Increased Immigration Hurts the Middle Class

[PsycheCC]

I sent a version of this post to various Senators and Congressional Representatives.
I post it here to point out that many democrats do not support increased immigration.


My husband and I, along with many of our friends, have been watching the immigration debate with great interest. I write today to inform you that though my husband has a good paying job, we have not shared in the often touted "booming economy." We are not suffering, but we fail to understand the massive redistribution of wealth to the few, very rich, not just through tax cuts, but also through everyday government policy and legislation. The term "corporatocracy" aptly describes our view that government has abdicated responsibility for the welfare of the nation in favor of big business campaign donors.

I'm 45 and have never felt more betrayed by my government. Who is left to work for the interests of the middle class? This used to be the domain of the democrats, but any cursory glance at congressional voting records shows this is no longer true. Who do you think will be left to buy goods and services when the middle class becomes the underclass?

This brings me to my point. My husband and I are WILL NEVER AGAIN VOTE for anyone who works against our interests, driving middle class wages down, increasing crowding and home prices, etc., by supporting increased immigration, much less offering "earned citizenship" (which is in fact earned amnesty) to illegal aliens. THERE IS NO JOB AN AMERICAN WON'T DO, only jobs employers won't pay an American to do.

The solution is very simple, as you well know. ENFORCE STRICT, COSTLY SANCTIONS AGAINST EMPLOYERS OF ILLEGAL ALIENS. The rest of the problem will solve itself.

Please stop allowing illegal aliens and corporations to gut the wages of the middle class. You are, after all, a democrat.

Very seriously yours,

P.S. As I am not a corporate donor, I'll await your FORM LETTER reply.

[Redstone]

1. But do you eat fresh vegetables in the winter?

Redstone

[oscar111]

4. Redstone, do you ride a bike in the spring?

ho ho.. i cannot figure out what in the world you said.

can you explain, please.

[Redstone]

10. If you eat fresh vegetables in the winter, you're providing the money

for the "farm" corporations to hire illegal immigrants.

We could afford to pay six bucks for a head of lettuce in the winter, and would gladly do so in order to have that lettuce picked by Americans.

But how many other Americans could either afford that, or be willing to do without?

Redstone

[PsycheCC]

15. Well said, Redstone

Maybe more people would be willing to pay more if they saw their wages increasing as a result of reduced immigration.

[FreakinDJ]

22. Do you live in a house

50% of construction California is now performed by immigrant labor

[Redstone]

29. The saying is "all hat and no CATTLE," not "cows."

Just thought you'd like to know.

Redstone

[FreakinDJ]

32. Its Cows for us folks out here friend

[unlawflcombatnt]

51. Construction Labor

100% of construction would be performed by Americans if construction companies were willing to pay the going market rate and hire Americans.

Do you really think the construction companies can't "afford" to pay more? They've made record profits over the last 5 years and home prices have shown NO decline whatsoever, despite the fact that they've kept a lid on labor costs. Where's the price benefit from all of this cheap illegal immigrant labor?

The answer, of course, is that there is no price benefit whatsoever. Lowering labor costs allows businesses to make more profits from cost reductions. In the case of housing, it hasn't reduced prices any.

[treestar]

63. Construction companies often pay laborers under the table

Including American citizens.

[pnwmom]

157. Are construction jobs among the jobs that Americans

refuse to take? Not when they're paid for their work.

[IndyJones]

176. That's right. Construction work is not work Americans won't do.

[unlawflcombatnt]

177. "Jobs Americans Won't Do."

There are no jobs Americans won't do if they're paid enough.

If John McCain will really pay me $50/hour to pick lettuce, I'll start tomorrow. That's more than many doctors make in Southern California. And it doesn't take 8 years of college to learn how to pick lettuce.

There are more than enough Americans to do all the jobs available in this country. With record profits under the Bush dictatorship, American businesses and Corporations have more than enough money to pay Americans a high enough wage to do those jobs. All of the jobs.

[TNMOM]

193. Doctors in SoCal making less than $50?! Surely, you jest.

[unlawflcombatnt]

195. Doctor's Pay

No, I'm dead serious. $50/hour amounts to $104,000/year. At my last job working for an HMO, the most I ever made was $96,000/year. That's $46/hour. I've never made $104,000 in a year. And I've heard anecdotal stories of doctors working in ER's getting paid $40/hour.

As a California M.D., I've never made $50/hour. Neither have a lot of other doctors.

McCain's offer is outrageous, and it just shows how completely out of touch he is with everyone, except the rich elite who contribute to his campaign.

[MaraJade]

265. Millions of Americans have spent thousands of dollars paying trade schools

to learn to be Journeymen electricians, carpenters, bricklayers, tilers, and so forth in the
construction trades. These citizens are now losing place to illegals who will do similar
work for NOTHING. There are millions of Americans willing to do construction work for a
fair or prevailaing wage, but greedy homeowners and executives don't want to pay an honest
day's wage for an honest day's work anymore.

These greedy people want slave labor to do the work, and they find slave labor in illegals
who are willing to work for less than prevailing wage.

What are we here, STUPID? You undercut the middle class and you undercut the foundations of
this nation. That is the fact, plain and simple.

[PsycheCC]

267. Do you ever notice how you can state your point clearly and concisely

as you've done here, and yet get back the "you're just racist" response over and over? I've spent a couple of hours I didn't really have today explaining that this is an economic issue which will determine the future health of the middle class. Yet, all I get back is an argument that I'm just using "the American worker" to cover my evil, inner racist. I'm getting tired of being called names whenever I speak for the middle class, which is of course, currently unrepresented in government.

Great post, brensgrrl.

[unlawflcombatnt]

268. Come on now, admit it.

Come on now, admit it. You're really just a bigoted, xenophobic, racist, White supremacist, White nationalist, aren't you?:sarcasm:

[Critters2]

272. I'm a racist

:eyes:

I hate "brown people" because I think EVERYONE...including "brown people"...should be paid a living wage.

I'm a terrible person. :sarcasm:

[PsycheCC]

280. Ok, you got me. That must be it.

Thanks for the smile. :hi:

[IndyJones]

175. And yet the cost of homes still skyrockes in CA, so who is saving here

and making the money? The developers. They should be fined and jailed for hiring illegal labor.

[PsycheCC]

188. You're right, Indy. Yet even the more strict House version of immigration

legislation appears, as I read it, not to require private sector employers to even check immigration status of employees for SIX YEARS after the new law is passed. Prior to that it's just voluntary, which means it won't happen. And of course, if the Senate moves the House at all toward compromise, strong employer sanctions will likely be one of the first casualties.

[unlawflcombatnt]

189. 6-year Employer Prosecution Delay

Here is an excerpt from this most recent immigration bill, H.R. 4437 from the Thomas government directory.

"SUMMARY AS OF:
12/6/2005--Introduced."

"Provides for: (1) voluntary employer verification utilizing such system two years after enactment of this Act for previously hired individuals; (2) mandatory employer verification three years after enactment of this Act by federal, state, and local governments, and the military for employees not verified under such system working at federal, state or local government buildings, military bases, nuclear energy sites, weapons sites, airports, or critical infrastructure sites; and (3) mandatory employer verification six years after enactment of this Act for all employees not previously verified under such system.

Makes employer participation in the basic pilot program mandatory two years after enactment of this Act.

Authorizes the Board of Immigration Appeals to reverse an immigration judge's removal decision without remand."

Below are some links to this from H.R. 4437 Main Page

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.04437:

CRS Summary:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR04437:@@@D&summ2=m&


To me it looks like it will be 6 years before employers will be held accountable. That's my interpretation, at least. This is the basis for their false claim that "employers will be held accountable." They know full well that this aspect will be modified or eliminated before 6 years have passed. They're hoping no one will notice this 6-year grace period.

[unlawflcombatnt]

217. I completely agree

Number-wise, I suspect the biggest offenders are construction contractors. Rest assured, they're not passing any of that savings on to buyers.

Illegal Immigration Suppresses Wages

[MockSwede]

229. Clarification

Immigrant OR ILLEGAL immigrant?

If you think we have to 'put up' illegals just to get cheap - then we're all doomed. It's only a race to the bottom.

I prefer to have immigrants and citizens and green cards all have the same access to good jobs without fear of 'deportation' causing them to accept less than fair wages, less than safe working conditions, less than full paycheck, etc.

So prosecute those companies that hire illegals. Illegal Immigration Problem will go away.

I will accept whatever market effects this causes with respect to housing construction costs, produce costs, etc.

The growing will go to 3rd world countries where they get paid $0.20/day and wipe their arse with their hand before resuming picking the fresh fruit that you eat without washing....

I'd prefer field hands in any country to have a port-a-potty.

The housing will be constructed here so it will be citizens and LEGAL immigrants and green cards.

Nuf said.

[BigYawn]

50. Good post Redstone, my yard would look awful without the labor

of Mexican immigrants doing the job at a price I
could afford. And Thanks to the Mexican immigrants
I could have my home constructed at a price I could
afford. And thanks to the Mexican immigrant labor,
I can afford to buy fresh fruit and vegetables and
keep myself healthy. And thaks to the Mexican immigrant
labor, I can afford to occasionally indulge in dining
at good restaurants.

[PsycheCC]

78. So, you're fine with having an underclass who aren't paid fairly

for their labor? I hope so, because if you really understood economics, you'd know that ALL wages will eventually be depressed in this process, even yours. Read the post below about trickle-up wages.

[BigYawn]

93. No one is FORCED to work at competitive wage levels,

and yes it is OK for me to have a decent standard
of living which the immigrant labor makes it possible.

What you need to understand is that if all labor was paid
artificially high wages, EVERY persons living standard will
take a nose dive.

In my area of Seattle-Portland, high tech jobs requiring high
skills are plenty. If the immigrant labor wishes to upgrade
their earning level, they should strive to acquire those skills
like every one of those skilled people did.

[PsycheCC]

94. "Artificially high wages"? Like CEO salaries? Real wages are DOWN

in the last five years when adjusted for inflation. Consumer spending is 2/3's of what drives the economy. The super rich are doing a great job of spending their tax cuts at high-end retailers, but without a middle class to buy goods and services in this largest market in the world, living standards certainly will "take a nose dive" as this economy grinds to a halt. Supply side economics theories (like tax cuts for the rich spur the economy by creating jobs) were invented by the rich for the rich. Most economists do not accept them. But if you repeat the lie often enough, some people will believe it even if it goes against their instincts and interests.

[PsycheCC]

95. "Artificially high wages"? Like CEO salaries? Real wages are DOWN

in the last five years when adjusted for inflation. Consumer spending is 2/3's of what drives the economy. The super rich are doing a great job of spending their tax cuts at high end retailers, but without a middle class to buy goods and services in this largest market in the world, living standards certainly will "take a nose dive" as this economy grinds to a halt. Supply side economics theories (like tax cuts for the rich spur the economy by creating jobs) were invented by the rich for the rich. Most economists do not accept them. But if you repeat the lie often enough, some people will believe it even if it goes against their instincts and interests.

[BigYawn]

117. Agreed 100% CEO salaries are obscenely high, however tax

receipts for the US treasury are also at all time high.
Which means a lot of people are making a lot of money.
The CEO's represent less than .0005% of the population and
less than 0.1% of the national income. So there must be
a heckuva lot of other people making good bucks.

[unlawflcombatnt]

137. Who's Making a "heckuva lot of money"???

I have no idea where you're getting your stats on the fraction of income going to CEO's. Maybe you could post your source here.

In contrast, I do have sources to prove that "a heckuva lot of other people are not making good bucks."

The chart below comes from the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics. It goes through March of 2006.



The latest stats can be found at:

BLS-Hourly Wages

BLS-Weekly Wages

Real hourly wages, measured in 1982 dollars, have declined from $8.28/hour in December of 2002 to $8.18/hour in April 2006. That's a decline of 1.2% during that time.

Real weekly wages, measured in 1982 dollars, have declined from $279.50/week in December of 2002 to $276.33/week in March of 2006. That's a decline of 1.1% during that time.

In fact, the wage decline is continuing. Real hourly wages have declined 0.25% in 2006, and 0.1% in April alone.

So who is it that's making "a heckuva lot of money"?

[BigYawn]

142. You are talking AVERAGES, I am talking TOTAL incomes of all

tax payers. I am sure you can find it yourself by going to the
US Treasury web site. If average wages are stagnent, total incomes
surely are doing even better than previous years. There are something
like 20,000 publicly held companies in the US. So there are 20,000 CEO's.

20,000 / 300 Million US population = 0.066%
A very small percentage!!! If you take average CEO income of $2 million
and divide it by the total income of US taxpayers, it will give you
another VERY SMALL percentage. So obviously there must be a lot of other
people making a lot of money since the average wages are not all that
high.

[unlawflcombatnt]

146. No Links, No References, & a "heckuva lot" of malarky

"There are something like 20,000 publicly held companies in the US. So there are 20,000 CEO's"

"Something like" sounds like "I don't really know, and I don't know where to find supporting evidence." It sounds like you don't have any links, and you don't have any sources for your information, since you didn't provide them. (unlike I did.) If you've got a Treasury site link that proves your claims, just post it.

"Averages"? Of course I'm talking about "averages." The "average" worker's wages are declining. Which means most workers are not doing better. In fact, these averages include the wages of the top earners as well. If you excluded CEO/management salaries, these "averages" would be even lower. In fact, multiple Democratic Party office holders have sited the decline in median family income under the Bush dictatorship, not the least of them being John Kerry.

Below is a graph put out by Senate Democrats showing the decline in real wages under Bush.



Again, does it look like most people are doing better? Does it look
like there's "a heckuva lot of people" making more money?

[proud2BlibKansan]

102. LOL And that is so easy to do!!

Hell, they can go to college or trade school and acquire those skills just like the rest of us had to do!

Tuition? Hell, if they work hard enough, they can pay for that easily!!

:sarcasm:

Sorry, but your talking points are straight out of the GOP encyclopedia. :rofl:

[BigYawn]

115. Listen bud, I came here as an immigrant with $100 in my pocket

and now I own a nice house, 2 cars, and a have a great job.
If I can do it, anyone can do it, if they put in as many long
hours in college and at jobs as I did.

[proud2BlibKansan]

130. Where did you come from, bud?

THE RULES HAVE CHANGED. Coming here from Central America is very very difficult now. It is not at all fair to compare your experience with today's immigrants, unless you just got here from a Central American country. Don't you realize they would come legally if they could? They don't WANT to break the law!!!

The ignorance on this topic is just mind boggling.

[BigYawn]

153. From a 3rd world country, on a student visa, which is still very

simple to obtain if you are qualified to be
admitted to a US college/University.

So the trick is to study hard in your native
country, get excellent grades and finish atleast
high school, and then study hard to finish your
degree in the US, which will most likely land you
a job, and then a permanent visa if the employer
sponsers you. I jumped through all of above loops
and doing very well now.

[unlawflcombatnt]

171. Hoops

Those immigrants that come here legally and jump through all of those hoops are very welcome. Those that bypass all of those hoops and come here illegally are not.

[pnwmom]

179. Actually, it is a little more complicated than that, because

the government keeps raising the number of high-tech workers allowed to come here, by claiming shortages even when there is unemployment among American high-tech workers. Rather than retraining older workers,there is a preference to drop them and hire cheaper foreign workers right out of school.

On edit: I just read your later post, Hoops, and realized I'm preaching to the choir here!

[pnwmom]

178. If you're talking high-tech jobs, BigYawn, here is the problem.

Employers certify that there is a shortage of high tech workers, which allows them to hire workers on visas, not necessarily because there is a real shortage -- but because there is a shortage at the wage level they wish to pay. Or because the high tech workers they currently employ got their degrees ten years ago and are being paid salaries commensurate with their experience. Rather than have them retrain and update their skills, they would rather drop the older workers and hire young foreign workers just out of school at lower pay.

