal immigration.
By itself, the harassment, arrest and deportation of undocumented workers will not end or diminish illegal immigration. These efforts attack only the supply of cheap labor, not the demand for it. If a commodity, such as the illegal employment of undocumented workers or the illegal use of narcotic drugs, is to be extirpated from a society, prohibitions against both the purveyors and the consumers must be instituted and enforced equitably and vigorously. To concentrate on the supply of an illegal commodity exclusively while ignoring the demand for it completely obviates any realistic possibility of its eradication. The dynamics of supply and demand are immutable: if the demand for an illegal commodity exists, suppliers will endeavor to meet it arduously. Penalizing the suppliers of cheap labor, such as smugglers and immigrants, while ignoring the consumers of cheap labor, such as their corporate and individual employers, is like making heroin illegal and prosecuting the pushers, but giving the junies a free pass. Only a comprehensive approach to the pernicious influence of illegal immigration will cure those employers addicted to the use of inexpensive and exploitable laborers.
Drastically altering federal immigration and employment statutes by granting legal status to "temporary workers", as President Bush proposed in January of 2004, won't necessarily inhibit the growth of illegal immigration either, and it could make matters worse. Such a program would not only reward employers and employees who have violated existing federal law flagrantly; it would legitimize exploitative employment practices. Moreover, it would induce millions of temporary legal workers to remain in the United States after their work visas have expired, thereby becoming permanent illegal workers. Most perniciously, a temporary worker program will merely legitimize the perpetual degradation of a replaceable underclass of alien workers.
Although open immigration may have depressed the value of American labor in the early Twentieth Century, it enhanced the value of American culture. Millions of the most intrepid, confident and diligent people from virtually every nation on Earth have migrated to the United States, not to simply earn a better wage but to build a better life. They were not stigmatized legally as fit to work here, but somehow unfit to live here. Throughout history, amoral employers have exploited immigrants egregiously, but not since the abolition of human slavery has United States government sanctioned this exploitation by creating a permanent and legal subclass of American workers. It cannot be permitted to do so again.
When he proposed his temporary worker program, President Bush said,
"There must be strong workplace enforcement with tough penalties for anyone, for any employer violating these laws."What are you waiting for Mr. President? Isn't it about time you got serious about illegal immigration? Isn't it about time that you demanded that your agencies begin enforcing the federal laws already on the books?
If you start throwing some illegal employers into federal penitentiaries, maybe the rest of them will stop hiring illegal workers. I think it's a pretty safe bet that fewer people will sneak into our country if none of them can find any work here. You already have all the laws you need to reduce illegal immigration significantly or eliminate it permanently. All you lack is the political will to enforce the law against your corporate cronies.
Posted by Chuck Hanrahan at August 26, 2005 04:52 PMChuck,
I live in Arizona. There are laws on the books here forbiding the hiring of illegals. There are penalties. These laws are never enforced.
It has been said by talk radio here in Phoenix that the resorts couldn’t survive without the cheap labor of the illegals, and much has been made of the fact that illegals do work that no one else will do.
Bullshit.
These jobs are given away to those that will do them the cheapest, and complain the least.
Skilled construction jobs like masonry, carpentry, flooring, and painting are also going to illegals.
Posted by: Rocky at August 26, 2005 06:29 PMNow why doesn’t it suprise me that the IRS has never prosecuted any illegal employeers? Just as long as taxes are paid and their getting money for the government to waste why should they care from who or where it comes from?
About two years ago I hired a couple of immergrants from south of the boarder. They both had a Georgia drivers license and a social security card. They worked for me for about eighteen mounths before my payrole clerk got a call informing her that the ss numbers that these two were using were issued to people that had been dead for around ten years. Now how in the hell was I supposed to know that? Should I have to pay a fine or go to jail for that? I know some of youall liberials might like to see me put in jail, just joking.
If someone knowingly hires illegals then PUT THEM UNDER THE JAIL.
BTW, the call didn’t come from the INS or IRS, but the Social Security Addministration.
Excellent theme, Chuck. I have written very similar articles in the past.
There is no more vital and important role of the President and Congress than the defense of our nation and its borders and territories against violent invaders, criminals, yes, illegal immigrants. And this GOVERNMENT has abrograted one of its most basic functions every day since 9/10,2001 and before.
It is time for American voters to move to anti-incumbent voting at the polls. The only way we will ever get politicians who take their Constitutionally defined roles seriously, is if we the people throw the bastards out of office sending an unequivocal message to the new politicians coming in. And that message will be, “You have no tenure here in office if you don’t take responsibility for protecting and defending the Constitution and your duties described therein.”
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 26, 2005 07:26 PMRocky,
Employers are obligated to hold down costs, including the cost of labor, in order to maximize profits. The government is obligated to enfore the law. Looks like in Arizona companies are doing their jobs but the federal government isn’t.
Maybe we could get the Minutemen to start raiding some of these companies. I’m sure that that would do a lot more good than sitting in lawn chairs at the border with high-powered binoculars. (But it might not be as much fun.)
Ron,
If I were to make one change in federal immigration law, it would be to compel every employer to verify the citizenship of every employee prior to an offer of employment. Drivers licenses and SSNs don’t quite do the trick, but passports do.
But yes, you should have been fined by the INS/CIS. You could have considered it a $500 object lesson - your contribution to making our borders more secure and helping America to win the war against terrorism (or whatever the hell Bush is calling it these days). I’m sure that, given the sacrifices of our brave soldiers in Iraq, you would have paid the $500 gladly.
BTW, did you deduct witholding taxes from their salaries?
