-
It’s Not About Abortion—Except It Is
April 15, 2013 | 148 comments
-
A Think Tank With Action
April 6, 2013 | 0 comments
-
I Know Victoria’s Secrets
March 29, 2013 | 17 comments
-
The New Feminism
March 25, 2013 | 49 comments
-
Rand’s Band of Brothers
March 8, 2013 | 41 comments
The Borderline Spectator
Working Undercover
The immigration debate simmers quietly this summer.
While immigration may not dominate the headlines, it’s one of those issues that simmers under the surface and rises to the top with just the right news story. Such was the case with the now well-known yarn of the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who outed himself as an illegal in a recent issue of the New York Times Magazine. A new paperback released this week, Working in the Shadows: A Year of Doing the Jobs [Most] Americans Won’t Do, tells a similar story. The book is written by a white, American, Spanish-speaking journalist who spent a year doing migrant jobs.
In Working in the Shadows, Gabriel Thompson, a journalist who covers Latino culture, decides to go undercover and work several migrant jobs for two months at a time and detail his experiences. Thompson’s various jobs provide for eye-opening journalism. The work — he cuts lettuce in Yuma, tears chicken breasts at a poultry plant in Alabama, shuffles flowers and delivers food in New York City — is physically demanding and emotionally taxing. The hours are as long as the pay is small. Thompson’s reporting sheds light on dreadful migrant labor conditions — his peers in the bike-delivery industry are severely underpaid and overworked — but the political undertones in his book reek of common liberal arguments on the issue.
Those arguments have been popping up everywhere lately, since Jose Antonio Vargas — a Filipino shuffled in with fake papers who didn’t realize until his teens that he was, in fact, undocumented — came out in his 4,500-word piece. Vargas’ story is not entirely uncommon, but it is rare that someone of his profile — he shared the Pulitzer Prize with a group of Washington Post reporters for coverage of the Virginia Tech shootings — should out himself purposefully. Vargas spends most of his first-person narrative describing the logistics of maneuvering through typical American stepping stones, hurdles to him— Social Security cards, driver’s licenses, job applications — while declaring that his motivation was pure: He believed if he just contributed to American society in a major way, he would “earn” citizenship. It provokes a debate about self-worth as much as it does about immigration, but his attempts to solicit empathy about his hidden life grow tiresome and by his article’s conclusion incite the opposite emotion.
Writes Vargas: “There are believed to be 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States. We’re not always who you think we are. Some pick your strawberries or care for your children […] I grew up here. This is my home. Yet even though I think of myself as an American and consider America my country, my country doesn’t think of me as one of its own.”
No, America doesn’t. Just as scribbling down a few paragraphs does not a Pulitzer-Prize winner make. Never does Vargas contemplate that immigration restrictions exist for reasons that have little to do with him personally. This same mindset plagues Working in the Shadows (to which Vargas would probably give two thumbs up.)
Thompson uses his experiences to highlight both labor and immigration reform. It hardly seems fair to him that so many migrant workers — legal and illegal — are performing jobs Americans won’t do, yet their compensation, emotionally and financially, remains small. Indeed, many Americans won’t cut lettuce in the blistering Arizona sun for twelve hours a day, but then, many migrant workers aren’t willing to stay in their home country earning $10 a day for the same work, when they can earn nearly $9 an hour in Yuma.
Vargas tried to “earn” American citizenship through his vocation. Ironically, the migrant workers Thompson gets to know do as well. Both the undocumented and guest workers he meets seem glad to earn American wages with which they can support themselves and even loved ones back home.
Both Vargas’ and Thompson’s tales testify that in the right context, hard work and upward mobility go hand in hand. But neither makes a very compelling case that an entire country’s immigration policy should be based on the self-esteem of two unrepresentative individuals.
About the Author
Nicole Russell writes from Northern Virginia.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (80) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Nicole Russell
More Articles From The Borderline Spectator
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/07/12/working-undercover
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
btims| 7.12.11 @ 6:30AM
It has been decided....years ago, around the time of NAFTA, that the US will look the other way as waves upon waves of uneducated, poor Latino's cross the southern border into the United States. Business interests (and their GOP allies) would be served by having much cheap labor and political interests would be served by providing the Democrats with three out of four Latinos who naturally support big government social spending/programs. This policy has been supported by Bush I, Clinton, Bush II and now Barry Soetoro. Further, almost all major political leaders - McCain, Kerry, Kennedy (when he was alive), Reid, etc. all agree with this policy.
Most Americans want illegal immigration stopped by more quietly, most Americans also want LEGAL immgration at least reduced for the near future, as they have the common sense to see we are in a deep recession and the wisdom of allowing millions of foreigners, (latino and otherwise) to flood to our shores is well, ideological; it's surely not practical nor wise.
The global political elites favor minimalizing nation-states and thus borders; they are angling for world government - a utopian fantasy of a "borderless world".
Good luck with that.
Mark in LA| 7.12.11 @ 3:20PM
In your list of villians you left out the worst offender - the most stupid and worst President we ever had - Ronald Reagan. Not only did he saddle us with 3 million amnestied illegals in a fraud ridden law, he also left us with immigration laws so byzantine that it is virtually impossible to deport anybody who decides to fight a deportion order. Read Juan Mann's columns about the immigration court if you still think Reagan wasn't everything I say.
jppc| 7.12.11 @ 3:41PM
Ahh, Reagan, now he was one of our better presidents, for her tried to limit the scope and reach of the federal government, unlike libtard/academics/lawyers - Hussein bin Obambi, BJ Clinton and the worst president of all time - Jimma Carter.
When Reagan granted amnesty, it was for 1.5 million illegal amigos........but of course, Congress kept granting waivers and exceptions so the number went up to about 3 million.
Today, we probably have close to 20 million illegal aliens in the country. But again, illegal immigration will never be reduced until legal immigration is also. They have a symbiotic relationship with one another.
John Navratil| 7.12.11 @ 6:23PM
jppc,
The deal Reagan struck for a one-time amnesty included securing the border. Once again - snookered by a promise for action in the future. It's why every conservative I know, even ones who, like me, support a more permissive labour migration policy, insist on securing the border first. Once we control the border, we can address the immigration question. Until then, the question is moot.
TrueBlue| 7.13.11 @ 11:28AM
Land mines and electric fences... may not be pretty, but they work. Oh, and a really really deep trench too.
l5j6| 7.12.11 @ 6:49AM
In US immigraion history, we have traditionally had fairly high immigration for 20-30 years, then followed by low immigration for 20-30 years, which was intended to assimilate/Americanize said immigrants.
Today, we have been living with fairly high immigration for a good 30 years but especially high over the past 10-15 years. As bad as illegal immigration is, legal immigration is really the root of the problem.
