RICOing Immigrants

Wall Street Journal (paid subscribers only) ^ | April 18, 2002 | Review & Outlook

[snopercod]

Where there's a will, there's a way to sue in America. So it was probably inevitable that the anti-immigrant political right would join with the plaintiffs bar to achieve the crackdown that they haven't been able to get from Congress.

[snopercod]

This must have been written by Al Hunt, the WSJs token liberal.

[Tuor]

Considering that the WSJ is full of neo-cons (read globalists), it could've been almost any one of them.

Tuor

[TomGuy]

"There are in excess of 10 million illegal workers in the United States," says Tom Donahue, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. "If tomorrow we sent them all home, this economy would stop.

Oh, come on!
[moaning, rolling eyes]

And those illegals aren't being paid $8 an hour; it's more like minimum wage to $7 an hour.

If these workers are so essential to the economy, then why doesn't the government bring them in LEGALLY? Illegal is illegal! Hundreds of thousands of "documented" legal foreigners go to work here every day. So why all the pandering to ILLEGALS?

[eno_]

We should offer amnesty, but only on a HIGHLY selective basis. I am dissappointed to see the CoC so in the pocket of big low wage employers. What they don't say is how much it costs for social services for illegals. We are subsidizing Tyson and that is VERY BAD.

[BOBTHENAILER]

Check this out, kinda goes along with one of your ideas.

[SevenDaysInMay]

Criminal aliens: They violated law just by entering, more by working and buying false documentation.

RICO does seem to fit. This entire socio-economic issue is steeped in prima facia criminal conspiracies.

[RippleFire]

Since the author failed to proofread his editorial, I thought I would help out:

Mr. Foster, who recently filed his fourth anti-illegal -immigration class-action suit

FAIR hopes to use a legal-financial bludgeon against American business to achieve its political goal of shutting down illegal immigration

And they rail against excessive litigation, except when it can intimidate a business never to hire someone who entered the country illegally from Mexico. As for the trial bar, its members advertise themselves as avatars of social justice, but in this case they're throwing anti-Mafia laws at Mexicans who've crossed the border illegally to take jobs that Americans allegedly refuse to accept.

And it's certainly more sensible than using courts to shake down business for hiring diligent illegal immigrants

Sorry pal, but they are either illegal or legal. If they are illegal, get them out.

[Clemenza]

Much as I hate tort lawyers, this is merely a case of using the left's methods against them.

The WSJ is a fine paper, but on immigration they are just wrong. Bartley and Gigot have a fetish for open borders that goes beyond that of most Dems and RINOs.

[staytrue]

says Tom Donahue, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. "If tomorrow we sent them all home, this economy would stop. They're hard workers, they're important workers, and we need to find a way to make them legal workers

This quote is attributed to the president of the US chamber of commerce. This guy is unlikely to be a leftist liberal. Also, the other thing about illegal immigrants is that they are not unionized, do not file frivolous lawsuits, and they can be fired at the whim of the employer.

[traditionalist]

That's because the editors are necons, not true conservatives. There is a big difference.

[skeeter]

That's a goal it's never been able to achieve through the ballot box...

Being from California I found this part most humorous. Other than prop 187 when have Americans even had a CHANCE to vote on anything having to do with immigration policy.

Tripe like this article is why I won't waste another penny on the WSJ.

[usadave]

"There are in excess of 10 million illegal workers in the United States," says Tom Donahue, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

This statement is a flat out exaggeration. There may be 10 million illegal aliens in the United States, but that includes all illegal aliens, including women and children at home who don't work. Also, a lot of these illegal alien workers are the ones you see standing on street corners in groups of 25, 50, or more hoping someone will pick them up and give them work for the day, so they are not full-time workers.

"If tomorrow we sent them all home, this economy would stop.

An absolutely preposterous statement. I think we could squeeze by just fine if we sent all the illegal alien busboys, dishwashers, nannies, hotel maids, gardeners, and produce pickers back to the countries from whence they came. These jobs are not exactly the driving force of the American economy. Any vacancies left by the booting out of illegal alien workers would simply be filled by the millions of unemployed American workers and legal aliens. If we have a true shortage of workers in any field, we could just let in more legal immigrants who have followed the rules and patiently waited for their turn to enter the land of opportunity.

[usadave]

And they rail against excessive litigation, except when it can intimidate a business never to hire someone dark-skinned who might possibly have come from Mexico.

Typical of the WSJ editorial staff to whip out the old race card and start waving it around whenever someone advocates enforcing our immigration laws. By the way, kind morons at the WSJ, American businesses can hire as many of those "dark-skinned people who might possibly have come from Mexico" as they want, as long as those people have entered the United States legally.

[Risa]

"This must have been written by Al Hunt, the WSJs token liberal."

The author is dishonest and irresponsible.

FAIR is a highly-respected organization. Their work is scrupulously researched and documented. They could teach this guy/gal a thing or two about responsible journalism.

I am appalled that the Wall Street Journal allows such shabby jounralism. For a moment, I thought that I was reading some third-rate tabloid.

Has anyone noticed that a lot of journalism in this country has gone to hell. I've noticed it in Canadian journalism, too.

I thank God for the internet.

Thanks for an enlightening post--now I know WSJ has gone to hell, too.

risa

[Risa]

>>We are subsidizing Tyson and that is VERY BAD. <<

Yes, and Nebraska Beef and the rest of the beef packaging industry, too. They all travel to Mexico and import illegals for taxpayers to subsidize. It's been going on for a long time, and I am glad to see someone doing something about it. I hope the judges are fair, however.

risa

[snopercod]

I cancelled my WSJ subscription a while back because of their sloppy journalism regarding the energy crisis in California. IMO, they favor a certain political agenda over the truth.