Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Robert Samuelson: Guest workers need not apply
Posted by: mcq on Wednesday, March 22, 2006

Robert Samuelson's column today focuses on a number of myths driving the immigration debate. One of the primary ones is the illegals fill a "labor shortage" here in the US.
It's a myth that the U.S. economy ``needs'' more poor immigrants. The illegal immigrants already here represent only about 4.9 percent of the labor force, reports the Pew Hispanic Center. In no major occupation are they a majority. They're 36 percent of insulation workers, 28 percent of drywall installers and 20 percent of cooks. They're mainly drawn here by vast wage differences, not labor ``shortages.'' In 2004, the median hourly wage in Mexico was $1.86 compared to $9 for Mexicans working in the United States, says Rakesh Kochhar of Pew.
These are not necessarily jobs which would go unfilled by Americans. However, given the difference in hourly wage between here and Mexico, it is obvious that an illegal Mexican would be satisfied to work for less than an American doing the same job because even $5 an hour is a substantial raise over the prevailing wage in Mexico. Because of that willingness to accept the lower wage, Americans are indeed shut out of some job categories (as Americans can't escape the cost of supporting a family here, while the wage difference makes that possible for an illegal supporting a family in Mexico while living here).

Because of that, Samuelson says we're engaged in unofficial program of importing poverty:
What we have now — and would with guest workers — is a conscious policy of creating poverty in the United States while relieving it in Mexico. By and large, this is a bad bargain for the United States. It puts stresses on local schools, hospitals and housing; it feeds social tensions (witness the Minutemen).

The most lunatic notion is that admitting more poor Latino workers would ease the labor market strains of retiring baby boomers. The two simply aren't close substitutes for each other. Among immigrant Mexican and Central American workers in 2004, only 7 percent had a college degree and nearly 60 percent lacked a high-school diploma, says the Congressional Budget Office. Far from softening the social problems of an aging society, more poor immigrants might aggravate them by pitting older retirees against younger Hispanics for limited government benefits.
As for the consequences for not having a guest worker program? The artificial labor market would be the first thing to go.
Well, some employers would raise wages to attract U.S. workers. Facing greater labor costs, some industries would — like the tomato growers in the 1960s — find ways to minimize those costs. As to the rest, what's wrong with higher wages for the poorest workers? From 1994 to 2004, the wages of high-school dropouts rose only 2.3 percent (after inflation) compared to 11.9 percent for college graduates.

President Bush says his guest worker program would ``match willing foreign workers with willing American employers, when no Americans can be found to fill the jobs.'' But at some higher wage, there would be willing Americans. Indeed, the number of native high-school dropouts with jobs actually declined by 1.3 million from 2000 to 2005, estimates Steven A. Camarota of the Center for Immigration Studies, which favors less immigration. Unemployment remains high for some groups (9.3 percent for African-Americans, 12.7 percent for white teenagers).
Wages would rise, attract Americans and the jobs would be filled, or technology would come to the rescue (read the story in Samuelson's article about technology and tomato picking). And while houses and such may get more expensive to individual buyers, the cost of supporting the health care and various other social services for illegals should drop.

[Given the cost of social services to illegals it would be interesting to see, in real terms, what the actual monetary benefit is for them figured in hourly wages.]

As a testament to his premise concerning importing poverty, Samuelson points to the following statistics:
Guest workers would mainly legalize today's vast inflows of illegal immigrants, with the same consequence: we'd be importing poverty. This isn't because these immigrants aren't hardworking; many are. Nor is it because they don't assimilate; many do. But they generally don't go home, assimilation is slow and the ranks of the poor are constantly replenished. Since 1980, the number of Hispanics with incomes below the government's poverty line (about $19,300 in 2004 for a family of four) has risen 162 percent. Over the same period, the number of non-Hispanic whites in poverty rose 3 percent and the number of blacks, 9.5 percent.
It is this population which is overwhelming border schools, welfare systems and health care centers. 162% increase in poor Hispanics is a powerful argument for Samuelson's premise that we'll only aggravate, not solve, the problem if we fall for the argument that "guest workers are the solution".

He concludes:
Business organizations understandably support guest worker programs. They like cheap labor and ignore the social consequences. What's more perplexing is why liberals support a program that worsens poverty and inequality.