You see, today legal immigrants are allowed to "sponsor" an almost unending number of relatives to bring to our country. This is the so called "family reunification" Latinos have relentlessly pushed for over the past decade or so. In the past, legal immigrants could sponsor a limited number of relatives - spouse, child - not their 1st cousins, 2nd cousins, uncles, aunts, great-grandma, etc. This is mainly how our population was sky-rocketed that past 10-15 years. Illegal immigration has definately contributed as well but the endless family chain immigration is the real reason.
With high unemployment forseen for years to come, why are we importing so many people?
White, liberal guilt is one (silly) reason. And that pertains to both parties.
Siegfried X| 7.12.11 @ 7:08AM
Which US President will push for illegal alien amnesty is 2014? Obama or Romney? Do we have one political party or two?
l5j6| 7.12.11 @ 7:43AM
We do have one party in this country - the Government Party.
DaveD| 7.12.11 @ 8:04AM
Illegal immigration should be stopped, but then again, when it comes time to replace your roof, the crew with the single interpreter comes in with the cheapest bid ...
CtoC| 7.12.11 @ 9:50AM
I have no problem with paying a fair price for good American work (and someone I can find if something goes wrong). Sure it's a little more money, but that is well worth it to not be part of the problem. If I am going to battle against opening our country to destructive forces - then yes I'm more than willing to pay the price to back up my word.
Bob Grant| 7.12.11 @ 10:24AM
I agree completely. After all, we WILL pay the price one way or the other.
Id rather pay on the front end via higher market wages rather than on the back end via the cost of adding an additional 15 to 20 million brand new citizens (entitlements, etc.) which is much, much more expensive.
Have you considered| 7.12.11 @ 12:59PM
Wholeheartedly agree!
While living in Indianapolis, in a historic district 2 miles from the city center, (where over the last 10 years, most signage along the US40 route were converted to Spanish Only) I made the decision to use a legal American contractor on the 2 major projects I had done, one being a complete roof tear off and replace, and 2 years later, I had my crumbling garage completely renovated.
I received several quotes, and although the the price was higher, I felt it important to use the legal contractor, who used legal American workers.
I never regretted it.
Bob Grant| 7.12.11 @ 4:01PM
Good on you!
loulou| 7.12.11 @ 12:17PM
I do not hire illegal aliens. Period.
Michael L. Hauschild| 7.12.11 @ 8:54AM
If you look at the Flake article headlining here today you will see that at AS it really is not “simmering,” it is out in the open. The pro-Bush amnesty, Napoliano supporting Flake is front and center. Why AS would feature someone who has fought tooth and nail for the “rights” of illegal aliens is beyond me. Arizona needs a new Senator but this illegal alien issue will also be front and center, amnesty will not be a campaign winning strategy. Maybe Palin will have some influence from her new digs.
Occam's Tool| 7.12.11 @ 10:49AM
I would say that at least 1/3 of the prison population I treated in New Mexico were undocumented aliens. 1/2 of all births in LA County, according to the LA County Dept of Health website, are to undocumented aliens.
We can't afford this. (I speak as the proud adoptive dad of two Guatemalan born, fully Americanized and legal American citizens.) People need to be here legally, or expelled with whatever force necessary.
Flatulus Ancien| 7.12.11 @ 8:54AM
"the crew with the single interpreter comes in with the cheapest bid ..."
The American Psyche is riddled with "get it cheap at all costs".
Illegal labor, Chinese imports, shoddy workmanship, no matter. Is it cheap?
Jobs Americans won't do? Why should a young, healthy American go to work in the hot sun when he can stay home and draw "Entitlements" equaling what he could earn working?
I can certainly understand a Mexican wanting to come to America for a better life, and would do it myself in the same situation. If the country I choose to enter does not enforce it's own laws, then so much the better for me.
Edgard| 7.12.11 @ 9:01AM
On 28 May 1953 I volunteered with the Belgian Batallion for Korea. We were attached to the 3rd US ID, 15th. Reg. We wore US uniforms,Used your Weapons, drew US rations had ID CARDS for access to Exchanges, we drew liqueur rations which we promptly exchanged for beer with our American friends. We also flew every 6 months on R&R to Japan on US PLANES, and were treated at the US Military Hospitals. Some of our guys even earned Silver and Bronze Stars. Our Batallion pulled out on 15 July 1955. We were allowed to keep wearing the US Dress Uniform on leave or liberty calls on weekends upon returning to our units, including the FOURAGERE and COMBAT RIFLES and US Unit Patches..
I returned to Korea as a civilian in Nov 1955, got married and had 2 daughters. I worked all my life for American Companies in Korea and later in Japan. I even did a few stints for the US Goverment, which eventually yielded a Social Security card.
In the Nineties i learned that according to NIS 328 and 329 I could apply for naturalization as US Citizen for having served anytime between June 1950 and July 1955 in Korea with the US Forces. I did apply and guess what. I needed a "CERTIFICATE OF HONORARY DISCHARGE" from the US Military. ( The good LORD giveth, and the good LORD taket)
I was put on "Indefinite Leave" from the Belgian Army in 1964. So I guess I will have to swim across the RIO GRANDE if I still want to go to the States. My 2 Daughters have become US Citizens through marriage, so I may have to beg? ED
Michael L. Hauschild| 7.12.11 @ 9:31AM
Maybe the fact that the the boot of the Communist is not on your neck of the family you reared may soften the blow somewhat. Thanks for your service, but maybe, just maybe you were fighting for the freedom of the woman you married.
Occam's Tool| 7.12.11 @ 10:51AM
You can request the appropriate paperwork through the VA with your SS number, Edgard.
Oldefarte| 7.12.11 @ 9:46AM
The immigration issue is about the LEGAL segment as well as the GOVERNMENTAL COST/EXPENSE [TO TAXPAYERS] issue, and the latter is usually ignored in arguments. These illegals costs the American taxpayers $billions in tax payments from the illegals use of public schools, medical care, public transportation and services, etc. This cost is not paid for by these illegals, but rather by you, me and every other taxpayer. With the typically liberal Democrats in DC now screaming for more/increased taxiation upon the American income earners, the 5000 pound gorilla in the room ought to be the inherent need to fund these illegals' government benefits from such tax increases. WAKE UP AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!
ghd australia | 7.12.11 @ 9:49AM
http://www.ghdoutletshop-au.com
neanderthal| 7.12.11 @ 9:50AM
I own my own business, and when I have to climb in a tank to shovel out sludge, or fill dusty bags in 90 degree heat, I love to quote that GW Bush line about "doing jobs Americans just won't do". In truth, there aren't any jobs Americans just won't do- there are only jobs Americans just won't do for the kind of wages some American companies want to pay.
CtoC| 7.12.11 @ 9:56AM
nor are we willing to work in some of the same conditions - there are laws and we know because we are here legally that we can (or should be able to - as is not the case with the government not enforcing their laws) - depend on those laws to have our environments safe and earn a decent wage without killing ourselves.
