May Day Boycott

[fortworthgal]

This isn't arguing right or wrong - but it points out that the existing system isn't working well, even for those who try to follow it.

I agree with this completely. The whole situation makes me angry, but I don't think there is an easy answer or a quick way out - nor do I have any suggestions on how to "fix" things! I think the entire way in which this country deals with immigration desperately needs to be overhauled.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Was this Trader Joe's located where the route was blocked by protesters?

No, it's located in Silverlake. There weren't any blocked routes around that area.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Jesse Arias of Newark ... wondered why current immigrants are not going the legal route to citizenship as his father did in the 1940's when he emigrated from Mexico. "He did it the right way."

In the 1940s, the U.S. did not have any quotas for Mexicans trying to enter the country legally. Furthermore, legally applying for citizenship was cheap and relatively free of red tape.

Times are very different today. Do you have any idea how EXPENSIVE it is to become a U.S. permanent resident today? I do. The paperwork is incredible; you have to pay thousands of dollars to Uncle Sam just to apply (without any guarantee of success, of course); and most people have to hire an attorney to make sure that everything is done right. That adds thousands of dollars more to the bill. Not to mention that today's quotas for Mexicans are very tight ... and if you can't be accepted legally into the U.S., then you can't apply for citizenship either.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

There was an interesting article on MSNBC today about how the boycott didn't have *near* the economic impact the protesters had hoped it would.

If I were MSNBC, I wouldn't crow too much over this fact. Illegal alien activists may well respond, "Okay, one day didn't affect you. Next time, we'll make it one week." And don't think that illegals can't survive one week without work: they're survivors who have lived through situations that you and I don't want to imagine.

It's a fact that a one-week strike would have a noticeable economic impact ... unless hordes of legal residents and citizens (like you and me?) take up the jobs left behind by the illegal alien strikers. Are you ready, willing and available to do that kind of work? No?


.

 

[EL COLORADO]

What a mistargeted merry go-round this thread has become.
Like fish going after the worm on the hook,...again and again.
Unable to process the fisherman holding the pole.
Maybe thats why my posts arent being followed up on anymore.


1. This isnt an "immigrant" issue. Its being coyley worded and phrased that way by the media and the government.
But we all know its an issue of MEXICAN "immigrants".
So if this is such a serious issue,..why isnt it directly addressed as mexican immigration problem by the govt and media??
Nobody's talking about here or anywhere about Chinese or Pakistanis,..even though they comprise a substantial portion of the illegal immigrators to this country.

2. The Mexican "immigrants" coming to this country, are both culturally and racially INDIGENOUS NATIVE AMERICANS. Aboriginal residents of the North American Continent for centuries,... looooong before the formation of this nation a mere 400 years ago.
To refer to them as immigrants in this sense,...is a joke. Really.
Unlike...REAL "immigrants" they never came from across thousands of miles of oceans.


3. This is a non-issue......its nothing but manipulating govt./media propoganda,.. designed and targeted to blow alot of meaningless steam,...and meant to rabble rouse, distract and play on the half-informed emotional reactionism of folks on both sides of this "non-issue".




EC

 

[jamespowers]

It's a fact that a one-week strike would have a noticeable economic impact ... unless hordes of legal residents and citizens (like you and me?) take up the jobs left behind by the illegal alien strikers. Are you ready, willing and available to do that kind of work? No?

You may think there would be a negative economic impact but I think Thomas Sowell puts that to rest:
"There is no question that, with billions more people living in the United States, our national output would be a lot bigger than it is today. Why not do it then, if the argument based on immigrants' contribution to increased American output is sufficient?

More important, by what principle would you decide where to draw the line -- and why does that same principle not apply to today's immigrants, legal or illegal?

The most obvious objection is that the world's population living in the United States would not only add to output but add to the costs imposed on American citizens. That same argument applies to immigrants from Mexico or any other country today.

The emergency rooms of many hospitals in California have become a major source of medical treatment for illegal immigrants, and the financial drain of serving people who cannot or do not pay has shut down some of these hospitals, making them unavailable to American citizens as well as illegal aliens.

Schools have to contend not only with the additional financial costs of educating the children of illegal immigrants but also with the educational problems of trying to deal with children who require extra attention because of their limited knowledge of English.

The children of American citizens have less time and resources available to them as a result.

