You voted for them. You also knew that immigration was a problem far before the election of 2004. Have you bothered contacting your Congressman or local representative to express your opinion? Even if you did, your representatives do not care about your opinion. You have one vote and make zero campaign contributions. You mean nothing to them. For all of your talk about "stones" you are going to re-elect them or someone just like them.



Costs would go up because we have set a market price for labor in this country and a minimum wage of $5.25. A painter makes $25 a hour, the painting company charges $50 a hour. If Mexicans work for less money then those costs would increase dramatically. Whether or not they would "skyrocket" depends on what your definition of "skyrocket" is. Painting a room on an eight hour day at minimum wage would be $42, not including material. On the American market, it would cost you $400. To me, that's skyrocket.



You wouldn't get a tax cut. That's the lie you're telling yourself. Government is not going to give you back anything. They will find a new place to spend your money.



It's nothing like that. Your analogy is not even close. You are not very informed. Your tax money is designated to a certain FUND. Those funds are set by a budget, created by the officials YOU ELECTED. So even if the money from that Fund, say welfare for example, wasn't spent, it would not be coming back to you. It would kept as a surplus, they would find other funds within the budget that need increases and they would send next years tax revenues, basically your money, in that direction. **IMPORTANT NOTICE** YOU WILL NEVER GET THAT MONEY BACK. NEVER!!


How do explain the success of Wal-Mart then? You may not take those services but businesses will and so will consumers.



So far so good.


Speculation and pretty much baseless unless you do his business accounting, which you don't.



This guy was a friend? Wow! How do you feel about your enemies? Let's see, he was productive. He was contributing. His business was legitimate. He paid taxes. And you believe he needed "to be sent back where he came from."


I know someone who should be deported.

I didn't vote for them. Not one single representative in office today did I vote for, AND I do vote. But that is the drudge of being an American, you have to live with the mistakes of the people around you. I guess it's no different any where you go.



Amen to that brother. Our democracy is a cashocracy. Too bad too many people bite on "gay marriage" and "family values" to realize they don't even have a real choice. Kerry or Bush, both listen to the $$$.

I push for people to vote 3rd party as often as I can, but people seem content with the two party tyranny. So what can ya do? But this is really a different matter all together and fit for it's own thread.



You mean we'd actually have to paint our own ROOMS??? OH MUH GOD! And mow our own LAWNS!?!?!? This can not happen? And wipe our own bottoms??

You know this whole mess has grown into idiot proportions when people are complaining on how much they have to pay a painter or landscaper. And that this is a reason to flood the country with poor, destitute spanish speaking labor.

When I lost my engineering job in 2001, my salary went from $80K to $15K. Guess what, I made sacrifices! I fixed my own car. Now I never had anyone else do my lawn or fix up my house, I've always done that myself.

But seriously, if this is what we will be missing when we close the borders....FOR XRISTS SAKE lets do it NOW!




I agree they won't give it back, but not for the same reasons. We just lifted the debt ceiling to $9 TRILLION. If we cut expenses...that money is going back to CHINA.

RedCedar, did your ancestors came to this country on Mayflower? If not, unless you're a Native American, you're probably a descendant of poor, uneducated immigrants who came to this country some time ago. And let me tell you, hundreds of thousands of Irish, Italian, Jewish, Russian immigrants came to this country illegally. slipped through the cracks of Ellis Island, using lies, deception, pretending to have relatives in the country that they never had, etc. How do you know that you're not a grandson of illegals?

By the way, I've been reading your earlier posts in which your mention your job hunting woes - the H1B workers you mention are neither illegals nor uneducated. Most of them (and I work in high-tech industry, too) have a first-rate education, they speak fluent English, they're hard-working, they're not "poor" and they're here 100 percent legally. So unless you're against immigration in general, I don't know why you mentioned them...

Well, my ancestors were some of the first to come here from Europe. No, maybe not on the Mayflower, but pretty darn close. But that's one side of my family, the other side came over legally.

Times are a little different than that period. Do we really need more people, especially poor uneducated people who only speak spanish?

We used to have room and a need for immigrants, I doubt you can make that claim any more. At least at the proportions we're talking about. Regardless, there's no reason we should ALLOW these illegals to stay in the country.



I never said H1-B's were. The problem I am stating is that companies are able to pull people in globally for the cheapest price. Local companies don't care about the people in their area. THey'd prefer a cheap latino or a cheap Asian.

It's the same deal. On one side you have highly-skilled H1-B's coming here and taking jobs that highly-educated Americans could be doing. Or you have low-skilled, uneducated illegal labor doing the work that America's poor SHOULD be doing.

