Dear Alabama Farmers: Am I Sorry That You Are Inconvenienced By Enforcing The Law And No Longer Have Sufficient Illegal Immigrants To Exploit? No.

It continues to boggle my fairly unbogglable mind to see how many illegal immigration apologists and open-border advocates regard these kinds of stories as support for not enforcing immigration laws.

This is from a news item by Jay Reeves of  the Associated Press:

“Some Alabama farmers say they are planting less produce rather than risk having crops rot in the fields a second straight year because of labor shortages linked to the state’s crackdown on illegal immigration. Farmers interviewed by The Associated Press say they had no choice but to reduce acreage. They fear there won’t be enough workers to pick crops at harvest time. The crops are often picked by Hispanic migrants, both legal and illegal….”

What a pity. Now the farmers have to pay a fair wage to workers to pick their crops, and because other farmers can get away with paying pathetic wages to illegal workers in neighboring states, that places the poor Alabama farmers at a competitive disadvantage. How unfair! Clearly, the right policy was to continue to refuse to enforce immigration laws, so there would always be an abundant supply of workers who have to accept dirt-cheap wages, because they have so few other options. This would have the added advantage of depressing the salaries for legal workers, making the jobs unattractive to anyone, legal or not, who isn’t willing to live in the back seat of a Ford or in a lean-to.

Some might argue that the sensible and just policy would be to require all farmers, as well as with other employers, to hire only U.S. citizens or legal guest workers, pay fair wages and charge for their crops accordingly, which would mean that Americans could take the jobs, get off of unemployment, and not have to eat Alpo. These heartless people who argue this are what La Raza, Occupy Wall Street, The New York Times and Rachel Maddow would call xenophobes and racists.

Here is the Ethics Alarms rule of thumb: when the profitability of your business depends on the government refusing to enforce the laws, you need a better business model.

___________________________

Pointer: Fark

Facts: WRCBTV

Graphic: Multi American

Ethics Alarms attempts to give proper attribution and credit to all sources of facts, analysis and other assistance that go into its blog posts. If you are aware of one I missed, or believe your own work was used in any way without proper attribution, please contact me, Jack Marshall, at  jamproethics@verizon.net.

 

121 Comments

Filed under Business & Commercial, Government & Politics

121 responses to “Dear Alabama Farmers: Am I Sorry That You Are Inconvenienced By Enforcing The Law And No Longer Have Sufficient Illegal Immigrants To Exploit? No.

  1. And just how did they manage their farms before illegal immigration? Slavery’s been over for 16 decades!

    • Back in the 40′s my mom and her family were migrant farm workers. There were no minimum wage laws or worker safety laws to protect them. Mom started in the fields when she was 7 years old. They lived in dirt floor shacks provided for the farm labor. They were poor, white American citizens.
      How long has illegal immigration been going on? Have we ever had secure borders?

      • We HAVE had secure borders before, Karla, just as we could have again if any sort of effort was made. I’m sure that few American farms, then or now, needed to resort to sharecropping or illegal labor to get the crop in. In fact, back during the same era you mention, it was common for college students to do that sort of work to help pay their tuitions. If the federal government hadn’t gotten into the student loan business to buy youth votes, the crops would be getting picked today, the kids would be learning something about character and the country would be less a trillion dollars of debt.

        • When I was a kid I visited my cousin and we “cut grass” during the summer. I earned enough to buy a guitar. The kids living in that ag community helped bring in the crops. Of course they didn’t work all day at it.
          Wealthy farmers today have automation and subsidies so they could afford a fair wage I think. As so often we see in big corps are the extremely wealthy at the top and slave labor at the bottom. The vast majority of the wealth in this nation belongs to those who have a virtual monopoly. Crony capitalism isn’t how it was supposed to work.
          I have wondered that those who complain about illegal aliens don’t complain about the people who hire them. If they didn’t get jobs,free health care and welfare they’d quit coming. They’d have no reason to come.