David,
Thanks for the kind words. I agree with your anti-incumbency sentiments wholeheartedly, but that isn’t even required here. All it takes is the willingness of the bureaucrats in our federal government to enforce our nation’s laws assiduously. It’s our appointed, not elected, officials who are asleep at the switch. (Excluding our President, of course. He’s merely on vacation.)
Posted by: Chuck Hanrahan at August 26, 2005 08:51 PMChuck,
“Employers are obligated to hold down costs, including the cost of labor, in order to maximize profits.”
Obligated to who? The Stockholders?
We, in this country went through this fight after the industrial revolution. That is why labor unions were formed. So that the “stockholders” didn’t take advantage of the workers.
Empoyers should be obligated to find the best person for the job. Especialy in the service industry.
Arizona is a “Right To Work” state. In my job I have seen illegals as far away as North Carolina.
Chuck,
“If I were to make one change in federal immigration law, it would be to compel every employer to verify the citizenship of every employee prior to an offer of employment. Drivers licenses and SSNs don’t quite do the trick, but passports do.”
How would asking for passports help? I don’t have a passport. I’ve never had a passport. I’ve never been out of the country. And can’t afford to consider it any time soon. Does that mean I shouldn’t be able to get a job?
Posted by: Stephanie at August 26, 2005 11:26 PMRocky,
Sorry to tell you, bud, but illegals are up here in Wisconsin (and in Minnesota) in swarms, well, at least mobs.
Posted by: Stephanie at August 26, 2005 11:32 PMChuck,
Sorry, I meant to say this first:
You make a very convincing argument. If employers were actually prosecuted, then some of our other methods might work better. But, I’m not sure how to go about enforcing these laws. There’s a lot little mom & pop shops around here (Wisconsin and I know this is true for Minnesota as well) that absolutely thrive on illegal labor. The difficulty is in catching them. Do you raid each and every business in an area? Or only those with discrepencies? The service industry, where tips are involved, sometimes all these people get are the tips. That money isn’t necessarily even reported. How do you catch people like that?
Don’t get me wrong. I’m all for enforcement. I mean, laws but no enforcement seem ridiculous no matter what it is…except that whole tying donkeys to bathtubs. I swear, if I had a donkey I’d tie it to my bathtub if whenever I wanted to!
Posted by: Stephanie at August 26, 2005 11:40 PMThis thread has racist undertones. The majority of mexicans are hard working and decent folk. Its pretty easy to criticize them when you are doing fine, but if you were born into poverty in Mexico you would want to move here also. Our country has prided itself on welcoming immigrants. Alot of people complain about the language barrier, but mexicans are assimilating faster than immigrants of the past.
on the flipside I don’t live in Arizona so I don’t know what its like there.
Posted by: john at August 27, 2005 12:33 AMwell, living in a city where 52% of the population is illegal (los angeles) i have to say there are many many problems that have to be dealt with.
illegals driving without insurance and driving without drivers licenses
low income neighborhoods
illegals not sending their children thought the school system, which floods the system, and creates a huge tax burden for those actually paying taxes.
illegals needing medical services, thus sending medical costs through the roof, since most illegals don’t have insurance.
and of course, due to the poverty that most illegals live in (multi-families in apartments, etc) crime and gang violence is ever present.
wow….that’s just the tip of the iceberg. most illegals work for a fraction of what a citizen would ask for, and somehow they exist. start arresting employers and start seeing the backlash happen. first will be migration, moving from places like arizona and los angeles to places like wisconsin and upstate new york, then will come more and more frustration, and then violence and crime.
do we have to deal with this issue, yes of course.
i’m all for people wanting to move to the US for a better life, but they should do it legally. bucking the system hurts those who live within the system. there is alot that needs to happen.
but it’s going to get worse before it gets better…
Posted by: guy at August 27, 2005 01:30 AMHow may i ask is any of this racist? i am white, American born and bred for at least five generations. i grew up gleaning popcorn fields; raising the cast off runts from area farmers and selling produce off the back of an old pick up truck. i am aware of the joys of picking cherries at 10 cents a bucket.
As an adult i have been ‘on’ welfare but mostly unable to access its ‘gifts’ though we did submit a claim when our youngest needed emergency surgery after being sent home to an empty house after her appendix ruptured in school. Getting food stamps would have required us to lose the jobs we had and so what little hope existed for a better future. We paid ourselves for their immunizations and even our eldest’s hospitalization for malnutrition.
Don’t tell me that American citizens are unwilling to do the grunt jobs. It is employers who are unwilling to pay a fair wage and contribute to the society which allowed them the chance to have a business. Native born Americans are not given the immigrant ‘luxuries’ of tax relief and automatic benefits given immigrants. Try being homeless in the country during winter.
The illegal immigrants are well known for contributing to their society as in sending plenty of money back home to Mexico to encourage more forays across the border.
And yes, i have since also been on the flip side as a small business owner… who had the smallest wage/salary and benefits than any of my employees. If you can’t run your business profitably while providing fair compensation, you should not bein business.
John,
“This thread has racist undertones. The majority of mexicans are hard working and decent folk. Its pretty easy to criticize them when you are doing fine, but if you were born into poverty in Mexico you would want to move here also. Our country has prided itself on welcoming immigrants.”
This country was built by immigrants, and those immigrants were here legally.
I have no problems with Latinos, I have worked with folks from all over Latin America, including Mexico.
My neighborhood, where I have lived for 25 years, has been bought up by middle class Latinos, there are few originals left. They keep their yards clean and for the most part they keep to themselves just as I do. These folks are also here legally, and they contribute to the community.
One mile south of me is a Home Depot, where during the day, it is difficult to enter or exit the parking lot because of all the folks looking for cash day labor, and I see the same faces all the time.
Please, tell me how these folks contribute to our society.