I didn't vote for them. The senators of my state are the most liberal communists in the country. There is only one public official in office in my state that I voted for and I hope he becomes president. I contact my senators regularly asking them to give up their careers as politicians.

Of course I wouldn’t get a tax cut. Do you think I’m nuts? It would, however, be nice to know that the money was going to legitimate causes for citizens (and of course I understand that zillions of dollars go to foreign causes that I entirely oppose)

My point is that I don’t get services from Wal-Mart that I don’t need just because they’re cheap.

I was being kind. I KNOW he evaded taxes because it was very easy to do and we had the conversation. And how do you know I didn’t do his accounting?

Friend or not he was breaking the law and needed to go. I can legally visit him in his country. Your “protect my own” elitist mentality is typical of those with your positions. I am an American first. This country has value to me and I don’t want to see it continue to be devalued.

On what do you base this comment and how does it add to the debate? My impression is that you have no regard for the laws of the United States and would just as soon see the borders removed and the whole world become a utopian idealistic society where everyone is happy and free.




Indeed.

Who? That foreigner Arnold Schwarzenegger?


You sound awfully utopian here. Money going to causes for citizens. Politicians that care about the people. That's fantasy land. In America, politicians do not give a rat's EDITED TO REMOVE ATTEMPT AT BYPASSING PROFANITY FILTER about anyone but their pocket books.

You may not, but the success of Wal-Mart and the number of consumers that traffic through there is a testament to the attraction of cheap goods and services.

What conversation did you have? The one where he explain how he did evade paying taxes, or the one where he explained how he could?
I don't know if you were his accountant. But I am saying you are not, am I wrong? I'm right, aren't I?

No, you are not an American first, you are a human being first. What kind of nationalistic vassal are you? Do you really value your country over yourself? Over your family? And what is it that you value about our country? How is this country being "devalued?" Did the Irish, German, and Italians of the early 1900s devalue this country?



I do not have any regard for racists, nationalistic, or hypocritical laws. I would have no problem with immigration restrictions if our corporations, backed by our government (see NAFTA), weren't exploiting the Mexican worker to the point of starvation. Maybe you would share my point of view if you consider them humans, which it appears you do not. You use terms like "criminals" to rationalize your racist and nationalistic views. They are human beings. HUMAN BEINGS. They come here because they need money for their family, just like your immigrant ancestors. But it seems that they are a tad bit swarthy to receive the title of "human being" from you. No, they're not humans, they're Illegals or Criminals; not to mention a slew of other racial slurs that could be used.

I understand your aversion to a Happy and Free society. You would rather be Unhappy and Restrained. Stop for a moment and grasp the reality of your position. YOU ARE AGAINST HAPPINESS AND FREEDOM!!

Does this concern you in the least?

I don't disagree with your statement above (political dilemman because it is an economic one). However, let me clarify, and indicate why I think this is ultimately solely a political issue. I don't think the overall economic impact of eliminating or reducing illegal immigrants would be significant at all. As I stated in my initial post, these jobs would either continue to be filled here in the states (usually by the very same people who would have obtained legal permission to work), or the goods would be outsourced, thereby causing some business owners to have to come up with something else to do--which they would, out of necessity if nothing else. None of these changes would cause any large shift in our economy--it won't drive us into recession, and may even spur productivity if such jobs were shifted into higher value businesses. However, none of the individuals affected by these changes are likely to be happy about it. Everyone loves the status quo, and no one wants something they have taken away from them, even if it is being obtained illegally. So, even though the overall economic impact would be slight, the political impact of these changes would be far, far greater. The recent demonstrations prove this. So, what is needed is a group of politicians to decide to fix a real and solvable problem despite the political fallout from doing so. Unfortunately, our entire political system works against doing this...therefore politicians are solely concerned with the politics of a situation, as opposed to the realities outside politics. Immigration reform is the classic example of this.

Do illegals have a right to demand any rights in the U.S.?

Nope, but there are two levels I think. Under the "rule of law", an illegal is first to be caught, then tried. He/she is outside of our system. But, the constitution says nothing about any "rule of law" that I know of. It's an invented term!

Under a broader interpretation of the constitution, we are "we the people" and are...(to) establish justice. Justice says to me we get only what we pay for, and we pay equally, so once again no. A past chief justice is said to have replied to a defendant who was claiming systemic unfairness: "Young man, we are a nation of laws, not of justice. That's why I gave a two level answer. (I also think the chief justice did a MAJOR INJUSTICE that it is still ours to correct, admittedly only my personal opinion.)