It's said that guest workers are better than having poor illegal immigrants. With legal status, they'd have rights and protections. They'd have more peace of mind and face less exploitation by employers. This would be convincing if its premise were incontestable: that we can't control our southern border. But that's unproved. We've never tried a policy of real barriers and strict enforcement against companies that hire illegal immigrants. Until that's shown to be ineffective, we shouldn't adopt guest worker programs that don't solve serious social problems — but add to them.
Nothing that liberals support anymore surprises me. And I certainly can, on one level, appreciate the fact that business want's cheap labor. But when it has an overall negative economic impact, I'd think both of these groups would be open to an argument which says "let's get control of the border, let's stop the flow of illegals, let's let our economy catch up, and then let's talk about guest workers, if needed."

It seems to me the most logical of solutions, given the relatively recent insertion of security as the main concern for immigration control. Anyone who doesn't believe we've been lucky so far that a group of terrorists bent on attacking our nation hasn't successfully penetrated our borders isn't paying attention. In this day and age, claiming "business needs" should take priority over security is simply ludicrous. The only business need extant in this argument is that of cheap labor. And as Samuelson points out, the social consequences of that far outweigh the real advantage it brings.

I agree with Samuelson's assessment and solution. As he says, "until that's shown to be ineffective [border control and security], we shouldn't adopt guest worker programs that don't solve serious social problems — but add to them."
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
What do you think of this trend in Washington State?
 
Written By: tom scott
URL: http://
Perhaps another way of looking at this is that the US is exporting prosperity to Mexico rather than the US is importing poverty. By any objective measure, poverty has not increased in the US to any great extent. Looking back over the decades, living standards are much higher today than they were 30, 40, or 50 years or more.

One of the problems with this analysis is that it suffers from static thinking. If a company cannot hire mexicans at $5.00 an hour they will surely hire americans at $9.00 an hour. This assumes that these increased wage rates, that will most assuredly be passed through to customers in the form of higher prices, will not affect the demand for the final goods. This ignores the laws of supply and demand. If the price of orange juice doubles, the demand for orange juice will decrease and fewer workers will be hired to pick the oranges. So it is simply not true that there would be a one for one trade-off with americans replacing mexicans workers at the higher wage.

Removing mexicans from the work force and replacing them with higher priced american workers will also tend to increase inflation across the board. I guess higher prices are not presumed to hurt poor people. But again, in the mythical world of static thinking, a cost of doing business can be jacked up without any effect on prices.

Lastly, the US economy currently has an unemployment rate of 4.8 percent. This is very nearly full employment and does not even include all of those mexican jobs that are "off the books". Presumably all of these americans are working at jobs that pay more than the illegal alien wage rate. Exactly how many americans have been put out of work? Or perhaps, since the cheap mexican labor has resulted in lower prices for consumers, the consumers have actually spent the savings on other goods and services creating more jobs. In other words, maybe just maybe the economic pie has grown bigger thanks to the illegal aliens.

The real question is whether you view the world as a static place with a set amount of wealth that must be divided up such that if one group wins another group loses; or do you view the world as a dynamic place where wealth is created such that we can all win and share in the wealth and increase our standard of living? If the mexicans are helping the national economic pie get bigger, then we may be better off. If the economic pie is staying the same size, then the mexcian slice is coming at the expense of americans. Low unemployment, low inflation and a growing GDP would support the notion of a growing economic pie.
 
Written By: Greg Abbott
URL: http://
One of the problems with this analysis is that it suffers from static thinking. If a company cannot hire mexicans at $5.00 an hour they will surely hire americans at $9.00 an hour. This assumes that these increased wage rates, that will most assuredly be passed through to customers in the form of higher prices, will not affect the demand for the final goods. This ignores the laws of supply and demand. If the price of orange juice doubles, the demand for orange juice will decrease and fewer workers will be hired to pick the oranges. So it is simply not true that there would be a one for one trade-off with americans replacing mexicans workers at the higher wage.
Actually the analysis points to an example which explodes your analysis. The same dire prediction was made by California tomato pickers in the ’60s. As Samuelson points out, there the solution was technology.

But in all cases, the drive to minimize costs will be there, and businesses will find them. When they can substitute $5 an hour workers, there’s no need to look further. And, as pointed out, those $5 an hour workers may be a boon to the businesses but they cost the rest of us a lot more than that.
Lastly, the US economy currently has an unemployment rate of 4.8 percent. This is very nearly full employment and does not even include all of those mexican jobs that are "off the books". Presumably all of these americans are working at jobs that pay more than the illegal alien wage rate.
Yes it is very nearly full employment. But again, the cost of an illegal isn’t just found in the amount he or she is paid. Consequently the rest of us end up subsidizing the low wages paid to illegals in terms of benefits and services.