Chuck, I just had a half baked thought. To hold employers responsible for hiring illegal workers, would we not have to create a national ID system that employers could rely upon to tell them if an applicant is illegal or not?
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 27, 2005 04:36 AMThe problem isn’t immigrants, it’s illegal immigrants. They come here and do the work, but
they don’t pay taxes. They contribute more to
their home country by sending their money home.
They’ve trashed their own country, and then come over here and do the same to whatever neighborhoods that they move into. They put old furniture, trash, and all sorts of things in the
yards.
They use emergency rooms for the most minor ailments. Sapping our local economies more and more. The borders need to be shut down! War on
terror? What kind of war is fought where you keep your N and S exposed?! I fear for the future of my kids. What kind of place are they
going to be left with? The ACLU and their ilk
need to be brought up on charges under the Rico
statutes. Stop the liberal political correctness, and lets get down to fighting the war on terror with some vigor. As Micheal Savage
says,… More Patton, less pattent leather.
Rick, maybe that is why Republicans want this HR25 Sales Tax bill to replace income taxes. Then they can have their underpaid illegal immigrant servants and force them to pay taxes too! Damn, its a triple header, because HR25 eliminates estate taxes, capital gains taxes, and corporate taxes. Wow! What a windfall for the Republican Aristocracy !!!
Illegal immigration is just the next phase of Newt Gingrich’s plan to make the Republican Party an all inclusive party, a big tent party. They started with Southern Democrats, moved to Log Cabin Republicans, and now, phase 3, illegal immigrant Republicans. It all makes sense now! Include them all so their sales taxes can support the country while the wealthy repeal all of their ‘burdensome’ taxes.
I knew Newt was a smart guy and Karl is not a bad student.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 27, 2005 05:45 AMWalmart is one of the RNC’s biggest donors. In fact, some of the biggest illegal employers gave big bucks to Bush Junior. Looks like normal behavior to me.
Posted by: Aldous at August 27, 2005 07:31 AMChuck~
O.k. I completely agree that illegal mills(companies that ONLY hire illegals) are a problem. With that said though…your answer does not seem to be the solution. Telling someone like Ron that yes, indeed he should have been fined is going to cause a new problem: Employers do not have the time to be checking the validity of every drivers license or SS # (that in fact is up to the Govt.) and if we go about your plan….believe you me, people will stop hiring immigrants(legal or otherwise) all together! Who would take the chance? I sure wouldn’t I know that. Then what? All our legals switch to welfare? There will be a solution, I just don’t believe that one is it.
Posted by: Traci at August 27, 2005 08:46 AMIf the particulars of name DOB, SS# address and DL (visa & passport etc where necessary) from ALL employment, educational, financial and housing applications (including hotel/motels) are required to be entered electronically into a centralized Homeland Security program to search FBI, SS, CIA, NSA, CIS, IRS databases for discrepencies then the investigative burden is shifted from the private citizen/employer to the government which then has the responsibility of prosecution. Such a program
i think would also free up investigators from chasing the illegals to hunting down those who knowingly employ them. It would further target not only illegals simply looking for opportunity but also net potential terrorists needing only housing services.
Posted by: jo at August 27, 2005 09:28 AMIf I were to make one change in federal immigration law, it would be to compel every employer to verify the citizenship of every employee prior to an offer of employment. Drivers licenses and SSNs don’t quite do the trick, but passports do.
Maybe they don’t, however passports can be counterfited too. A back ground check might be the ticket, but that would be costly and add to the price of the product.
But yes, you should have been fined by the INS/CIS. You could have considered it a $500 object lesson - your contribution to making our borders more secure and helping America to win the war against terrorism (or whatever the hell Bush is calling it these days). I’m sure that, given the sacrifices of our brave soldiers in Iraq, you would have paid the $500 gladly.
Given the sacrifices of our brave soldiers $500 would be a drop in the bucket, but you have to remember that I was doing what the law required.
I’m really suprised that thephony ss numbers were caught at all.
BTW, did you deduct witholding taxes from their salaries?
Yes, and I also called the INS and reported the men to them. I don’t knoe if they got them or not though.
john
We’re not talking about Mexicans that come here legally, I have a couple of them working for me and they are hard workers. However, illegal’s, regardless of race, should be deported and antone who knowingly employees them should be jailed, and not for any 6 mounths. Try about 5 to 10 years.
I am against illegal aliens being in this country under any circumstances. Since there are 13 million of them here, it is obvious that keeping them out is not working. That said, for the most part I believe that they are not “stealing” jobs from American citizens but rather are doing the jobs that American citizens do not want to do.
So is part of the answer, making improvements to those jobs in ways that make them acceptable to the American worker. I think so. How to do it could take many forms. Wages, conditions, benefits, etc. This of course raises the cost of the product or service.
I like the idea of arresting the employers of illegal aliens. The question becomes how do you find them, investigate them and take action. You would need vast human resources to accomplish this.
There is a similar dilemma with unsafe working conditions in general. Regulations concerning almost every aspect of a job/working conditions are controlled by OSHA. The problem is that there is such a small quantity of inspectors nationwide that the laws are found to be broken by employers almost by accident.
An interesting post above suggests that the illegal aliens are Republicans being used to feed the coffers of the wealthy. If they are Republicans, my only wish is that they be allowed and encouraged to vote.
In the tobacco growing/picking states there are laws governing workers. In Virginia for example, there is a large number of Mexican people working in tobacco fields. Many of course are illegal.
The guaranteed minimum wage is well over $6.50/hour, they must be provided with housing, they must be taken to town at least once a week for groceries and other supplies and they must have access to medical treatment. There are other requirements as well.