Since they ' build our schools and cook our food', if we sent them all packing, back home, could we still run every restaurant, cleaning operation and all the dirty work we expect done, that our youth or population never even THINKS themselves lowly enough of doing? In other words, are we lying to ourselves about our plight and we actually need illegals?

We are lying about our situation. We need to entreprenaurialize (a word?) this level of our national production system. But, we don't need illegals or outsiders to do it. But it's a hard school of "human capitalism".

Are we, business owners and common folk more of the problem than we would like to admit?
Yes! Mostly our/this "problem" has not been addressed well yet.

Do illegals have a right to demand any rights in the U.S.?

The only rights they're allowed to demand are those set forth in international treaties to which we are signatory. They have the right to be treated in a humane manner during their deportation proceedings, and legally, that's pretty much the only ground they have to stand on as far as I can see.

Since they ' build our schools and cook our food', if we sent them all packing, back home, could we still run every restaurant, cleaning operation and all the dirty work we expect done, that our youth or population never even THINKS themselves lowly enough of doing? In other words, are we lying to ourselves about our plight and we actually need illegals?

No job is too lowly if the price is right. If a company offers a competive wage there are Americans out there who are willing to do the job. What we've done by allowing the free flow of illegal aliens over the border to take these jobs is to drive down the average wage of these positions, and created a low-level job market that has failed to keep pace with the wages of more skilled jobs, which is why we've seen an increase in the number of Americans living in poverty.

The answer to your question is, no, we don't need illegals. If, suddenly, the government decided to start enforcing the law, (novel concept, eh?), and there were no more undocumented workers, the market would adapt. The company would have to get innovative to preserve their margins, and hire laborers at competitive prices. I have plenty of friends who are citizens and play by the rules who do construction, who cook food, who run cleaning services or landscaping companies, many of them quite successfully with no aid at all from illegal workers. Go figure.

Are we, business owners and common folk more of the problem than we would like to admit?

Well, business is most definitely part of the problem. They, of course want to preserve their profit margins, but under the current system, the American taxpayer is indirectly subsidizing those margins by covering the drain on the public health system, just for example. If we were to set up a guest worker program wherein those who are working here are exempt from paying any taxes at all, it's only going to get worse, because with absolutely no fear of deportation at all, these people are more likely to utilize the system. Even if I bought into the concept that we absolutely need these cheap laborers, the demand I would make is that the companies that hire them be forced to cover their health care costs and whatever other costs are associated with them being here. My attitude, in summary, is that companies should feel free to make as much profit as they want, but kindly don't do it on my dime, thank you.

Yes I defend market liberalization.


I think their main concern is not cheap labor but labor. Farming doesn’t pay as poorly as most assume it does. It is more the nature of the work than the pay that does not appeal to Americans. Are you familiar with any Americans who are migrants?

I also believe that most of the industries that rely heavily on or prefer immigrant labor do so not for the cost but for the quality and abundance of labor these people provide.


You have some proof of this, that most of those on welfare or unemployed are children of illegals?



They already are...
In Florida Groves, Cheap Labor Means Machines
"Pistachio Blaster" Listens For Perfect Nuts



This happens regardless as poor people come in all forms, illegal immigrants, lawful immigrants and native born. Again as I said before this argument seems more or less an argument opposing welfare or social insurance than it does to opposing illegal immigration.


That is legal immigration what does it have to do with illegal immigration? Also American companies can pay even far less by relocating their operations to India. In fact I thought that was what had happened isn’t it..I had thought they stole all our jobs by outsourcing. Just guess i am getting my xenophobic fear mongering confused.



I think this sums up your argument perfectly because it illustrates the fact that you seem to believe people who appear a certain way ,which you can apparently detect from just a glance on passing in the street, could never be real true Americans.





The articles come from ADL and the SPLC. Sorry you feel those organizations are unrepeatable but I feel the same for CIS FAIR etc. and the articles were given to show why I feel this way about your sources, because many of these groups use very unsavory tactics and have some very questionable connections to obvious hate groups.

I also supplied a NYT article on the matter of taxes that illegal immigrants do pay.



So you have no proof that they don’t pay taxes and you have obviously not read the article I supplied claiming they do. And why would they?...perhaps because they have a desire to be legal and do what it is citizens in America do. Why must you villanize and degrade them so much? Do you think perhaps a good portion of them are just honest working people trying to feed their kids?