          • Btw,cutting grass = cutting asparagus. :)

            • I wasn’t a farm kid, myself. Pretty much the urban type. But all during high school, I worked my rump off all summer in maintenance and construction jobs. This was in the late 1960′s in Houston- during the first big housing boom. There was no lack of work. At the same time, there were no hordes of illegal Mexicans hanging around in Home Depot parking lots. The Latinos on the job were Americans. We all spoke English and we all got along like any bunch of young American guys.

              Crony Capitalism is an intermediate step between a free economy (and nation) and the controlled socialistic environment to which we appear headed. The reason why so many rich people support this process isn’t as self-defeating as it appears. Once you’ve earned or inherited a vast nest egg, you want to keep and grow it. A free society also means social mobility. Up AND down the ladder by one’s own efforts. Once you’ve got it, why not buy into a socialistic movement that can freeze out the system in your favor? You become one of the new aristocrats/party elite and your position becomes unassailable.

              • Eeyoure

                Steven, I appreciate your comments (here and in other “EthAl” blog threads) very much. I especially appreciate the history lesson from your personal experience in Houston. I have only a slight quibble with you today, about “heirs to nest eggs.” It seems that not all such heirs know how to keep and grow them – or care (or care enough) to know how. (That might be a valid observation about many Americans on both micro and macro scales; maybe not. It might also be an accurate observation regarding the coming inevitable failure of American socialism – that is, the collapse of the country’s abetted-by-governments financial houses of cards. But of course, California is going to fix its $16 billion state government budget deficit by “taxing the rich.” Oh well, they can’t “cut defense,” like the feds. Maybe they’ll tax gangs and drugs.)

                I read a good (I think) article in the Houston Chronicle – today’s or yesterday’s, can’t remember which; I read in “bursts” as opportunity and energy afford – about how a few pro athletes have succeeded (and failed) at managing their financial blessings (and curses) effectively. The article relates a bit to the Junior Seau suicide (if you know who I mean). Reading the article, I could not help relating the booms-and-busts of athletes’ careers to those of farmers’.

                In a couple of weeks, I’ll be traveling to rural Kansas to visit in-laws’ family. I aim to observe, as closely as I can, what the labor situation is like in the locale. Child and immigrant labor will be especially of interest to me. Family farms seem to be ever tougher businesses than most, to make successful and keep them so. The last time I visited, I got a strong impression that a mass changing of the guard, of sorts – a handing-off between generations – is either well underway, or imminent (I mean in the next very few years), in that economic niche. And the “next generation” or “next era” of production, that is, the coming “business model,” post-family farms, does not look consumer-friendly at all (as in, reliable, perennial abundance and accessibility of affordable, diverse and healthful commodities). I wish I could trust myself and my neighbors to be able to grow all our own. But old age imposes its own limits, to begin with…

                • Yep. Family farms have always been a risky venture. It’s the nature of the business. There are just so many variables that are beyond the control of the farmer. When the capital base is lacking during times of drought, flood and all the proverbial plagues of Egypt, farms fail. More than in most small businesses, cost control is all important.

                  The point is, illegal labor isn’t (or, at least, needn’t be) an option. As I pointed out, professional hands and farm families used to handle the harvest load by hiring indigents, young students (college or high school) or various other labor pools. Those sources aren’t what they used to be due to federal student loans (unconstitutional!), huge federal poverty programs (likewise) and the virtual protection of an alien army of migrants who take those jobs in any case (illegal!).

                  If, as has often been snidely asserted, these people take jobs Americans don’t want, then it’s only because those native sources have been weened away from the traditional work ethic in their youths by these illicit social programs. It certainly wasn’t the case in my youth. I DID rough, sweaty jobs as a teen in the hot summer sun of Texas and had no sense of this being “beneath me”. My dad did jobs such as working on high rise construction (“steeplejacking”- something I could never do!) and the now-obsolete and hard job of delivering ice. We had nothing handed to us on a silver platter.