Posted by: steve smith at August 27, 2005 10:44 AMChuck-
That’s what I’ve been saying! Or should have, if I weren’t talknig about the war so much. People are going to do what they think they can get away with. Let them get away with murder, watch the bodies pile up. Let folks get away with employing illegal aliens, they will employ those kinds of workers.
If these folks were willing to pay good American workers good money, they would see the money come back to them, because Americans would spend their dollars here. The Chinese won’t spend their money here. The Mexicans and other illegals won’t spend their money here.
Instead of descending to the level of all the poor countries that surround us, why not maintain our standards and push for better standards abroad for those who want to trade with us.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 27, 2005 10:49 AMsteve smith-
That said, for the most part I believe that they are not “stealing” jobs from American citizens but rather are doing the jobs that American citizens do not want to do.
There are plenty of Americans out there willing to do these jobs. They just can’t afford to do those jobs at the prices illegal aliens are willing to do them. Simple market economics. If we enforced those laws, sure, businesses would have to pay more money to workers, but then that would be market forces shaping the employer’s ability to hire. If employers were willing to pay themselves a little less, and the workers a little more, would that be a bad trade-off? Or is the market purely about realizing the fantasies of wealth of a few businessmen who can’t be bothered to obey the law?
Maybe government is the price you pay for having a truly free market- obey these laws about how you practice your business, and we’ll leave you alone to make your decisions. If they’re good, you’ll succeed without our interference, if they’re bad, you’ll fail, and we won’t get in the way of your resources going to somebody who will do better. Maybe if they have to pay more for their new hires, they’ll care more whether they get their money’s worth.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 27, 2005 11:02 AMStephen Daugherty,
Your post has excellent points of view.
You said, which confuses me slightly…
“There are plenty of Americans out there willing to do these jobs. They just can’t afford to do those jobs at the prices illegal aliens are willing to do them.”
Are you suggesting that the Americans that can’t afford to do these jobs are better off doing no jobs at all? Thereby causing the taxpayer the subsidies of unemployment, health and other benefits.
I suggest that the neverending supply/source of welfare programs have made it easy for some Americans to take the easy way out and, for others to point the finger of guilt at the illegal aliens and their employers.
There are enough illegals in South Georgia that if I wanted to I could hire nothing but illegals at $3.50 - $4.00 an hour and save $8 - $10 per hour on labor. I don’t do this, not because of the threat of fines or jail, but because it’s not right to take jobs from American citizens and those aliens that are here legally. Also I’m willing to pay the extra money and get employees that will do the job right.
I’ve seen the kind of work illegals do on some of the farms around here. Beleive me they don’t care about doing a good job.
steve smith
Are you suggesting that the Americans that can’t afford to do these jobs are better off doing no jobs at all? Thereby causing the taxpayer the subsidies of unemployment, health and other benefits.
I cann’t speak for Stephen, but I reckon that any job is better than no job.
I suggest that the neverending supply/source of welfare programs have made it easy for some Americans to take the easy way out and, for others to point the finger of guilt at the illegal aliens and their employers.
Your right about the welfare programs being a disincentive to finding a job. Most times I’ve interviewed people on welfare they want to start at top pay even though they have NO experiance at all, and most have never had a job in their lives.
This sitll doesn’t excuse the hiring of illegals.
The federal government doesn’t want to stop illegal aliens.
The federal government doesn’t want to punish employers hiring illegal aliens.
The federal government pretends to care about national security, but promotes near-wide-open borders and allows employers to continue to employ illegal aliens.
Bush called the “Minute Men” vigilantes, which proves where his loyalties lie.
Bush doesn’t want to curb the flow of illegal trespassers.
One of the primary purposes of the federal government is to provide national security, but how can that be accomplished when government allows employers to employ illegal aliens.
Despite the increased costs and burden on schools, healthcare, and law enforcement,
politicians will continue to ignore the problem, because they like it the way it is now (cheap labor, population growth, more Hispanic votes, etc.).
Why does government do that?
Why make laws against illegal trespassers, but not enforce the law?
Many in government want to grow the total U.S. population to offset the aging population and burden on entitlements (S.S., Medicare, etc.), increase the number of tax payers, and increase tax revenues (they don’t care if the tax revenues come from illegal aliens).
As usual, government is failing us, and we’re failing ourselves for allowing it.
Politicians won’t tackle any tough problems, such as this, for fear of risking relection, and losing Hispanic votes.
It may be too late to resolve the problem now, because local politicians now realize that a large part of the population of southern states are now mostly Hispanic and providing refuge to thousands of illegal aliens every day, and politicians know they can’t get elected by promoting secure borders.
The only way to stop it is to:
[1] Close our borders. The military must do this. Build a line of small forts along our land borders; these forts would use the considerable electronic resources now available to monitor our borders. Each fort would have a few helicopters to use for interdiction and patrol. Expand the Coast Guard and/or Navy to set up an outer and inner boundary along our coasts to monitor all inbound shipping and small aircraft traffic.
[2] Use biometrics to record all identities of citizens and visitors to the U.S. This would require the linking and replication of data bases nationwide. An added benefit, besides enabling the easy identification of illegals, would be the flushing out of many criminals who have false identiies using invalid or someone else’s Social Security number.
[3] Impose the maximum sentences and penalties on any employers found to be employing illegal aliens. Provide rewards for those reporting illegal employment of illegal aliens.
[4] Only children born in the U.S. by parents who are here legally are automatically eligible for U.S. citizenship (this may require a Constitutional Amendment).
[5] Finally, vote out all incumbents, every election, until politicians begin to address our many problems, and do it soon while the nation still has enough voters that want to stop illegal trespassers and want secure borders.
But, it will never happen.
So, this problem, and many others will only get worse, and continue to grow in number and severity, until they someday solve themselves (the hard way).
We can’t keep crappin’ in our own nest without eventually breakin’ the branch that holds it.
