Posted on 09/21/2006 2:18:02 AM PDT by ruination
More than 7 million illegal immigrants work in the United States. They build houses, pick crops, slaughter cattle, stitch clothes, mow lawns, clean hotel rooms, cook restaurant meals and wash the dishes that come back.
You might assume that the plentiful supply of low-wage illegal workers would translate into significantly lower prices for the goods and services they produce. In fact, their impact on consumer prices call it the "illegal-worker discount" is surprisingly small.
(Excerpt) Read more at seattletimes.nwsource.com ...
Then why are they allowed to come?
Related
Related:
Get-tough policy on employers has had limited effect
Part 1 | Home-building boom relies on illegal workers
Please delete No. 3. Links are bad.
Saying we should allow illegal immigration to continue is the same as saying we should allow slavery to keep the price of cotton down.
All the "reforms" and "improvements" libs want for illegals are just building a better slave ship.
It's more sinister than that. Liberals want to keep people stupid and on welfare. It's their voting base.
That might be from the economic perspective. It's the political perspective that I don't understand. I mean, I understand why Bush has allowed this to happen. He thinks he has a mandate to create a "new America".
We are now one of the largest Spanish-speaking nations in the world. We're a major source of Latin music, journalism and culture. Just go to Miami, or San Antonio, Los Angeles, Chicago or West New York, New Jersey ... and close your eyes and listen. You could just as easily be in Santo Domingo or Santiago, or San Miguel de Allende. For years our nation has debated this change -- some have praised it and others have resented it. By nominating me, my party has made a choice to welcome the new America. As I speak, we are celebrating the success of democracy in Mexico. George Bush from a campaign speech in Miami, August 2000. |
Here is an excerpt of a good critique of that speech:
In equating our intimate historic bonds to our mother country and to Canada with our ties to Mexico, W. shows a staggering ignorance of the civilizational facts of life. The reason we are so close to Britain and Canada is that we share with them a common historical culture, language, literature, and legal system, as well as similar standards of behavior, expectations of public officials, and so on. My Bush Epiphany By Lawrence Auster
The Path to National Suicide by Lawrence Auster (1990)
An essay on multi-culturalism and immigration.
How can we account for this remarkable silence? The answer, as I will try to show, is that when the Immigration Reform Act of 1965 was being considered in Congress, the demographic impact of the bill was misunderstood and downplayed by its sponsors. As a result, the subject of population change was never seriously examined. The lawmakers stated intention was that the Act should not radically transform Americas ethnic character; indeed, it was taken for granted by liberals such as Robert Kennedy that it was in the nations interest to avoid such a change. But the dramatic ethnic transformation that has actually occurred as a result of the 1965 Act has insensibly led to acceptance of that transformation in the form of a new, multicultural vision of American society. Dominating the media and the schools, ritualistically echoed by every politician, enforced in every public institution, this orthodoxy now forbids public criticism of the new path the country has taken. We are a nation of immigrants, we tell ourselves and the subject is closed. The consequences of this code of silence are bizarre. One can listen to statesmen and philosophers agonize over the multitudinous causes of our decline, and not hear a single word about the massive immigration from the Third World and the resulting social divisions. Opponents of population growth, whose crusade began in the 1960s out of a concern about the growth rate among resident Americans and its effects on the environment and the quality of life, now studiously ignore the question of immigration, which accounts for fully half of our population growth.
This curious inhibition stems, of course, from a paralyzing fear of the charge of racism. The very manner in which the issue is framedas a matter of equal rights and the blessings of diversity on one side, versus racism on the othertends to cut off all rational discourse on the subject. One can only wonder what would happen if the proponents of open immigration allowed the issue to be discussed, not as a moralistic dichotomy, but in terms of its real consequences. Instead of saying: We believe in the equal and unlimited right of all people to immigrate to the U.S. and enrich our land with their diversity, what if they said: We believe in an immigration policy which must result in a staggering increase in our population, a revolution in our culture and way of life, and the gradual submergence of our current population by Hispanic and Caribbean and Asian peoples. Such frankness would open up an honest debate between those who favor a radical change in Americas ethnic and cultural identity and those who think this nation should preserve its way of life and its predominant, European-American character. That is the actual choiceas distinct from the theoretical choice between equality and racismthat our nation faces. But the tyranny of silence has prevented the American people from freely making that choice.
Hmmmm. Well, they do on wages....
Real World Proof That Illegal (Aliens)/Immigrants Depress Wages For American Workers
Ya think??
The far left as basically as pointed out by this article hate that businesses make a profit and prosper, the far right hates those same businesses because of the people they employ in creating wealth.
Both sides are control freaks when it comes to wealth creating business.
And the centrists like illegals? Hmmm.
Actually they do, but like is not the correct word, it's more like accepts their contribution to the economy.
You really have no clue, do you, the sheer lack of logic in your posts really makes it great for the pro law enforcement side of the debate.
So here is an example using your "logic". If a business can ignore workplace rules on who they can hire, is it ok if they sell ILLEGAL drugs as well?Is it ok if they sell liqour to those under 21? Are these other laws also against "freedom"?
So your arguement is that selling liquor to minors and the selling of illegal drugs is the moral equivalent to building shelter or growing and processing food.
Gee, I didn't know toking on a bong is the same as help building a house.
Who has the silly arguement now.
Their voting bloc will usher in the North American Union. Its purpose is to put us in a better position to compete with Asia.
All of that cheap Mexican labor and plentiful Canadian natural resources, dontcha know. The Chinese know it, and are buying up Canada one company at a time.
It's the next big thing, low hanging fruit, too tempting a target for a growing 'empire' to ignore.
And splits the Republican party in two.
BUMP
bttt
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.