[unlawflcombatnt]

148. High Skill Jobs Are Plentiful?

3,000 "high skill" jobs were lost in California during the early part of the Bush dictatorship. Now a few of those "high skill" jobs are coming back as
"lower-paying" jobs. And that's because Corporations have sent as many of those jobs overseas as possible, because foreign workers work for less. And when new ones are created here, they hire foreign H1Bs workers to do the job, because they don't have to pay them as much.

If there is an excess of unfilled high-skilled jobs in your area, it's only because employers won't pay enough to hire the workers. Meanwhile, those same employers will whine about there not being enough "skilled" American workers to fill the jobs. And they're lying through their teeth. What they really mean is that there aren't enough skilled American workers who'll accept their sub-market-value wages, because employers need to keep wages suppressed to maintain their exorbitant profit levels.

What we really need are "guest employers," not guest workers.

[BigYawn]

154. I know why California is in doldrums....

CA has high state income tax on individuals and
corporations, high real estate taxes, high sales
taxes, high auto licensing fees, and high priced
housing. Here in WA state, we have zero state income
tax, $45 flat fee for autos, low real estate taxes,
and housing lot less than CA. No wonder businesses
are expanding here and thereby expanding jobs.

[BlueCaliDem]

259. Calif. in doldrums?? According to CNN, last year 5 BILLION more in NEW...

...revenue to the State coffers. A reason why Schwarzeneggar's approval ratings had gone up, and this in spite of the high taxes, car reg. fees, home prices/value, and not having cut ANY of the social programs.

Hardly a State in "doldrum"...speaking as a born and raised Southern Californian whose state has the most undocumented workers; who owns a four bedroom home with solar/gas heated pool and five fully insured and registered automobiles---TWO which are classic Porsches, one '98 XLE Camry, one 1997 Honda Civic (for son), and one 1996 Toyota Previa SC.

Looking around my town, and my state, it don't look like California is in any "doldrum".

[pnwmom]

158. Are you defining "competitive wage levels" by what illegal

immigrants are willing to work for?

[lyonn]

112. What is the neighborhood kid going to do for spending money

when illegals take their mowing jobs. How much of our produce comes from South of the border? Dinning out is very costly, I don't see any savings. As was said by psych (?) the cost of housing is not cheaper, the builders pocket more, this includes big industry. Then we have the problem of schooling and medical care that we basically pay for with our taxes. It looks like this is not a good trade off. Millions of new immigrants each year is sure to lower the standard of life in America. Not to many years ago the immigrants mostly did work on the farms, not so now, they have taken over far too many jobs that average, middle income families worked to make a living.

[PsycheCC]

170. Absolutely, Lyonn. Times have changed, and immigration effects

a lot more of us than it used to.

[MockSwede]

230. Screwing the Mexicans

SO, You're screwing over the cheap illegal aliens because you won't get off your fat arse and mow your own lawn or clip your own hedge?

These don't count as any good 'excuse' for keeping illegal aliens!

Pay a living wage or DO IT YOURSELF.

PS

Save your 'dining out' money to pay the kid down the street to HELP you do your own work and both will benefit. One gets some much needed exercise and another gets some spending/college money and both neighbors get to help each other. Sounds very "American" to me.

[Andromeda]

212. We will never pay six bucks for a head of lettuce.

Quit spreading misinformation! Try fifteen cents a head, then you're in the ballpark. You are feeding into the corporate talking points.

Big business wants all this cheap labor---bring 'em all in 'cause they'll work cheap. That's what you want? You want illegal immigrants to be exploited by big business so they can make more profits?

Why should they pay American workers who might be more than willing to pick lettuce for a decent wage when they can get some illegal to work for less?

I've got the solution! Raise the minimum wage to bring it up to inflation, then hire legal immigrants and American citizens to do the work. No American is going to be too proud to pick lettuce, beans or whatever is out there. People will be happier. It'll raise everybody's standard of living and there won't be a need to exploit human beings for a buck.

[PsycheCC]

5. We could afford to pay more for fresh vegetables if our wages

weren't so depressed by having to compete with illegal aliens who work for less. In Southern California they often live 20 to a house (I'm hot kidding), so I guess they can afford to work for less.

[documaker]

60. Nice. Point to difficult living conditions

and blame those who suffer inadequate housing for your own salary complaints and you are making 10 time what they make. I have a dog you can kick if it makes you feel better.

[PsycheCC]

79. The point is that it's impossible to compete for labor with someone

who is willing to live on so much less. Vilify me all you like, but it won't change the fact that corporate America wants cheap labor so they can pay ALL workers less. If they can hire an illegal for one third of what they pay a citizen, they will. Then American workers have to take jobs for less money as well if they want to work. Read the rest of the posts in this thread for further examples of this point.

In the last five years, real, inflation adjusted wages have DROPPED. So, unless you want to share your home with other families, think about the larger picture, and allow Mexico to fix Mexico's problems. It wouldn't hurt their few, super rich ruling families to share the wealth a little.

[proud2BlibKansan]

104. I take it the idea of penalizing EMPLOYERS is just beyond you

Of course, it is all the workers' fault! If they wouldn't be willing to work for such low wages, we wouldn't have a problem. The employers have absolutely no responsibility here, do they? After all, they have a right to make a profit.

:sarcasm:

[PsycheCC]

107. Read the original post regarding employer penalties.

[proud2BlibKansan]

109. I did - Now you read this sentence:

The point is that it's impossible to compete for labor with someone who is willing to live on so much less.

You appear to be willing to blame the employees but not the employer.

[PsycheCC]

116. Quoting from the OP: "ENFORCE STRICT, COSTLY SANCTIONS

AGAINST EMPLOYERS OF ILLEGAL ALIENS. The rest of the problem will solve itself." How is that not blaming the employer?

[proud2BlibKansan]

129. But you are also demonizing the workers

Can't have it both ways - sorry.

[PsycheCC]

134. I was responding to your charge that I didn't mention penalizing

employers. Obviously, I did. I never asked to "have it both ways." I advocated costly sanctions against employers who hire illegal aliens. Clearly, that would have consequences for people here illegally. I never claimed it wouldn't, and again, I don't apologize for caring more about our own citizens than those of other countries. I just don't believe it's up the the U.S. to solve the problems of the world, or even just Mexico, when we have more limited resources everyday.

[unlawflcombatnt]

260. Completely Legitimate Complaint

It's not the fault of American workers that Mexico's government is corrupt and Mexican workers are exploited. Nor should American workers have to pay the price for Mexican corruption by having their wages and living standards lowered by illegal immigration of those workers and the illegal hiring of them by lawbreaking employers.

This is exactly why we have laws against illegal immigration. To protect American workers from becoming as impoverished as the workers of our corrupt neighbor. It's not up to the American government to fix Mexico's problems. It is, however, up to the American government to protect the wellbeing of the American people.


unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[proud2BlibKansan]

103. They also bring diseases across the border and they steal our SS numbers

Be afraid of those Mexicans, be very afraid!!!

[unlawflcombatnt]

155. Diseases

Are you just plain ignorant?

Immigrants unquestionably bring diseases into this country. That's undeniable medical fact. Have you ever heard of multi-drug resistant tuberculosis? It's exclusively the product of immigrants from other countries. And it is difficult, if not impossible to treat. I've had patients that died from it. I even did a presentation on it. It's a result of incomplete and insufficient treatment of primary tuberculosis. It leads to TB that is resistant to the drug that was used to insufficiently treat it in the first place. This rarely if ever occurs in the United States because it is a reportable disease and public health regulations have stipulated specific treatment requirements when it occurs. Unfortunately, the poor treatment of TB in foreigners who illegally immigrate to the United States brings it here. And then Americans pay the price for another country's mistakes.

Have you ever heard of Cysticercosis? It's a parasite that comes from insufficiently cooked pork. It leaves scars in the brain that cause a lifetime of seizures, unless the patient remains on anti-seizure medication for the duration of their life. I've never seen this disease in anyone born in this country. And the only people I have seen with it were born in Mexico.

You're implication that anyone is piling on more complaints if they mention that "immigrants bring diseases into the country" is absurd. They do bring diseases into the country. There is absolutely no debate on that subject. And those diseases are much harder to treat then their equivalent in this country.

[Andromeda]

213. They do steal our SS numbers.

One lady in, I think it was Texas, had her SS number used 218 times by illegal workers. The disease angle is also a good one.

Did you know that that is a distinct possibility?

[PsycheCC]

225. Yes, and if the Senate has its way, they'll get Social Security benefits

for the money they've already put in illegally by committing a FELONY to steal someone else's number!

[Critters2]

276. Seems like the person whose number they stole

should get the benefits stacked up using that number.


In a perfect world.

[Critters2]

273. What would you say to this woman?

Her SSN becomes meal ticket for scores
It took years for U.S. to detect illegal use

By Peter Prengaman
Associated Press
Published June 17, 2006

DUBLIN, Calif. -- Audra Schmierer's Social Security number really gets around. It has been used by at least 81 people in 17 states, most of them probably illegal immigrants trying to get work.

The government took years to discover the number was being used illegally, but authorities took little action even then.

"They knew what was happening but wouldn't do anything," said Schmierer, 33, a homemaker in this affluent San Francisco suburb. "One name, one number, why can't they just match it up?"

Her case is an example of an increasingly common problem: Many thieves can steal personal information because employers do not have to verify Social Security numbers or other documents submitted by job seekers.

The situation has long drawn fire from anti-illegal immigration groups, but Congress has only recently moved to fix it. The House and Senate have passed immigration-reform bills that call for employers to verify Social Security numbers in a national database.

Now, if the Social Security Administration or the Internal Revenue Service finds multiple people using the same Social Security number, the agencies send letters informing employers of possible errors.

The IRS fines employers $50 for each duplicate number, a punishment that companies often dismiss as just another cost of doing business.

Schmierer realized she had a problem in February 2005 when she got a statement from the IRS saying she owed $15,813 in back taxes, even though she had not worked since her son was born in 2000. And the taxes were due from jobs in Texas.



more...
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0606170131jun17,1,999095.story

[Nikia]

8. There are agriculture visas anyway

Companies should have to go through the process of getting approved to get temporary agriculturual workers. This also requires employers to follow other laws that benefit the worker.

[EconomicPatriot]

53. Fresh Vegetables

I don't eat fresh vegetables at any time of the year. But I do work most days of the year, and illegal immigrant labor suppresses my wages every day of the year, even when I'm not working.

[Name removed]

105. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MaraJade]

264. Spurious Argument. . .

Vegetables, nothing. We can plant our own "Victory Gardens" in our backyards and eat veggies.
We don't need to have fresh veggies in winter.
Canned or frozen are just as nutritious.

What WE DO NEED year round is our JOBS.

My sister just had her job outsourced to India. Millions of middle class people are losing their
livlihoods to either outsourcing (foreign workers) or immigration (foreign workers).

DOWN with Illegal Immigration, DOWN WITH the abuse of the HB-1 Visa. Power to the Middle Class
People in the US.

[PsycheCC]

266. You go girl!!!! Love this post!

:yourock:

[joemurphy]

2. Actually, immigration depresses the poorer class wages

more than the middle class. All the more reason for a hike in the minimum wage, which hasn't occurred in years.

[Wheres The Beef]

11. Illegal aliens aren't paid minimum wage now

Just raising the minimum wage without going after illegal employers will only hurt the rest of us. The employers that hire illegals are already breaking the law, why would they pay minimum? Or benefits? Or a safe work place. Do we need a way for people to come here to work? Of course, but it must be regulated so these people aren't subject to the abuses that they are now.

[Critters2]

274. They depress the entire wage scale,

and thereby the economy.

[Saturday]

3. *applause*

I agree and I'm also a Democrat.

[oscar111]

7. great OP... well said, and welcome to DU

wage ladder is a concept i like to use for this topic.

[PsycheCC]

34. Thanks!

[PsycheCC]

85. Thanks Yada. It's a touchy subject, but also an important one.

Unfortunately, it seems to me that many Democrats are afraid to admit they don't support increased immigration because it seems unfair to the immigrants. Well, in the larger picture, it's unfair to everyone, including the immigrants. But many disagree on this and want to use emotional arguments where logic fails them. Anyway, thanks for the applause.

[Sapere aude]

6. Think of this, all the latest union gains are in the service industry and

the push a living wage is also there. Many of the undocumented workers are increasing wages and improving working conditions for all of us. The gains they make accrue to everyone.

There is no union growth or pressure for living wages in most other areas.

My point is that I think you will benefit from the efforts of those you now think are hurting you.

[PsycheCC]

9. The Heritage Foundation estimates the Senate's current approach

to immigration will bring about 66 million new immigrants over the coming 20? years. Whatever the number, the point is that a larger pool of available workers (which is why corporations support this legislation) results in lower aggregate wages for Americans. Shouldn't our government work first for its own citizens?

[Sapere aude]

14. I don't know if I want to believe the Heritage Foundation's estimates.

It doesn't work out that simply. I think that statements like that are meant to be taken just the way you have taken it and they get the type of responce the Heritage Foundation wants.

[jwirr]

40. The Heritage Foundation is *ss's think tank - what else would

you expect them to say?

[proud2BlibKansan]

106. Isn't that a RW organization?

I know it isn't a site I would go to for research.

[Andromeda]

214. The key is to verify information

by reading other sources. In that way you will find out if the information is correct, or not. Don't just automatically dismiss something as biased until you've done some research.

[xchrom]

12. ding ding ding -- winner!

why not write a letter opposing shipping our jobs over seas -- which is where the real threat lies?

or repealing nafta -- or cafta?

the ''illegals'' are not the problem -- or their coming here.

what is the problem is the skewing of everything to benefit multinationals.

remember most illegals wound up staying because we made the crossing more restrictive in the first place.

[Saturday]

16. There are many problems.....

and illegals ARE one of them.

[xchrom]

21. lol -- so says you --

it isn't here in mexifornia.

this state is the 5th biggest economy in the world -- how'd we do that with the mill stone of ''illegal'' labour{who buy the way are buying the union line -- huurrah!}?

[PsycheCC]

18. I have written plenty on those topics, and I agree. The current

legislation is on immigration, and it is a part of the problem. It's no accident that corporate America supports this influx of cheap labor. If they can get enough of it, maybe they wont' have the added expense of outsourcing jobs to other countries. It's all about redistributing wealth to the upper classes, as I said in the OP.

[xchrom]

23. outside of farm labour it isn't corpoarte america who is using

many of these people -- mo and pop are to clean their homes and mow their lawn.

corporate and ''illegals'' is a canard -- a red cape to enrage the bull.

http://www.econlib.org/LIBRARY/Enc/Immigration.html
The Impact of Immigrants on Native Earnings



There are two opposing views about how immigrants affect the labor market opportunities of American natives. One view is that they have a harmful effect because immigrants and natives tend to have similar skills and compete for the same jobs, thus driving down the native wage. The other view is that the services of immigrants and natives are not interchangeable, but rather complement each other. For instance, some immigrant groups may be unskilled but particularly adept at harvesting crops. Immigration then increases native productivity and wages because natives can specialize in tasks for which they are better suited.