That’s not the case when the jobs are held by Americans.

Secondly, there is no incentive for developing technology as a substitute for cheap labor. Not when you have subsidized cheap labor which can be used at minimal risk. It provides an artificial wage floor which doesn’t help the economy at all.

If Americans could support their families here on wage of $5 an hour, you’d hear no argument from me. But they can’t. Mexican laborers, living 10 to a house or apartment and sending the money they earn to a country it which it is possible to support a family on $5 an hour have an unfair advantage in the labor marketplace. That’s an artificiality for the market.

Samuelson isn’t saying "no guest workers ever". He’s saying, let’s enforce our laws, secure our borders and let the labor market (and others) have it’s way. THEN let’s talk about guest workers if necessary.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://qando.net
Greg you present the standard libertarian arguments in favour of open borders. I will respond in the standard way in favour of more closed borders:
1. Culturally, the US can not simply absorb everyone who comes here that wants to. Libertarians, quite often, seem to ignore any cultural questions and focus SOLELY on economics. The US is a Lockean/Enlightenment Society, as the Economist said, "Anyone can be an American who accepts the ideals of the European Enlightenment." But if we simply open the borders to everyone who wants a job that is not the same as accepting people who accept the Enlightenment. And eventually, it is feared that we will have lost the America that accepts the Enlightenment and that we will be Tajikistan or Neuvo Laredo, but not America and in ceasing to be America we will also cease to provide the jobs that the immigrants seek. The Open Society and the Open Economy are inextricably inter-mixed and we will not have one without the other. So, an Open Borders policy kills the goose that lays the eggs and it seems libertarians can’t or won’t see this. I am NOT suggesting that immigrants be kept out, I’m a Polish-Irish-Scot’s Catholic certainly I can not support the idea of keeping "da furiners" out, but I can not accept that EVERYONE who wants to come here should be allowed to do so.
2. The Open Borders Policy, akin to many other anarcho-capitalist/libertarian ideas, ignores the socio-economic realities. Immigrants can also cost the US money. Immigrants earn $9 an hour, the average US wage is ~$20-$25 an hour. How do the immigrants make it, accepting that "average wages" are distorted by the likes of Bill Gates? They do it, in part, on the backs of the tax-payer. My ~$20 per hour job also requires me to make contributions for MY OWN social safety net. $9 per hour does not, instead the immigrant uses the Health and social service system to make up any needed short falls. Now I don’t blame the immigrant, I blame the employer. The employer pays Jose or Nguyen $9 an hour and no benefits and expects them to use the Welfare System to make good any benefit shortfalls. At a minimum there needs to be a very good study of the "costs" of immigration, in this arena. Yes, Jose earns money, yes his labour adds to the total value of goods and services produced, BUT he also draws on society, do his contributions =, exceed, or fall below his withdrawals, on the average. UNLESS society is going to deny ILLEGAL immigrants any social services, this question must be answered. The REALITY is that the US populace, bureaucracy and justice system will not allow immigrants to receive NO benefits. Even Prop 109(?) simply limited NON-Emergency services and it was struck down by the courts. So a "No Green Card, No Food Stamps" Policy is a non-starter, therefore let’s examine whether illegal are a net contribution or drain.
3. Cheap immigrant labour is akin, not EQUAL to, but AKIN to slave labour, in that it substitutes PEOPLE for Capital. I don’t believe that an economic system that substitutes people for capital will be as efficient or prosperous in the long-run. I would argue that Open Borders skews the US economy. Why develop new technologies or more efficient production systems when one can simply hire some Mexicans or Hmong to do it?
4. Finally why should someone be grand-fathered in, for violating the law? If Emilio spent years getting his Green Card, why should Amelia be rewarded for violating the law and short-circuiting the process?
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Debate here seems to be all over the board. I don’t think Greg was remarking on the cultural and sociopolitical problems with open immigration. There’s a lot of debate — and contradictory evidence — on the question of whether illegal immigration represents a net positive impact or a net negative impact on our economy when you account for the drain on public resources. It’s almost axiomatic, though, that cheap labor increases aggregate output, helps cut prices and allows us to increase aggregate demand. (plus, it increases the wealth of Mexicans, increasing their aggregate demand, too!)

The problem is not the low wages which the illegal immigrants are paid — that’s an unmitigated good, regardless of what it costs Americans to "support a family" — but the externalized costs imposted on society by rampant illegal immigration. If we could internalize those costs, a lot of the problems with illegal immigration would disappear.