John Navratil| 7.12.11 @ 5:02PM
neanderthal,
Perhaps you'd like to take a look at this.
http://www.politico.com/news/s.....57551.html
Now you might well say that if Americans won't harvest for $15/hour then the rates need to go up. What then happens to the American farmer who cannot compete against foreign produce. Will you be happy when the farmer is out of business?
You can wish all you want but paying above average labor rates with no benefit in productivity is a recipe for bankruptcy.
Now ask, why we cannot have a legal guest worker program (we do) which has enough visas so that they aren't all taken by the third or fourth day of January. Then you might ask why we insist on a Ph.D from Stanford being told to go back to India to start his software company as there isn't a visa for him.
If we had a rational immigration policy we would not have the problem of illegality.
From a security perspective, having foreign nationals being able to work here legally would go a long way to ensuring that those who are crossing illegally are actually bad guys.
neanderthal| 7.13.11 @ 7:05PM
John- you help make my arguement. The farms don't want to pay higher wages, so they get illegals or they get prison labor, both of which entail cost to society- and I note that the one farm mentioned in the article is also the recipient of a lot of federal farm subsidies. I'm not surprised that a bunch of probationeers didn't want to work- that hard, but I'd be surprised if you couldn't find labor in this job market if you paid a decent wage.
Bob Grant| 7.12.11 @ 10:14AM
"DOING JOBS AMERICANS WONT DO"...(sorry about the all caps).
Won't do or not properly networked TO DO???
If some American teen kid walked to the nearest construction site and talked to the contractor about wanting to learn the trade or possibly work: (a) the contractor wouldn't understand a word he/she said (b) would be shunned aside because "Americans don't do those jobs", (c) government regulations prevents them from working these jobs.
The same scenario would occur if said kid walked into a restaurant to wash dishes, bus tables, or cook; a landscaping company; or maid service.
Americans are effectively NETWORKED OUT of these job sectors.
Teen unemployment at an all time high!!
African American employment at an all time high!!
JOBS AMERICANS WONT DO...my arse!!
Siegfried X| 7.12.11 @ 12:11PM
Yes and another lie is "We need permission to hire more foreign graduates because there aren't enough Americans". That is totally false. Everyday experienced Americans with those college degrees are laid off so they can be replaced with off shore labor.
John Navratil| 7.12.11 @ 5:27PM
Siegfried X,
As a programmer who has had to compete with the Indian programming competition, I can say two things.
It hurt my business and forced me to retrain. I now work more in embedded Linux-based control systems.
The inefficiencies of managing a project half-way around the world coupled with rising "talent" costs in India is eating up those savings.
In the end, large software shops (Oracle, Microsoft, e.g.) have outsourced work-a-day talent to where it can be had cheaply. It's why you can get a computer and O/S for a few hundred dollars.
Just as shoe manufacturing in Boston moved to Italy after WWII, this process is nothing new.
It might be helpful to ask if the world's highest corporate taxes and a government spending 24% of GDP might just have something to do with the competitiveness of the U.S. worker.
John Navratil| 7.12.11 @ 5:11PM
Bob Grant,
Please see:
http://www.politico.com/news/s.....57551.html
No networking needed. These guys were handed these jobs but said no.
I started working after school and during the summer when I was thirteen. My son (a college student) recently completed a job packing cherries in Stockton, CA. He worked 12-hour days for 45 days straight for $11/hour. With overtime he made $1,000 per week. We wasn't networked out of the job.
If you want to work you can. If you want protection from cheap labour you can get that too. However, the effect is to put the marginal of workers out of work as the economy necessarily shrinks. With the effect that those marginal jobs move offshore.
Occam's Tool| 7.12.11 @ 10:53AM
Dear Bob: I know plenty of American maids, McD's is always hiring (with insurance), and I see plenty of American waitresses.
The words are hustle and drive. I earned my MD at 25.
Bob Grant| 7.12.11 @ 11:12AM
American teens have been excluded from many job opportunities that we enjoyed at a similar age. The hardest hit are males.
hanging sheet rock, framing, building fences, landscaping, washing dishes, busing tables, line cooking, etc. were part of my work history entering the job market as a young person and through college.
Many of these opportunities simply don't exist for Americans, at least not in quantity, anymore. There are many reasons for this but true nonetheless.
A deleterious effect on the work ethic wouldn't you say?
Slacker| 7.12.11 @ 3:35PM
Bob, you hit the nail on the head.
Latino construction laborers work under Latino formen. Figure it out.
The anglo constuction laborer is a rare cat. I have not seen a black construciton worker in several years.
John Navratil| 7.12.11 @ 5:12PM
Slacker,
In Houston, the Blacks do cement and the Mexicans roof and hang drywall.
Dave | 7.12.11 @ 11:13AM
I'll cut to the chase. Granting amnesty to millions of illegal aliens is simply about two things: Opening the Goodie Gates to millions of future Democrat voters (more freebies expected) and of course ... the money.
Actually, it's always about ... the money. You doubt? OK, ask any police detective working an extortion case. What's the first rule for finding the perp? Oh, yeah, follow the m-o-n-e-y.
Incidentally, I wonder how many chicken heads Obama lopped-off while laboring (paying) his way through the Saul Alinsky School of Bring It All Down, Man? (uhh) Now that I think about it, maybe that's why Barry's Chicago reverend, Jerry Wright, had all those chickens come home to roost. Obama couldn't be bothered getting his hands icky. That, or his teleprompter broke down while reading the instructions on "How to Operate a Chicken Clever."
I don't think they offered that class at Alinsky U. But I'm just guessin'.
Al Adab| 7.12.11 @ 11:20AM
As long as we continue allowing The Left to define the terms of this debate we will not solve the problem. Immigration (legal) is one facet of the issue migration is quite another. Add to that the numbers of those apprehended from nations such as Libya, Yemen, Iran, Iraq some of whom learned Spanish in camps in Brasil and we see that the issue is one of security and culture not ethnicity, race or rich and poor. What Conservatives mean by comprehensive is not what Leftists mean by the word.
tatosian| 7.12.11 @ 2:43PM
To name but a few; Bush, Rove, McCain, Graham, Catholic Charities, the US Chamber of Commerce and the Wall Street Journal, (all of which are ostensibly conservative or conservative leaning individuals and groups) consider amnesty and a path to citizenship for illegals to be an integral part of comprehensive reform right?
Clearly conservatives and leftists share the same definition.
As to jihadis crossing over the border, well, the aforementioned groups and individuals haven't exactly rushed to secure our southern border against that threat have they?
Soooo, what's the difference between the left and and the "conservative" approach to illegal immigration and border security?