The welfare state has made immigrants of all sorts, wherever their origin and whether they are legal or illegal, a major burden beyond what the immigrants of a century ago were. Few of the enthusiasts for more immigration seem to want to talk about these high hidden costs of "cheap labor."

To the hotels, farmers, and affluent families who hire illegal immigrants, the labor may be cheap but to the taxpayers it can be very expensive.

Moreover, the people who live in affluent suburbs and have "undocumented workers" to mow their lawns, take care of their children or clean their swimming pools are unlikely to have these workers as neighbors. Nor are these immigrants' children likely to be going to local upscale schools.

Even people who have been railing at Wal-Mart for not paying their workers "enough," claiming that the taxpayers are subsidizing Wal-Mart employees' health care and other benefits, never seem to apply the same reasoning to illegal immigrants.

While American citizens are legally entitled to welfare state benefits, Mexicans get those benefits only if they cross the border into the United States. In short, immigrants add to such costs while Wal-Mart's American employees do not, because they can get those benefits whether they work for Wal-Mart or not.

Whatever the decision as to how many and what kind of immigrants should be let into the United States, why should that decision be made by people in Mexico, instead of being made here by Americans?"
The economic impact is against us legal taxpayers and workers. Of course we would be willing to take the jobs but at the legal rate. Illegal labor costs us all money one way or the other.

Regards,

J

 

[PrettyBigGuy]

2. The Mexican "immigrants" coming to this country, are both culturally and racially INDIGENOUS NATIVE AMERICANS. Aboriginal residents of the North American Continent for centuries,... looooong before the formation of this nation a mere 400 years ago.
To refer to them as immigrants in this sense,...is a joke. Really.
Unlike...REAL "immigrants" they never came from across thousands of miles of oceans.

Okay, I'll bite. If I understand you correctly you are saying that Mexican citizens are entitled to live in the USA because they are indiginous to the continent? By this same argument, Myself being of European descent, have the right to illegally emigrate to Europe regardless of the laws of the countries there? If I am interpreting your words incorrectly, please let me know.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

James,

I suspect Marc's talking about the short term economic impact. The loss of output in the week that the strike was in effect would be significant. At least i think that was his point. Unless all those jobs were filled instantly by "hordes" of americans and legal immigrants, i think the assumption of economic impact is valid.

In the long term (permant strike, or ship 'em back to Immigrantistan) Sowell would probably be correct - we'll need to wait for it to happen to see.

bk

 

[Marc Chevalier]

But we all know its an issue of MEXICAN "immigrants".

It's not even an issue of Mexican immigrants. It's an issue of poor people of indigenous or mixed race from Mexico and Central America. It's NOT that most Americans have anything against indigenous people because they're indigenous. It's that in Latin America, indigenous people are the poorest of the poor. And THAT, my friend, is the fault of Mexico and the other nations south of the border. It is because of those countries' caste systems that their indigenous and mixed race peoples are "kept in their place". The United States is not to blame for this. (Then again, it doesn't really encourage Latin America to change it.)

The problem that the U.S. has with indigenous/mixed-race Latin Americans is with their Latin-American style poverty. That is to say, a physical and psychological poverty which have been carefully maintained by the ruling elite. To keep a perpetual caste "in its place" over the centuries, elites made sure that none were educated to be anything but peasants and vaqueros (cowboys). Rewards were in Heaven, never on Earth.

My response to U.S. fears about this Latin-American "culture of poverty" is: it doesn't last. Have more faith in the universal power of the American dream. The immigrants who come here do so to improve their lives. They have a spark in them that says NO to centuries of oppression. Just by trying to come here, they are taking a step toward becoming new people, different from their peasant ancestors ... ready to stop living under the Latin-American status quo. That spark grows with their descendants. Within two generations, you have Americans. People DO assimilate because they see how much better the American system is than are the systems in their countries of origin. Folks adopt the good things of America, while keeping some of the good things of their ethnic culture. (Usually food, music and dance.) They create a mix. However, if we -- due to our apprehension of Latin America's poor --try to keep doors closed to legal Latin American immigrants, we will hamper their desire and ability to assimilate. If we refuse to accept that, in addition to being here legally, they CAN and DO want to become Americans, then our very refusal will isolate them. And it is isolation, more than anything else, that lead to the riots we saw in France.

What I'm trying to say is: enforce the border, stop as many people as possible from entering the U.S. illegally, BUT don't be afraid of poor, Latin American indigenous/mixed-race people for who they are. In other words, don't make it all but impossible for those folks to enter the U.S. legally. (And as things stand, they practically cannot.) Realize that those of them who want to come to America have the spark of independence. If nurtured by us, this spark will make the immigrant and his/her descendants (no matter what culture they came from) into Americans.

As for those poor, dark-skinned Latin Americans who are already LEGALLY here, don't be afraid that they won't assimilate. Believe me, they can and will -- our immigrants (or at least their near descendants) always do. The only thing in the way of assimilation is prejudice and fear on our part.


.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

3. This is a non-issue......its nothing but manipulating govt./media propoganda,.. designed and targeted to blow alot of meaningless steam,...and meant to rabble rouse and play on the half-informed emotional reactionism of folks on both sides of this "non-issue".

I strongly disagree. It is a very big issue. Illegal aliens are expensive. Uncontrolled immigration has, in recent years, led to impossibly crowded schools and disasterous, even dangerous housing and highway-driving situations.

The borders must be made as airtight as possible against illegal immigration. At the same time, the U.S. must make it less expensive for people to legally immigrate from Mexico, Central America, or anywhere else. And if you feel uncomfortable with that, then ask yourself the following:
"Am I only mad about the Mexicans who are here illegally? Or am I also mad that poor, indigenous/mixed race Mexicans like these are here at all, legally or not?"


.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Okay, I'll bite. If I understand you correctly you are saying that Mexican citizens are entitled to live in the USA because they are indiginous to the continent?

As you know, PrettyBigGuy, El Colorado's argument doesn't work in our world. It ignores the very idea of nations and borders. Let's all try to speak from within the same time and place, or a Babel of babble will result. Utopia is a land that we don't live in, so let's not pretend that we do.


.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Of course we would be willing to take the jobs but at the legal rate.

Well ... according to state labor laws as they now stand, EVERYONE who works is supposed to receive at least the minimum wage. Those state laws cover illegal alien workers as well! In theory, at least, they're supposed to be paid at least the minimum wage.

The minimum wage in California and most other states is a joke. No one can receive it and have secure housing, reliable transportation, affordable health care that even comes close to being comprehensive, and food that isn't terrible for your health. Even if you have multiple jobs, which practically all minimum-wage earners must, you are living on the edge, running on a treadmill ... and your prospects for advancement are dim.

The working poor, indeed.

U.S. legal residents and citizens willing to take over the illegals' jobs "at the legal rate" would find their lot quite unsatisfactory. What would you do if they unionized and started demanding much more than the legal rate? Would you really be happy to give them what they want? Because I'll tell you something: if no "voiceless" illegals were around to do those jobs, the legal workers replacing them would be in a strong position to fight for increases in wages and benefits. Big increases. Far bigger than "the legal rate".


.

 

[EL COLORADO]

Okay, I'll bite. If I understand you correctly you are saying that Mexican citizens are entitled to live in the USA because they are indiginous to the continent? By this same argument, Myself being of European descent, have the right to illegally emigrate to Europe regardless of the laws of the countries there? If I am interpreting your words incorrectly, please let me know.

Thanks fer bitin'

First of all,..I made THREE distinct points,...not just the one here you chose to address. So im "saying" much.

Second,..Im not saying they are entitled to live here,...Im infering that to IGNORE the fact that they are indigenous people to this North American continent,.. is to ignore a critical naked component in the TRUE UNDERLYING REALITY of the dynamic of the situation.

Thirdly,..your argument is not the same. Europe is a land of indigenous peoples with their individual cultures,..who wared and carved out their own borders and such ...on their terms ...and on THEIR land.

Indigenous americans did not.

Their lands were carved up and borders imposed upon them.....by others. And those others (US, Spanish Castillian class, etc) still mantain total control of laws and dictums in lands to which they are NOT indigenous too.
Exactly unlike Europe.




EC

 

[Marc Chevalier]

And therefore ... ?

 

[scotrace]

And therefore...

And therefore, Bob Crachitt, I'm about to raise your salary!!!

This has been an extraordinary thread with some of the most insightful, gentlemanly debate one will find anywhere on the 'net. The number of private messages received (and public compliments posted) testify to this, as does the very high number of page reads.

Thanks everyone. I think we've reached a point at which further discourse may break down the points outlined above.