Last year, Mr. Martínez paid about $2,000 toward Social Security and $450 for Medicare through payroll taxes withheld from his wages. Yet unlike most Americans, who will receive some form of a public pension in retirement and will be eligible for Medicare as soon as they turn 65, Mr. Martínez is not entitled to benefits.
He belongs to a big club. As the debate over Social Security heats up, the estimated seven million or so illegal immigrant workers in the United States are now providing the system with a subsidy of as much as $7 billion a year.

source



Yes I would imagine 911 has some back up plan for language difficulties, again the same argument can be made for hearing or speech impaired or even mentally challenged. I would imagine ever community reflects the needs of it’s people in it’s services. If one area of the US has a high number of Spanish speaking people then the services of that community will reflect this. Also I think Geico et al. has business services conducted in Spanish too, you are getting a bit silly about all this. I myself have lived in a country where I was not able when I first moved there to conduct business exchanges in the native language. Oh well I asked a friend for help or I paid for a translator etc. People get by we have been dealing with this for thousands of years.



I have given proof but here is some more ...
Those same high numbers can be seen at seminars all across the US. The IRS has signed up 5.3 million since the taxpayer ID program began in 1996.
"The majority of people here, regardless of their immigration status, want to pay their taxes and abide by the laws of this nation," says Aisha Qaasim, the legislative staff attorney at the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund in Washington. "This tax ID allows them to do that."

source

Largely overlooked in the political furor over the costs of illegal immigration, such workers appear to be paying billions of dollars a year in income, property and sales taxes.

"The image of the public is that [illegal immigrants] are standing around on the street as day laborers, getting paid cash," said Barrie A. Peterson, a labor specialist at Seton Hall University in New Jersey who last year co-wrote a study of immigrants in that state. His study estimated that half the state's undocumented workers were, in fact, on the books.
source

Property taxes are paid even if you don’t own the home as the landlord includes that in his rental price. And yes I think illegal immigrants are buying homes, in fact I know they are. You seem to have a very unrealistic and stereotyped view of what an illegal immigrant is in the US and what they do or think or are motivated by.

[B]aevans176 I agree I too desire documentation and more avenues to legalizing their presence.
I just can not imagine how this bill will do that. Penalties for charity groups or individuals assisting or helping a human being in need...this has no place in our society.




If farm labor is such horrendous work and pays so little as most of you seem to be arguing how is it moving south going to improve their lot in life? They will more than likely be paid far less and treated much worse.

Also how does this help the American worker? I thought outsorcing was evil too.

Regardless eliminating American businesses access to labor is not the right way to even the playing ground, removing farm subsidies and tariffs on imports is and that is all being debated at the WTO with the Doha talks. The problem is many nations in the world greatly oppose this.

I am not here to scare anyone, as I don’t feel the choices on this issue are life and death, as I have great faith in the American economy and it fluidity and flexibility. I personally don’t feel there is any great concern or need for panic as I feel that illegal immigrants are more than likely having little effect on the economy as a whole, positive or negative. I don’t fear globalization.

I just can’t for one moment see how a.) this bill will address the problem we face b.) how eliminating 7-11 million people from our country will go smoothly and be something we can all be politically proud of and c.)how further criminalization will better encourage those to assimilate into our society

I mostly think that this is predominantly Washington Smoke and Mirrors.

Let's consider that the US Border Patrol and INS don't have the man-power or resources by which to enforce this law, that the budget won't accomodate the necessary staffing, and that the American Tax payer won't want to pay for this mess.

I personally think that instead of considering how to round up the illegal people already in the US, maybe we ought to re-vamp the way that Mexicans can immigrate into the US. Frankly, there might be a way to alleviate the cost, hassle, and time it takes to become documented.

THEN, we could impose strict penalties for being caught in the US undocumented. No one blames people trying to feed their families... but if we make our labor market and documentation more accessible, and they still cross illegally we should stick them in camps in the desert in El Paso until the Mexican gov't can pay to get them out. This might act as a deterrent to then crossing illegally...

and on the ITIN issue... again, the IRS won't even tell us how much they collect, as I suppose it's far less than what we'd want to hear, but the article quoted does state:

I think that said it all....

The work itself would be no less horrendous, but the working conditions could not possibly be worse (the Schlosser book that nighttimer referenced has a lot of information on this). Suffice it to say that describing migrant housing as overcrowded squalor is paying it an immense compliment.

It would improve their lot in life because the profit from their labor would be going back into the local economy. Were a large-scale produce industry to spring fully formed from the passage of a bit of immigration legislation (as you seem to be suggesting), these laborers would be able to live and work in their own country - many might not have to relocate at all or would at least be able to relocate with their families. They would be working legally. This means that local labor laws and wage requirements would apply and that their taxes would be supporting their own infrastructure. This would lead to both better working conditions and a better standard of living. It would also mean that they'd be able to pocket more of their income as they wouldn't be caught up in the con of company housing and the company store. Nor would many of them be supporting themselves in addition to supporting a household "back home". And chances are that wages would improve were there a sudden demand for local labor.