Al Adab| 7.12.11 @ 3:33PM
Your list of conservatives is only one relative - as you note by the word "ostensible"- to those on The Left. Please do not confuse Republican with Conservative although that party is such relative to the other. Your logical leap from first sentence to last is improper. The Conservative approach is not congruent to the Left approach. As I stated "comprehensive" means different things to the sides. It does not, to the Conservative, include an amnesty although it may encompass a method of regularization for green cards to many especially the grown children of illegal migrants who may have been brought as small children or infants . Immediate grants of citizenship to any is certainly not "on the table". Deportation of many is certainly part thereby of comprehensive action. Again, immigration is not the same as migration.
Interestingly the federal Government is mandated by the Constitution - it is one of the enumerated powers ie the reason for which the government was formed- to protect the states from invasion. Not only is the federal government failing to do so, it is actively opposing the states which are taking action on their own behalf. The analogy is to Pancho Villa and his invasion of New Mexico, not to our being a "nation of immigrants".
tatosian| 7.12.11 @ 9:26PM
"...As I stated "comprehensive" means different things to the sides. It does not, to the Conservative, include an amnesty although it may encompass a method of regularization for green cards to many..."
Explain the difference between "regularization for green cards" and the left's amnesty i.e. "an act of forgiveness for past offenses, especially to a class of persons as a whole"?
The end result of "regularization" and amnesty are the same are they not? How does calling the same thing with different words change its meaning?
"Immigration is not the same as migration."
Migrate -to go from one country, region, or place to another. Immigrate - to come to a country of which one is not a native, usually for permanent residence. Deceit is not the same as lie either. What's your point?
It's a reality that illegals, whether you call them migrants or immigrants are here and have no intention of assimilating to the American culture. Like your dishonest claim that "regularization" and amnesty are different because conservatives like yourself employ the former while leftists employ the latter changes nothing on the ground. It's obfuscation and misdirection that ultimately contributes to the racial and ethnic supremacies rampant in those illegal enclaves. Or colonies, if you wish. The hostility in those enclaves towards the American nation is palpable. Is it not? Why should that hostility be regularized?
Regularization, amnesty, migration, immigration... Like all good conservatives, your obsessed with words, speeches, the turn of a phrase rather than the harsh realities those words and phrases impose on rank and file Americans.
YeloStalyn| 7.12.11 @ 3:45PM
The politicians you list are NOT conservatives. Republicans... yes. But any good conservative will tell you that a Republican is just as good as a liberal. The US Chamber is a business org that, suprise!... wants cheap labor as that is a principle of business. The WSJ? Again... business oriented. Catholic Charities? There's a lot of rank and file Catholics that would denounce the idea of amnisty.
A CONSERVATIVE would want to A) block the border FIRST B) Round up and begin to deport starting with repeat and violent criminals never to return C) once the problem has been reduced to managable levels by A and B begin to make the LEGAL process more consistant, fair, user-friendly all while maitaining first and foremost security and national (which my be business or cultural in nature) interests.
The liberal just wants to let them come rape our children or blow up our busses, or for the "peaceful" ones eat up our budget without contributing back at a fair rate. After all... who are we to speak ill of the brown man?
Al Adab| 7.12.11 @ 5:45PM
Thank you Yelo. Good to know neither of us is the only voices in the wilderness. At least there are two of us.
tatosian| 7.12.11 @ 9:30PM
Which conservatives are you referring to?
What are those conservatives you name doing to attain the results you listed?
How have those conservatives stopped those liberals from letting "them" "rape our children or blow up our busses, or for the "peaceful" ones eat up our budget without contributing back at a fair rate"?
tatosian| 7.12.11 @ 11:01PM
I almost forgot...
"..make the LEGAL process more consistant, fair, user-friendly all while maitaining first and foremost security and national (which my be business or cultural in nature) interests.."
The illegals are here because of the business community aren't they? In so doing the business community, along with liberal/dems and conservative/repubs, have sanctioned and encouraged irreparable harm to the American culture.
Fair? Where's the fairness for homegrown Americans in your proposal?
Michael L. Hauschild| 7.12.11 @ 11:44AM
For anyone doubting that this man is not a ammnesty shill here is a couple of pages of his own press releases to ponder.
Congressmen Gutierrez and Flake Unveil Bipartisan Comprehensive Immigration Reform Legislation
Mar 22, 2007 - Congressmen Luis V. Gutierrez (D-IL) and Jeff Flake (R-AZ) Thursday unveiled new legislation designed to fix our nation's badly broken immigration system. The legislation is the culmination of years of hard work, in-depth discussions and thoughtful negotiations by Congressmen Gutierrez and Flake.&nb;... More
Congressman Flake Encouraged By Administration’s Commitment to Comprehensive Immigration Reform
Feb 28, 2007 - Republican Congressman Jeff Flake, who represents Arizona’s Sixth District, today was encouraged by comments made by Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez at the Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearing on immigration reform. “Input a... More
Congressman Flake Applauds President Bush’s Comments on Immigration and Earmark Reform
Jan 23, 2007 - Republican Congressman Jeff Flake, who represents Arizona’s Sixth District, today applauded President Bush for specifically addressing immigration reform and earmark reform in the State of the Union address. “President Bush deserves praise for being a consistent and persistent... More
Congressman Flake: Primary Results Show Arizona Republicans Favor Comprehensive Immigration Reform
Sep 13, 2006 - Republican Congressman Jeff Flake, who represents Arizona’s Sixth District, today pointed to election results from Arizona’s Republican primaries as more confirmation that Republicans favor a comprehensive approach to immigration reform. In the race for the Arizona’s Republica... More
Congressman Flake Reacts to Reported Proposal to Use Forced Labor to Build Wall at Border
Jun 23, 2006 - Republican Congressman Jeff Flake, who represents Arizona’s Sixth District, today reacted to a report from the EFE News Agency that Arizona Republican gubernatorial candidate Don Goldwater has proposed using forced labor from illegal immigrants to build a wall at the Arizona-Mexico border. &nbs;... More
Congressman Flake: Americans Don’t Want More Immigration Reform Hearings; They Want a Bill
Jun 20, 2006 - Republican Congressman Jeff Flake, a member of the House Judiciary Committee’s Immigration and Border Security Subcommittee, today expressed disappointment at the House Leadership’s decision to schedule more immigration reform hearings in the House of Representatives before appointing members of the... More
Congressman Flake Urges Speaker Hastert to Appoint Immigration Reform Conferees
Jun 13, 2006 - Republican Congressman Jeff Flake, a member of the House Judiciary Committee’s Immigration and Border Security Subcommittee, today urged Speaker Hastert to set aside possible plans to hold House hearings on the Senate immigration reform bill before appointing House members of the conference committe... More