The first view is more likely correct. Economists who have rejected this view on the basis of evidence have looked at somewhat superficial data. These economists speculated that if the services of natives and immigrants are interchangeable, natives should earn less in cities where immigrants are in abundant supply, such as Los Angeles or New York, than in cities with few immigrants, such as Nashville or Pittsburgh. Although natives do earn somewhat less in cities that have large immigrant populations, the correlation between the native wage and the presence of immigrants is weak. If one city has 10 percent more immigrants than another, the native wage in the city with the most immigrants is only 0.2 percent lower.

i'm not a libertarian but this piece does some justice to dispelling the myth of ''illegal immigrants and wages.

http://www.lp.org/issues/immigration.shtml

In 1989, the U.S. Department of Labor reviewed nearly 100 studies on the relationship between immigration and unemployment and concluded that "neither U.S. workers nor most minority workers appear adversely affected by immigration."

very detailed evidence about ''illegal'' immigration, over all wages continue to rise -- with of course complications in specific sectors.

http://are.berkeley.edu/courses/EEP39C/Immigration.htm

http://www.nationalreview.com/ponnuru/ponnuru200603170753.asp

Almost all of the things that cause people to complain about illegal immigration are true of much legal immigration as well. If your worry is that illegal immigrants tend to raise government spending, for example, then you ought to be worried about legal immigrants, too. Half of legal immigrants have not gone past high school. Like illegal immigrants, they cost federal and state governments billions of dollars each year.

Or perhaps you’re concerned that illegal immigrants hurt low-income workers by driving low-end wages down. If so, you should be almost as concerned about legal immigration. Illegal immigrants tend to be paid less than legal immigrants, but the difference is small and largely reflects the fact that on average illegal immigrants have slightly less education than legal immigrants.

http://ehrenreich.blogs.com/barbaras_blog/2006/01/are_illegal_imm.html

The real shocker in the study is that 49 percent of the day laborers interviewed said they were regularly hired – not by contractors, companies of any kind, and certainly not “big corporations” – but by American homeowners. I’d just heard Bay Buchanan (sister of Pat) on Lou Dobbs’ show fulminating about the “big corporations” that are hiring all the illegal immigrants, but – surprise!—it’s the guy next door who needs his house painted or his lawn mowed.

http://www.newsbatch.com/immigration.htm

facts, figures and links on the immigration issue.


http://www.migrationinformation.org/USFocus/display.cfm?ID=210

the above link and the following paragraphs underscore the need of fairly free movment between the the u.s. and mexico.
and it also underscore what is a very intimate relationship.

Leg One: Accounting for the current immigrant population.
The domestic security agenda established after September 11 has cast the longstanding and growing unauthorized population in the US in a new light—as a potential hiding place for terrorists. Analysts talk about the challenges of finding the "needle in the haystack" and hotly debate the appropriate and constitutionally sound ways to make that haystack significantly smaller. Ideas have included registration, deportation (focusing initially on criminal immigrants), and increased enforcement measures internally and at the border.
Today's "haystack" is composed of nearly 10 million people who are living, working, and sometimes studying in American communities. A quick calculation shows that, even under the most favorable assumptions, a strategy designed to bring the unauthorized population to publicly acceptable levels that utilized only enforcement and deportation would require tens of billions of dollars, decades of time, and significant damage to the nation's concept of civil and other rights. It would also require equally heroic assumptions about the United States' ability to keep new would-be illegal entrants out.  

Many of the assumptions that are now driving the formation of US immigration policy are directly inspired by migration from Mexico
  Another option, a national registration of unauthorized immigrants, has also gained support among members of Congress. Such a registration program would be combined with a meaningful promise for some sort of regularization that would allow unauthorized immigrants to remain in the country. Under the plan described by President Bush, the permission to stay legally would be contingent upon employment and initially last for three years, with the possibility of renewal.
Such strategies pose considerable challenges. The utility of such an effort depends greatly on the level of participation: a regularization effort that leaves millions of people unregistered still leaves a considerable security problem. For this reason, policymakers should consider whether their regularization proposals offer enough incentives so that most immigrants will register. A regularization program that allows only temporary stays is not likely to prove a sufficient inducement for many immigrants, who may intend to stay permanently, or who fear that registration could be used against them in other ways.
The level of participation in the regularization program will also influence the success of broader efforts to control illegal immigration. When Congress enacted IRCA in 1986, it thought of regularization only as an amnesty, and extended its pardon to those who could demonstrate that they had been in the United States "continuously" since before January 1, 1982. When the law was finally implemented in November, 1986, the previous five years of illegal arrivals did not qualify for regularization. At the same time, however, they had little incentive to leave (see related article).

this is from a religious group involved with ''illegals''.


http://www.rtfcam.org/report/volume_21/No_3/article_4.htm

note the following paragraphs:

Many experts say that, given the current climate of economic need and lack of work in Mexico and Central America, no matter how many people die in the effort to migrate, more will attempt the journey. "Unfortunately, people’s lives are so desperate that they won’t stop coming they’ll just keep trying," said Rick Ufford-Chase of BorderLinks, a Tucson based public awareness group. "It’s simply not possible to carry enough water across the desert." Chase further stated: "We’ve made the act of looking for a better job in the United States a crime that carries the death penalty with it." (AP, 5/25/01)

These policies, in addition to causing deaths, also have the unintended impact of keeping many migrants inside of the United States rather than periodically returning to Mexico or Central America to visit or to live. Traditionally, the migrant flow between the US and Mexico has been a circular one, with individuals frequently moving in and out of the country. Deterrence-based policies have made the journey back so expensive and risky that many formerly seasonal workers no longer see the trip back to Mexico as worth the cost.


As Congress debates immigration reforms, some experts say the most extreme proposal — deporting millions of illegal immigrants — would be a huge legal and logistical morass, and ruinously expensive, too.
Officials at the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, which would be responsible for deportations, said they have no projections on what it would take to rid the United States of an estimated 12 million people.
But the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank in Washington, has put the cost at $215 billion over five years.
The study assumed that a crackdown would prompt a quarter of the nation's illegal immigrants to leave voluntarily, leaving 9 million men, women and children to deport.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060407/ap_on_re_us/immigra...



lastly -- with the aging of america -- you may very well need these workers to contribute to the social security system for the future -- like most western cultures -- ours is a society that doesn't entirely reproduce itself.

[FreakinDJ]

30. Flawed study 2nd citation

There effects of lower wages brought on by immigrant labor are not correct. Also i saw no links to their data sourse

Yet, that tiny economywide number masks a major redistribution of wealth. The cross-border movement of generally low-skilled, low-educated immigrants has depressed wages for unskilled native workers while helping keep consumer prices under control and inflating profits for employers.
Borjas estimates that workers lose $278 billion because of immigration, while employers gain $300 billion. "There's a huge redistribution away from workers to people who use immigrants. ... That's what people are arguing about," says Borjas, an immigration specialist.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2006-04-10-immigrants-economic-impact_x.htm

[xchrom]

35. yes -- the yahoo link no longer works

however jagdish bhagwati from the university of michigan has a report -- extensive that disputes borjas commentary.

i have it as a pdf -- but can't make my mac do what i want.

my bad

[FreakinDJ]

38. Highly suspicious

Trying to say illegal workers don’t suppress wages is either serious flawed statistics or downright dis-information

[PsycheCC]

83. This post reminds me of the rich lawyer dumping mountains of

paper on his poor opponent in hopes of obscuring the argument. When I have a few hours to go through all the links, I'll attempt a reply. In the meantime, thanks to Freakin'DJ for his efforts to wade through it all.

[unlawflcombatnt]

56. Letters

A lot of us HAVE written letters to protest CAFTA, NAFTA, and all free trade in general. I'm one such person. I wrote at least a dozen separate letters against CAFTA to various members of Congress and the Senate. But it was to no avail. At least 15 Congressional Democrats voted in favor of CAFTA. The Democrats in Congress failed us. Maybe if people like you had written a few more letters opposing CAFTA, instead of currently expending your effort trying to defend employers who hire illegally, CAFTA would have been defeated.

Now that the Democrats failed us miserably on CAFTA, we're writing letters to protest unrestricted illegal immigration, which is every bit as big a problem as outsourcing our jobs. Maybe this time Congress will listen, since it's close to election time. Illegal immigration suppresses wages, just like outsourcing. And it's about time our representatives showed a little more interest in the wellbeing of American workers than they do for Corporate America's need for cheap illegal labor, as well as the plight of 12-20 million people who have flagrantly broken our laws.

[w4rma]

67. Illegals are definitely part of the problem. I do not support illegality.

And I think it is a vote *loser* to support illegality, anyway.

[Little Star]

199. Yep, it's a vote loser 4 sure. n/t

[unlawflcombatnt]

263. Agreed

Supporting amnesty and guest workers will definitely cause Democrats to lose votes in November, unless Democratic candidates change their position before that time.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[QC]

131. "where the real threat lies"

I guess that depends on what you do for a living.

If you formerly worked in meatpacking, construction, or any of various service industries, then mass illegal immigration is "where the real threat lies." But, of course, our kind of people don't do such déclassé work.

[unlawflcombatnt]

133. Exactly

And the construction field is where nearly half of our last 5 years' job growth has come from. It's been one of the industries hardest hit by
illegal immigration-suppression of wages, as well as an industry showing record profits.

Hmmmmm. Wage suppression + record profits.

Do you suppose there's a connection?

[QC]

136. You know, there just might be a connection.

It never ceases to amaze me how much of the discussion here presupposes that everyone is a white-collar professional who would never, ever do something so icky as manual labor.

There are no working class voices on what now passes for a Left in this country, and that's a serious problem. You know, it might even have something to do with why so many working-class voters do not think the Left has much understanding of their concerns.

[unlawflcombatnt]

152. Working Class Voters

QC,

I think you hit the nail right on the head. There are very few voices on the Left representing the working class. That's why Right-Wingers have been able to pluck so many of the working class off with social issues. The left simply isn't representing the economic interests
of American workers at present.

Illegal immigration is one of the biggest issues affecting the quality of life for American workers. Their wages are being suppressed, and their tax dollars are being squandered on taking care of the massive number of illegal aliens. The Republicans will again be able to make inroads due to the Democratic elite ignoring the economic interests of American workers regarding illegal immigration.

The best interests of American workers are served when there are less workers to compete with for jobs and wages. A limited supply of workers limits how little employers can pay and still hire enough workers. Less workers means higher pay. Increase that supply of workers and it allows employers to hire enough workers for a lower wage.

Allowing an unrestricted inflow of cheap labor into this country is a sellout of the American worker, just as is allowing the unrestricted outflow of jobs to cheap foreign labor markets. In fact, the result of the 2 is exactly the same -- reduction of American wages and employment.

American workers have every reason to be suspicious of the Democratic elite's policies regarding illegal immigration. Those policies are to the benefit of Corporate America,
not middle America or American workers.

There are some Democrats who have remained steadfast in their support of American workers. Senator Byron Dorgan comes to mind. But they are still few and far between. I certainly cannot count on the Senators from my own state (Boxer and Feinstein) to stand up for working Americans. And neither will receive my vote in the next election, unless they make a complete about-face on this issue.

[QC]

156. I am afraid that we will get our asses kicked on this issue.

I think that even as bad as things are for the Republicans right now, they will manage to beat us with the immigration issue, chiefly because most of the voices in our party belong to those who are not affected by the issue. Financially secure people who live in expensive neighborhoods can easily afford to play Lady Bountiful, and they dominate our party. Blue-collar workers, on the other hand, those who are threatened by cheap labor policies, have no voice at all, and if they do try to say something, self-righteous horse's asses scream that they hate "brown people."

The real marvel is not that so few working-class people vote for the Democrats, but that any do.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

160. Where are you when the people on this thread call out "CORPORATIST!"

Or are the self-righteous only so when they disagree with you?

[QC]

161. Well, some people here have been dutifully trotting out the corporatist

line--"jobs Americans won't do" and "we need to keep labor costs low"--but I don't think they are deliberately corporatist so much as they are useful idiots for the real corporatists.

[unlawflcombatnt]

162. Corporatist Employment Mythology

I don't think they are "deliberately" Corporatist in some cases. On the other hand, I do think some of them are unabashed Corporatists. As you've pointed out, many are chanting the same Right-Wing Corporatocratic line about "keeping labor costs low" and "jobs Americans won't do" and what a calamity it would be if all American workers were paid higher wages.

But when someone starts stating (or implying) how well Americans are doing, or how wages have increased, or how a lot of people are making more money, it's pretty clear where they're coming from. They're the people who are benefiting from the cheap labor provided by illegal immigration. They're not the ones whose wages are being suppressed by cheap labor.

It's interesting to hear Democrats start claiming how "good" our unemployment numbers are, in order to justify illegal immigration, while many of the same Democrats were previously claiming how "bad" it was.

The reality is that "official" unemployment has declined very little in the last year, and the calculated unemployment greatly understates true unemployment. And many of the same voices that appeared to be critical of employment numbers a year ago are now touting how good those employment numbers are to justify their support of illegal immigration. Talk about hypocrisy.

The actual numbers indicate a significant surplus of workers at present. There are 228 million Americans of working age. Of that, 143.7 million are employed. That leaves over 84 million working age Americans who are not working. How could this possibly be interpreted as a "shortage of workers"?

Below are Bureau of Labor Statistics links to these stats.

Working Age Population

Total Employment

The Right-Wing Corporatist comeback to these numbers is to claim you can't include all of these people because some have "dropped out" of the labor force. The first problem with this myth is that less people drop out when there is high labor demand. If jobs are scarce, and labor demand is less, there are more dropouts. In contrast, if wages are higher and jobs are plentiful, many people "drop back in" to the labor force.

The second problem with this dropout theory is that it's determination is pure hocus-pocus. Dropouts are determined by answers to questions on a highly subjective questionnaire, which is subject to huge amounts of error. (And to deliberate manipulation.)

Some claim we have more people working now than ever. Guess what. We also have more people who are not working than ever.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

163. And some people have been trotting out the racist lines too.

Not all. Certainly not all. Certainly not most. There is a large group of people genuinely concerned about the welfare of the country. However, real racist groups have latched onto those with good intentions and are using them, a lot like you say real corporatists are using people.

[unlawflcombatnt]

165. Falsely Playing the "Race" Card

And a lot of well-intentioned people have been brainwashed into thinking illegal immigration is a racial issue, and those opposing illegal immigration are racists.

There are also a lot people who know full well this is not a racial issue, but dishonestly play the race card to support their position. And a lot of those people ARE Right-Wing Corporatists. And the recent protests received heavy backing and funding from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, business groups, and Corporate America.

As I've stated earlier, the problem would be just as bad if all the illegal immigrants were from England. It would still suppress wages, and still be in the worst interests of working Americans and the best interests of Corporate America.

The Democratic Party may well eliminate much of the Congressional gains they could have made in the 2006 election if the elite continue to falsely play the race card and remain in bed with Corporate America on this issue. The Democratic Party needs to return to its historic support of working Americans, and abandon its current sellout to Corporate America on this issue.

[primative1]

168. Like a well choreographed dance this is ...

Dropping this one off for the liberal wing to champion while the GOPers back away only to return later to blame them for what went wrong. After all it wasnt there idea was it. Point and Blame thats where this will go but betya its business as usual in the boardrooms and backrooms.
What blows my mind is having the unions out activly pushing memeber to support this. I mmean with there ranks so decimated at this point largely due to the wonders of globilazation and the power its potential has given the elite, how can the remaining memebers even listen to that line without doing a rambo.
Maybe everyone is still to numb.

[Critters2]

275. You mean these people aren't racist........?

Some Latinos go own way on illegal immigration

By Ana Beatriz Cholo
Tribune staff reporter
Published June 17, 2006

As National Guard troops patrol the U.S.-Mexico border to try to stop people from entering this country illegally, a minority of Latinos want to make a point: Don't assume Hispanics share the same opinion on illegal immigration.

These Latinos say undocumented immigrants should not be eligible for government services and are hurting the economy by driving down wages.