Get ready. That branch is going to snap someday. It’s just a matter of time. Unless you’re very wealthy, it will be painful. And, the young people of this country are getting increasingly tired of footing the bill for irresponsibility and plunder of previous generations. Our government spends hundreds of times more on the elderly than on the young. The government will not be able to tax their way out of these many problems, all culminating to create the coming generational storm.
theamericanresistance.com/ref/illegal_alien_numbers.html
newswithviews.com/Wooldridge/frosty57.htm
Aldous,
The owner of Walmart is a registered Dem. As was
the founder. So if they are contributing to the RNC, that’s a good thing. They’ve finally seen the light! WOOHOO!!
Chuck, excellent post and I share your belief that the easiest way to stop hiring if illegal immigrants is to fine/prosecute those who employ them.
In situations where they are using a SS number from someone who is deceased? There is free online data base called the Social Security Death Index where in all probability these numbers are coming from in the first place. So it would not take an employer that many seconds to go to the site and enter the Social Security number to make sure it was not listed. Nor would it cost them anything. If they did not have internet most public libraries do have free internet connection.
Posted by: Lisa Renee at August 27, 2005 02:47 PMLisa Renee,
Do you know the web address for the Social Security Death Index? I’ve tried using differant addresses and cann’t get through.
BTW, I clicked on your site. Now thats’s interesting, a libeiral wanting the old gas guzzleing muscle cars back.
Where to start. You go out to dinner on Friday night & do your Saturday chores, and it puts you so far behind in solving the world’s problems. My, oh my.
First, a word about racism (or, more accurately, ethnic chauvinism). I remember when the ICRA was enacted in 1986. I seem to recall, and I hope correctly, that the second largest immigrant group to apply for amnesty was the Irish.
I live in New York City, and that certainly came as no surprise to me. You could walk into any Irish pub in NYC and rest assured that every single employee was illegal.
Most importantly, I had and have just as big a problem with illegal Irish immigrants as I do with illegal Mexican or Chinese or Pakistani or Nigerian immigrants. I believe that legal immigration should be and could be expanded significantly. If our society and economy can cope with millions of illegal immigrants, it can obviously cope with millions more legal immigrants, especially if the illegals can’t find work and return to their homes.
Race and ethnicity are completely immaterial, and I resent the implication.
Second, I simply believe that physical proof of citizenship should be an essential prerequisite for employment in the US. (For non-citizens, I assume that when you receive your “green card”, you actually get a physical card.) David, I’m wary of a national ID card, but I could become convinced if certain fundamental privacy safeguards were included to prevent governmental fishing expeditions.
(PS Stephanie, I sugggest that you [and everybody] should get a passport. You never know when you may have to leave the country in a hurry. :^) Seriously, it’s vaild for ten years, it’s reasonably cheap, and you get have another really horrible small picture of yourself.)
Third, Rick “Old Blood ‘n’ Guts” Duran does raise an interesting point. The millions of illegal workers sending money home creates billions of dollars in de facto foreign aid. This makes their national politicians reluctant to cooperate with our government in order to stem the tide of illegals. Doing so becomes tantamount to cutting off your nose to spite your face.
If we want to get serious about stopping illegal immigration, I would recommend to Congress that they investigate this situation and determine, to the best of its ability, the amount in “illegal” foreign aid each country receives, and then offer this amount in “legal” foreign aid with the stipulation that the recipients dedicate at least 50% of it to the enforcement of legal emmigration.
Finally, I think that we may be missing the big picture here. Let’s look at the numbers:
There are between 7.5 and 10 million illegals in the US. If we conservatively estimate that two-thirds of them are employed, we’re looking at between 5 and 6.5 million undocumented workers. Next, the IRS estimated that 350,000 of them had federal income taxes withheld in 2000. Let’s say that number is 500,000 today. That means that 90% to 95%, or more, are black market workers and paid under the table. Forget about legal work status and fake Social Security Numbers; these guys get their salaries in cash.
So I don’t think we can make a serious dent in reducing the number of illegal employers simply by instituting a some kind of a national ID system or checking the validity of SSNs. Sure, it would help, but the vast majority of illegal employers would continue to ignore the law because they would know that the threat of enforcement and punishment was virtually non-existent.
Which brings me back to the original point of my post. Enforcement of the employer provisions of the ICRA has to be shifted from the Department of Homeland Security to the Department of Labor. Keeping it in the DHS is even more idiotic than usual for our government. It isn’t what they are supposed to be doing for a living.
Conversely, it is exactly what the DOL does for a living. The DOL is already conducting these investigations anyway. They have the knowledge; they have the staff; they have the resources. They simply don’t have the authority.
Shifting the responsibility to the DOL won’t cost us a nickel. It’s a politician’s wet dream: a quick, easy and cheap solution for of an important, chronic and high-visibility problem. Seems like a “no-brainer” to me, which, given the intellectual wherewithal of the average Representative and Senator, makes me think that, if we suggested it to them (and of course let them take the credit for it), it might actually happen.
PS - Now if Congress really wanted to get creative, it could offer a conditional amnesty to the first 10,000 or so who applied for it. The condition would be simply that they would have to agree to be employed as undercover operatives for DOL investigations for a limited period of time, say two years. Just think about seeing dozens of highly publicized sting operations on the 6PM News: Managers dragged out in handcuffs; owners hanging their heads in perp walks; tearful spouses. Millions of “Nannygates” all over the country. Now that, Rick Duran, is what I call
“More Patton, less pattent [sic] leather”
d.a.n: Just saw your post & have two minor points: First, illegals, Hispanic or otherwise, can’t vote, at least not legally. Second, yes. Changing the definition of citizenship from “all persons born and naturalized …” would require a constitutional amendment.