                  Another myth is that Americans of Latin ancestry are one with the illegals on the issues of amnesty, etc. Utter bilge. Before the vast waves of illegals hit this country, Latins were an integral part of society. This is what has suffered, due to the ignorance of many Anglos who came to Texas from other states. Since then, they’ve not only had to fight the “illegal” image, but have born the brunt of the criminal depredations of their new, unwanted neighbors. Has anyone ever wondered why so many Customs officials and Border Patrolmen are Hispanics? Or why they’ve been persecuted so badly (by liberal Anglos!) for their dedication in protecting their country? For them, they are Americans, not Mexicans. And they rightfully resent being designated as Mexicans.

                  When you’ve worked with Customs on the border or with the USBP (as I have) you come to understand this quite fully. America is defined by ideals over ethnicity. That struggle over the ethnic exclusivity is ongoing, of course. But that dedication to ideal is what makes Latinos some of our finest citizens and has since the birth of Texas. The ultimate proof of that is in the roll call of the heroes of the Alamo. One quarter of them had Spanish surnames. Texan freedom fighters FIRST. They still are.

                  ‘Nuff said.

                  • Bill

                    Excellent post and it makes some very good points I hadnt thought of concerning the legal hispanic immigrants and Amercians who suffer becuase of the illegal ones.

        • Bill

          Please state when our borders were more secure then now and what was being done at that time to make them more secure then what we are doing now. Please quote sources and facts.

          Farmers have always practiced sharecropping and hired illegal aliens, depending on the crop and how it had to be harvested.

          • And that has always been unethical and exploitive. I stipulate there are many long-standing unethical employment practices, and this is one of them. That doesn’t mean I should feel sorry for cheaters when they can’t cheat any more.

            • Bill

              I agree. I was responding to another post saying that farmers didn’t resort to such thing before. They have always done it and it’s time to stop it.

          • Well, for one thing, control of the frontiers used to be an Army job. The 3rd Cavalry used to patrol much of the Texas border, headquartered at Fort Clark TX. (Closed in 1945, this post was located in Brackettville and is now a retirement area heavily populated with veterans.) The old 1950′s western series “MacKenzie’s Raiders” dealt with this scenario. Don’t get me wrong. The Mexican border has almost always been a challenging and dangerous proposition. But the Cavalry, aided by the elite Ranger constabularies of Texas, Arizona and California- utilizing nothing more than small, mounted units- did a lot to keep the border under control. Our capabilities today are immensely greater. Even without a fence, I guarantee you that just one Armored Cavalry Regiment, operating out of Forts Bliss or Huachuca (both founded for that purpose long ago) would pacify and protect our borderlands in one big hurry.

            • Sreven,that does make sense about the military patrolling the borders. The National Guard? After all,their job is to defend us.

              • I have nothing against using the Guard as a supplement. But the prime duty for enforcing an international border must reside with the federal government. I’ve been saying that we either militarize the Border Patrol in the manner of a land-going version of the Coast Guard or give the duty back to the Army. As I see it, we’re already well past the point where the Pershing Expedition was launched.

  2. Michael Ejercito

    Some might argue that the sensible and just policy would be to require all farmers, as well as with other employers, to hire only U.S. citizens or legal guest workers, pay fair wages and charge for their crops accordingly, which would mean that Americans could take the jobs, get off of unemployment, and not have to eat Alpo. These heartless people who argue this are what La Raza, Occupy Wall Street, The New York Times and Rachel Maddow would call xenophobes and racists.

    I wonder how many people complained about child labor laws when they were instituted, on the basis that they were an inconvenience to business.

    • Are you kidding? They are STILL complaining. And, of course, family farms still use child labor, too.

      • Bill

        Hell Newt thinks they should be gotten away with!

        • That’s always the way to convince me—cite Newt.

          • The difference, gentlemen, is that family farms are just that- a family enterprise. I would hardly compare the chores of a farming family child to the tribulations of an urban family in the early Industrial Revolution whose kids were forced to work in dirty, dangerous environments under the hand of unrelated strangers. The former environment strengthens family bonds and instills in the child the all-important values of work, thrift and self-sufficiency. In other words- citizenship. The latter one, now largely a part of a sad past, bred an ignorant, bedraggled horde who were ripe for corrupt and socialistic unionization that, in the long run, was as big a detriment to the nation as unfettered Trust Era capitalism was.

  3. Eeyoure

    An economic and military superpower is unable to control its geographic borders. Go figure. Perhaps we just can’t have it all; perhaps one comes at the expense of the other. Perhaps the Chinese control their country’s borders effectively, and Americans could learn some more from them…

    • Chase Martinez

      All the king’s horses and all the king’s men can’t secure a border the size and nature of China’s. And as-is, I don’t think we have the infrastructure in place to secure ours unless we’re willing to put a lot more money into the Border Patrol.

      • I disagree, Chase. There are any number of ways- especially in the modern era- to effectively patrol and secure the Mexican border. In elder days (right up to 1945, in fact) the United States Cavalry patrolled the border, assisted by the Texas, Arizona and California Rangers, elite state constabularies. No system is perfect. However, those men back then did a fine job with no more resources than a good horse, a Winchester and their esprit de corps as the guardians of their country. With the resources at our command today, more can be done.

        The fact that American farmers and ranchers must huddle in their homes in fear during the night while invading columns ravage their property is a scandal that previous generations would not have tolerated. That they likewise infest the cities with disease, drugs, crime and the purpose of taking our land away- and this being sanctioned by their country- is nothing less than an act of war. It needs to be viewed in that perspective. As with radical Islam, war has been declared on America and too few are willing acknowledge it.

      • Michael Ejercito

        And as-is, I don’t think we have the infrastructure in place to secure ours unless we’re willing to put a lot more money into the Border Patrol.

        Why would our border be more difficult to secure than the Korean DMZ?

        • Length, primarily. Sure, North Korea also has a million man army on the other side. However, we have 12-20 million Mexicans already inside!

        • tgt

          Along with SMP’s response, the significant trade and tourism also spring to mind. Hell, some cities are essentially on the border. Where are you going to put a quarter mile of land mines?

          • In fact, both Arizona and Alabama have shown that “we don’t want you here,” stated seriously with legislation to back it up, works just fine and almost no enforcement is required, if Big Brother would just get out of the way. The illegals leave and go to states where “You’re welcome, even though US laws say otherwise” is the policy, like in California. If “we don’t want you here, and we’re not going to be hospitable, unless you follow the law” is the national culture, consensus and policy, we won’t need mines, towers or walls. A courageous and principled President could probably cut illegal immigration in half by simply saying that publicly: “If you are illegal, we don’t want you here. America embraces immigrants, but not those who break the law coming here.”

            • tgt

              Except the result isn’t to get rid of illegals, it’s to get rid of hispanics. Also, it only does such as their are a number of states that are roughly equivalent but without the problems. That wouldn’t occur in a national policy.

              • You’re trying again to slap “racism” on the issue, TGT. This is a matter of law and national defense.

                • tgt

                  No, I’m pointing out what the laws actually do. In practice, they affect hispanics and hispanic immigrants generally, not just illegals (they also don’t catch many white illegals). They are discriminatory. That doesn’t necessarily mean racist, but it does mean it’s against both the spirit of the constitution and our great nation.

                  • No, I’m pointing out what the laws actually do. In practice, they affect hispanics and hispanic immigrants generally, not just illegals (they also don’t catch many white illegals). They are discriminatory. That doesn’t necessarily mean racist, but it does mean it’s against both the spirit of the constitution and our great nation.

                    The law can not be traced to a racist purpose; it is not so “riddled with exemptions or worse is a veiled cover for targeting” a particular race. Paraphrasing Ward v. Polite, 667 F.3d 727 at 738 (6th Cir. 2011)

                    • tgt

                      First, whether it had a racist purpose or not, it’s still discriminatory. Second, if the statements or actions of the legislators that made the law or special interests that crafted the law show that it was intended to cause problems for legal hispanic immigrants and other legal hispanics, that’s enough for us to call it racist, whether the courts agree or disagree.