Tensions have simmered over the years between those who came here legally and those who didn't, and between U.S.-born Latinos who date back generations and the undocumented newcomers.

A survey last year by the Pew Hispanic Center underscores the divergence of opinions among Latinos.

While proud of their heritage, some Latinos say they are just as proud of the American flag and denounce the idea of singing "The Star-Spangled Banner" in Spanish, as was done during the height of this spring's protests in support of amnesty for undocumented immigrants.

more...
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0606170127jun17,1,2899644.story

[QC]

173. I agree. n/t

[pnwmom]

180. I agree with you. We can gloat over Republicans' problems

with the immigration issue right now, but it has just as much potential to rip our party apart.

[acmejack]

13. That flies in the face of the law of supply and demand

Please explain why that basic law of capitalism which holds true for every other facet of the game is suddenly null and void for the labor aspect. A real reason please, not just because you "think" we will benefit from it. Feel good stuff aside, tell us why an abundance of cheap labor is truly a boon for unemployed unskilled Americans.

[Sapere aude]

17. Like I said, these unskilled workers are uniting and fighting for a better

lifestyle for themselves. That is the very reason they came here in the first place. What ever gains they make for themselves accrues to all workers. If they force business to pay a living wage, the idea catches on and more and more people will get a living wage.

It is not as black and white as supply and demand.

[PsycheCC]

20. Why would illegal aliens be any more able to negotiate higher

wages than legal workers have been? Wouldn't a threat of deportation silence most voices?

[FreakinDJ]

33. Those that want to actually stay here

A large number are sending money home to their wives and children making payments on the homes they own in Mexico

[EconomicPatriot]

54. Wages

They don't "force" businesses to do anything. They allow businesses to pay less than what they'd have to pay if they were forced to hire American workers only.

[PsN2Wind]

27. You have to understand trickle up economics

Say a guy or gal that were tradesman or tradeswoman in their native country are made legal residents, they no longer have to work at those minimum wage jobs. This frees them to come to your place of work and hit your boss up for your job, only they'll do it cheaper. So your boss, understanding economics, fires you and hires them for 2/3 the pay. This forces you out into the job market where in order to find a job nearly comparable, you have to try and undercut someone else to get his or her job. This percolates up through the system until everyone is working for less and the BOSS is making a lot more money. Of course, like they claimed with NAFTA, "there will be some temporary dislocations" but the displaced citizens can always try for one of those minimum wage jobs that legal residents now,won't do. Unfortunately most of those will be taken by the "temporary workers".

[Breeze54]

39. ......

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[PsycheCC]

43. Great post!

This is the point I was trying to make about immigration depressing aggregate wages. You made it very clearly. Thanks!

[FreakinDJ]

31. Flies in the face of logic because its Bull crap

[BrklynLiberal]

19. I believe that middleclass jobs are being lost to outsourcing and not to

immigration. The immigrants who have been the subject of the recent debate are not taking "middle-class" jobs. They are taking what would be the minimum wage jobs.
The middle-class has been betrayd by the corporatists who have put their bottom line above the welfare fo this country, with the aid and support of Bush, and sadly to some extent, by Clinton before him.

Walmart, GM, and many, many other corporations who have sent jobs and entire factories to India and other places where labor is cheaper are more to blame for middle-class problems than the imimgrants that are crossing the border to pick fruit and and maintain people's pools and yards, and do kitchen work in restaurants.

And where is the pressure on Presidente Fox to improve the economy in Mexico, so that his citizens do not feel it is necessary to come here in order to earn enough money to feed and clothe their families?

[FreakinDJ]

24. Not true

Immigrant labor is being used to replace construction workers (middle class jobs) at an alarming rate

An Alabama employment agency that sent 70 laborers and construction workers to job sites in that state in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina says the men were sent home after just two weeks on the job by employers who told them "the Mexicans had arrived" and were willing to work for less.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060410-123506-1297r.htm

[Klukie]

41. From first hand experience....

I have to agree. I worked for two years with my husband for an electrical contractor in Raleigh, NC. We worked in the commercial side of it on projects as small as a fit up in office buildings to large projects such as additions to Duke football stadium. We even worked on the construction of a Walmart (Yikes)! We would work overtime some weekends for industrial chicken factories and the DOT. Needless to say we worked a shitload of locations and with many differant trades. One thing that the majority of companies had in common was the overwhelming amount of illegal help. In our company we were most definately the minority. It seemed to me that contractors would provide an American foreman but the majority of the labor was illegal. What was most alarming to me was that most of these folks did not speak english yet they were entrusted with providing skilled work under the supervision of non spanish speaking bosses. This was frightening to me because our country has much safer codes than many of the countries that the illegals came from. I have no doubt that the pay is being squashed by these contractors hiring practices.

[PsycheCC]

44. There were many similar stories about illegals taking post-Katrina

construction jobs from citizens who had already been hired. I agree Klukie, that the quality of work would be concerning when the boss and the worker don't speak the same language. Your story is the perfect example of how good paying jobs end up paying less when illegal aliens are willing to do them for less.

And why can't your government worry more about you than they do about providing cheap labor to corporations and jobs to people who came here illegally? Maybe average Americans don't contribute as much to political campaigns, but we do know how to vote for people who put our interests first.

[Breeze54]

71. Ask Bill Clinton!

He signed NAFTA!

I was against NAFTA but he didn't listen to me.
Then came outsourcing. I got screwed both times.

http://www.govote.com/Celeb/Bill_Clinton_Free_Trade.htm
Support NAFTA & GATT: build bridges, not walls

"We don’t need to build walls, we need to build bridges.
We don’t need protection, we need opportunity.
But in a world of stiff competition we also need more than free trade.
We need fair trade with fair rules.

That’s why I fought for NAFTA, which effectively opened Mexico’s and Canada’s markets
to American products, and for GATT, which is helping to level the playing field for
American companies abroad.

In all, since 1992 we have negotiated more than 200 trade agreements-21 with Japan alone."

Source: Between Hope and History, by Bill Clinton, p. 34-35 Jan 1, 1996

:grr:

http://www.commondreams.org/scriptfiles/views03/1224-06.htm
Published on Wednesday, December 24, 2003 by the Philadelphia Inquirer

NAFTA has Been a Big Flop
by Mark Weisbrot

NAFTA, CAFTA, do we hafta?

In last week's Central American Free Trade Agreement talks, NAFTA, now almost 10 years old,
was being put forth as a success story by the World Bank and other international organizations.

But that is much too generous. The fundamental measure by which economists evaluate the success
or failure of economic policy is the growth of income per person. This ignores distribution;
but from a purely economic point of view, if the economy grows, there is at least the
possibility that everyone can improve their living standards.

By that measure, NAFTA is a terrible economic failure. From 1994 through 2003,
the Mexican economy has grown by only 11 percent per person. This is less than one-fourth
the rate of growth that Mexico experienced in the 1960s and 1970s. This is the relevant
economic comparison for anyone who wants to evaluate Mexico's experience with NAFTA.

Of course, the reforms embodied in NAFTA did not begin in 1994 -
they started in the early 1980s.
But if we take the longer view, it looks even worse:
From 1980 to the present, income per person in Mexico has grown by about 19 percent.
This compares to 93 percent for the 1960-1979 (somewhat shorter) period.
In other words, there is no economic evidence that the NAFTA model is a success.

In fact it appears that past performance, when the Mexican government had a much larger role
in the economy, was much more successful - in spite of any inefficiencies. The same is true
for the region as a whole. Replacing development policy with a mere opening up of the economy
to international trade and investment, as NAFTA and CAFTA seek to do, simply has not worked.
Many Latin American leaders are aware of this problem, and they are also aware of the
growing discontent with the region's long-term economic failure.

These agreements have also lowered wages and salaries for the majority of U.S. employees,
as even the research of pro-trade economists clearly demonstrates. After 40 consecutive months
of manufacturing job losses, some Republican strategists are wondering aloud whether they want
to try to squeeze this agreement through Congress in an election year.

They might ask President Bush: NAFTA, CAFTA, do we hafta?

Mark Weisbrot is codirector of the Center for Economic and Policy Research

Do we hafta?
:shrug:

[PsycheCC]

80. I agree. It appears the NAFTA was by far the worst thing Clinton

ever did. At least he paid attention to violations of the trade agreements and enforced them, as Bush has not, but you get no argument from me that NAFTA and CAFTA hurt us tremendously.

Again, who is left to work for the middle class when ALL politicians are dependent on corporate donors to finance campaigns? We need real campaign finance and lobbying reform before we can expect our politicians to vote on behalf of their constituents again.

[inthebrain]

281. Kluckie

What does your name mean?

[PsycheCC]

282. Um, that's Klukie....n/t

[PsycheCC]

26. You make excellent points. Yes, illegal immigrants tend to take

more low wage jobs, but at least in Southern California, the cost of their presence is enormous. I won't rehash all the arguments about the cost of education, social services, housing, and traffic you have to see to believe....

And pretty soon Walmart and others won't have to take jobs overseas as they'll have plenty of cheap labor right here.

[jwirr]

42. I agree with you somewhat because those tomato picking jobs

would still be only minimum wage if we did them. However, I know that there are illegals working in midwest packing plants and construction jobs that have always paid good wages/benefits before the companies started using illegals. Those jobs are the kind that hurt the lower middle-class.

I think there should be enforcement in these areas but the farm laborers should be left alone BECAUSE maybe you can afford $6.00 lettuce but I cannot. The laws that should be enforced in the farm labor area are the ones that deal with how the workers are treated: housing, health care, safety issues, etc.

[lyonn]

119. There are people that were making $40,000 - $50,000

per year taking pay cuts due to corps. claiming they can't afford to keep paying those wages and insurance and if they want to keep their job they will have to take a cut. The corps. hire part time workers to get by with crummy wages. These workers were considered middle class till they took the pay cut. Course the stock prices went up due to lowering the cost of doing business. Who now do we see building our roads, roofing, well most manual labor, illegals. American Air had major pay cuts after 9-11 and haven't increased the pay even tho the planes are now over booked, that's an example. We are losing our bargaining power for people who work for wages.

[PsycheCC]

120. Great post, lyonn.

[TorchTheWitch]

127. Bull

The immigrants who have been the subject of the recent debate are not taking "middle-class" jobs. They are taking what would be the minimum wage jobs.

They absolutely are taking middle class jobs. SKILLED jobs that are most definitely middle class, just not usually white collar jobs that require a degree or special licensing or certification of some sort. Even illegal laborers that are doing construction, landscaping, masonry, roofing, etc. type jobs are making more than minimum wage, but much less than those jobs used to pay. Being a construction worker used to be a VERY well paid blue collar job, but not anymore. These aren't ignorant vegetable pickers doing jobs that anyone with a brain could do... they are SKILLED jobs. There are even illegal immigrants doing WHITE COLLAR jobs these days as long as they have good enough English speaking/writing skills.

Three times in the past I was hired as a secretary as an independent contractor so that the companies could write off having to pay me competative wages, have to pay income taxes or contribute to SS, unemployment and workers' comp. for me and didn't have to give me any benefits. It is the responsibility of the WORKER to dispute their employment status, and the vast majority not only don't, but don't even know that the company hiring them as an independent contractor is doing something illegal. This was nearly 20 years ago, and I shudder to think of how much more wide spread it is now. I personally know of an illegal immigrant that works now as a secretary and is being paid much less than her American co-workers, gets no benefits as her American co-workers do, is totally being taken advantage of but is THRILLED to be able to not only work in this country but work as a skilled WHITE COLLAR worker in an office. She was hired as an independent contractor, and signed a W-9 form for the government with a false SSN. The company is not required to check for SSN's or even provide a copy of the SS card. According to the W-9 form itself, it is the WORKER's responsibility to prove they are legally eligible to work in the U.S., and the company is not responsible if they aren't. Employers LOVE hiring workers as independent contractors as they get to wash their hands of any responsibility unless a WORKER disputes their status with the IRS. Whether or not the company ever even filed that W-9 with the government is anyone's guess.

The idea that Mexicans or other illegal immigrants aren't doing anything more than the crap jobs in the U.S. that require no skills is absurd. It offends me to constantly read comments that all these people are doing is picking vegetables or scrubbing toilets as if they're too stupid to be capable of doing anything else. They are just as intelligent and just as skilled as Americans, and as long as they have decent English speaking/writing skills can do just about any job that doesn't require special degrees, certification or licensing. There are PLENTY of middle class WHITE COLLAR jobs that don't require these things, and you better believe that illegals are doing them. Just like anyone else who relies on work experience in order to get ahead, they start out small and work their way up in a company where they are totally taken advantage of by their employers and enable those same employers to depress the wages of their American co-workers. Of course I don't blame the illegals themselves for this as it is the fault of the EMPLOYERS that do this and get away with it.

These people are far more driven then the average American worker to work harder, learn faster and gain more experience and more skills in order to make better money, except that money is CRAP compared to their American co-workers, and they aren't given the benefits that their American co-workers are. The fact that they are there doing these jobs depresses the wages of their American co-workers, enables the company to fire the higher paid American workers and replace them with more illegals or Americans under the same crappy conditions, and the companies well know at this point that they can hire ANYONE, illegal or otherwise, as independent contractors and NOBODY says "boo" about it.

[primative1]

128. And for more specialized occupations ...

there is always the new expanded H1B visa program.
We have multi national corporations staffed almost exclusivly with Indian "engineers" who after you train them on such basics as how to use email and Excel will proceed to work for 12 bucks an hour while we american engineers get to go back to roofing and pray someone will hire us with our limited spanish skills

[PsycheCC]

135. Wow. Excellent post! With all the similar personal accounts I've

read from people all over the country, I wonder if enough people might just vote against politicians who work to expand immigration, despite the cost to their own constituents. Ever the optimist....

[primative1]

144. Well, I guess you can count out King Teddy

Its amazing that with all the people he has met he never actualy understood their stories. More education might fix the situation. We need more PHds behing the Home Depot paint counter

[unlawflcombatnt]

145. The Education Fantasy

"We need more PHds behing the Home Depot paint counter"


:rofl:

Yes, maybe more education will enable American workers to survive on $2/day.

Kennedy and the other "education advocates" need to turn that broken record over. Or just throw it out.

Americans are being displaced from jobs because they won't accept a low enough wage, not because of lack of education. We didn't lose all of our manufacturing jobs because our factory workers were "lacking" in education or production skills. All they were lacking is the ability to survive on the wages 3rd world workers accept.

[PsycheCC]

147. We have plenty of educated workers, but business still demands

more H1B Visas because educated people from other countries accept lower wages and fewer benefits for the same work. If you can't outsource a job, get an H1B Visa to bring the cheaper labor here.

I keep hearing about how we aren't graduating enough high tech workers, computer programmers, for example. I personally know several people with those degrees who have seen salaries drop dramatically as business finds ways around paying American workers fair wages. Why would anyone go into programming when it pays less than it did 10 years ago?

Corporate America will not share its RECORD PROFITS with employees (no matter how well educated) as long as it has a pool of available workers who will take less for the same job. The Bush administration has pushed pro-business, anti-worker legislation, always harping about how they're watching out for small businesses that fail under too much government regulation. We know it's just about redistributing wealth to their favorite people. Look who benefits from them. Pharmaceuticals, oil companies, insurance companies, financial institutions, wall street, ANY business who ever faced bankruptcy or a class action law suit--an excellent deterrent from harming their consumers, by the way. These aren't small businesses.

It's time for voters to stand up and say that this is still our country, and our voice matters. It's not that we're lazy or uneducated. It's that the rich have plenty of workers to replace us whenever they like for less money. I wrote the OP and sent it to Senators and Congressional Representatives to let them know I will NEVER AGAIN VOTE FOR THEM if they fail to protect their own middle class. Other nations have traveled this road in the past. A small middle class equals an unstable government.