Posted by: Chuck Hanrahan at August 27, 2005 04:24 PMIllegal immigration is suicide, we should begin to write our country’s will - unless a bold leader steps up to the plate.
Posted by: Mike T. at August 27, 2005 05:42 PMChuck,
Of course illegal aliens don’t vote (at least, not legally).
But, there are large numbers of U.S. citizens now in the southern states that do vote, whose parents came to the U.S. illegally from Mexico. And many of those help and assist others to come illegally into the U.S. Why? Because they want to have their children here? Then, those children are automatically U.S. citizens. Over time, the percentage of Hispanics has grown drastically in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California, and it continues to grow at a very fast rate.
Do you think those citizens are going to vote for any politician who is tough on border security or illegal immigration?
Not in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, or California. And, not even in New York either.
Unfortunately, politicians don’t want to stop illegal immigration. They don’t want border control. So, that’s what we have and the way it will remain: nearly-wide-open borders.
Also, politicians won’t ever tackle any tough issues that may risk re-election. They simply ignore it, distract voters with something else, and leave that problem for another day, while the problems continue to grow in number and severity.
You’d like to punish employers that employ illegal aliens? Many of us would. After all, they’re breaking the law aren’t they ?
And how greedy is it for an employer to lure poor people (possibly endangering their lives to get here) to come work for sub-minimum wage jobs (most, under the table and paying no income taxes).
And, where does george w. bush find the gall to call the Minute Men vigilantes ? What a hypocrite ? He campaigned on more secure borders, but it’s now clear that was a false promise (Imagine that! A politicians lying about something? Like “read my lips”. It must run in the family).
Unfortunately, politicians won’t ever stop the illegal aliens flooding across the borders.
They didn’t in the past, and they won’t now.
Especially, not in this age of government fraud, legal plunder, fiscal & moral bankruptcy; and voters that are equally irresponsible, complacent, selfish, apathetic, and resigned to futility.
Ron, I’m not liberal in all aspects, so I blame the muscle car love on the more libertarian side of me - lol
There are a whole bunch of free sources out there, but here is just one of the many
http://ssdi.genealogy.rootsweb.com/
The one I used to use doesn’t seem to be online anymore, probably because most of the larger geneology sites have learned how they can profit from information.
Posted by: Lisa Renee at August 27, 2005 05:59 PMd.a.n.,
“…branch is going to snap someday.”
Effective imagery at the end there. Please don’t over-use it.
Posted by: Stephanie at August 27, 2005 06:50 PMChuck,
“I simply believe that physical proof of citizenship should be an essential prerequisite for employment in the US.”
Isn’t it though, I mean legally. Every time I’ve been employed, I have to show my driver’s liscense and soc. sec. card. The one’s who fake those are the ones ambitious enough to want to make what everyone else makes.
“…and you get have another really horrible small picture of yourself.”
Way to sell it, Chuck! Oi! However, you make a fairly good argument. I just never really considered it before. Obviously if that’s what it took to get employed, I’d get one. At least now that I’m looking for employment again.
“If we want to get serious about stopping illegal immigration, I would recommend to Congress that they investigate this situation and determine, to the best of its ability, the amount in “illegal” foreign aid each country receives, and then offer this amount in “legal” foreign aid with the stipulation that the recipients dedicate at least 50% of it to the enforcement of legal emmigration.”
Or, we could penalize them that much in legal foreign aid until they started seriously cooperating, with the benefits of success being an increase in legal foreign aid.
“PS - Now if Congress really wanted to get creative, it could offer a conditional amnesty to the first 10,000 or so who applied for it. The condition would be simply that they would have to agree to be employed as undercover operatives for DOL investigations for a limited period of time, say two years. Just think about seeing dozens of highly publicized sting operations on the 6PM News: Managers dragged out in handcuffs; owners hanging their heads in perp walks; tearful spouses. Millions of “Nannygates” all over the country. Now that, Rick Duran, is what I call“More Patton, less pattent [sic] leather”“
That seems fair to me!
“First, illegals, Hispanic or otherwise, can’t vote, at least not legally.”
Not legally, but that’s another thing that isn’t sufficiently enforced, at least not here in Wisconsin. By the polls, the politicians figure they mostly voted Democrat, so our Democratic governor doesn’t want to do anything that might take away from his “constituency.” (So much for illegal immigrant Republicans!)
Posted by: Stephanie at August 27, 2005 07:07 PMd.a.n
I agree with pretty much everything you said. My only question would be the statistical significance of voting age children of illegal parents. Are they a sufficiently large enough voting bloc to turn an election? Don’t know, but would be interested to find out.
Also, do you presume some kind of ethnic solidarity among illegal immigrants and US citizens of the same ethnicity? Perhaps so, but doing so assumes facts not in evidence. After all, the wages and working conditions of every legal American worker would improve if illegal employment ceased.
Other than that, I guess we just disagree on the likelihood of resolving the problem. Guess it’s the difference between lighting a candle and cursing the darkness. At least I like to think our representatives might be willing and able to do something as simple and cheap as I propose. Hope springs eternal… .
Stephanie,
Appreciate your comments & glad to see you didn’t blame David Remer for my opinions. He’s got enough on his plate. :o)
I think you’d be surprized at how little foreign aid we actually disburse, but you’re right. We could withhold or rescind it unless they agree to assist us. Using the carrot and the stick always provides more motivation than the carrot alone.
Finally, I live in Jew York City (to quote Jesse Jackson), so I hope that you’ll defer to my expertise: It’s OY!
__________________________________________________
As a complete non-sequitur, I just saw a report on CNN from the head of Emergency Response in New Orleans. He said that if the eye of Hurricane Katrina hits the Big Easy dead on, he estimates the casualties at 40,000 to 50,000!