In the meantime, I’m kinda agnostic on whether their cheap-but-subsidized labor is a net drain or a net gain.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Well I understand that Greg was focusing on the economics of it, but that was a part of my complaint. It’s not all about economics. To the extent that libertarians and others make economics the sole focus of their arguments I believe that weakens it as a philosophy. I was adding another dimension to the discussion, that’s all.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Practically speaking, I agree with you. Dale and I had that same conversation while driving around San Diego last year. It’s one area in which libertarian ideals in a democratic society would amount to libertarian suicide. (and one reason why I’d argue that doctrinaire libertarianism—i.e., anarcho-capitalism—is a self-defeating political philosophy.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Tom Tancredo is hallucinating to be the next President of the United States. This lunatic racist says that Latino and other immigrants are coming across our borders to kill you and your children. Tancredo avoided service in Vietnam by obtaining a medical deferment for mental health reasons. Obviously he is still mentally ill. How could such mentally unstable people sit in the highest law office of the country prapagating hatred and he talks of impeaching Bush. Non sense. Tom Tancredo is a liar, a pathetic loser and a lunatic racist. Shame on the people who elected him and he should be impeached from the Congress for prapagating hatred and racism.

Giving freedom to Afghanistan, Iraq is fine but what about the eleven million people at home who live in shadows under abuse and fear. As long as there are millions of Undocumented Immigrants in the United States, every educated American is a traitor who use their services knowingly or unknowlingly and still ignore their plight. As long as people continue to die at the borders and people live in shadows under abuse and fear, America cannot be called the land of freedom, liberty and justice.

Thank You, God Bless America
http://www.saveimmigrants.org
The function of freedom is to free someone else
 
Written By: Saveimmigrants
URL: http://www.saveimmigrants.org
Dear Spambot from Saveimmigrants,... they ARE ILLEGALS, they have broken the law. They need to be dealt with. And no I’m not a traitor and what does this have to do with Tancredo? Would you care to advance a more RATIONAL argument rather than an emotional/rhetorical appeal and personal attacks?
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
It has been reported that growers in Washington State and California’s San Joaquin Valley fear a shortage of workers when harvest time arrives this spring. They are certainly looking to fill this shortfall with low cost, migrant labor either illegal or with guest-worker permits. With upwards of 12 million illegal workers already here it seems impossible that such a shortage in fact exists. I think what we are seeing is an assimilated illegal work force burdened by an American cost of living and therefore unwilling to work for wages as low as the growers are willing to pay. Certainly bringing in more, cheaper labor puts hardships onto those undocumented workers already here. The work force exists and raising wages will employ first the undocumented long term resident, then after the citizens looking for a "living wage."
 
Written By: GM
URL: http://www.borderlandobserver.com
Two issues:

1. My 2002-built house in Austin was put up entirely with Mexican labor. How much more would it have cost (or alternatively I supppose, how much longer would it have taken) had that labor been unavailable or strictly limited? Note: I did not hire subcontractors to build my house, I just went to watch it being built every day and saw 0 white or black faces and heard no English from the roughly 60 different people involved throughout construction.

2. The neighborhood where I live is mixed race, probably 30% white, 30% black, 30% Hispanic, and 10% other/mixed. Many of the Hispanic families are recent immigrants—judging by their shaky English. They have had little trouble assimilating and are, in my estimation, fine neighbors. Assimilation is not really a problem where I am.

Anecdotal I know. But from my perspective, I’m not seeing the downside of immigration.

Of course the true libertarian response would be to eliminate public benefits for illegal aliens—and all people for that matter. This isn’t going to happen of course (and I don’t endorse it) but the economic problem is of our own making, not the illegals.
 
Written By: Jimmy
URL: http://
Well Jimmy look at your W-2 or -1099 and then see how much in Local/State/Federal taxes and that MIGHT be the downside of immigration. I don’t swear it, but there’s where you’re going to see your cost, plus if you’e in So. Cal or near the border areas the long wait at the ER is another downside.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Joe,

Absolutely. There are costs involved in illegal immigration, I shouldn’t have dismissed that downside outright.

However, the costs in Texas are mitigated somewhat by the fact that we only have property and sales tax, both of which illegals pay along with the rest of us, and no income tax, which presumably they don’t.

Of course, you’re right, there are federal costs. But, since my tax bill is significantly less than the cost of my house even over several years (not to mention groceries, etc.), I still wonder if I’m coming out ahead in a purely economic sense.