Congressman Flake Praises President Bush for Reiterating Call for Comprehensive Immigration Reform
Jun 7, 2006 - Republican Congressman Jeff Flake, a member of the House Judiciary Committee’s Immigration and Border Security Subcommittee, today praised President Bush for reiterating his call for a comprehensive approach to immigration reform. “Every day the House and Senate wait to appoin... More
Congressman Flake Praises Senate for Passing a Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill
May 25, 2006 - Republican Congressman Jeff Flake, a member of the House Judiciary Committee’s Immigration and Border Security Subcommittee, today praised the U.S. Senate for passing a comprehensive immigration reform bill that includes a temporary worker program. “It would have been a lot ea... More
Congressman Flake Praises Congressman Pence For Adding Another Conservative Voice For Temporary Worker Program
May 23, 2006 - Republican Congressman Jeff Flake, a member of the House Judiciary Committee’s Immigration and Border Security Subcommittee, today praised Congressman Mike Pence of Indiana for proposing a temporary worker program. “Conservative principles and a temporary worker program are no... More
Congressman Flake: Ruling on Arizona Immigration Law Adds More Pressure on Congress to Address Reform
Jul 28, 2010 - Republican Congressman Jeff Flake, who represents Arizona’s Sixth District, today released the following statement regarding U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton’s ruling enjoining portions of SB 1070. “It’s frustrating to have the federal government actively preventing states from addressi... More
Congressman Flake Disappointed By Gutierrez Immigration Bill
Dec 15, 2009 - Republican Congressman Jeff Flake, who represents Arizona’s Sixth District, criticized an immigration reform bill unveiled today by Congressman Luis Gutierrez of Illinois. “Having worked with Congressman Gutierrez on immigration reform legislation in the past, I know how committed he is to th... More
Congressman Flake Praises Recommendations of Immigration Task Force
Jul 8, 2009 - Republican Congressman Jeff Flake, who represents Arizona’s Sixth District, today praised the recommendations of the Council on Foreign Affairs’ Independent Task Force on U.S. Immigration Policy. The bipartisan task force recommended a comprehensive overhaul of U.S. immigration policy in orde... More
Congressman Flake Reacts to Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano’s Likely Selection as DHS Secretary
Nov 20, 2008 - Republican Congressman Jeff Flake, who represents Arizona’s Sixth District, today reacted to reports that Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano is likely to be selected by President-Elect Obama to serve as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). “Given the role that DHS performs i... More
Congressman Flake Praises Comments By President Bush on Immigration Reform
May 29, 2007 - Republican Congressman Jeff Flake, who represents Arizona’s Sixth District, today praised comments by President Bush regarding immigration reform. “As the former governor of a border state, President Bush brings experience to this debate that most of us in Congress cannot matc... More
Congressman Flake Praises Senate for Taking Another Step Toward Comprehensive Immigration Reform
May 21, 2007 - Republican Congressman Jeff Flake, who represents Arizona’s Sixth District, today praised the U.S. Senate for beginning debate on comprehensive immigration reform legislation. “Congress’ inability to pass comprehensive immigration reform legislation justifies much of the anger... More
Congressman Flake Praises Senators for Reaching Comprehensive Immigration Reform Agreement
May 17, 2007 - Republican Congressman Jeff Flake, who represents Arizona’s Sixth District, today applauded the Senate for reaching an agreement on a comprehensive immigration reform bill. “The Senate negotiations over the last several months have shown just how difficult it is to reach conse... More
Congressman Flake Testifies Before House Immigration Subcommittee
Apr 26, 2007 - Republican Congressman Jeff Flake, who represents Arizona’s Sixth District, testified today before the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law. Congressman Flake addressed the employer verification ... More
Op-ed on STRIVE Act for The Hill
Apr 26, 2007 - Immigration reform is a contentious issue. The interns in my office can attest to that. Every time I do an interview on the issue, my dutiful interns can expect a deluge of phone calls expressing enthusiastic disagreement, to put it kindly, with some of my positions. As Congre... More
Op-ed on STRIVE Act for Arizona Republic
Apr 1, 2007 - I think it's safe to say that there is universal agreement that our nation's immigration system is broken. Unfortunately, it sometimes feels like that is where agreement on the issue ends. Enactment of meaningful immigration-reform legislation will require support from both Re... More
l5j6| 7.12.11 @ 11:58AM
After reading and listening to people very knowledgable about immigration, like Mark Krikorian and the Center for Immigration Studies, legal and illegal immigration are tied closely to one another. It's almost impossible to stop one without affecting the other.
That's why I believe we need to reduce LEGAL immigration, for say ten years, which would help facilitate/get a handle on illegal immigration.
But far too many people are swayed by the over-simplification - legal immigration = good, illegal immigration = bad.
It's more complicated than that. Raw numbers is ultimately what matters. Why are we ballooning our population? Why are the preponderance of immigrants poor, lowly educated Latinos?
We are literally changing the population of the USA. Why?
Ron| 7.12.11 @ 1:10PM
You know, friends so much of this comes down to the dishonest companies, corporations, or individuals who choose to hire illegals. Quite honestly, I have never hired anyone to cut my lawn, haul my trash, watch my kids (except when they were young, and then they were in daycare when I was a single father), pave the driveway, wash my car, etc., etc., etc. The mechanisms are already in place to document a worker, and whether he or she is illegal. Those illegals being hired under the table need to get booted, period. The owners, operators, or individuals then need to be prosecuted. Both parties are equally at fault.
Bob Grant| 7.12.11 @ 6:05PM
Ditto.
wolflen| 7.12.11 @ 1:33PM
the phrase "jobs americans won't do" often a talking point from open borders fans..when I question someone from that side and point out that they are taking a racist position..the balk of course..I then point out .. if americans wont do those jobs who does them..I get " the illegals, mexicans etc" ok..I give them that..and then reword the statement...so your saying " these jobs are for mexicans/illegals only !"
Isn't that something like: Whites only! ... this component of the illegal alien issue is a strong point that fuels the push for amnesty..once they are "americans" they wont have to do "those" jobs anymore..because "americans won't do those jobs"
ahhh...shades of the Regan 86 amnesty...
Bob Grant| 7.12.11 @ 3:54PM
Indeed. it's a racist comment but SSSHHHSHH, were not supposed to talk it.
You see, when illegal aliens undercut wages it's for noble causes, i.e., "backbreaking" work to take care of their families.
When Americans "undercut" wages by crossing picket lines, working in right-to-work states, etc., they are labeled horrendous things such as SCABS, TRAITORS, COMPANY SHILLS, etc. They're even threatened with violence. The fact that their motivation (taking care of their families) is no different than the illegal alien
alien is lost on many but not me.