Anybody besides me think that this is the handiwork of Pat Robertson? After all, this storm came out of nowhere right after we all jumped down his throat for advocating assassination.
Innocent coincidence or nefarious plot?
I report, you decide.
Posted by: Chuck Hanrahan at August 27, 2005 07:30 PMStephanie,
I see it sagging very low now.
It’s so weighted down, it won’t take much to finish it off. A fuel shortage perhaps? Crushing debt and runaway inflation? Failing Medicare, Social Security, or Medicaid? More war or attacks?
People might consider some preparation for the coming economic meltdown.
A couple of good things to do to prepare (if possible):
[1] Don’t have a mortgage (if you can help it). Pay off your home (if possible). Layoffs and foreclosures are rampant during recessions (much less a depression). A place to live will relieve you of one of those biggest burdens.
[2] Invest wisely (perhaps in some foreign markets and currencies).
[3] Don’t have a lot of debt (if you can help it).
[4] Don’t rely on Social Security or Medicare or Medicaid. 77 million baby boomers are about to bust the already severely cracked piggy bank (not overflowing with money, but I.O.U.s to the tune of $40 trillion).
And they’re living much longer too.
What will it be like when there are only 4 workers per 5 recipients of Social Security and Medicare? Well, taxes will have to be much higher, and benefits will have to be much lower.
And the high cost of illegal trespassers is just one more of many pressing problems that are helping to seal our fate:
www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html
______________________________
NOTE: No one can know for sure, but it’s now getting harder and harder to see how we can tax, spend, grow, or cut waste enough to get ourselves out of the mess we’re in now.
Lisa Renee,
Thanks for the link. I’ll give it to my payrole clerk. Hopefully we can avoid another incedent like the one I described earlier.
I’m into muscle cars too. The firsr one I owned was a 68 Road Runner like the one pictured on your site. I traded it in 70 for a new Challenger R/T Convertible that I still own. I’ve had serveral other cars over the years, but my favorite is the Challenger.
Posted by: Ron Brown at August 27, 2005 08:34 PMChuck,
“I think you’d be surprized at how little foreign aid we actually disburse, but you’re right.”
Not if you include money through non-government organizations. I know I support a little boy in Mexico, in hopes that he will be able to improve his own country with a little help in the way of education and necessities. If our government had the power (I don’t know if it does) to staunch this flow until the foreign governments cooperated, then I think there would be a lot of pressure from the private organizations that do a lot of good in these countries for the foreign governments to comply. At least, I hope there would.
“Using the carrot and the stick always provides more motivation than the carrot alone.”
That is the nature of discipline.
“Finally, I live in Jew York City (to quote Jesse Jackson), so I hope that you’ll defer to my expertise: It’s OY!”
Oy, yes, I got it. :-)
Though, I do wonder at why you’d quote Jesse Jackson making such an inappropriate comment.
Posted by: Stephanie at August 27, 2005 09:44 PMJust so you didn’t think I’d made up that one on my own.
Posted by: Chuck Hanrahan at August 27, 2005 10:43 PMChuck, I just had a half baked thought. To hold employers responsible for hiring illegal workers, would we not have to create a national ID system that employers could rely upon to tell them if an applicant is illegal or not?
This is really the crux of the problem.
Here is a useful exercise for natural born US citizens. Look at the documents that prove you are a citizen, and think of how little effort it would take to forge them.
1) Social Security card (not marked “NOT VALID FOR WORK PURPOSES” as the ones for aliens are): These are/were made on a typewriter. A typewriter!!!
2) Birth certificate: I have some old ones around that are just “official” B/W photocopies. They have an embossed stamp in them, but it has gotten very smooth over the years. I doubt employers I have shown it to even noticed the stamp.
To say these objects can be “forged” is an insult to forgers. You would have a harder time forging a coupon for 50 cents off a Happy Meal.
Chuck indicated that hurricane Katrina could possibly be the work of Pat Robertson.
I kind of doubt it but, can those who bashed him actually take the chance that he is incapable of directing natural disasters to your city, neighborhood, house?
Posted by: steve smith at August 28, 2005 09:38 AMsteve smith,
“I kind of doubt it but, can those who bashed him actually take the chance that he is incapable of directing natural disasters to your city, neighborhood, house?”
Bring it on.
Posted by: Rocky at August 28, 2005 10:40 AMRocky,
I was just being facetious.
However, I do believe that someone can do that and, who knows, he might use Pat as his spotter.
Posted by: steve smith at August 28, 2005 10:54 AMsteve smith,
“I was just being facetious.”
No, really?
“However, I do believe that someone can do that and, who knows, he might use Pat as his spotter.”
Then why isn’t that person using Robertson in Iraq?
Posted by: Rocky at August 28, 2005 11:02 AMWell we were adressing the weather/natural disaster issue not the war issue.
“HE only helps those who help themseves” so he is probably not yet satified that we have done all we can do on our own.
Posted by: steve smith at August 28, 2005 11:14 AMsteve smith,
“”HE only helps those who help themseves” so he is probably not yet satified that we have done all we can do on our own.”
Ya think?
I don’t understand how this country can run up trillions of dollars of debt to build someone elses country, give ten percent to some charletan on TV, and not be able to defend itself at home.
What’s wrong with this picture steve?
Posted by: Rocky at August 28, 2005 11:22 AMLisa Renee and Ron Brown,
I had a 1969 GTO Candy Apple w/White Leather interior. Big engine all chrome. Hurst floor shift. Beautiful and it flew.
I looked at trading for a 1970 Olds 442. It was beautiful but, from 69 to 70 they changed the compression ratios allowed in vehicles. Evenm though the Olds had more engine, it didn’t have the guts of the Goat.