All that said, I don't envision a major flight south of the border should the farming industry suddenly have to start using legal labor - at least not one that would leave a total vacuum behind, with hectares of arable land lying fallow.


Outsourcing is evil (if, by "evil", you mean "not very good for the American worker"). We're not talking about outsourcing. Even if every company that relies on illegal aliens moved to the North Pole, there would be no net loss. If a single company replaced a single worker with a legal laborer, that would be a net gain of one. If tens of thousands of jobs - or millions of jobs - were suddenly offered to citizens rather than "criminals", it would be a net gain of tens of thousands or millions.

The elimination of lowest bid labor can't help but improve the lot of legal workers. As RedCedar mentioned (though not explicitly in relation to the crops in question), the technology to pick berries exists. Migrant labor is used primarily because it is cheaper than both legal labor and machinery. With the peon class out of the equation, the farms would either have to start paying a living wage or invest in the technology and the people to operate it. Either way, local citizens who are currently unemployed would benefit. Unless, as you suggest, they all pull up stakes and head for the hills.

But, as I said, I really don't see this happening. Even if some agribusinesses did move their operations to Mexico or Central America (assuming there are undeveloped plots of land suitable for vineyards and fruit beds available for the taking), something tells me that the Southern California real estate left behind is not going to sit there gathering dust. Either other farmers will move in or the land will be redeveloped, providing a different set of jobs.

Anyway, you seem to be focusing exclusively on farm labor, which only accounts for 25% of illegal labor in the US. Employers in the vast service industry that uses the bulk of illegal labor would not be able to move their businesses at all - never mind out of the country. The American worker would benefit, even if all those agricultural jobs did vanish over night, because there would be less strain on resources such as education, housing, and health care. And the legal labor that would fill the vacuum would generate considerable tax revenue.

The main benefit for the American worker, though (and every worker in the world, for that matter), would be that it would forestall what might be the inevitable outcome of the globalization that we should be fearing. More on this below...


Who's talking about eliminating American business access to labor? I thought you were talking about companies voluntarily relocating to other countries. Even then, no one has mooted eliminating access to labor, just limiting access to illegal labor.


Damn - I agree entirely with three consecutive paragraphs written by aevans!

Yes, I think this is almost entirely "Washington Smoke and Mirrors". The War on Illegal Immigration is just this season's gay marriage. It's not a major problem, no one would be really concerned about it were it not for our lawmakers and their media, and, apart from the perceived political capital to be garnered from one position or another, our lawmakers don't really care about the issue. I strongly suspect that this is one of those frivolous wedge issues that will evaporate after the election (if the polled populace doesn't tire of it long before then). The only difference between this and gay marriage is that, this time, it looks like both sides are trying to gain some sort of political upper hand on the issue - and it's bound to backfire on one of them. Gay marriage was a lose-lose situation for the Democrats. The immigration issue could conceivably go either way.

Yes, we lack the manpower and financial resources to enact any of the proposed "solutions". I'm guessing that the only part of the current bill that may actually make it to the books is the stupid wall. And that's only because it's a very attractive pork barrel project that a few key legislators will do their damnedest to exploit.

And, yes, our immigration policy seriously needs to be revamped. I've avoided discussing legal immigration here because I thought it was a tad off topic. But I definitely feel that the naturalization process should be streamlined - especially for those who have already been living and working here.


This, however, is where we part company. I still feel that the fault here would lie with the employer. It was mentioned on AD Radio last night (by PE, if memory serves) that this is like waging the War on Drugs by pursuing the stoner rather than the dealer. The problem is not with those seeking to feed their families, it is with those that would enable them to do so illegally.

I further concentrate on the employer here because, unlike bucket, I do fear globalization. To me, the globalization toward which we're headed is a world economy run by a greedy oligarchy. The result, quite likely the intent, would not be to raise the workers of New Dehli to the standard of living of those in New York, but to bring us all to the level of the worker in Bogotá. Our political class is not interested in sharing the American Dream with the rest of the world, they are interested in securing themselves a place among the ruling elite, lording it over a world of wage slaves. Creating a global class of migrant "guests" sounds like a reasonable step toward that end. So does outsourcing.

Hmmn, I wonder about this in corrupt governments which prevail in Latin America, but, in theory.....