The 2000 Census indicated that Hispanics in Travis County, Texas make up 28% of the population while they make up 27% of San Diego County, California. So we’re not on the border, but our demographics aren’t that much different than San Diego. This is just a response to your comment about border areas not a comment about ER wait times which I am not in a position to rebut.
 
Written By: Jimmy
URL: http://
Anecdotal I know. But from my perspective, I’m not seeing the downside of immigration.
Today, 65% of the methamphetamine available in the United States comes from Mexico and is brought into the United States almost exclusivley by illegal immigrants. The percentage is rising. The drug is horrible; it’s poison. It has destroyed countless lives and families and the costs to society are almost incalcuable - they run into the billions. Most methamphetamine couriers from south of the border blend easily into immigrant communities, for obvious reasons. Indeed, large immigrant populations provide cover for major Mexican narcotic trafficking networks. Mexican meth dealers and their underlings often work on the side for under the table wages, and are not easily distinguished from their non-dealing counterparts. In fact, many so called "good illegals" provide aid and comfort for their meth dealing counterparts. It is not unusual to find meth dealers and couriers traveling with and living with those who come here to work.

These costs are seldom mentioned when it comes to the debate over illegal immigration. And unlike the benefits Americans get from cheap immigrant labor, there is no benefit to methamphetamine. It only costs Americans. And the costs are in the billions. Stop illegal immigration and you will stop the flow of the bulk of methamphetamine into the United States.

No downside to illegal immigration, huh? You don’t get out much.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
McQ, please give us some commentary on the real great big huge reason for massive illegal immigration from south of the border: the Mexican government’s complete failure to provide sound economic policy, a stable business environment, universal education, and other prerequisites for a thriving economy that can meet the needs of its citizens. Without better opportunities for success in Mexico, its people will continue to look (and travel) elsewhere to achieve better lives for themselves and their families. President Fox seems quite pleased and proud (or is it just ordinary belligerance? I know he’s laughing at us) that he can count on America to take on the problems produced by generations of failing leadership in Mexico. Yes, it’s much easier to "let George do it" than to try to fix things that are rotten at their foundation.

All of our efforts to accomodate illegal immigrants and to find easy ways to justify incorporating them into our country just encourage Mexico to continue to ignore needed reforms. We are enablers of the worst sort. While I applaud our efforts to bring political freedom and economic opportunity to Afghanistan, Iraq, and other countries around the world, our utter failure to press for the same results in Mexico simply baffles me. We are perpetuating a system that embodies principles that we reject for our own people. Granted, the Mexican government isn’t killing people in the streets or commiting the kinds of atrocities we’ve seen in Iraq and Afghanistan, but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t hold them accountable for resolving their own problems. After all, their failure does produce important problems for the United States to contend with. We wouldn’t want a doctor to focus on treating just the symptoms of disease (that awful headache, for example) without doing anything to address the fundamental cause (a brain tumor the size of a grapefruit).

Rather than taking space to express more of my own thoughts, with which I am thoroughly acquainted, I would very much like to hear the ideas of the QandO bloggers and their readers. People who have written comments on this post have clearly given careful thought to their positions — I’d like to hear what you recommend about solving the problem within Mexico, where the problem originates.
 
Written By: Pat
URL: http://
Here’s another issue: why should one nation get preferential treatment based on its proximity to the United States? And is it wise for our culture to absorb so many of one culture in such a short period of time? Should the U.S. make a concerted effort to encourage immigration from other nations to counterbalance the overwhelming number of people from one particular one?
 
Written By: ed
URL: http://
Just think, if we had a guest worker program, we could bring back the industrial base from China...it’s not our design, marketing, or engineers that cause the problem with costs for Made in USA products, but brute labor.

and think of all the great new ethnic restaurants that would spring up around the plants out in the desert.

just kidding.
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
And, yes, it’s technology that steals jobs not Mexicans...so why not think hard about banning technology...after all a job lost to a word processor also causes "social problems," no?

Of course the illegal aspect and the national security aspect are really what’s important here, even if it costs the consumer more for their houses, lawns, and fruit.
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
"that cheap labor increases aggregate output"
Perhaps, in a strictly technical sense, but I don’t see much real economic benefit in driving down wages for the working class so that the middle and upper classes can have bigger houses with better landscaping.

"The problem is not the low wages which the illegal immigrants are paid — that’s an unmitigated good, regardless of what it costs Americans to "support a family" — but the externalized costs imposted on"

I know a house painter who would disagree with low wage immigrants being an unmitigated good; he has lost jobs to them.