Your website car photo is terrific BTW.
Posted by: steve smith at August 28, 2005 11:24 AMRocky,
We need to stop thinking that taking care of the rest of the world is our responsibility. I am not against helping people in need but, when people in my own country don’t have indoor plumbing and running water, proper education and medical treatment access, food, electricity and so on, it pisses me off.
“This land was Mexican once, was Indian always and is, And will be again.”
www.infowars.com/articles/us/la_in_mexico_bill_board_clear_channel.htm
Bush, and our government are betraying our borders, because they’re only interested in growing the population, and voter and tax base.
We can’t grow and tax our way out of the fiscal storm that’s coming. Legal and/or illegal immigration, amnesties, etc. are not going to solve our fiscal problems, and will most likely make the problems worse.
The costs of health care, schools, property tax, law enforcement are skyrocketing in Texas, and other southern states being burdened with the steady flow of illegal aliens.
We’re seriously thinking of moving from Texas (population now 22 million) to Wyoming (population 500 thousand).
Posted by: d.a.n at August 28, 2005 12:05 PMThey arrest both hookers and john’s
They arrest both dealers and users
That sure took care of those problems.
Rocky & steve,
Perhaps Katerina isn’t because we bashed Robertson, but because some of us actually believed Robertson might represent Him in the first place.
Posted by: Stephanie at August 28, 2005 01:58 PMStephanie,
Do you not think that Pat Robertson has realized the mistake he made and has already asked for and received forgiveness from his LORD and SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST. ?
Posted by: steve smith at August 28, 2005 04:09 PMsteve,
Is he still on the air? Is he now preaching love and compassion? Is preaching that money is not at all important compared to faith? Or, is he still selling his beliefs?
Posted by: Stephanie at August 28, 2005 04:26 PMsteve,
His sins amount to more than the comment about Chauvez. That comment just brought him to the fore-front of discussions. To repent of your sins, you have to give them up, or at least make a real good effort. I don’t see Robertson doing that.
Posted by: Stephanie at August 28, 2005 04:30 PMWoody, apparently the significance of my half-baked thought did not register with anyone but yourself. Thanks for noticing that identification is the crux of the problem in trying to hold employers accountable for hiring illegals.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 28, 2005 05:56 PMStephanie,
I do not watch his show so I do not know if it’s still on or, if he has changed his format or approach.
What I do know is that he has a very sizeable following who are not likely to leave him over this issue.
Posted by: steve smith at August 28, 2005 06:46 PMsteve,
If he doesn’t change his ways (or honestly try to), those ways that people are calling him a hypocrite for practicing, how does his repentance change the situation?
Posted by: Stephanie at August 28, 2005 08:40 PMwww.theamericanresistance.com/ref/illegal_alien_numbers.html
Posted by: d.a.n at August 29, 2005 10:24 PMIn Idaho, Canyon county commissioner Robert Vasquez has proposed using the federal RICO anti-racketeering laws against employers of illegal aliens. He and his idea are extremely controversial, and naturally, some say he’s a racist. He’s planning on running for congress as a Red.
Posted by: Razzbar at September 1, 2005 01:52 AMRazzbar, it would be a controversial use of the statutes. I find those statutes just barely tolerable as long as they are implemented strictly against organized and conspiratorial white collar crime. The more we expand the applicability of those statutes, the more Orwellian police power will become, and that IMO is to be avoided at all costs if we are to reflect adherence to the principles of our Constitutional Bill of Rights.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 1, 2005 06:03 AMA note to say that unfortunately the shortcomings that you highlight in your article concern many other countries in the world. Italy has mastered the art of talking against illegal immigration while taking advantage of it for years now. Just on the local TV news in Sicily today, we heard the rare news that police arrested the managers of two construction companies because they employed illegal immigrants. Unfortunately, the names of the companies were not revealed. I think we should have the right to know them so that we can take an informed decision about hiring or not hiring people who exploit foreign workers.
Posted by: Katia at September 1, 2005 02:04 PMThank you Katia. I assumed it was an American phenominon.
I guess the phrase “turning a blind eye” wasn’t invented here.
Posted by: Chuck Hanrahan at September 1, 2005 05:45 PMI live tenn. i work for a birck mason. and see the some thing ever day mexacons taking all the work at lower cost.what can we do?
Posted by: wendell at September 15, 2005 10:26 PMSo many of you are correct in your statements. The United States Government wants more people from the countries south of us to pour into America—Why?—because it helps complete our unity. The goal is to have this part of the world called the AMERICAS…..Bush Senior has always been apart of the One World Order movement.
As a reminder to some of you—Now don’t get upset……..BUT……Ross Perot did address the Illegal Immigrants when discussing NAFTA during his run for president. He stated that Americans better get use to living 10 to a household….while the Mexicans in Mexico try to get their wages increased. Looks like NAFTA has not worked out like they planned on….more illegals……Americans wages in a decline mode…..while the illegals get jobs that the non-college American use to count on to raise a family. Everyone suffers……including legal immigrants….who waited 10 years to come here legally.
I see a clash of civilization……and it will be legal citizens fighting against illegal citizens….regardless of race……and the lynching of the wealthy class in this country.
It is just a matter of time………….
It is sad to read how a lot of people like to stereotype hispanics, not all of us are Mexicans and we are not always looking for trouble. I agree it is horrible to see illegals work their ass off at a minimum wage but there are a lot of hispanics who are getting their education and thankfully we will have a louder voice. It is much worst to see white trash I live in Oklahoma where most of the circumstances a hispanic family has more to offer to the economy and their family than any other white trash digger around the community.
Posted by: cindy at December 5, 2005 02:06 AM