Wertz, do you really think illegal immigration is a non issue? From Texas to California many people would not agree, I wouldnt classify it in any way with gay marriage. Perhaps you mean that lawmakers dont truly care about it and its straw man for them, in that they desire no real solution, lets face it, its cheap labor for business, that doesnt mean its not a major problem.

I have been hearing stirrings and unrest for years, amongst middle class (white people) a desire to move their families away from a latino socialization of school districts, and I only repeat second hand, a dumbing down of education, a bogging down of the health care system and generally not being happy with living, and their kids living in Spanglish all the time.
Perhaps this is racism or just a desire for a more traditional american life as they see it. To be fair, I can see this side of the story.
We have to aknowledge that many parts of the southwest and much of California is being taken over by people who came illegally, who make use of the system, who feel they have 'natural' rights; to be educated in Spanish in public school systems, and use public health systems and take advantage of public welfare. A situation that makes people angry because they have no use of public health and resources are strapped in certain areas.

Yes, we are an immigrant nation, but for some reason the latino nation thinks it should be 'special' and their kids should be taught in Spanish, the roads should have bilingual signs, they dont need to learn english, and they should be granted special rights. I have NO idea how we or they came to this conclusion.

We are not really talking about a few hundred migrant agri-pickers here. That is an isolated case in itself; we are talking about a huge influx of undocumented workers that are almost all employed in restaurants and hotels, in landscaping, as nannys and various domestic work in private homes, all with kids, all with demands.

As you all know I have often been the most unruly and so totally liberal to the point of crazy voice on Ad, but on this one I just dont get it. Illegal is illegal, you dont take to the streets claiming rights. You hope someone gives you a BREAK, like amnesty hearings, you dont demand your kids be taught in your language.

Truthfully I never thought about this until the protests. It just baffles me that illegals can protest.

I really wish all of us could migrate wherever we choose, open borders, thats my utopia, but until that happens I am against turning this country into a second or third world nation.

Many here on AD have offered reasonable solutions, but none of them are being debated in Congress.

Again, I'll ask....

Are there not legal immigrants that would take the "jobs nobody wants"?

Why is it illegal immigrants get those jobs while legal immigrants are denied that chance?

If your answer is because of reduced costs associated with them being illegal, aren't you favoring slave labor? It's no wonder we had slaves for so long. This is the same argument slave owners used. Now instead of slaves, we use immigrants who have almost as little choice...

Mitt Romney


Unless I misunderstand from the statement above, "we're exploiting the Mexican worker" but "They come here because they need money for their family" you're suggesting that they come here for money for their family but they know they'll be exploited. Why can't they stay where they are and work to improve their own country.

I don't know where race enters the issue. That brings up a good discussion though. Perhaps we'll see a new discussion on how racism plays a role in immigration law. We never discussed that my friend who was deported was from Ireland.

I fully agree that businesses need to be penalized for employing illegal immigrants.

This might be from left field but why can't we put all of those folks in prison to work doing the jobs the illegals do?

And by legalizing all of these workers doesn't that mean that employers will now be required to pay them minimum wage and provide benefits. Won't that raise costs a little bit? I would think that employers who are doing it now would prefer to continue to employ illegals and pay less.

I'm a new member here...so if I'm outta line,,,lemme know. I used to work with alot of those "Illegal Aliens" back in a packing plant(slaughter house) in Iowa. One thing I can tell you...they would do the hardest jobs in the plant...look you straight in the eye smiling and say "easy money". I have tendenitous in both elbows from one of those "easy money" jobs.
It costs, I believe, about $5000.00 to become a U.S. citizen...so they all live in one house and hope that one of them makes it...they have 2 months between immigration checks. At an average of $10.00/hr, it's a pick and choose game for them.
I really don't see what was wrong with them collecting a pay check and paying taxes...and doing a job that disabled me...yea...they were here illegally...so what?
If ya wanna make them felons....you roll hogs for a living...take 10 100mg Ibuprophen a day just so you can do your job. Ohhhh....I failed to mention splitting intestions!!! Now that's a wonderful job....ohhh the aroma!!...easy money...

Also I would like to add that they are not people...they are cattle...i.e. Iowa Beef Packing fined for transporting "Illegal Aliens" in by train "box" and more recently the freight box found in Denison Iowa with I believe 40 dead Illegal aliens...I'm not picking on Iowa here, I'm saying that before we prosecute them as people, we need to recognize them as such.
Before 9/11 even happened, President Bush had already tried a bill to make Illegal aliens legal....maybe because he only received 3% of that particular minority vote...irrelevant for him now...but what about the party?
What am I saying here, I'm not even sure, exept for a really kind, honest, blue-eyed beauty that I would have loved to ask out.... if she hadn't been deported, bummer...she was a good woman.