ABNCP| 7.12.11 @ 4:18PM
Congressman Flake is my Representative in
AZ 6. I have voted for him in the past because I will not vote for the Democrat running against him. However, I have also written to him on several occasions complaining about his immigration positions. Although he supports conservative fiscal policies, his association wth the odious Gutierrez, his positions on Cuba and his open border/immigration beliefs are fueling open dissatisfaction with Flake in this state. The fear I have is if he gets the nomination for Kyl's seat many conservatives will just not vote for him. That would throw the election to a Democrat. I continue to hope that Palin who I don't believe will make a Presidential run and since she now has a residence in Arizona will run for Kyl's Senate seat.
The United States of America should cut off ALL immigration for at least five years. The only exception being those few people who will provide immediate benefits to this country.
In 2012, after we get rid of the present administration, we have to put in an airtight E-Verify system throughout the country. Lose the jobs, they will leave. In addition close the border with sensors, troops, and a real fence. Please do not give me the nonsense about a twenty foot fence and and twenty one foot ladder. A border fence is only one portion of a secure border architcture. What's the other argument about border fence, oh yeah don't build one because a fence will not work. Tell that one to the Israel's. Since they built theirs there hasn't been a lot of pizza joint bombings has there?
The Obama administrations pernicious disregard of border security because of their belief that millions of illegal's will eventually become more supplicants to their Progressive/Socialist party is not only politically outrageous, it puts our country in clear and present danger from OTM'S
being brought across our southern border. Jihadist sleeper cells have been comming into this country for several years. Hezbollah is a growing presence in South America and now according to many Intel sources they have a military presence their. Hezbollah is armed and financed bythe Iranian Al Quds Force. Hezbollah is in Panama, Brazil and also has a large presence on Margarita Island just off Venezuela. They are being helped and financed by Chavez. Since the Mexican drug cartels will bring anyone across our borders who has the money to pay them, count on it they have brought Hezbollah sleeper cells across. What we need to be concerned about and I mean REALLY concerned about is Hezbollah having a latent military capability in the U.S. right now. What might happen if we get serious about taking out the Iranian Nuclear program with Hezbollah cells in this country just waiting for an action order?
Yeah right, not good. Thanks Obama and Big Sis. I guess your system, I mean the one you really want to work, will after all, really work.
John Navratil| 7.12.11 @ 5:51PM
ABNCP,
As you point out, the fence is in place to solve economic AND security problems. The real problem is that is takes two kinds of fences. One could, for example, solve the economic migrant problem by reducing economic protection in this country to match Mexico's. Even without reducing the minimum wage, the coming inflation will effective pay the American laborer in the equivalent of Pesos. Once Obamacare reduces the quality of medical care to that of a third-world country that won't be a draw. The only thing left will be sitting around getting paid to do nothing. Dealing drugs to those people will be more economically attractive. The economic fence serves to artificially inflate labour rate on one side and deflate them on the other. That farmer in Georgia will be out of business while the one in Monterrey, with a lower economic burden will be selling to the Georgia farmer's family.
It's the security fence where the 21-foot ladder argument makes sense. Here we have determined terrorists who can afford to defeat sophisticated barriers. The defence against such people is detection.
The irony is, the more people we manage crossing the border, the easier it is to detect the ones we don't want to cross.
tatosian| 7.12.11 @ 11:37PM
Soooooo we need to completely eliminate the very idea of a border fence because on the one hand the fence "serves to artificially inflate labour rate on one side and deflate them on the other" (thereby depriving illegal aliens their inherent right to inflated American wages?), and when considered in security terms well, "we have determined terrorists who can afford to defeat sophisticated barriers." with 21 foot ladders?
" The irony is, the more people we manage crossing the border, the easier it is to detect the ones we don't want to cross."
Soooooo the cartels and the illegals and the jihadis are gonna agree to come across our border only at the locations we designate? So we can detect the ones we don't want? And this is gonna happen because we've torn down all the fencing?
You're an idiot.
John Navratil| 7.13.11 @ 9:17AM
tatosian,
Your point, other than calling me an idiot, was exactly what?
As to economics, you put words into my mouth that illegal aliens have an "inherent right to inflated American wages". Actually the word you are looking for is deflate. It certainly isn't a right. You can erect artificial economic protections (a fence, E-verify, minimum wage, etc.) to keep American labour rates inflated. Just be prepared for the consequences as I mentioned. [BTW - To all you liberty loving Americans, does it every occur to anyone that E-verify is a license to hold a job. What next?]
Of course I did NOT say that "illegals and the jihadis are gonna agree to come across our border only at the locations we designate", fool. I said they would use the "21 foot ladders". To make it completely explicit for someone who obviously cannot read the point I made - they will use exactly whatever they want to circumvent the border without detection. A fence to stop them is a chimera. Detection is required.
When you wish to separate signal from noise, reducing noise is helpful. Separating jihadists who wish to kill is from drywall hangers is a proper element of security.
Did you get any of that? It wall all in my prior post. So dispense with the cheap invective and tell me where I am wrong - as I have done for your foolish effort.
John Navratil| 7.13.11 @ 10:06AM
I misread your "right to inflated American wages" as a "right to INFLATE American wages". I retract the 'deflate' suggestion, but stand by the rest.
tatosian| 7.13.11 @ 1:18PM
Excuse me but you said the fence served as an economic and security barrier. At that point the fence as referenced to by you is the incomplete fence along our southern border.
When we get to the "The economic fence serves to artificially inflate labour rate on one side and deflate them on the other." (in the same paragraph) the fence has shifted from the southern border to, I don't know, California(?) with the farmer in Monterrey enjoying those third world deflated wages and the farmer in Georgia suffering the effects of those artificially inflated wages.
I didn't put any words in your mouth. You were, at best, unclear.
Am I to understand that those "inflated wages" (as you call them) on this side of the (southern) border fence, that have given Americans the highest standard of living in mankind's history, are economically impossible to maintain? That those wages and that standard of living is somehow unjust or unfair? (Unfair to whom? Mexico? Honduras?) That our standard of living represents nothing more than the evils of protectionism and that the time has come for American workers to join hands with the third world and take our seat on the poverty train?
Then we get to your ridiculous "we have determined terrorists who can afford to defeat sophisticated barriers. The defence against such people is detection...the more people we manage crossing the border, the easier it is to detect the ones we don't want to cross." statement.
Our border with mexico is nearly 2,000 mile long. Where is the sophisticated barrier those jihadis can defeat? Do you suppose those jihadis are positioning themselves at the roughly 700 miles of completed fencing determining how they might defeat that sophisticated barrier? I suggest those determined murderers are moving along cartel routes and waltzing right into our inflated wage paradise.
One final question; how, exactly do you suggest we manage and detect illegals and jihadis coming across the border without barriers and fencing? What does that look like? How does that work? The honor system?
I apologize for the idiot remark.
John Navratil| 7.13.11 @ 3:37PM
tatosian,
I did not say we do not need fences. For the record, I believe the border does need to be secured. I said the border fence must serve two purposes; economic and security. I happen to think the economic problem must be solved by working to balance the labour rates - some sort of guest worker program.
The economic fence would not need to be there if the labour markets were balanced. The fence wasn't there when Mexicans came over the border by the thousands a century ago to work for $5/day in Henry Ford's manufacturing plants. What has changed? Economic protectionism! Inflated wages have not given us the "highest standard of living in mankind's history", productivity has. Of course being the only country with appreciable manufacturing capacity after World War II didn't hurt, but it did make us lazy (witness 60's labour policies in the auto industry). Those inflated wages will now harm us. And yes, they are economically impossible to maintain. You can argue unfairness all you want, but that is exactly what is causing outsourcing of jobs. When a Mexican can come all the way to Georgia to work the fields, why can't a Georgian who lives there do it? Some say Mexican labour rates are too low and are an unfair competition. Unfair to whom? Georgians? Floridians? How "fair" will it be, and to whom, when the Georgia farmer can no longer compete with the farmer from Monterrey? And what will those who cannot or will not work the fields do when the fields are no longer there to work? If they do not elevate their skills so as not to miss the field hand jobs they dismiss, they will indeed "join hands with the third world and take [their] seat on the poverty train".
What is ridiculous about this statement: "we have determined terrorists who can afford to defeat sophisticated barriers. The defence against such people is detection...the more people we manage crossing the border, the easier it is to detect the ones we don't want to cross"? The jihadis are positioning themselve wherever they wish. They fly into Canada, they overstay visas, they recruit in prison and they cross the border from Mexico. To place your security faith in a twenty-foot fence underrates the enemy. Nothing in that says not to put a fence up. It merely says that by itself it is little more than nothing.
So set up your impermeable fence. You will not keep the jihadis out. Perhaps you will solve the economic protection problem. I don't believe the result will be as you think it will be.
tatosian| 7.14.11 @ 3:39AM
Your argument seems to be that American workers are fat and lazy.
Those same fat and lazy Americans enjoy the benefits of inflated wages and an undeserved high standard of living.
Of course, what you call inflated wages most working Americans might call a living wage. That is, a wage that allows them to obtain items like food, education for their children, homes, etc. You know, live the American dream so to speak.
Apparently however, that standard of living and that inflated wage needs to be more reasonable and equitable…for the producers.
Deflated wages is the answer. Hiring millions of hostile illegal alien nationals to take those deflated wages is the most up close and personal result.
For you JN, American culture, sovereignty and nationhood are not just irrelevant but an obstruction in the war against the inflated wage. The dispossession of a distinct and independent people (Americans) to help eliminate the universal wage disparity is but a small price to pay. Besides which, we’re lazy too.
What I find remarkable is your straightforward and honest support of the destruction of my country for financial reasons. By any means necessary. Societal disruption, violence, the drain on that undeserved standard of living that the influx of illegal aliens (paid by you and yours) cause…all for money. I mean your argument is based on dollars and nothing else right JN?
I never said a fence, in and of itself, at either the economic or territorial level, would give us security.
I have no problem with a 20 foot fence, despite the ever popular 21 foot ladder argument espoused by you and the open border/liberal/Hispanic/libertarian bunch.
There’s a solution to the ladder threat and it consists of an approximately 2000 mile long twenty foot fence1000 or so yards in American territory. The thousand yards in front of the fence are barren and empty. But for the ubiquitous strands of concertina. The fence is manned and patrolled by land and air. The thousand yards is a free fire zone. That would eliminate a lot of economic and security problems.
To be sure the jihadis are cunning and murderous. Certainly cunning enough to hide away in those hostile colonies you helped settle.
I don’t believe the result of your actions will be what you think.
John Navratil| 7.14.11 @ 8:08AM
tatosian,
It appears we cannot come to terms on even how to discuss this. Once again, I must tell you what I did not say. I did not say "American workers are fat and lazy." In the world market there is a sector which is overpriced. Not all of this is their fault, the economic burden of taxes and regulation contribute. Protectionism is not the solution, it is an additional problem. On this we will never agree. Adios!
tatosian| 7.14.11 @ 4:07PM
"but it did make us lazy"
Amazing.
The guy never even addresses the social, cultural and economic damage his deflated wage hostiles have wrought. And pointing out the damage is protectionism.
Adios! indeed pinche puto.
Michael L. Hauschild| 7.12.11 @ 5:16PM
ABNCP,
The wonderful thing about open forums is that sooner or later someone comes along that "lives" there. You certainly have the market cornered on credibility. Please post on Arizona more often, as many of us do know what is actually occuring as a "boot on the ground."
Thanks.
AM Reilly| 7.12.11 @ 6:00PM
You mean to say the bums sitting on their butts and collecting unemployment and ss checks (other than the ones who really deserve them) are better than the one who are working their arses off!
Who amongst you are conservatives here?
When China, India, Mexico, Canada, Malaysia, Indonesia, Brazil and so many other countries are having cheaper labor than us (and more or less same quality as us), where do you think is the production headed. Where will the companies be headquartered. Which countries will benefit. Whose kids and grand kids have guaranteed employment?
YOU DON'T NEED TO GO TO BUSINESS SCHOOL TO FIGURE THIS ONE OUT! I heard few days back Microsoft was planning on moving headquarters to Canada.. Hey, lets deport Microsoft Corp.
John Navratil| 7.12.11 @ 6:10PM
AM Reilly,
Indeed! The sooner people realize that protectionism does not protect those it is meant to and shrinks the economy overall, the better.
AM Reilly| 7.12.11 @ 6:43PM
A true conservative, that I am, I believe that we should throw out the ones who are unemployed for more than a year, have failed to enhance their qualifications to be able to compete in a free and fair marketplace biased towards them, or are on social benefits that they donot deserve.
If illegals have a job, are of good moral character, sign up to work for atleast 6 years or more, want so dearly to be a part of our society, learn english, pay all back taxes and pay all future taxes, lets keep them instead. I think they would have paid enough by the time it is all said and done.
Yeah, I say lets do an exchange for the productive vs unproductive. You tell me what is good for America.
Al Adab| 7.12.11 @ 6:59PM
Indeed, assimiliation is part of the required solution. The diversity for its own sake crown notwithstanding, it is those who choose to become part of our history and culture who succeed.
tatosian| 7.13.11 @ 12:09AM
"we should throw out the ones who are unemployed for more than a year,"
How exactly do you determine who's been unemployed for over a year when most illegals are off the books and/or using falsified id's?
"to be able to compete in a free and fair marketplace biased towards them"
You mean biased in their favor don't you? Illegals are here because the American marketplace found a way to cut it's labor costs by employing foreign nationals rather than homegrown Americans. How is a marketplace that skirts the rules for the benefit of illegals biased against those illegals?
"...if illegals have a job...good moral character...work six years... You tell me what is good for America."
All that's good for America, if you envision America as no more than a home depot parking lot full of day working foreigners willing to work for cheap.
But that is your vision isn't it.
AM Reilly| 7.13.11 @ 12:02PM
Marketplace doesn't care if you are white, brown, black, american, mexican, european or asian. Because marketplace is global and is not confined within our borders. It is ruthless, hard to understand and extremely competitive.
My vision of America is of an America that is a global leader in innovation and business. My vision is of an America that is full of hope, dreams and aspirations, and where those dreams come true. Where the biggest corporations are born and find it to be their comfortable home. Its citizens get equal opportunity in a free and fair system that is assessable to all. My vision is of an America that is the shining city on the hill and a beacon of hope for generations to come...
I am sorry, I care less for race & ethnicity, little more for America.
AM Reilly| 7.13.11 @ 12:22PM
I will rather choose America each time and throw out the socialistic duds who sit on their bums all day and demand pay raises and congenial work environment or refuse to come to work, but get paid anyway thru unemployment or social programs. How can we compete in a global marketplace? We should rather have a system that cleanses itself of all these parasites. It is a shame we didn't teach them right from wrong.
I do agree that we need to make it mandatory for new arrivals to educate themselves on our history and culture so they do better at assimilating themselves into our system.
tatosian| 7.13.11 @ 4:12PM
That shining city on a hill and beacon of hope for future generations to come, that place where citizens and immigrants could, by availing themselves of those equal opportunities (and playing by the rules), prosper and thrive was America wasn't it?
Until the dictates of the cruel and hard to understand marketplace did everything in its power to import and employ tens of millions of hostile illegal aliens so as to save itself some money. That's a fact right?
Yes, I'm sure you don't care about race and ethnicity, but the racial and ethnic hostility of those illegals (towards the United States) brought here to ease global pressures on your marketplace cannot be denied. For your marketplace, American sovereignty and citizenship are impediments that must be destroyed. (Your marketplace and the progressive/socialist/ethnocentric supremacists are pretty much on the same page with that one.)
Yes, I'm sure you don't care much for America. But I would ask you this: where do those equal opportunities exist if not here? What nation or state or tribe fulfills your vision of hopes, dreams and aspirations if not the US? Or at least the US before your precious marketplace started turning out the lights on your alluded to city on the hill?
Without this country your marketplace is little more than a modern version of feudalism, where the select few dictate what degree of poverty and destitution its respective citizens (or indentured servants) suffer under. There too, your marketplace and the socialist/progressives share the same aspirations.
You're a libertarian, right?
Paul| 7.12.11 @ 7:12PM
Our candidate in 2012 should be forced to sign a pledge before being nominated - closed borders now, illegals deported - period, and change in the law that allows the parasites to stay because of anchor babies I hate hearing we can't deport illegals because blah blah blah - bull sh!t, I don't want to hear there is too many of them, I am a heartless beast, or whatever liberal moonbat excuse they come up with. One day there will be a terrible price to pay for having 30 million plus in this country with no attachment to our flag. If I had my way, during the USA versus Mexico game in LA, when the Mexicans in the crowd booed during our national anthem, I would have had them pulled out the stadium, beat with nightsticks, and driven straight to the border and thrown back into the gutter. We have brave men and women in the field risking their lives to protect illegals that boo during our anthem, makes me want to puke.
Bob Grant| 7.12.11 @ 8:45PM
Los Angeles, unfortunately, is just a taste of what's to come. People can make an ethnic issue of it if they prefer but the idea of making one assimilate into their new country of preference is not some redneck concept. It's borne out of a necessity to keep the country intact. Cultural assimilation is everything and a small price of admission to remain in this great country.
The display at the Rose Bowl, although predictable, was very disappointing.
AM Reilly| 7.12.11 @ 9:44PM
I totally agree with both of you. I guess assimilation is the key. The first generation of immigrants always behaves differently. I would say we shld make it mandatory for any new immigrant to take courses in english, civics and american history. That might be of some help.
But, hey the crowd of our so called citizens who don't recognize we are in troubled times and we need to work harder, instead claim bunch of social benefits, isn't any better. I guess if we throw them out into Mexico or somewhere for a couple of years, they would learn what America really is?
But, I definitely see this as a major crisis and grave threat to our security and to our future that we have a workforce that is neither ready, willing nor able to compete with the growing middle class of bunch of developing countries...
My Solution is to import them before we end up exporting our biggest corporations. Then, we need to subsidize college and university education only for US citizens and heavily cut all social programs, except for the elderly and disabled. Our kids should be rewarded for performance and learning, not for 'Socialism' or 'Marxism'.
POST American| 7.12.11 @ 11:13PM
---Judging by the AS framing and set up
for this piece, they, like CON-server 'conservatives'
Mitt Romney and Rick Perry
----are, no doubt, 'on board' for
open borders, and the further degradation
and effacement of anything and everything
that ever was America.
Marc Jeric| 7.14.11 @ 4:04PM
This has been a very different immigration wave. 20 million illegal aliens are now in the country - mostly Mexican Indians and mestizos. They had almost 500 years to assimilate into the Spanish culture, unsuccessfully s0 far. They are mostly illiterate (Mexican government gives them 4 years of primary education, mainly teaching them Spanish, which they speak in a pidgeon fashion, intermixed with their Indian languages (Tolteca, Azteca, Olmeca, Maya, etc.). Mestizos, mixed Indian with Spanish, constitute the majority of the Mexican criminal bands, exploiting the Indians. Most of the Mexican police forces are mestizos, corrupt and largely criminal. Mexican population is 50% Indian, 45 % mestizos, and 5% Spanish. The first amnesty under Reagan included 3 million of them; the second under Clinton 5 million; and the coming third one, by an executive order of Obama, will cover 15 million. After that, expect the next wave of about 25 million illegal aliens to arrive.
RCV| 7.14.11 @ 7:22PM
Not quite sure why the native population living there had to "assimilate into the Spanish culture." According to you, the 50% Indian and 45% Mestizos were supposed to integrate into the 5% Spanish?
Johanna | 7.15.11 @ 12:02AM
What most americans don't realize is the fact that the reason why there is such struggle in many other areas of the world and the immigration issue just seems to get worse is because the USA helped caused these problems in their homeland, therefore forcing them to leave their country to feed their children.... I do believe that "most " of you here should read in depth a little more on the involvement/impact "your" America has had in these countries. AND.. I dont believe that the statement that a couple of you have said "they are taking our jobs" is being used in an appropiate manner here, beings that I am pretty sure no one in this discussion would be willing to work a 12 hour day, 5 day a week, 1/2 hour lunch break, back bent while cutting lettuce or picking tomatoes and ONLY making $8-9 an hour......