Perhaps if all these immigrants were middle class white collar workers instead of blue collar workers, displacing middle managers, accountants, etc., some attitudes would change. What has happened to all the anglo and black construction workers? Have they all moved up to the corporate offices?

Who has actual data on wage rates for immigrants? The only number I have read was in a newspaper article about day laborers in Arlington, Va.; $14.00/hr.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
So how many problems are we dealing with here?

1. Current border security is porous and an estimated 500,00 per year enter illegally, primarily from Mexico but also via visas.

2. There are an estimated 11 million illegals already in the US working at various jobs.

Sooo, therefore we must solve border control before dealing with current residential illegals.

Somewhere in elementary logic texts there must be way to connect these two. We may not have any policy dealing with people who entered the US illegally a day ago, a year ago, a decade ago, without regard to where they are from or how they got here or any details about their personal situation or productivity unless and until we have a policy on controlling immigration. Where is the relationship? The argument is at the "Johnny has a cookie so I must have a cookie" scale of silly.

If the immigration control policy is build a wall and keep out immigrants, fine. How does that determine your policy on those already here? Yep, you could say we have to throw them all out, but you could also make a lot of other choices, including selective removal, selective retention, and total retention. None of these would negate the wall and prohibition. And you could also decide to keep or remove those here and also continue the porous borders policy.

Yes, the political mindset would play a role. But in terms of strict policy logic decisions can be made in either area without foreclosing choices in the other area.

 
Written By: Tee Jay
URL: http://
Yeah, y’all notice how outsourcing became a bogey monster once it was the programmers being outsourced not data entry folk?

 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
Guest workers should be required to be paid at the same level (or MORE) than Americans would be if they were in that position... there’s a surefire way for employers to get the kick in the rear to hire their fellow citizens.

Charity starts at home.
 
Written By: james
URL: http://www.catacombscds.com
Folks, The economics and social impacts are very important discussions, however, it is interesting that nobody is commenting on the military implications. Illegal Immigration is the trojan horse of the 20th and 21st centuries In the United States.

I have been "Informed" by "Reconquistas" that "Aztlan"
belongs to Mexico. "Aztlan" includes the states of: California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Nevada, Colorado, Utah.
There are MECHA groups in many American universities and high schools... Yes, sponsored by your tax dollars! This movement disparages "Anglos, Gringos, and gabachos" In other words, Americans of any European descent.

The reconquistas argue that this is all their ancestral land and Americans do not belong here. It is impossible to analyze the Immigration issue in its entirety without considering this aspect. The rallying cry of the Reconquistas is: Por La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada. Which translates as: "For the race everything, for those outside of the race nothing." If this does not concern you please google "El Plan Espiritual de Aztlan" or MECHA

The following manifesto summarizes, and is from a MECHA website:

"In the spirit of a new people that is conscious not only of its proud historical heritage but also of the brutal "gringo" invasion of our territories, we, the Chicano inhabitants and civilizers of the northern land of Aztlan from whence came our forefathers, reclaiming the land of their birth and consecrating the determination of our people of the sun, declare that the call of our blood is our power, our responsibility, and our inevitable destiny.

We are free and sovereign to determine those tasks which are justly called for by our house, our land, the sweat of our brows, and by our hearts. Aztlan belongs to those who plant the seeds, water the fields, and gather the crops and not to the foreign Europeans. We do not recognize capricious frontiers on the bronze continent.


Brotherhood unites us, and love for our brothers makes us a people whose time has come and who struggles against the foreigner "gabacho" who exploits our riches and destroys our culture. With our heart in our hands and our hands in the soil, we declare the independence of our mestizo nation. We are a bronze people with a bronze culture. Before the world, before all of North America, before all our brothers in the bronze continent, we are a nation, we are a union of free pueblos, we are Aztlan.



Por La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada."


"For the (Bronze) race, everything. For those outside the (bronze) race, nothing"



Just another serious point to consider in the ongoing discussion.

 
Written By: Jake
URL: http://
One of the major problems with illegal immigration is that of natural-born citizenship. Natural-born citizenship (which is not the same as naturalization) should be restricted such that a baby becomes an American citizen ONLY if one or both parents are citizens. And, maybe, if one or both parents are permanent residents in good standing (not in jail, etc).

I wonder how many of the high school students rallying in CA are natural-born citizens with illegal parents?

I also wonder how many babies are born in the US each year to illegals?

Anyone have that data?

Changing the rules of natural-born citizenship won’t stop the problem, but it should reduce the desire for illegals to come to the US and have their babies.
 
Written By: Paul C
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider