Posted on 06/09/2005 4:48:29 AM PDT by SJackson
A group of citizens calling themselves the Minutemen patrols the border looking to stop illegal immigrants from entering the United States. Mexico's president, Vicente Fox, states that Mexican migrant workers in the U.S. are "are doing jobs that not even blacks want to do."
Meanwhile, many Republicans think President George W. Bush's guest-worker program either mocks the law or is unworkable, while in California a frustrated Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger blurts out, "Close the borders in California and all across Mexico and the United States."
Illegal immigration is again in the headlines, but the debate isn't going anywhere. Instead, all the tired controversies are again being aired.
Some believe illegal immigration is a win-win bargain: An impoverished Mexico obtains critical dollars, while job-hungry America receives industrious unskilled workers.
Critics counter that millions of illegal workers undermine the sanctity of the law, and only abet a corrupt Mexican government that uses remittances to avoid needed reform.
Both sides agree that when newcomers arrive legally from Mexico in the thousands, rather than unchecked in the millions, these immigrants become among our best American citizens.
The politics are by now surreal. Those of the corporate right want cheap labor. So they join the self-interested multicultural left in politics, journalism and academia who don't mind seeing a growing presence of unassimilated and dependent constituents.
(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...
Corporations have learned how to sucker the Left into supporting what *they* want. I wonder how much longer Leftists are going to remain blind to the fact they are merely 'useful idiots' to the very people they profess to hate. I just heard on the radio that Latinos are the only group where real wages have decreased over the past 5 years.
You are confusing people hired by corporations with 'corporate workers', by which I assume you mean office workers. Corporations hire agrigultural workers, construction workers, restaurant workers, assembly line workers, anything that does not require a great deal of training. Especially if you are a smaller business, you often don't have the luxury of NOT hiring illegals and paying extra in benefits or salary if you don't have to. I certainly don't think large corporations have a policy of hiring illegals, but they turn a blind eye to the practice if it helps the bottom line.
Many of the construction-related companies rely heavily on illegal immigrants.
And try finding janitorial staff in the Southwest US that speaks English as a primary language . . .
They are so blinded by fantasy that I would hesitate to take that guess.
Why the reflexive defense of corporations? How is that conservative? I think conservatives should demand at least as much responsibility from corporations as from anyone else.
A good friend of mine used to clean floors at Walmart and other big box stores. He hired Americans, who worked hard. He paid them well, averaging over $20/hour.
Five years ago he began losing contracts to contractors who used illegals and could cut his price by more than 50%.
Those hiring these companies were perfectly well aware that the price they were paying would not allow a legitimate company to do the work with legal labor. They hid behind a facade of pretending they didn't know this.
I have personally been involved with situations where insurance companies would not pay a price that would allow reroofing by a company that paid worker's comp, hired legal labor, followed safety rules, etc. They pretended that all such concerns were only the responsibility of the contractor.
IMHO, this is all corporate BS. They know exactly what they are doing and their pretense that they don't know the results of their refusal to pay a price for services that allows them to be done legally is sheer hypocrisy.
Well, it looks like we've moved away from Mr. Hanson's statement (admitedly, as understoood by me),
"Those of the corporate right want [to hire] cheap [illegal] labor."
to
"...companies were perfectly well aware that the price they were paying would not allow a legitimate [vendor or contracting] company to do the work with legal labor."
IMHO, this second statement confuses a proper corporate motive (to cut costs) with an attribution of an improper motive (to induce other businesses to hire "illegals") -- with no proof offered.
As I said originally -- a cheap shot...
ping
Dear VDH, hardly do you ever miss, but in this you do.
Read CAFTA. Study Border XXI. Read the Carnegie Summary of the Ford Foundations recommendation on Migration.. all of this fits together, then America's immigration / border policy will make sense. Heard of Maurice Strong? How about tuning in to the WEF at Davos and see how national sovereignty elimination is buried within the masks of the war on Poverty, and Environmentalism. This has been in the works for years.
It is indeed a goal of Global Governance.
