Posted on 12/14/2004 6:02:37 AM PST by OESY
...Think about the Kerik example: The man and his wife have two small kids.... A nanny offers that help, and she seems both nice enough and gets along with kids. Whether or not she's "legal" seems less important to most American parents than whether she's trustworthy and hard-working.
As for the nanny, she's traveled hundreds, if not thousands, of miles from home to make some money and get ahead. Her primary concern isn't running some Immigration Service gantlet but is to find a good family that pays decently and treats her well. Are we really supposed to believe that this kind of transaction between consenting adults jeopardizes our national security?
...Congress made some progress on the so-called nanny tax issue back in 1994, raising the threshold for complying and simplifying the process by which employers file taxes for their domestic help.
...Most Americans calculate the costs -- in time, legal advice and hassle -- of filling out all the forms, and they simply pay cash instead. The wage threshold should long ago have been raised far higher.
As for immigration law, the Bush Administration is headed down the right path with its guest-worker program. That proposal acknowledges that immigrants fill vital jobs, that movement across borders is inevitable as long as there is the lure of opportunity, and that merely adding more border guards won't stop migrants in any case.
The Bush plan would provide a legal means -- a three-year work visa -- for new immigrants to enter the country and take jobs Americans don't want. Some of them could even be nannies. That system would make it easier to track all foreigners, freeing up our homeland security forces to concentrate on terror threats, rather than rounding up the usual nanny suspects....
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
I don't find the use of slave labor from Mexico amusing in a political candidate of any stripe.
Equalitarian Democrats treat their employees as equals, and have no qualms about screwing those who will most need their government pensions out of them.
So9
Yep. My family and I really work hard also to get ahead. There are a few laws we could break that would really help us out. And we won't even send the money that we make to Mexico, we'll spend it right here! No big deal I guess. Have at it everyone!
Are we really supposed to believe we should encourage illegal and MASSIVE immigration so snotty liberal couples can have low priced nannies??? With the nannies come males too in numbers that change the face of our culture.
Forget terrorism-- All nations are formed through immigration and all nations fall through immigration. Some of the best parts of Tennessee have ceased to exist because they have become Mexican enclaves.
I like Mexicans but I don't think we should reward their high birth rate with an unlimited relief conduit. I like Mexicans but not enough to invite 90 million of them to come on over.
From the limited amount that was excerpted, the WSJ isn't thinking correctly on this, IMO.
Whether or not the ILLEGAL immigrant is willing to do, or take, a job that an American won't is irrelevant. If they are illegal, ship them back to the country of origin.
They are a net drain on the economy. Sure, some municipality may make a couple bucks on sales tax but the state and fed govts aren't getting any income tax, the countys and state aren't getting any property tax or licensing fees, and at the same time every time they need medical attention, every time their kids need education, every time one of them commits a crime and gets a free defense atty, they are draining the economy.
I believe there are Americans out there that WOULD take many of the jobs that illegal immigrants have at present. Factory jobs, hotel jobs, nanny jobs, day laborer jobs, etc.
There is probably a need for a limited amount of immigrants in the fashion that W wants to make legal but doing it for ALL the illegal immigrants that are already here is nothing more than amnesty from breaking our laws. If these people want to come to our country in that fashion, let them go back to the country of origin and then have the employer offer them a job.
I believe that W is wrong on this issue. If we reward the illegal immigrants every 18 years with an amnesty program it will only lead to MORE ILLEGAL immigrants crossing our borders and eventually Mexico will do what it has wanted to since 1848 and take back the Southwest, including Texas.
Allow me to rewrite:
...Think about the Kerik example: The man and his wife have two small kids.... A nanny offers that help, and she seems both nice enough and gets along with kids. Whether or not she's "legal" seems less important to most American parents than whether she's trustworthy and hard-working.
As for the nanny, she's traveled hundreds, if not thousands, of miles from home to make some money to send to her family back in Pakistan. Her son's primary concern is to bring death to the evil infidels of the United States. So, she finds a good family that pays decently and treats her well. Are we really supposed to believe that this kind of transaction between consenting adults jeopardizes our national security?
There. Make more sense now?
What a bunch of crap. This is to avoid paying "legal" wages and paying social security tax.
go to bugmenot.com
Here it is, the Wall Street elite admitting in print they don't give a damn about the law, the law is for "the little people."
Don't get between an oligarch and his sub-minimum-wage illegal maid or gardener. Don't worry about paying benefits (laws are for the little people, right) the middle class taxpayers will pick that up for you.
And don't worry about middle class kids in schools with classes of 35, of whom 15 are illegals who barely speak English.
Your kids go to private school. Screw those middle class Americans. You're a citizen of the one world, a globocrat.
Screw "America." That concept is so passe.
Yep, liberals are the only ones hiring illegal nannies. Sure thing.
Looks like a good site to know but they don't have a login for the WSJ.
Sunny Buono had the right attitude on illegals--" what's there to discuss?-they're illegal"--
"Here it is, the Wall Street elite admitting in print they don't give a damn about the law, the law is for the little people."
Exactly. There is an elite in America which thinks the laws don't apply to them. Immigration laws, drug laws, insider trading/securities fraud laws.
Respecting and enforcing the law is a conservative value. Breaking the law and making apologies for lawbreakers is not a conservative value.
And, while the WSJ is using the image of a Latino housekeeper to support their call for reform, I would point to the Algerian, Moroccan, and Tunisian illegal immigrant security screeners at Boston's Logan Airport on 9/11.
An open, unguarded border is the handmaiden of the terrorists.
When did we stop being "a nation of laws?"
Nannies are fine, unless you actually talk to a professional nanny. And then you'll see how they have hurt the nanny business (with the exception of foreign students, but that's another story).
If you don't know any nannies, it's okay, because you can wait for your friend the carpenter, the carpet installer, the dry wall guy, the mechanic, or the cement guy to get displaced. Basically, I'm talking about all of the trades, with the exception of plumbers and electricians (but maybe even those, too).
Anyway, it's already started. A guy I know needed a new floor. He hired three guys, bought the flooring at Home Depot. Cost of labor? $250 for two days for all three guys.
All three guys were hard working and good with their hands, while one of them was actually a skilled carpenter.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.