[pnwmom]

181. A poster above said that 50% of construction jobs in CA are

filled by illegal immigrants . Construction jobs USED to be fairly well paid, middle class jobs. A family could live on a father's construction income. If construction jobs are no longer middle-class jobs, maybe it is because wages have been driven down due to the numbers of illegal immigrants.

[BlueJazz]

25. I agree. I have a LOT of foreign born friends who came to the USA..

..through a lot of paper-work and time.
I'm not saying that allowing all illegals will be the ruin of the USA but
it does/will add to the fire...

[nadinbrzezinski]

48. I came legally to this country

and you know what... the logisitics of deporting 12 million people make it imposible. I have no problem with them going to the back of the line. realize it took me 12 years to become naturalized... which tells me it will take these folks anywhere from 16-25 years

[SemiCharmedQuark]

99. You agree....the OP spoke against ALL immigrants, not just illegals.

What do your foreign born friends think about that?

[PsycheCC]

108. In a nation of 300 million, 100-200 million more will have drastic

effects on wages. I have no problem with people who are here legally now, but how can we accommodate 100-200 million more? Every nation controls immigration. We allow more legal immigrants than any country in the world. There's nothing wrong with taking care of our own people too.

[unlawflcombatnt]

118. Nice Mis-interpretation

As is typical of you Corporatocratic open border advocates, you've put your own deliberate misinterpretation into this discussion.

The OP stated very clearly that she was against increasing immigration. And the implication was that the increase was going to come from current legislation, allowing for "earned amnesty" and a new, moronic idea of King George himself, called the "guest workers" program.

And you Corporatists are just ecstatic about it, because it provides for even more cheap labor, so you can increase your already exorbitant profits to still higher levels.

Good work on your misinterpretation. You should get a job with Fox News.

Or do you already work for them?

[SemiCharmedQuark]

141. Wow, pot meet kettle. Read the OPs message beside your own.

The OP doesn't deny he/she is against all new immigration, regardless of the source.

[PsycheCC]

143. I guess that's why the post only got 9 votes for best page. Of course

there is disagreement on the topic, and plenty of anger, as your posts among others show. But you must have missed a lot of the posts if you think there isn't much support for the OP.

[unlawflcombatnt]

28. Excellent Post

Psyche,

Excellent post. I completely agree with you here. We need to start and finish by prosecuting employers. They've created the problem and they're the ones who should "go to the front of the line" when it comes to prosecution.

[unlawflcombatnt]

36. Amnesty for 60% of Illegal Aliens

According to the Thomas CRS summary, all illegals here over 5 years are granted immediate amnesty. According to Heritage, that applies to 60% of those already here. This isn't even "earned" amnesty, it's just flat-out, unadulterated AMNESTY. Amnesty for breaking the laws of land.

Below is an excerpt from the Thomas CRS summary:



"S.2611
Title: A bill to provide for comprehensive immigration reform and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Specter, Arlen (introduced 4/7/2006) Cosponsors (6)
Related Bills: H.R.4437, S.2454, S.2612
Latest Major Action: 5/18/2006 Senate floor actions. Status: Considered by Senate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY AS OF:
4/7/2006--Introduced.

Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 - Sets forth border security and enforcement provisions, including provisions respecting: (1) personnel and asset increases and enhancements; (2) a National Strategy for Border Security; (3) border security initiatives, including biometric data enhancements and a biometric entry-exit system, document integrity, and mandatory detention of aliens apprehended at or between ports of entry; and (4) Central American gangs.

Border Tunnel Prevention Act - Provides criminal penalties for construction, financing, or use of illegal border tunnels or passages.

Border Law Enforcement Relief Act of 2006 - Authorizes a border relief grant program for a tribal, state, or local law enforcement agency in a county: (1) no more than 100 miles from a U.S. border with Canada or Mexico; or (2) more than 100 miles from any such border but which is a high impact area.

Sets forth interior enforcement provisions, including provisions respecting: (1) alien terrorists; (2) alien street gang members; (3) illegal entry and reentry; (4) passport and immigration fraud; (5) criminal aliens; (6) voluntary departure; (7) detention and alternatives; ( 8 ) criminal penalties; (9) alien smuggling; (10) tribal lands security; (11) state and local enforcement of immigration laws; (12) expedited removal; and (13) alien protection from sex offenders.

Makes it unlawful to knowingly hire, recruit, or refer for a fee an unauthorized alien.

Establishes in the Treasury the Employer Compliance Fund.

Provides for additional worksite and fraud detection personnel.

Provides for a report examining the impacts of the current and proposed annual grants of legal status, including immigrant and nonimmigrant status, along with the current level of illegal immigration, on U.S. infrastructure and quality of life.

Establishes a temporary guest worker program (H-2C visa). Provides: (1) that the Secretary of Homeland Security shall determine H-2C eligibility; (2) for a three-year admission with one additional three-year extension; (3) issuance of H-4 nonimmigrant visas for accompanying or following spouse and children; (4) for U.S. worker protection; (5) for implementation of an alien employment management system; and (6) establishment of a Temporary Worker Task Force.

Expands the S-visa (witness/informant) classification.

Limits the L-visa (intracompany transfer) classification.

Fairness in Immigration Litigation Act of 2006 - Sets forth provisions respecting remedies for immigration legislation.

Sets forth backlog reduction provisions respecting: (1) family-sponsored and employment-based immigrant levels; (2) country limits; (3) immigrant visa allocations; (4) minor children; (5) shortage occupations; and (6) student and advanced degree visas.

Widows and Orphans Act of 2006 - Establishes a special immigrant category for certain children and women at risk of harm.

Immigrant Accountability Act of 2006 - Provides permanent resident status adjustment for a qualifying illegal alien (and the spouse and children of such alien) who has been in the United States for five years and employed (with exceptions) for specified periods of time...."

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d109:1:./temp/~bdBB57:@@@D&summ2=m&|/bss/d109query.html|

or http://thomas.loc.gov/

(If the 1st link doesn't work, type S.2611 into the search field from the Thomas site, and choose "bill number," not "search text." When you get to S.2611, click on the CRS summary.)


"Permanent resident status adjustment" is exactly the same thing as amnesty.

Those in government claiming there's no "amnesty" provision should be charged with perjury! Including King George.

[unlawflcombatnt]

37. 100 million Immigrants over next 20 years

Heritage Foundation states Senate Bill 2611 would allow 100 million new immigrants into the United States over the next 20 years.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Immigration/wm1076.cfm

Do you suppose that'll suppress wages just a little?

[SemiCharmedQuark]

100. They sure wrote a great essay on how same sex marriage ruins America!

Great source!

:eyes:

[Robbie Michaels]

45. Increasing home prices?

That's not happening in San Diego unless we're accepting migrant upper executives. Only 8% of the population can afford to buy a home.

[PsycheCC]

59. I admit my argument about home prices is weaker, but I know

of homes owned by multiple families who have pooled their income in order to afford them. Of course, these aren't million dollar homes, but when people will live 20 to a house as they do in my part of the state, the prices of those homes must rise above what they would be if owners were forced to sell to single families. The sheer numbers of people who want to buy homes, combined with the willingness to share homes among more than one family, results in greater demand than there would be if these illegals weren't in the home buying market. Greater demand equals higher prices.

It's truly amazing to watch all of these people pour out of their homes each morning, jump into one of the five cars parked in the driveway, street, etc., and drive off to overcrowd the freeways. These problems certainly aren't all due to the illegal aliens, but they do contribute to the situation.

[IndyJones]

206. Still rising where I live in SD county.

Still plenty of new home building, too.

[Klukie]

46. No jobs.....

No Illegals. I agree that this issue rests foremost with the employers. Anyone who isn't for strict, harsh penalties for employers doesn't want to truly deal with this problem. And yes illegal immigration is a major problem for our country for numerous reasons (safety, fair wages, human rights etc.). I am always amazed at the ignorance of those who believe that the jobs illegals take are ones that americans won't do. I have two big problems with that idiotic belief. First of all that leads one to believe that the jobs that illegals are doing are beneath Americans. That is such elitist bullshit. There is honor in any job if it is done well. No wonder other countries view us as pompous assholes. Secondly, I have to wonder when it was that we became a nation of doctors and lawyers? It is a fact that we not only want these jobs, for god sakes we need them. Not everyone in this country has the smarts, desire, or the finances to go to college. It is a passion for some to work the fields or bulid something with their hands. How are we supposed sustain our country if our citizens don't have any basic skills. I truly fear that if this issue isn't dealt with correctly we are in jeopardy of becoming the Mexico that everyone is fleeing from.

[PsycheCC]

174. Great post. I share that fear, Klukie.

[nadinbrzezinski]

47. Ok I will ask the silly qusetion

how exactly are you planning to round up all these ilegals? What is more.. you realize that only 20% of them ilegals ARE mexican?

I will ask another pointed question... very pointed indeed... you say you are for strict enforcement of the law... I agree with you... realize this is 10,000 per ilegal hired by any company OR person... you ever hired a day laborer?

Oh and it is not that there are jobs Amreicans will not do, rather Americans will not do them for the wages (many timse well under minimum wage) that the farm concerns ARE CURRENTLY PAYING

By the way, this is the really sad part... you and them dirty ilegals ARE natural allies, and them ilegals are proving it by growing the labor movement the cushy middle class despises so much

[brentspeak]

52. You're limiting your argument to farm jobs

But other posters on this thread have pointed out the increasing number of construction jobs (which normally are halfway-decent paying jobs) being handed over to immigrants. Just the other day, there was a story on LBN about how the union workers at a Texas steel plant are being pushed aside in favor of Mexican immigrants willing to work for much less.

[PsycheCC]

87. No, I have not hired a day laborer. Hiring an illegal hurts the American

worker who could have done that job. Why would anyone who cares about his country do that? And no, I don't shop at Walmart either, for the same reason.

Your other arguments are addressed in other posts in this thread if you care to read them.

[1932]

49. Does legal migration from Maine to North Carolina hurt North Carolina's

economy?

I think North Carolinians have been doing better since people from all over the country have moved there.

[Klukie]

70. False comparison.....

because the folks coming from Maine aren't going be hired for an unfair wage. Employers who hire illegals and illegals themselves feed off each other because neither one can function without the other. Just because the employers are to be blamed foremost doesn't lesson the fact that illegals are lawbreakers.

[liberalpragmatist]

55. How are you going to get rid of the ones who are here?

Especially when many of them now have children who are US citizens?

I agree that we need to enforce laws against employers hiring illegal labor. Cut the demand for cheap labor by illegal immigrants and future illegal immigration will lessen or end.

But what are you going to do about the 12 million who are here? Round them up and send them back across the border? How do you propose we do that?

[PsycheCC]

57. I don't propose we round up 12 to 20 million people. I propose

we enforce employer sanctions and control the border. If jobs dry up, people won't be here looking for them. Perhaps then Mexico will look at what to do with their poor rather than exporting them to the U.S.

[kywildcat]

215. Agree n/t

[unlawflcombatnt]

58. Those already here

Who says we have to take any immediate action on those already here? If employers are prosecuted and stop hiring them, many will leave. We can worry about what to do with the remainder AFTER we figure out how to stop the problem from getting worse.

The first priority is reducing the flood of illegal immigrants into this country, not what to do with those already here. It's a separate problem altogether. With attrition that problem will lessen. And what urgency is there anyway? This 12-20 million have been here for years anyway. Why is "what to do with that 12-20 million" such an emergency problem? It can wait.

In contrast, stopping the influx cannot wait. If the influx problem isn't resolved very soon, we'll be asking "what do we do with the 30, 40, or 50 million who are already here."

[ProudDad]

61. What evidence do you have of a "flood" of "illegals"?

I haven't seen any...

This is typical right-wing poop. Divide and conquer.

Most of those 12 million undocumented are our brothers and sisters -- fellow working people in this world. It's the bastards who are stirring you up who are your enemies!

[unlawflcombatnt]

62. You've gotta be Kidding

No, it's the open border advocates that have misinformed you. There are plenty of sources that put the number of illegal immigrants coming in to this country at 3 million per year. You can check the Census Bureau, like I have, if you have doubts about that. You can also check the CIA site or many others. I can provide you with plenty of sources if you really can't find any.

Our population growth is MUCH greater than that of any other industrial countries, such as Japan, Britain, Germany, or France. You can find this information at CIA Information Our excessive population growth equates to labor force growth. Labor force growth increases the supply of labor and decreases wages as a result. This is simple a supply and demand economics, and is fairly well accepted.

You might also want to read the well-researched study by economist George Borjas, who states immigration in general has suppressed wages 4% per year. You can find the link to this at my previous thread on this subject at Immigration & Wage Suppression.

No one has "stirred me up," other than the deceitful open border/amnesty advocates and their Corporate America supporters who've lied about the amount of immigration, the negative impact it has on American workers, and the propaganda that securing our borders and championing the American worker is "racist" or "xenophobic."

By the way, I live and grew up in Southern California. I've seen the direct "evidence" of the flood of illegal immigrants. It's not some "story" made up by Right-Wing bastards. It's a verifiable fact to those of us who live here. But I'll try to find you some more documented evidence of this flood.

[IndyJones]

208. Excellent post!!

[IndyJones]

207. If you live in SD county, then you've seen the "flood" and you see

it everyday.

btw, HALF of CA jails are filled with illegals. Yet another cost we get to pay for in CA.

[unlawflcombatnt]

222. LA County

A number of LA County emergency rooms have been closed in poor neighborhoods due to financial strains that have been worsened by having to take care of illegal aliens.

[treestar]

65. Even if they could round them up and deport them, they would

just come back.

The idea of having a separate immigration law for the bordering countries is starting to make more sense every day.

[treestar]

64. You just don't understand how capitalism functions

Even the shallow "job stealing" arguments are about how it hurts the poor, because they are supposedly the ones who are unemployed now and would take those jobs (if only they paid more)

As for the American middle class

:nopity::nopity::nopity::nopity::nopity:

[unlawflcombatnt]

66. Spoken Like a True Corporatist

Just wonderful to see someone on this board with such obvious disdain for the American middle class. Just what we need, more people who'd like to eliminate the middle class.

As for the crack about "shallow arguments about it reducing wages," there's nothing vaguely "shallow" about it. Illegal immigration reduces everyone's wages. It reduces the wages of the poorest Americans the most. But a $230 billion/year suppression of aggregate American income hurts everyone, because it reduces consumer spending power and the production demand it creates. And reduction in production demand means reduction in demand for labor to provide production, which reduces wages, employment, and aggregate labor income.

It's not a "shallow" argument. It is your criticism of it that is "shallow."

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EconomicPatriot]

81. Amen

Yes, a "corporatist" pig.

[ItNerd4life]

223. Living wage dream is disappearing

because we allow more illegal immigrants and want to allow more legal immigrants.

I despise what the Senate has passed, I think it's despicable how they are for the corporations and not for the working poor and the middle class.

[unlawflcombatnt]

224. Senate Bill a complete sellout of the American worker

I completely agree. The Senate bill will do serious damage to the American worker and middle class.

[rman]

68. Corporate owned government does far more to hurt everyone

For one, it has created the circumstances that cause illegal immigration, in the case of Mexico most notably by means of NAFTA, which requires the Mexican government to cut social services, reduce workers' rights, reduce environmental protection etc - anyhing that will help big business to make more profits.

If you want to solve a problem, look at the causes.