                      (You may note, I haven’t called the laws racist, just discriminatory in practice.)

                  • TGT: We have to face the reality that the vast bulk of the illegal immigrants in this country (12-20 MILLION… get that?) are of Latin American origin and the majority of THOSE from Mexico. I’m sorry that honest American citizens of Latino ancestry are caught up in this. But I also realize that their travails- and those of their fellow Americans regardless of background- will not cease until this problem is ended. And that problem will not BE ended until the rule of law prevails, the illegal invasion is ended and America takes back control of its borders and sovereignty.

                    • tgt

                      It’s so hard to argue with you. Even the high estimates of illegal immigrants are around 11 million, with a little more than 80% of them hispanic. That’s 9 about 9 million people, worst case. There are around 50 million legal hispanics in the US. The travails of these 50 million that you want to end? They occur because of the laws discriminating against them.

                      There is no illegal invasion of this country nor has America lost (or even been threatened with) lost sovereignty.

                    • 12-20 million is the most widely accepted figure, TGT. Again, the vast majority come from across our pourous southern border. If there’s been a mass influx from Bulgaria, it’s escaped my notice… and everyone else’s.

                    • tgt

                      I stand by numbers. The highest number I find with any sanity is 11.7, and that was in 2007 when the population peaked. I see the 12-20 million number now, but that’s never cited with any backing. It looks like someone pulled it out of nowhere, and it only gets used on the quality of cites that think O’keefe was right about Acorn and Orly Taitz would be a good senator.

                    • That figure has been around- and rarely challenged- for years. But, just for argument’s sake, we accept your figure. 11.7 MILLION. Many states of the Union don’t even come close to that figure in total population. Many nations don’t! This isn’t a matter of a few, ragged families crossing the border to seek asylum. This is a massive invasion… and one openly supported by the Mexican government.

                  • “You’re trying again to slap “racism” on the issue, TGT. This is a matter of law and national defense.

                    No, I’m pointing out what the laws actually do. In practice, they affect hispanics and hispanic immigrants generally, not just illegals (they also don’t catch many white illegals). They are discriminatory. That doesn’t necessarily mean racist, but it does mean it’s against both the spirit of the constitution and our great nation.”
                    tgt, Of course,cops absolutely shouldn’t go after people who aren’t breaking any laws and based on the color of their skin but isn’t everyone who is pulled over for speeding,for example, given a background check?

                    • tgt

                      No, speeders are absolutely not given a background check. The officers’ may see if the speeder has any warrants against them and if their license is valid, but that’s nothing like a background check.

                      Also, the issue isn’t just about police contact. It applies to all government employees. You want to reserve a pavilion at the local park? If you look Latino, that could get you reported as a possible illegal.

                    • I have to say that if I lived in Mexico with all the horror I’d take my chances trying to escape here too.
                      As much as we’d like to think we’re above racism on this issue we are not. Terms like “wetback” are meant to be derisive as are “taco burner”,”spic”,etc.

  4. John G

    Well, this has always been the dirty little secret behind America’s agricultural industry, hasn’t it? Our veggies have pretty much always been picked by people working for nothing or next to it: illegal immigrants, sharecroppers, Okies, children, and of course, way back in the day, slaves. I’m all for farm workers being paid a living wage; just brace yourself for an $8 head of lettuce. Ethical behavior doesn’t come cheap.

    • $8.00 lettuce is what I’m afraid of. The poor just can’t win. If they get a living wage they get higher cost of living rather than the rich farmer giving up any profit.

      • If it costs $8 to grow and pick lettuce, then that’s what it should cost. Why should poor laborers pay for my food?

        • No matter how you look at it farm labor isn’t going to make a lot of money,just like burger flippers but they’ll still be paying for outrageously high food prices. That’s what I meant.

        • Danielle

          Illegal labour is one of the lesser horrors happening in food from seed to supper today. Fair wages and $8.00 lettuce would never work. The consumer would buy out of country grown $2.00 lettuce instead and not spend a minute worrying about fair wages in the importing country. That would fall under ‘their problem’. North American lettuce growers would be out of business. Not that I think fair wages shouldn’t be paid. They absolutely should. But we can’t look at it and say it is as simple as starting to pay them. From the farmers pov, it is not.

          We could say then, that the farmer should go into another business if they can’t support themselves and pay fair wages. But once you delve into that arguement you come dangerously close to the left when you apply the theory across all industries. Why does it only matter if the abused labourer is on American soil? Does it not matter just as much that to buy foreign made cheap clothes is supporting child labour outside the borders? Is it not supporting the same horrible conditions? The answer is yes but what would we do if we had to pay the ethical cost of clothing? How would we survive without the myriad of choices available in our closets when we pay the unethical prices?

          I am not saying illegal workers and fair wages shouldn’t be dealt with. I just think it is nowhere near as easy as this and that the consumer has to be willing to change. I know very few people that want to pay an ethical price for the food on their table. Coffee and soy in particular. Food is like oil, doesn’t matter how we get it or at what cost anywhere to anyone, we will rationalize it all away as long as we maintain a very large, very cheap supply. The increased cost of food required to ensure food is reaching the table in an ethical way is astronomical. Not only the poor would suffer which is why it will never happen.

  5. tgt

    Ugh. The issue isn’t that there aren’t illegal immigrants, it’s that the immigrant community has been fleeing wholesale. There isn’t the legal workforce willing to make the paid wage anymore.

    • Right. Because the wages are artificially low thanks to the illegal work force and industry’s collusion with the US government to allow farmers to exploit them. Our own version of slave labor.

      This can’t be spun.

      • Bill

        A side affect I this that legal immigrants are leaving becuase they are afraid of being harassed. Not that this affects the farmers bit we need to insure that citizens and legal immigrants are not swept up in this due to the color of their skin.

        • tgt

          With having to report anyone suspected of being an immigrant, and deputizing pretty much everyone to be suspicious, your goals are functionally impossible.

        • The history so far is that virtually no one has been harassed at all, in Alabama, Georgia or Arizona. The illegals just go where they don’t face a risk. The profiling rationalization is bogus. I’ll carry papers 24 hours a day, if it will help cut off illegal immigration. If brown-skinned citizens are inconvenienced by necessary measures to stop brown-skinned illegal aliens from stealing US services, resources and jobs, then I expect brown-skinned citizens to support aggressive enforcement of their nation’s immigration laws. If they don’t, then their problem is partially of their own making.

          • tgt

            The history so far is that virtually no one has been harassed at all, in Alabama, Georgia or Arizona.

            First, what’s your definition of “virtually no one”.
            Second, if there’s anyone being harrassed by these laws, that’s justifiable reason to get rid of them.
            Third, everyone is being harrassed. The laws are clear that race isn’t a factor, but that everyone involved needs to report anyone they find suspicious and speaking spanish and being tanned is considered suspicious.

            Would you want to live in a state that decided you could be arrested just because you’re bald, or because you speak English everytime you encounter a public official? Of course not.

            The profiling rationalization is bogus. I’ll carry papers 24 hours a day, if it will help cut off illegal immigration.

            First, it doesn’t matter what you’re willing to do. Most of us in the U.S. consider ourselves innocent until proven guilty. You, apparently, are the exception. It also doesn’t matter as YOU WON’T BE STOPPED.

            So, even taking your point, you’re willing to carry papers to protect against illegal immigration, a pretty much victimless crime. I assume you’re willing to go to such lengths for kidnapping, too, right? You’re going to carry constant proof of your relationship with your son, as well as have legal documents written up if he’s ever in the care of someone else. “You want to go to your friend Jimmy’s house? I need his parents’ full names and SSNs. You can go next week after I find a notary to approve this agreement….You want to go again? I need to visit the notary again.” How about shoplifting? Receipts for all your clothes everyday, stamped with government approval. Meat and deoderant are both lucrative on the grey market, so clearly you have evidence that the deoderant you are wearing was purchased legally, and you’re going to report Outback if they don’t clearly document that your steak is legal.

            Why are illegal immigrants being singled out as opposed to any other crime? Because them mexicanas ain’t real ‘mericans. The laws are designed to make it unpleasant for anyone hispanic, and that’s exactly what they do.

            • I don’t like the idea of a national ID card either. Maybe I’m paranoid but it smacks of some not so nice regimes we’ve heard of. Our rights are being taken in increments. I’ve heard it explained as having a noose around our necks that keeps getting barely tighter as we go along until one day we’re hung and didn’t see it coming.
              Does anybody have any ideas on how to secure our borders? It seems to be an insurmountable task.

              • To all intents and purposes we have a national ID card now—you can’t do much of anything without a SS card and a driver’s license. It doesn’t bother me one bit.

                Securing the borders is doable if we want to do it. You put teeth into the laws that require employers to hire legal citizens. You make landlords check citizenship credentials, and you penalize nations, like Mexico, that doesn’t secure its borders from the other side. It just takes political courage and the guts to stop caving to anyone who cries, “But think of the children!”

                • But what will the druggies do when their supply is cut off? Jack,I don’t see anything happening. Corruption on both sides of the border is too great. Politicians fight tooth and nail to maintain the status quo.

                  • Not all by any means, Karla. Things are changing. And I maintain that those dopers NEED to have their supply cut off; not just for their own good, but for that of those kids who haven’t yet been dragged into that self-destructive subculture. When those of us who hold to this say, “it’s for the children”, we mean just that. It’s not a cynical slogan that promotes the nanny state for everyone BUT those kids.

                    • ” And I maintain that those dopers NEED to have their supply cut off; not just for their own good, but for that of those kids who haven’t yet been dragged into that self-destructive subculture.”
                      I know,Steven. I was being sarcastic. My own son had been in that culture but he’s out now and without rehab,thank God. Lots of momma’s prayers I can tell you.
                      I don’t know if you’ve read my other comments about my boys and I fleeing the town I was born in because of gangs and drugs. I loved that community. Why must I as an American be forced to leave my home? I wasn’t the only one needless to say. That town is now a cesspool of corruption I still want to cry when I think about it.
                      People arrogantly sit back and call me racist for being upset about it. Of course, they’ve never been through it.

                • tgt

                  Securing the borders is doable if we want to do it.

                  So long as you want to invade the privacy of law abiding citizens, any crime can be stamped out.

                  [...]and you penalize nations, like Mexico, that doesn’t secure its borders from the other side.

                  What now? It’s not Mexico’s job to keep their population out of America.

                  • 1. We could make it their job, just as we make it the job of countries to help keep drugs, and destructive native plants and animals out of America.
                    2. There is no right to commit crimes, or to aid and abet others in committing crimes.
                    3. I have no problem with applying rational utilitarianism to serious problems that have to be solved.
                    4. You blame only the employers for employees who don’t pay taxes? That’s nuts. The ethical obligation to pay taxes rests on the individual earning the money, whatever the legal obligation may be.

                    • tgt

                      1. And I think that’s ridiculous overstepping of America’s bounds. We can request, but that’s about it.

                      2. Who are you accusing of committing crimes or aiding and abetting committing crimes? Mexico? If they helped illegals enter the U.S., you might have a case, but only if that’s banned in international treaty.

                      3. What’s a serious problem that has to be solved? How are you applying this rational utilitarianism? What I see is loss of citizen rights for no good reason.

                      4. Yes, I blame the employers for illegally paying their hires. Yes, individuals should pay their own taxes, but we have laws about what employers have to do specifically because it makes it much easier to collect the taxes and enforce the law. The system works if the employers to their jobs, and note that you have been couching this in legal terms, so looking at the system is appropriate.