Which corrupt governments would those be? The government of Fox's National Action Party in Mexico? That of Saca's National Republican Alliance in El Salvador? Or of Berger's Grand National Alliance in Guatemala or Uribe's coalition in Colombia or Zelaya's Liberal Party in Honduras? Those are the Latin American countries from which we receive the most illegal immigrants. And, should there be a sudden influx of American agribusiness in any of those countries, I fail to see how their workers could fare any worse than they would without such employment, revenue, and infrastructural development - or, for that matter, any worse than they do under the corrupt government that prevails in the United States.


I wouldn't say a non-issue, but its importance is certainly being exaggerated and, yes, I see the current legislative debate as little more than Congressional theatrics, with little concern for a real or lasting solution.


It's racism. And the target is unquestionably Hispanic - specifically Mexican. Sure there are more illegal Mexicans here than any other nationality, but Chinese, Brazilians and Filipinos all figure in the top ten illegal immigrant groups - and none of them are contributing to Spanglish - nor, so far as I know, are all those illegal Haitians, Indians, Koreans, or Canadians. The fact that so much of the focus is on questions of bilingualism gives the lie to the real agenda here: "too many wetbacks".


I don't think we have to acknowledge any such thing. "Being taken over"?? Come on. Illegal immigrants currently make up - at most - 3.5% of our population throughout the entire country (albeit that's up from 2.4% when Bush took office). Hardly a "take-over". Sure, the number of illegal aliens in the country puts a strain on resources, but not because of the national origin of the illegals themselves or the language they speak. Indeed, it can easily be argued that our schools, our health care, and our public welfare are all in dire straits in any event and that the further impact of illegal immigration is negligible in terms of the real problems confronting those institutions. And it is certain that a crackdown on migrant workers is hardly going to solve any of those problems.

But to the extent that illegal labor does contribute to chronic, ongoing problems in those areas, let's not forget that this population is hardly confined to the southwest. California and Texas have the largest illegal immigrant population, to be sure (though not all of them Hispanic, especially in California), but New York, Illinois, and Florida round out the top five - with states like Georgia and New Jersey among the top ten.

But Texas and California would have a sizeable Hispanic population without any illegal aliens - many of whom have been living there for generations. Indeed, many of whom have lived there since those territories belonged to Spain and the independent Mexico.


After the Mexican-American War, nearly half of Mexico was lost to the United States, including the whole of California, Nevada, and Utah, and parts of what are now Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Texas, and Wyoming. With the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, hundreds of thousands of Mexicans became Americans literally overnight. California's first constitution recognized the language rights of half its population: "All laws, decrees, regulations, and provisions emanating from any of the three supreme powers of this State, which from their nature require publication, shall be published in English and Spanish." A third of that state's population is still of Hispanic origin. And, by the way, English and Spanish are both official languages in New Mexico (which makes sense since Spanish has been spoken there since the sixteenth century).

It's also worth mentioning that we welcomed over a million Cuban exiles as citizens with the 1959 revolution (with no prerequisite that they learn English) and that Puerto Ricans are statutory US citizens. The United States has no official language, but Puerto Rico does. It's Spanish.

While I don't want to lead us into a discussion of bilingual education (or signage, for that matter - though this point reminds me of nothing so much as all those street signs in Chinese in Los Angeles, San Francisco and New York), one could argue it's the English-speakers that are demanding "special rights" by wanting everything in their tongue. In short, who's this "we" and who's this "they"? Speaking realistically, bilingual education does little more than recognize the fact that many of our citizens have a greater aptitude for learning in their own language - a language that has been spoken on the North American continent since the advent of Europeans, long before English was ever heard here, and which had been the language of the first people to have settled places like Florida, Texas, and California (and whose descendants have been there ever since); that Spanish is spoken by 30 million native citizens of the US; and that we are home to the fifth largest Spanish-speaking community in the world. These statistics have nothing whatsoever to do with illegal immigration.


I couldn't agree more.

Construction, cook food, cleaning....HOW DISCONNECTED ARE YOU?...sorry all, we are talking back breaking work....cotton picking, bean picking...that pays by the bushel...not by the hour.
I'm sorry if I sound harsh, but ya'll need a little education on what a migrant worker does...it's blood, sweat and tears for about $2.00/hr, at the most....it's slave labor...yes it still exists!!!!!
Down here in the South...trade labor has it good....the Polish can get a cleaning job making $10.00/hr...then go home and have a great down-payment on a good home.
Most Mexicans that come to America had a job there...I believe it's around 85%....but got paid at a starving rate...ahhh...the American Dream.
The American Dream for them...guys get to work like mules for nothing/hour...women get nothing /hour plus a few "perks" for the land owner.
That's the reality....and it's true....sorry.