[Breeze54]

72. Right on! n/t

:thumbsup:

[PsycheCC]

75. Perhaps you should read the Original Post again.

[rman]

123. OP does not mention Trade Agreements, worker class

Sanctions against corporations who hire illegals, and saving the middle class, are only partial solutions.
If trade scam agreements are the cause of the problem then there lies the solution.

[PsycheCC]

138. The OP doesn't mention trade agreements, but it does speak

of the "corporatocracy," which is government run by corporations. This, in my view is the base of the problem, resulting in bad trade agreements, corporate written legislation, politicians who must vote according to their corporate donors' will, etc.

[unlawflcombatnt]

77. NAFTA & Illegal Immigration

There's no question American (and Mexican) workers were severely screwed by NAFTA.

If I could choose between repealing NAFTA, or stopping illegal immigration alone, I'd choose repealing NAFTA.

However, repealing NAFTA is less likely than my becoming the next president. In contrast, reducing illegal immigration is a real possibility. It's as simple as forcing employers to verify Social Security numbers, and prosecuting them for not doing so. If this one measure was taken, and vigorously enforced, illegal immigration would slow down to a trickle, because there'd be few people who'd hire illegal immigrants. And illegal immigration would cease to be a major problem as a result.

Banks can check Social Security numbers in less than 60 seconds. So could employers if they were forced to.

The worst problem created by illegal immigration is wage suppression. This is not the result of ethnic origin. It's the result of the sheer number. The problem would be just as bad if all 12-20 million were from England, as opposed to Mexico. They'd suppress wages just as much. And as a result of that wage suppression, they'd cause just as much financial strain on our social services. Wage suppression reduces the tax base, resulting in less funding for all government services.

12 million is 12 million, regardless of where they come from. It's the number, not the ethnicity, that's the problem. These surplus workers don't "help" the economy. They hurt it by reducing aggregate labor income and the total amount of money consumers have to spend to create production demand. The only beneficiary is Corporate America, through reduced labor costs.

Those calling this "racist" or "xenophobic" have simply run out of any logical arguments to make.

[Le Taz Hot]

69. Yesss!!!

"As I am not a corporate donor, I'll await your FORM LETTER reply." Ain't it the truth?

Also classic:
"THERE IS NO JOB AN AMERICAN WON'T DO, only jobs employers won't pay an American to do." Honest to goddess that should be a bumper sticker!

:woohoo:

[unlawflcombatnt]

74. Bumper Sticker

"'THERE IS NO JOB AN AMERICAN WON'T DO, only jobs employers won't pay an American to do.' Honest to goddess that should be a bumper sticker!"

I agree. I just wish I could vote for this post again.

And a bumper sticker is a great idea!!



:yourock:

[PsycheCC]

84. Thanks Unlawful. Your posts on the economy have taught me a

great deal about how all of these issues tie together. I highly recommend your forum and blog to anyone with an interest in better understanding how the economy works. Very easy for laypeople like me to follow!:applause:

[PsycheCC]

82. You're right Taz, it should be a bumper sticker.! Unfortunately, I

can't take credit for it. Thanks for the :woohoo:

[Quantess]

76. I agree too. n/t

[Minnesota Libra]

86. As a proud liberal I agree with your letter completely because.....

.....clamping down on the employers of illegal aliens is the only way to solve this along with a secured border.

I can't think of anyone who could possibly disagree with your letter unless maybe it's illegal aliens themselves or their relatives.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

101. Once again, the OP is against ALL immigrants, not just illegals.

Didn't you read the whole post?

Here's in the OP's own words from below:

"When the Senate plan could bring in 100 million (some say 200 million) legal immigrants over the next 20 years, legal immigration does become a concern for anyone who will have to compete with those people for jobs, housing, etc. Certainly, in the past, immigrants contributed greatly to the building of this nation. I'm not sure this will continue to be the case given the push from corporate America for more cheap labor even in the face of a real unemployment rate around 7% if you compute it truthfully. Check out Unlawful's Blog or forum for details on this."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2635672&mesg_id=2637299

[PsycheCC]

110. I stand behind those words and wonder why you don't see a

problem with that huge jump in population. If the estimate is right, the middle class will suffer huge losses in standard of living. I don't apologize for caring more about our own middle class than immigrants.

[Minnesota Libra]

125. SemiCharmedQuark, I was commenting on the LTTE and still say I agree.....

....completely with the letter writer. The middle class are the ones who are being hurt the worst and remember it's the middle class who pay most of the taxes that carry this country. The rich have the WH Idiot and all his tax cuts, some of the poor don't pay taxes, so the middle class pretty much carries this country. Yet, Democrats/Liberals don't seem to get that little fact for some reason. Meanwhile Vicente Fox, WH Idiot, and Cheney are all laughing all the way to the bank.

So again I agree completely and wholeheartedly with the letter. I can't think of anyone with even half a brain who would disagree with the letter that the writer wrote to the editor of their paper.

[PsycheCC]

139. Thanks very much for the support. Speaking honestly on this topic

tends bring out a lot of anger. It's good to hear from those who agree as well.

[QC]

149. "bring out a lot of anger"

There's a reason for that.

We have a small group, no more than eight or ten posters, that has decided that there will be no discussion of any position on this issue other than their own. When anyone does have the temerity to post an opinion that doesn't match theirs, they pour into the thread and surround the heretic like a pack of jackals, screaming accusations of xenophobia and shouting, "Why do you hate brown people? Are you sure you're at the right forum? Maybe that other place (wink wink) would suit you better." This is a deliberate strategy to silence dissent, and it has mostly worked.

It's the same sort of rigid groupthink and eyewatering sanctimony that we here once associated with freepers and religious fundamentalists.

[sadiesworld]

166. Racist.

BUZZZZZZZ.

Bigot.
BUZZZZZZZ.

Xenophobe.
BUZZZZZZZ.


You may now return to posting conditioned on the use of elite-approved topics and positions. Thank-you.

(This segment of behavioral conditioning brought to you courtesy of Tyson Chicken)

[PsycheCC]

198. Love your posts, Sadie. You say a lot with few words. n/t

[Zookeeper]

172. OMG. Thank you, QC!

That's the only point I bother to make on these threads anymore.

Personal experience doesn't count. Concern for the wage suppression that largely affects African-Americans, legal immigrants and poor whites from traditionally economically depressed areas of the country doesn't matter. Environmental issues (water!) are suddenly no big deal. The fact that urban school districts all over the county (not just in the southwest and California) are suddenly having to stretch their meager resources to accommodate the non-English speaking children of citizens of Mexico....you'd have to be, um, a racist (?) to worry about the effect that has on poor African-American students. Bothered by a U.S. President being a poodle of Vincente Fox, his elite cronies and American big business? Well, don't say anything about it, because then you're taking it out on those poor "brown" illegal immigrants who couldn't possibly be expected to acknowledge the effect they have on many Americans and America communities (an attitude that seems pretty racist to me).

Yes, it is a vocal and hostile group, not at all interested in a real conversation. I know the background of a couple of posters they've called racist or xenophobic and I was embarrassed by their arrogance and stupidity. Nothing trumps ideology, even when someone posts that their own income has been affected ("Train for a new career," was one highly sympathetic response).

I greatly admire those DUers who continue to post despite the flaming. However, as the mother of two teenagers (and a pre-teen) I spend enough time and energy trying to reason with the unreasonable.

[PsycheCC]

187. Yes, QC. I've noticed this too.

We have a small group, no more than eight or ten posters, that has decided that there will be no discussion of any position on this issue other than their own. When anyone does have the temerity to post an opinion that doesn't match theirs, they pour into the thread and surround the heretic like a pack of jackals, screaming accusations of xenophobia and shouting, "Why do you hate brown people?

Is it really only eight or ten?

[QC]

194. Yeah, the most active are few, but...

their obsessiveness and sheer nastiness make up for that.

I have written to Skinner, and he agrees that it's frustrating, but he says all he can do is delete the offending posts.

Of course, when the offenders are willing to haunt the place 24/7 and gangbang everyone who disagrees, deleting a post now and then makes no difference.

That is how a few people are able to turn the whole site into a freeperesque cesspool.

[Critters2]

277. I can think of two posters in particular

that are guaranteed to show up and call any dissenters "racist" in every single immigration thread.

It's easier than thinking, I guess.

[PsycheCC]

279. I wonder if we're thinking of the same two?

;) I guess it wouldn't be much of a surprise if we were. :rant:

[hansberrym]

88. Great post !!! (n/t)

[PsycheCC]

91. Thanks!

[Zynx]

89. You made a statement against all immigration, not just illegals.

Might I ask where your ancestors came from?

[PsycheCC]

90. When the Senate plan could bring in 100 million (some say 200

million) legal immigrants over the next 20 years, legal immigration does become a concern for anyone who will have to compete with those people for jobs, housing, etc. Certainly, in the past, immigrants contributed greatly to the building of this nation. I'm not sure this will continue to be the case given the push from corporate America for more cheap labor even in the face of a real unemployment rate around 7% if you compute it truthfully. Check out Unlawful's Blog or forum for details on this.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

98. I know, we're not even pretending it's just "illegals" that we're against

anymore.

Go figure, huh.

[unlawflcombatnt]

111. Illegals

No, you're pretending it is all immigrants. In fact, this is about ILLEGAL immigration and about the Senate trying to make all of the would-be illegal immigrants of the future into legal immigrants.

What a novel way to deal with law breakers. Just get rid of the law they're breaking. Then they're all legal.

Why don't you make killing someone legal while you're at it? Then there would be a lot less murder, since it wouldn't be a crime to kill someone.

Yeah, that's the solution to illegal immigration. Just eliminate all of our immigration laws and make it legal for anyone to come here. Problem solved. And American workers would be making $2/day, like most of their 3rd world counterparts. And we'd all just be as happy as clams, wouldn't we.

[unlawflcombatnt]

92. Kick and a Vote

:applause:

[primative1]

96. Know Thy Enemy ...

This immigration debate realy has created some nice divisions, perhaps intentionaly. I say this because I am divided in my own mind. Parts of this plan I like, along with parts of that one and the other .....
I find it refreshing to debate with people from the far right to realy gather perspective, not the blatent racists, but the remanants of the trickle downers ... thats where you get the realy sinister stuff, the stuff that makes you think.
In the end the debate seams not to center around fences or deportation or language. The little fuzzy grape on the bottom of the bag that no one will touch is the "guest" worker program.
I mean, we live in a nation of chronic unemployed, underemployed,"discouraged" workers and yet we all blindly accept the NEED for these new workers, who will never quite be real people as they wont be citizen-want-to-bes or anything like that ... basicaly these will be people who will get trucked back and forth to do whatever at whatever rate the powers that be seem to see fit ... Think of this.
When I argue that this will act to reduce opportunity and reward for those of us here already I get countered with some economic theory about how this is only menial labor and by using "guests" to do the dirty work it will free up labor for other purposes? What other purposes? There are none. Volantarily left to pursue other opportunity is the modern psudonym for "your fired". You have to learn the new language to understand the intent.
And these sub standard wages for our "guests" .. well the neocon mind says these will be determined by the free market and the employer should be free to determine the rate of pay without ineffective price controls dictating this ... which touches on the question of the unconstitutionality of requiring employers to pay minimum wage which our new supreme court eerily is rumoured to be looking at.
My take is this.
If the supposed free market has determined that laborors in America are being replaced by guest qorkers because that market has determined that the US laboror has priced themselves out of competition, then the same should be said of the employer. We should not endorse the equivalant of slavery.
If Jack the lettuce plantation owner has determined that he can only grow lettuce profitably by importing desperate and gullable foreigners to do the dirty work then I say that the same free market has determined that Jack shouldnt be running a lettuce plantation. It just aint profiatble and slavery isnt the solution to make it so.
We didnt ink the bad trade deals that put us in this position and we shouldnt sit back idly while politicians on both sides attempt to address the problem of fixing the trade imbalance by putting our labor markets more on par with that of china.

[unlawflcombatnt]

114. Economic Theory

Primative 1,

I agree with your overall view. I think you're right on target.

But there is no "economic theory" that even suggests that illegal immigration is good for the country. It's simply NeoCon-Artist economic fantasy to make such claims. As you have stated, there is no shortage of American workers to fill jobs. There is, however, a shortage of employers willing to pay enough to hire Americans. And there would be no such "employer" shortage if they didn't have the option of illegally hiring cheaper labor. "Comprehensive" immigration reform is all about maintaining this "illegal" option by making it legal.

There is no such thing as American workers having "priced themselves out of the market." That's Neocon-Artist supply-side gibberish, masquerading as economic theory. Economic theory states that if you can't hire enough workers at a given price, you'll have to increase the pay to hire enough workers. And that's exactly what Corporate America would have to do if we even enforced existing laws, never mind any new ones.

But this debate has nothing to do with protecting American workers, or even illegal alien workers. It has to do with protecting Corporate America's cheap labor supply, and even increasing it if possible.

[primative1]

126. Theory not Valid

There is a theory, it just isnt any more valid then trickle down was. But sadly it is being passed about and sadly noone is stepping up against it. Looking out at where we are blindly being led, I see a complete wasteland.

[ellisonz]

97. Reality Based Solutions

Dear Poster,

This issue is of course much more complex than you or I percieve it as being (immigration), your heart is in the right place, but your brain isn't translating that very well. Suffice to say, the answer is not simply to "ENFORCE STRICT, COSTLY SANCTIONS AGAINST EMPLOYERS OF ILLEGAL ALIENS," and I assure that no problem ever solves itself. Nothing in this life is free, we've got to work hard on everything, otherwise we will go back to nothing. The trick is to look at both sides of the equation in looking for an applicable solution.

Three significant factors of the percieved problem:
(1) Human trafficking - this provides the means and the motivation for the illicit smuggling that occurs across our southern border. Want to hurt the drug cartels, put a real dent in the human trafficking web. This means going to the source: the individual human motivations for actions. The smugglers are easy, greed, the workers are not so easily assigned negative motivation, most simply want to create a better future for themselves and their families. We can increase border security by creating a fair guest worker program for the NAFTA and CAFTA states. If this happened, the smugglers would be left with drugs as the primary source of income, and I assure you it will be much easier to target drug smuggling once the human trafficking element has been removed.
(2) Multinationalist corporations - the "ist" is the key part. Globalization has made these types of corporations much more predominant in the marketplace. Globalization isn't going anywhere, rather we've got to make globalization work for everyone. We need to limit outsourcing - some isn't harmful, and in fact it's probably beneficial to grow foreign markets intelligently - but we need to stop the wholesale movement of industries overseas. Moderation is the key in this regard, too much and you'll send the global economy into a dive, to little and nothing will change.
(3) Real overseas development - why do people want to come here? There's more opportunity in America than anywhere else, so the way to alleviate drastic labor imbalances is through sustainable development. It would seem to me that NGO's are much more effective at this than national governments, so although the G8 must provide much of the bankroll, it would be better off working through existing programs that demonstrate success (microloans, direct aid, subsidization). We also need to create the types of international and national organizations that can perform the neccessary oversight, it benefits no one to have poorly paid workers that are inefficient and die young. Quite simply put: we need to create more equality of opportunity around the globe so productivity doesn't become so stilted in favor of foreign markets.

It is high time for America to assume a leadership role in the world, nothing will happen unless the Americans are on board, and to get on board we need to elect new leadership. W and his friends are no solution at all, and I wouldn't trust a single word that comes out of their mouths, they aren't interested in real solutions for real people, they're interested in self-advancement. W isn't about an "us" and a "them," he's about "me, me, me." We at DU shouldn't be joining him in creating that convenient misperception. We are all in this together.

