[janetgreen]

I have an education, never had to pick strawberries except in my own back yard. Read afronaut's #150 post. I don't know why you keep insisting that kids don't work, because the majority of them do in order to buy the things they think they need. Bill Handel may be speaking for his kids, but not necessarily for others.

I've lived in California all my long life, and believe me, all these jobs were filled by Americans before the illegal alien invasion, which brought down wages for everyone.

Wait until they get to your state in the numbers they are here, you'll be singing a different tune when you see your taxes rising, the schools overflowing, the medical facilities closing because of bankruptcy, the welfare office with a line a mile long, and when you have to walk a mile before you hear anyone speaking English.

[liberalnot]

i read #150, and replied, but never got a response to my question:

he says that jobs paid 40-100% more before the invasion. my question is, will carl's jr, for example, be willing to pay $42,000-63,000 for a general manager? i think not.

last week i drove thru' temecula and had lunch at a carl's jr. near the door was an ad for employees, listing these salaries:

general manager $30,000-45,000 /yr
restaurant manager $28,100-35,000 /yr
shift leader $8-10.75 / hr.
crew $6.75-8.50 / hr

take any of these and multiply by post #150's 40-100% more, and you'll soon see that no, carl's jr will not be increasing their salaries so that you white folks can send mexicans home. no one is going to pay, for example, an 18 year old kid $17.00 to take your order.

the democrats can't figure out economics, and neither can some people on this forum.

like the wal-mart phenomenon-their success just keeps building and building and building-americans want cheaper goods and services.

teens and college students do not work in southern california unless they have to. "have to" means that that their parents cannot afford to not have them work, or, some old-fashioned parents still believe that work has a positive value. i believe the latter. when i was in high school and college i knew few people that did not work part-time during the school year and full-time during the summers.

this has now changed for many middle class and upper middle class families. like bill handel, "my kids aren't flipping burgers", they look down upon menial jobs.

in the 1950s americans did not look down generally upon menial jobs and think that life owed them cheap labor to do these jobs. the zoe baird mess during the clinton administration pointed this out. embarassing to the president it revealed the truth, that most professionals, middle and upper middle class americans use and benefit from cheap labor. bill handel's "my kids are not going to flip burgers" resonates with these people.

look at recent american history:

in the 1950s when i was a kid illegals were rounded up by officials and placed on trains back to mexico. no more. why?

1. the ww2 generation of americans had 3, 4, and 5 kids.

2. the boomer generation (1946-64) and successive generations have had fewer children. women generally start having children about age 18. 18 + 46 = 1964. and guess what? the u.s. congress debated immigration policy in 1965 because demographers were reporting to decision makers that a birth deficit was nearing. a new immigration policy was adopted, changing from europeans, to the 3rd world.

interesting, the question was raised, will this new policy change the color of america? no, was the answer. it was obviously incorrect.

and, sure enough as demographers had predicted, in the mid to late 1970s, the american birthrate fell to 1.7 or 1.8.

also, how many millions of future americans were aborted?

thus, there were less teens entering the job market.

4. combined with the change in american values, discussed above, fewer americans required their children to work part time during high school and college.

5. meanwhile during the 1980s american decision makers were concerned about a marxist revolution, a second revolution, in mexico, our southern neighbor. the american government sent tanks and other materiel to the mexican government. of concern were the displaced rural poor who were moving to mexican cities looking for work and finding none. they had no housing, no health care, no services, and lived in cardboard shacks on the peripheries of mexican cities. mexico city became one of the largest cities in the world, surpassing american cities in population.

fearing increasing marxist control over these displaced poor, the american decision makers overlooked illegal immigration, a safety valve, so that mexico did not blow up.

the last thing american decision makers of the reagan administration during the contra wars of central america wanted, was a marxist revolution on our border!

also, increased immigration dovetailed nicely with the demand for cheap labor. republican administrations tend to be more responsive to lobbying by small business and corporate business for cheap labor. (this is one reason why the zoe baird mess was so embarrassing to clinton. democrats are supposed to be for the poor people, but it was revealed that all the limousine democrats were sucking up cheap labor!)

due to the higher birthrate of the immigrants, some time in the 1990s the american birthrate had repaired itself, and moved above replacement of 2.0.

neither the republican party nor the democrat party has taken a strong stand against illegal immigration for the reasons that i have outlined above. in fact, during the 1980s illegals were given american citizenship.

if you read history, you will find that the idea of nationalism and implicitly national borders began during the renaissance. but even tho' many countries believe themselves to be racially homogenous, they are not. for example, just who are the french? the result of celtic invasions, various tribes of gothic origins in asia and their repeated invasions, that eventually broke roman power. in the medieval era the vikings plundered the future france, raping women and leaving their offspring. later the french normans invaded england forever changing england and our language. still later some of the assimilated norman-english invaded sw france, no doubt leaving some of their dna. back to the medieval era, the arabs got as far as portiers france until they were defeated by charles martel. and this isn't the full story.

in sum, the movement of people is the history of the world. is any country or culture racially pure? not.

if you don't like where you live, and don't like the dark skinned, spanish-speaking, catholics around you, well--move!

there was an article just last week or so in the los angeles times saying that jews are moving into las vegas in large numbers. many southern californians have moved there and enjoy it. there are still mexicans there, but not as many as socal. the reason there are mexicans there is because americans want cheap labor.

there were no "good ol' days". there were problems then, too.

america is doing what america does best--re-inventing itself.