So not much has changed since the days of Ceasar Chavez? Shouldnt we change these working conditions, wages? I dont believe in slave labor. I certainely dont think americans should once benefit and twice sacrifice, nor sacrifice others. This is more a human rights isssue.



Some debaters here continue to talk about 'migrant workers'. This is a tad bit an insincere debate tactic on this subject.
The migrant worker situation needs to be adressed all on its own. However its not agri-workers that are most of the illegal problem. Businesses large and small hire illegal workers due to lax laws that allow such a loophole. They are not expected to verify a workers legal status, this means both private and corporate hotels, restaurants, landscapers, construction workers as well as private nannies and gardners, businesses and the private sector are able to hire many illegals and pay low wages without benefits.




http://usliberals.about.com/od/immigration...legalImmi_2.htm

Wertz, it is mostly Mexicans and Central/South Americans that are an immigration problem. Latino people are poor and want to come here and they are close, they swim, walk, drive and pay time and time again to get here, by the millions.

Can we afford them all? Really? Hey, if the entire country went Latino, Im not culturally in objection, but can we actually afford it? With outsourcing, our economy being based on service industries, what exactly will happen here? What will our children work at, at what wage?

I do not think you can just take on every poor immigrant because they deserve a better life. Europe is having huge problems over taking on refugees, its breaking not only their national identity but causing riots, destruction of property, unrest=violence and economic hardship- from people they took on out of goodness!
No good deed goes unpunished, and we are seeing that here.

I see Mexican flags waving while protesting US ILLEGAL immigration policy. Mexico is terrible about allowing US citizens to work there! Personally, I am of two minds, either open borders to everyone to migrate as they please, or close the whole thing down within reason. I am 100% positive we will survive the lack of cheap labor, and much better for them, to work and contribute within their own countries to make them a better place.

No argument there.


Well, you're asking two separate questions here - maybe three. Can we afford every immigrant who would like to move here? Clearly not. Can we afford as many illegal immigrants, regardless of country of origin, as we currently have? Barely. Can we afford the entire country "going Latino" culturally? This makes as little difference to me as, apparently, it does to you. I don't exactly see the US having a hispanic majority any time soon (and I suspect that we're more likely to see an increase in the intermingling of ethnicities before we see any one group gain a more substantial majority than lily-white Europeans), but what if it did? Apart from Native Americans, who don't seem to figure much in this debate at all, the country started out hispanic, why should anyone object if it ended up hispanic?

The question of what level of illegal immigration we can afford is certainly worth addressing - but it's not being asked, either here or in Congress. I would again argue that, if we seriously want to take on this problem, we need to do so at the source: the employer. It doesn't matter how poor or close Mexicans or Central Americans are. If they simply can't find work here illegally, they won't swim, walk, drive or pay to get here. Period.


This is a very good question - and well worth asking. But it's a question that has little, if anything, to do with illegal immigration.

The reality is that this is by no means universal. You know that the folks in fields pay no taxes. And the ones who do pay claim the max (10 dependants) and pay peanuts. As for Mr. Martinez who probably has no insurance (and pays nothing) uses our hospitals for himself and any dependants he has living with him. How many times do you think he would need to do this to use up the 2,000? Also Mexicans send 18 BILLION a year out of this country to Mexico. This is now the second largest industry in their country.

On top of all that it depresses wages here and costs citizens and legal aliens jobs. All in all this far outweighs the $2,000 by one hell of a lot of money and I have not even touched on crime, schools etc.

The study, conducted in 1997, found that more-educated immigrants tend to have higher earnings, lower rates of public service use, and as a result pay more in taxes than they use in services. In contrast, the NRC found that because of their lower incomes and resulting lower tax payments coupled with their heavy use of public services, less-educated immigrants use significantly more in services than they pay in taxes. The NRC estimates indicated that the average immigrant without a high school education imposes a net fiscal burden on public coffers of $89,000 during the course of his or her lifetime And most illegal immegrants do not have a high school education so the burden is higher.

Doing the math thats 10.6 TRILLION $$$$$ for 12 million people. Obviously more as the number climbs - and this is 1997 dollars.....

http://www.cis.org/articles/2001/mexico/coffers.html