[PsycheCC]

113. Democrats are already divided on this issue. The purpose of

my original post was to remind DU members of this fact. You make good points, and some of your suggestions would certainly help alleviate immigration problems, but I stand behind the logic of punishing employers of illegal aliens as a good near term solution to this problem. I'm less inclined to try to fix the world than you, but I respect your point of view.

You imply that I'm naive, though my "heart is in the right place." I assure you, I have read, thought, and written about this subject plenty. Many agree with my view, as many agree with yours. What's wrong with honest disagreement? Sweeping it under the rug to present some phony, united Democratic front is ridiculous. I agree with all you say about Bush but fail to see how it's relevant as I'm not joining him in creating any misperception.

[ellisonz]

121. Well...

...I imagine we've had quite different expierences of immigration, both "legal" and "illegal", my personal expierence as someone who grew up in Los Angeles is that you're going to have an awfully hard time even finding all the folks who employ illegal immigrants. I'm not sure you appreciate how truly ingrained illegal labor is in our culture and economy.

Ok, so you send out your state official to fine these businesses, there are thousands if not tens of thousands of businesses that employ illegal labor. So you find one and you fine the business - government pockets the money - an American businessman has been hurt and a Mexican or Central American man or women is out of a job, where do these two people go from here? Is the immigrant to walk home back across the border? Deportation? How heavy of a fine are we talking here? Is the businessman now unemployed?

The result of these nearsighted short-term solutions such as going after employers pocketbooks or sending the National Guard to the border is that it is more likely to create disorder than order, which at this point in time is probably not what we want because the economy is weak and the country is at war. What happens when white people start losing their jobs because they employed illegals? What happens if the smugglers start fighting back against the National Guard? The idea that there are quick and easy solutions is the misperception.

You're not solving anything with those sorts of solutions, we need to go back to the drawing table and reasses our entire policy because its quite obviously got some serious hitches. There's nothing wrong with honest disagreement. But I think all too often "honest disagreement" is the rug that serious issues get swept under because they're inconvenient to think about.

The Democratic front is not phoney, in fact, for the purposes of political ends it is quite simple. The Democratic party must stand for a real change in direction in 2008 otherwise it'll be back to the doghouse for the party. We can't afford to stop at "honest disagreement," we've got to keep working, keep thinking, keep arguing, because that's how we get real solutions to real problems. Politics isn't about fronts, "the logic of" anything, and half-measures. Politics is about people, it is about formulating the best possible policy and then delivering it to the benefit of as many as possible. Too many people are directly affected by this issue to let division reign in our party, this is too important. Politics at the end of the day is about compromise, it's the only way anything ever gets done.

[PsycheCC]

122. Here's my "nearsighted" response to this.

Who says we have to find all of the employers? I'm sure you understand the concept of deterrence. Prosecute a few and most of the rest will cease hiring illegals.

Some problems do have simple solutions, but people who don't like those solutions try to obfuscate by creating complexity that doesn't exist. You appear to be one of these people. Maybe you have a future in politics.

[ellisonz]

150. "I'm sure you understand the concept of deterrence."

Give me an example of deterrence working on an issue this big? The drug war? The death penalty and mandatory minimum sentencing? Corporate ethics? Ballistic missiles (It would seem that this is the only arguable one, but we're talking about large groups of people reducing Armaggedon to a simple procedur)?

I'm not obfuscating, I'm trying to think in the terms of what we do in terms of policy.
My friend, we're all politicians now! And if we believe Aristotle we've been political creatures since just about day one of community. What is happening now is that the false story of the right of divide and conquor is being advanced in order to create fear and disarray in the election cycle, commonly called wedge issues, this recent hubbub about immigration and the National Guard is nothing but pure political hokey.

Yes it's a real issue, but I assure that nothing major has changed in the systematic fabric of the immigration issue, both legal and illegal, since Bush II came into office to justify such a move at this point in time. He's had 5 years to do this, why now?

They are messaging, messaging and messaging again, there are no simple solutions to questions that very rarily get reduced to simple equations at the beginning of a "serious political crisis" for this administration aka election time. Bushco knows how to play politics too. It's not an "us" vs. "them" type of problem at all. This is a human problem, you're never going to end up with a one clause solution to a problem. This is also fundamentally an economic issue, and I don't see what is gained by throwing rocks. We as Citizens are responsible for defending our democratic rights when it all comes down on the line. The Republicans know what's on the line, we've got to too and the sooner we react collectively the better for our country. We've got to fight for the short term in cohesion with longer term objectives, dissidence is fine, a muddled message on election day is bad for all. "them" can't win if they don't balance "us" at least equally, hence the popularity around the world of coalition government. Compromise.

[PsycheCC]

169. Are you sure you're not already in Congress?

Most people are deterred by the threat of prosecution, and business would be very concerned about large fines attached to hiring illegals. For them, the bottom line is everything. "This is also fundamentally an economic issue, and I don't see what is gained by throwing rocks." This is the second reference you've made to wanting to avoid hurting employers. There is everything to gain from "throwing rocks" at employers who hire illegals to avoid paying fair wages to citizens.

I'm sorry, I just don't buy the "divide and conquer" argument. Both sides are using this issue for political purposes. Neither side really wants to control immigration because both sides benefit more politically from having the issue to argue than they would from solving it. My point is that middle class Americans are hurt by excessive immigration, and almost no politicians speak for them.

Sure, Bush and company have timed their actions based on the coming election. Immigration has been a major issue in many areas of the country for many years. People have been demanding action for a long time, many communities passing laws to try to address the problems resulting from an open border. All one need do is look at the polls to see how Democrats should deal with immigration if they seek to win elections. (I know, another simple solution). The vast majority of Americans want the border closed first and foremost. They remember the amnesty of the Regan era, when promises were made to enforce immigration laws and close the border. Those promises weren't kept, leading directly to the problems we face now.

Again, this is no accident. Right-wing corporatists want that cheap labor. Democrats can argue this issue all day and never find the perfect solution. You're right, the answer will be compromise, but we have to start somewhere. Despite your argument against my "near-sighted solution," I still think most non-hardened criminals are deterred by the threat of prosecution. Employer sanctions would go along ways toward solving the problems of illegal immigration. I can't imagine who wouldn't support such sanctions except, perhaps employers of illegal aliens.

[Popol Vuh]

124. I like your post

Except I don't like using the word "illegal aliens", especially in the context like they are part of the problem. I 100% agree with your view point with respect to corporations, but maybe we could see the group of human beings who are the victims mostly of our trade policies and our corporations as what they are -- the result of our own doing.

And maybe put yourself in their shoes for a moment and consider what it would be like if some other country in the world did to us what we do to other countries and put you into a position of looking at your starving family and having to make a decision of continuing to starve, or cross the border into the land that is largely the cause of your situation and get a job there so you can feed your family (a land that your ancestors are native to by the way).

[PsycheCC]

140. Your point is valid. Certainly the governments and corporations

who created this situation are far more responsible for the problem than those who came here for jobs. But in a small way, I am "in their shoes." I'm watching my own country become more like Mexico everyday. I believe Lyonn made a similar point elsewhere in this thread. When it comes down to it, I think we need to act to protect our own endangered middle class before we worry about the citizens of other nations. Look at all the stories on this thread alone of U.S. citizens who have been harmed by our current policies.

My whole point is simply that I'm not going to vote for anyone who puts the interests of big business and other nations' citizens above the interests of their own people. I realize many think this position is unkind, and you're right, those in power here helped create the problem. But why should those of us who did nothing but work hard for fair wages pay the price?

[sadiesworld]

132. Lots of great info and commentary in this thread.

:kick:

[Hippo_Tron]

151. Yea, but the Bush Administration hurts the middle class a lot more

Can we make them illegal too?

[Bridget Burke]

159. Are you against ALL immigrants?

That's what the title said.

I doubt the Middle Class is being hurt by undocumented workers.

[PsycheCC]

167. I'm against the massive increased immigration the Senate is

proposing. 66 million new immigrants (some estimates go to between 100 and 200 million) in the next 20 years will have a huge impact on middle class wages. Plenty of posts in this thread give examples of how immigration is currently hurting the middle class if you would like to read them.

I am not against immigration, but we already allow more immigrants than any other nation. I don't see the need to triple it when our own middle class loses. Real, inflation adjusted wages are DOWN in the last five years. Again, there is a wealth of information throughout this thread, with opinions on both sides of the issue.

[Digit]

233. If we had the jobs to support it, it would be a different matter entirely

I am unemployed, and have been for over a year.

[PsycheCC]

234. Yes, and that's what makes this wave of immigration harmful, as

opposed to earlier immigration was beneficial. We needed more people to work and build the nation. Now, too many new workers who aren't needed will just further depress wages and increase job competition, keeping our own current citizens unemployed. You and all unemployed people deserve better from their government than policies that make the situation worse.

[unlawflcombatnt]

235. 7 million Illegal Workers

And your situation isn't being helped by the employment of 7 million illegal workers by businesses and Corporate America. Those are 7 million more jobs Americans could have taken, and would have taken for a higher wage, if Corporate America didn't have the option of ignoring the law and hiring illegal immigrants for less.

[yourout]

164. And helps the Rich Pukes.

[unlawflcombatnt]

182. Exactly

It has the same effect as bringing back slavery. Get as much labor as possible performed by as low a waged worker as possible.

[primative1]

183. Prevailing wage debate

Seems that when it comes to lettuce pickers our glorious leadership was able to surmise and immedietly point out the plans effect on wages and opportunity

snip

Critics argued that Chambliss' proposal would result in a reduction in already low wages. "They'll be treated the same, but they'll be treated shabbily," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy

Now why cant they manage to somehow extrapolate that tidbit of knowledge to the rest of society.

[unlawflcombatnt]

185. Yes

Exactly. The underlying support for this legislation, especially the financial backing, comes from business groups and Corporate interests concerned only with keeping wages suppressed.

The elite in the Senate are serving only the interests of their big campaign donors in the "cheap labor lobby," not the interests of their constituents.

This is the epitome of a Corporatocracy, when legislation is determined exclusively by Big Money interests, not by voters.

[unlawflcombatnt]

184. Wage Suppression vs. Price Reductions

According to a recent article in the New York Times, there are 7.2 million illegal immigrants working in the United States. The suppression of wages caused by immigration is the highest in Hispanics. According to economist George Borjas, from 1980 to 2000, the wages of native-born Hispanics were reduced 5%. The wages of blacks were reduced 4.5%, whites by 3.5%, and overall wages were reduced 4% Below is a partial copy of a New York Times chart showing this information.



Also note the minuscule increase in produce prices would result from a 40% wage increase in agricultural worker wages. Such an increase would add 2 to 3 cents per dollar to the cost of produce.

Immigration suppresses wages 4%, or about $1700 per year per worker. But immigrant labor saves us $9/year on produce costs.

Hmmmmmm. Tough choice here. Do we want to save $9/year in produce costs and lose $1700/year in wages? I think I'd rather pay the extra $9 for produce and get $1700/year more in wages. I think I'd think that would put me $1691/year ahead.

[unlawflcombatnt]

186. Wage Decline

Below is graph from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics showing the steady decline in wages over the last several years. Do you suppose 7 million extra workers might be lowering those wages some?



The link for this graph can be found at Real Hourly Wages

I wonder what kind of an effect the addition of 66-100+ million more workers will have on this wage chart over the next 20 years. If our labor force increased at the current assumed rate of 150,000/month, that would be an increase in our workforce of 36 million over 20 years. If we double or triple the rate of labor force increase, won't it cause real wages to decline? They're declining at present with a much smaller rate of increase. So wouldn't a faster rate of increase cause wages to decrease even faster?

Increased supply of anything always reduces the price. If the supply of labor increases even faster, won't that reduce the price (wages) of labor even faster?

[unlawflcombatnt]

190. Senate Vote on Immigration Bill

Below is a link to today's Senate vote on the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, S. 2661, which passed 62-36. with 2 not voting.

23 Republicans and 38 Democrats voted FOR the bill.

32 Republicans and 4 Democrats voted AGAINST the bill.


The link to this vote can be found at:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/109/senate/2/votes/157/


Below is a list of Democrats who voted FOR the bill:

Daniel Akaka, Max Baucus, Evan Bayh, Joseph Biden, Jeff Bingaman, Barbara Boxer, Maria Cantwell, Thomas Carper, Hillary Clinton, Kent Conrad, Mark Dayton, Christopher Dodd, Dick Durbin, Russell Feingold, Dianne Feinstein, Tom Harkin, Daniel Inouye, Tim Johnson, Edward Kennedy, John Kerry, Herb Kohl, Mary Landrieu, Frank Lautenberg, Patrick Leahy, Carl Levin, Joseph Lieberman, Blanche Lincoln, Robert Menéndez, Barbara Mikulski, Patty Murray, Bill Nelson, Barack Obama, Mark Pryor, Jack Reed, Harry Reid, Paul Sarbanes, Chuck Schumer, Ron Wyden

Democrats voting AGAINST the bill:

Robert Byrd, Byron Dorgan, Ben Nelson, Debbie Stabenow


Democrats not voting on the bill: Jay Rockefeller, Kenneth Salazar



Republicans voting FOR the bill:

Robert Bennett, Sam Brownback, Lincoln Chafee, Norm Coleman, Susan Collins, Larry Craig, Mike DeWine, Pete Domenici, Bill Frist, Lindsey Graham, Judd Gregg, Chuck Hagel, Richard Lugar, Mel Martinez, John McCain, Mitch McConnell, Lisa Murkowski, Gordon Smith, Olympia Snowe, Arlen Specter, Ted Stevens, George Voinovich, John Warner


Republicans voting AGAINST this bill:

Lamar Alexander, Wayne Allard, George Allen, Kit Bond, Jim Bunning, Conrad Burns, Richard Burr, Saxby Chambliss, Tom Coburn, William Cochran, John Cornyn, Michael Crapo, Jim DeMint, Elizabeth Dole, John Ensign, Michael Enzi, Charles Grassley, Orrin Hatch, Kay Bailey Hutchison, James Inhofe, Johnny Isakson, Jon Kyl, Trent Lott, Pat Roberts, Rick Santorum, Jeff Sessions, Richard Shelby, John Sununu, Jim Talent, Craig Thomas, John Thune, David Vitter

[sadiesworld]

191. I have no party.

:evilfrown:

[primative1]

192. The feeling is like a toothache ...

You kind of get used to it, but never can really completely forget it.

[unlawflcombatnt]

196. Me too

I know how you feel. Both parties have serious flaws. Both have failed miserably on this issue. Neither party wants to do anything to stop downward pressure on wages created by uncontrolled illegal immigration.

In fact, it seems both parties want to accelerate the downward pressure through either "earned amnesty," "guest workers," increase H1B visas, or all 3. Both parties seem dead set on making American workers compete for wages with the lowest paid workers on the planet, either through outsourcing to foreign slave-labor markets, or in-sourcing low-wage exploitable workers.

One of the Republicans supporting the Senate's treasonous Comprehensive Amnesty and Guest Worker Bill complained that it would not exclude the newly amnestied workers from Davis-Bacon. In other words, he's all for importing guest workers (guest slaves), but does not want business to be forced to pay prevailing wages to them, even when receiving Government (and taxpayer-funded) contracts. I'm sure he's also in favor of those same contracts being no-bid. Clearly his only concern about the "poor" immigrants is the profits made by the "poor" contractors who exploit them.

Again, this bill is not about helping illegal immigrants. It's about helping Corporate America profiteer from the wage suppression they cause.

Democrats need to realize the motivation behind this bill is keeping labor costs low by suppressing wages. It has nothing to do with the welfare of impoverished illegal immigrants, and everything to do with the welfare of Corporate America, who are already making record profits.