I disagree.
Would you feel the same way if the "contracting companies," who are often just a veil to provide plausible deniability, were hiring children to do the work? Would that be none of the business of the corporation?
Is it ethically proper for a corporation to do anything that saves it money as long as it can claim it didn't know laws were being broken to do so?
Protect our borders and coastlines from all foreign invaders!
Be Ever Vigilant!
Minutemen Patriots ~ Bump!
Hey, Mr. Bottom Line Republican, how do you like your new bedfellows?
May you wake up with a good case of crabs tomorrow.
This is what I keep waiting to hear, and never do.
I marvel at the ease and frequency with which people ascribe human attributes to inanimate entities (such as corporations), which exist only as a matter of legal convenience. The truth is that "corporations" don't "claim" anything and "corporations" don't "do" anything. It is the EMPLOYEES of corporations, who "do" things and who "claim" things on behalf of their respective corporations.
With that background, let's correct your question:
Is it ethically proper for [the employees of] a corporation to do anything that saves ...[the corporation's] money as long as ...[the employees] can [honestly] claim ...[they] didn't know laws were being broken to do so?
As presented above, the answer is obviously "Yes".
If the word "honestly" is replaced with the word "dishonestly", the answer is obviously "No". Dishonesty is unethical, per se.
And if the word "honestly" is omited from your question, the answer, IMHO, is a conditional "Yes".
The "condition" is that the employees are NOT to be assigned blame, merely for having less-than-perfect knowledge.
I deal with many tradesmen in the course of a month. If my laundryman beats his children, is that MY ethical lapse? If my barber "fools around", is that MY ethical lapse? If my cleaning woman breaks the speed limit, is that MY ethical lapse? If my grocer sells me tomatillos picked by children in Chiapas last week, is that MY ethical lapse? Is it HIS? I could go on, but I think that these are enough examples to make my point. PEOPLE can be "ethical" or "unethical" based on their OWN behavior - not the behavior (or alleged behavior) of other people.
I know... I know...
The tort bar has gotten rich by successfully shifting the "blame" for countless problems from the guilty parties to the "parties with the deep pockets". In many, many cases, this means: to the "corporations".
But I think that playing along with that "game" is itself unethical.
Multinational-Corportation besides hiring illegals to do low level work, also love to import H-1 visa workers and pay them half the price of Americans, while outsourcing as many jobs as possible.
Enron,Global Crossing, Arthur Anderson,etc....
I'm glad he touched on the money sent back to Mexico as it is used to keep the citizens receiving it complacent by being indirectly dependent on the US economy dole, instead of motivating them to do what they need to do to bring their country into the 21st century
I wonder if this is hearsay, conjecture or experience talking.
My company has several H-1B visa employees because we need certain skills which are in short supply in the US.
One investment manager is fluent in English, Japanese, Arabic and Hindi.
Another speaks English, Spanish and Portugese and is able to write legal contracts in any of those languages.
These guys receive 6-figure incomes, because they EARN them.
OTOH, I doubt if any of Ward Churchill's "students" has ever had a resume pass the first stage of the screening process we use.
I know the lazy DUmmies fall for this "evil corporations" propaganda all the time, but I think that we are smart enough to get beyond the "sound bites" and check the facts.
What do you think?
Well, in Colorado and Kansas, large corporations enjoy a cheap labor force of immigrants in meat packing and corporate farming enterprises; around the Chesapeake Bay, corporate interests employ cheap immigrant labor in poultry and seafood packaging plants. I could site corporate use of cheap immigrant labor in many other parts of the country, particularly in the case of large (corporate) residential and commercial construction companies. In all of these places, the rest of the community is forced to subsidize the corporate cheaply paid labor by providing health care, subsidized housing ect. Hanson isn't taking a cheap shot, you just need to expand your definition of corporate enterprise beyond the Fortune 500.
Point taken...
I'll give you credit, you show up for every illegal invader debate and get bashed over and over. I disagree with you 110% , but at least give you credit for taking a beating over and over.
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.