Those "poor," persecuted millionaires. How can they afford their million-dollar mansions and their fleets of Mercedes SUVs, without the cheap labor provided by illegal immigration? Surely more compassion for America's most affluent is warranted, isn't it?

[lumberjack_jeff]

200. Very well said. n/t

[unlawflcombatnt]

197. Intolerance

I ran into a post today on immigration that was LOCKED by the Administrators because allegedly because it used the "ConservativeVoice" as one of its sources. The post can be found at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2646262#2646262

I guess we're entitled to our own opinions, as long as they don't disagree with those of the moderators.

[DavidOsborne_mp]

201. Since we are sharing letter to congress........here is mine

MY OPEN LETTER TO CONGRESS !

Respectfully,

David

[proud2BlibKansan]

202. Bad link David

[DavidOsborne_mp]

203. sorry if the link didn't work..here it is

http://www.angelfire.com/biz4/davidosborne/imgletter.pdf

[IndyJones]

209. Spot on letter!!!

[GetTheRightVote]

205. Thank you David, I love your support of the legal citizens

of this nation. I only hope there are many more of us out there. I speak to people everyday on this issue and they so far have all agreed with my views. The Senate should be taking care of their own citizens not those of a foreign nation.

:kick:

[unlawflcombatnt]

216. Exactly

GetTheRightVote,

I couldn't agree more. The Senate is elected by the American people. That's who they should be serving. Not foreign nationals. Not Corporate interests.

Illegal Immigration Suppresses Wages

[PsycheCC]

210. Your letter is a good detailed summary of the current status of the

immigration legislation. I looked at your web site, and while we obviously don't agree on a lot, immigration is one area where we have common ground. Thanks for posting it.

[DavidOsborne_mp]

219. common ground

Thank you for not engaging me on other issues.. . we are fighting a VERY important battle here and congres needs to hear from us as UNITED AMERICANS ... not Republicans or Democrts ..

Respectfully,

David

[GetTheRightVote]

204. I am with you in situation as well as thoughts.

You are correct in your thinking.

:kick:

[PsycheCC]

211. Thanks!

[unlawflcombatnt]

218. Kick

:kick:

[DavidOsborne_mp]

220. my letter in jpg

[unlawflcombatnt]

221. Excellent

I agree, except I think I'd list enforcement of current immigration laws first.

[ny_liberal]

226. Great letter - did you get your "form letter" response?

[PsycheCC]

227. Thanks! Since I called to say I'm never voting for either of my

California Senators again (after they voted for the Senate's amnesty package), I think I may not even get the form letter. This one issue will determine how I vote for some time to come. If I can't find someone who will put Americans first, I won't vote for anyone.

[MockSwede]

228. Like it!

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[PsycheCC]

261. Thanks MockSwede! n/t

[pooja]

231. We wouldn't even have an "illegal problem" if it was impossible

for "illegals" to work in the United States.

But on the other hand... Americans need to get a grip. What teen is out there these days mowing Mr. Brown's lawn to earn him a little extra so he can buy that super cool silver charger (bicycle) from Mr. Hooper's General Store. Gee Whiz gang.. wake up... you want Americans to work in America at all jobs stop treating your children like they were Paris Hilton and teach traditional values.

Middle America treats their children like royalty... big everything... the value of a job is lost. The work your way ethic is lost. I tell my mother everyday when I complain about money and lack of... that she gave me too much. I didn't learn to earn my money.. everything was instant and fit neatly on credit cards. Don't get me wrong, I was good with money until I met my husband and moved to Florida (1 royal debt and one royal stupid move). At the same time unless you have a descent pay check you will be living in the ghetto...

[PsycheCC]

262. Great point, pooja!

I taught high school until a few years ago, and during my tenure, I saw a lot of change in the work ethic. I must say though, that I saw signs of its re-emergence during the last several years that I taught. More kids doing all or almost all of their homework--that kind of thing. BUT I couldn't believe how many kids had cell phones "so their parents could reach them." Occasionally, a parent would even call during class time. Very strange world, in my opinion.

[unlawflcombatnt]

232. Kick

:kick:

[iconoclastNYC]

236. Not as much as UNION BUSTING hurts the middle class

Lets not fall for the right-wing distractions. Let's worry about OUR agenda.

[Bridget Burke]

237. Crowded schools, worsening health care....

Crumbling infrastructure, threatened environment, fewer rights for workers. All that tax money wasted on illegal wars--that could be better spent over here. (Not to mention the people who keep dying.)

The Republicans would LOVE for us to blame the Mexicans!

[PsycheCC]

239. I blame both parties for failing to fine employers of illegal aliens.

Neither party is willing to give up the corporate donors who want all that cheap labor. Some of the issues you list are a result of our failure to control our borders. The war is, of course, a huge mess, but not related to immigration, as I'm sure you and everyone else know.

[Bridget Burke]

240. The immigration "crisis" is a manufactured wedge issue.

The money wasted on the war would go pretty far to solve the problems currently blamed on the immigrants. I surely know that.

[PsycheCC]

242. Says you. In Southern California, Democrats on every corner

will tell you it feels like a very real crisis, not a manufactured "wedge" issue. And just about everyone wishes we weren't in Iraq, but again, unrelated. Once again, I blame employers who hire illegal aliens and cut wages of all workers in the process.

[Bridget Burke]

246. Do California Democrats really hang out on street corners?

From Houston, Texas, things don't look so dire.

Anti-immigration hysteria ranks with anti-gay-marriage as issues meant to drive the war from the news.

[PsycheCC]

252. I don't claim expertise on Houston, but I've read that it has benefited

greatly from the Bush administration's policies on oil/energy. Beyond that I have no idea why things don't look dire there. And of course my comments are only anecdotal, no proof of the general attitude toward immigration in California as a whole. The Zogby poll posted below, however, does support my opinion that the United States is opposed not only to illegal immigration, but also to increased legal immigration.

As to the war, yes immigration distracts from the war, but I disagree with the assumption that it does so because those of us opposing it are simply pawns in the Republicans' larger game. Democrats will lose seats in the coming elections if they don't wake up and realize that this issue matters tremendously to their constituents.

[PsycheCC]

269. Any why all this linkage between immigration and gay marriage?

To listen to some, one would think that all who oppose illegal immigration must also oppose gay marriage. What nonsense.

[unlawflcombatnt]

245. Great Reasons to Reduce Illegal Immigration

"Crowded schools, worsening health care....
Crumbling infrastructure, threatened environment, fewer rights for workers."

These are all excellent reasons why illegal immigration needs to be reduced or eliminated. Thanks for making those points.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

Economic Patriots' Forum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[Bridget Burke]

247. The Republicans thank you for deflecting blame .....

From their tax policies that let the rich & corporations out of paying their share. And for ignoring their nasty little war.

Your sources: (1) A blog from a physician who took up economics on the side & (2) Your own discussion forum.

I'm glad that sites run by the major anti-immigration groups have been discredited. Even the ones that appear more reasonable have been shown to be connected to the more obviously xenophobic & racist elements in the movement.

[PsycheCC]

253. It's about watching a way of life disappear to satisfy the desires of

the very corporations you mention. Unlawful has written plenty on tax policies, the redistribution of wealth to the rich, the problems of corporations refusing to share increased profits with workers, etc.

This argument that interest in immigration issues deflects blame from Republicans is a false one, in my opinion. This issue is currently being debated in Congress and deserves the attention of anyone interested in the future economic health of the country.

And why is it that the "race card" is always played after all other arguments fail? All through this thread and others on DU, people have given personal examples of how they've been hurt by employers who have pushed for open borders and increased immigration. What about our own citizens? Can we never put them first without being called racist?

[Critters2]

278. So you missed the article in the Tribune about

Latinos who oppose open borders. Are they racist?

[PsycheCC]

238. "Let's worry about OUR agenda"? Democrats disagree on this issue.

When you say OUR agenda, I think you mean the one you like best. Democrats could win House seats this year if they would just listen to the will of all the people on immigration.

[Quequeg]

241. Democrats would win on a platform of reduced immigration

I was watching C-Span a couple of weeks ago in the morning before work. The topic was the Democratic party and within a span of 10 minutes, 3 callers said they think the Democrats should take a stand on better controlling the borders.

One guy (who identified himself as a black man) said something like, "The Democrats would have it made, if it weren't for the immigration issue. The Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot when they keep pushing this amnesty."

There were 2 other callers who said basically the same thing. One of them identified herself as a black woman.

So, this is not about white supremacists in the Republican party. This is an issue which concerns people of all ethnicities in both parties.

A Zogby poll came up with the following conclusion:
New Poll: Americans Prefer House Approach on Immigration

Support for the House approach was widespread, with 81 percent of Republicans, 72 percent of independents, 57 percent of Democrats, and 53 percent of Hispanics saying it was good or very good idea.

www.StopGlobalism.com

[PsycheCC]

243. Based on polls, you're absolutely right Quequeg. Yet Dems are handing

the issue to the Republicans all tied up with a bow like a gift for the 2006 election.

[unlawflcombatnt]

244. Absolutely Right

You're right on target about immigration. Just from the sentiment on this board it appears a large majority of Democrats want illegal immigration reduced or eliminated. And they certainly would pick up a lot of working class support with a tough stand on immigration.

As the poll you posted showed, over 60% of Democrats want illegal immigration reduced. It's about time the elite in the Democratic party started listening to their constituents, instead of the Corporate lobbyists who donate to their campaigns hoping to protect their source of cheap illegal labor.

Thanks for posting the link. Here's a copy of the polls from the link:





unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

Economic Patriots' Forum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[Bridget Burke]

248. More information from your source: the Center for Immigration Studies.

From Rightweb--with contributions from the Southern Poverty Law Center:

The Center for Immigration Studies describes itself as "the nation's only think tank devoted exclusively to research and policy analysis of the economic, social, demographic, fiscal, and other impacts of immigration on the United States." Founded in 1985 as a think tank to support the more activist work of the anti-immigrant Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), CIS is dedicated "to expand the base of public knowledge and understanding of the need for an immigration policy that gives first concern to the broad national interest. The Center is animated by a pro-immigrant, low-immigration vision which seeks fewer immigrants but a warmer welcome for those admitted."

CIS describes itself as “independent” and “nonpartisan,” but its studies, reports, and media releases consistently support its restrictionist agenda and works closely on Capitol Hill with Republican Party immigration restrictionists. However, CIS has achieved credibility with the media and in think tank circles because of its lack of the kind of strident anti-immigrant rhetoric associated with many restrictionist groups, its willingness to invite pro-immigrant voices to its forums, and the scholarly format of its reports....

"Let’s be clear,” wrote Frank Sharry of the National Immigration Forum, “CIS was birthed by FAIR, the militant anti-immigration group. The CIS executive director moved from FAIR to CIS to head up the organization. Although now independent, the two organizations share the same basic agenda: an American version of what in Europe is called ‘zero immigration.’” According to Sharry, CIS masquerades as an objective, “squeaky clean” think tank, but CIS is “simply churning out high-sounding, low-credibility grist for the high-pitch, low-road anti-immigration forces in the United States.” This assessment of CIS is widely shared among pro-immigrant groups, but CIS studies are not only frequently cited by the “low-road” nativist forces but also by major news media.

CIS has also been critiqued as being part of a network of anti-immigrant groups that cater to a white supremacist constituency by right-wing economic libertarians who believe in the benefits of mass and unfettered immigration. A Wall Street Journal op-ed (June 15, 2004), that was widely praised and circulated by pro-immigrant groups, reported that despite the fact that CIS “may strike right-wing poses in the press,” it and other like-minded groups “support big government, mock federalism, deride free markets, and push a cultural agenda abhorrent to any self-respecting social conservative.” A follow-up article in the Wall Street Journal titled “Borderline Republicans” described the anti-immigration network this way: “CIS, FAIR, NumbersUSA, ProjectUSA—and more than a half-dozen similar groups that Republicans have become disturbingly comfortable with—were founded or funded (or both) by John Tanton. In addition to trying to stop immigration to the U.S., appropriate population control measures for Dr. Tanton and his network include promoting China’s one-child policy, sterilizing Third World women, and wider use of RU-486.” Replying to this charge, Krikorian wrote in National Review Online that CIS does not take a “position on anything that does not involve U.S. immigration policy.”

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1452

Are YOU Doctor Mike?

[unlawflcombatnt]

249. CIS not a Right-Wing Group

"CIS has also been critiqued as being part of a network of anti-immigrant groups that cater to a white supremacist constituency by right-wing economic libertarians who believe in the benefits of mass and unfettered immigration. A Wall Street Journal op-ed (June 15, 2004), that was widely praised and circulated by pro-immigrant groups, reported that despite the fact that CIS “may strike right-wing poses in the press,” it and other like-minded groups “support big government, mock federalism, deride free markets, and push a cultural agenda abhorrent to any self-respecting social conservative."

So based on this statement, CIS is not a Right-Wing libertarian organization. By default it sounds like an organization that is opposed by Right-Wingers, who are always in quest of cheaper labor.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

Economic Patriots' Forum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[Bridget Burke]

250. Then CIS needs to repudiate its roots...

And stop being the "acceptable" face of the racists behind the anti-immigration movement.

www.politicalcortex.com/story/2006/4/8/21947/90571

[unlawflcombatnt]

251. That's Your Opinion, Nothing More

I've researched their site extensively and there's nothing even slightly "racist" about them. You're stating nothing but your own opinion, which is not shared by most readers.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

Economic Patriots' Forum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[unlawflcombatnt]

255. Still No Proof of Racism or Xenophobia - just empty rhetoric

You post as "proof" another writer's biased opinion about CIS being racist. There's nothing there but blind, unsubstantiated allegations and name calling of "racist" and "xenophobe."

This is all that open-borders advocates have left. Just call everyone a racist or a xenophobe when you run out of arguments. And that point comes early, since there aren't any reasonable arguments in favor of illegal immigration. These claims are nothing but a smokescreen to cover up the illegal activity of the employers who hire illegal immigrants, as well as the illegal immigrants themselves.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotsForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[inthebrain]

270. Didn't know that the CIS was founded by a racist

That's interesting.

Even more interesting is that the anti immigrant crowd keeps crowing that they are the majority. Seems that many on this board have repudiated their arguments with facts. It's a real simple bait and switch; plant landmines around our safey nets then claim it's the illegals stealing jobs.

THe simple fact of the matter is that Jobs are created and wages are raised when labor can afford to withhold their labor. THe simple fact of that matter is that the laws do little to punish exploitation. They offer slap on the wrist fines for an employer who refuses to pay their employees and I'm sure many are familiar with that scenerio.

It's also very simple that it's the status of illegal citizenship, not the illegals themselves, that is the root of the problem. More labor simply means more consumers. More consumers and labor means more avenues to citizen action through boycotts and strikes.

Those that are trusting the government to expel immigrants as an avenue to higher wages still haven't explained how that will be so. American corporations are just as capable to exploit on the other side of the border. A mass exodius of immigrants will lead to nothing more than human rights disaster and futher exploitation.

THe only toold labor has to raise wages is to withhold their labor collectivly. Even in that scenerio the govenment will always find ways TO MAKE YOU WORK. They already have done that through removing and crippeling many of our safety nets.

[PsycheCC]

271. You have a problem with ZOGBY?

"Even more interesting is that the anti immigrant crowd keeps crowing that they are the majority."

http://www.cis.org/articles/2006/2006poll.html

This ZOGBY poll speaks for itself.

[PsycheCC]

254. Actually, the source was a Zogby poll that was posted on CIS's site.

Zogby is a well-respected pollster among liberals.

[mrgorth]

256. Agreed

Build the wall.

[unlawflcombatnt]

257. Bump

:kick:

[sadiesworld]

258. .