                  • It is and must be “doable” if we are to serve our sacred duty in protecting the lives and property of our fellow citizens against marauders. There’s no question here of loss of “privacy”. Nor is it just a matter of Mexico not keeping their population out of America. They encourage this as their own failures as a nation have resulted in such widespread poverty. Conversely, it’s not the duty of America to subsidize their failure and allow this. Mexico is an independent nation. They need to take the responsibilities inherent with that status. When they conspire to violate our borders with their unwanted hordes and promote “reconquista”, they effectively wage war upon us. It’s not enough to secure the border and protect our people from invasion. We must likewise impose terms upon Mexico- as a hostile foreign state- to prevent any such reoccurrance. It is their job to respect our borders and they must be held to it.

                    • tgt

                      It is and must be “doable” if we are to serve our sacred duty in protecting the lives and property of our fellow citizens against marauders.

                      Just because you want to do something doesn’t mean it can be done. Also, marauders? Clearly, you have no desire to actually engage on this topic. Instead, you just want those wetbacks out of here.

                    • I want our borders secure, our sovereignty upheld, our laws obeyed and our people protected. There’s nothing really difficult to understand about that.

                    • tgt

                      I want all those things to. But I’m not willing to violate the concept of our country to do that.

                      Also, unlike you, I’m not going to refer to people illegally crossing a border to find work as marauders who threaten to kill us and steal our property.

                    • It is to UPHOLD the concept of our country- not to mention its continuation as one- that I take the position I do. A natiion of laws, TGT, not of ghettoized masses being played off one against the other to the benefit of professional manipulators.

                    • tgt

                      Creating a law that causes hispanic looking people to be second class citizens is upholding the concept of our country?

                      The concept of innocent until proven guilty is now innocent until looks hispanic, and then it’s assumed the subject is not a citizen.

                      The laws create the above in practice. Talk about ghettoization!

                    • How is it that American citizens of latin ancestry suddenly become “second class citizens” when steps are taken to protect ALL Americans and to uphold American sovereignty? As I’ve pointed out, few Americans suffer more and in more ways from illegal immigration as do they.

            • They’re singled out because, 1) they’re in violation of federal law by being here and, 2) because so much crime and corruption can be agttributed to them, directly or indirectly. AND those who are hurt the most by this are actual Americans of Latin descent.

          • tgt

            Also, what stealing of services? Is living in the US now a service? Considering that most illegal immigrants pay taxes, I don’t have any clue what you’re talking about.

            • 1) I’d like to see your proof that “most” illegals pay taxes, since we don’t even know who “most” illegals are.
              2) Illegals have no right, other than the fact that they happen to be here, to make use of hospitals, roads, schools, or anything else. Whether they pay taxes or not, they are taking advantage of the benefits of this nation, all of them, illicitly. You want to quibble about “services,” fine. Benefits, then. Since they have no right to be here, they have no right to the benefits of being here. The arguments against all of this is no more than pure denial, and has never been anything else, unless you count the idiots who say the Southwest still belongs to Mexico.

              • tgt

                1) Anyone who is being paid legally is paying taxes. It’s that simple. If they’re being paid illegally, I put the blame on the employers.

                2) I don’t agree with your statements. Visitors can pay for use of hospitals, get free rein on roads, etc. How does the use of these services and benefits (which are paid for) hurt America? Not at all. There are plenty of reasons to secure our borders (keeping out undesirables, legally limiting population growth, protecting trade), but your attempt to add in theft of services was junk.

                • I can only assume from those outrageous claims that you’ve not only struck your head in the sand, but poured quick drying cement on top. Pay? They get counseling at any of those omnipresent Mexican consulates about how to get over on the American system. Do you think that the Mexican government wants them back?

                  • tgt

                    I didn’t claim anything crazy. Our taxation systems set up is well known, and your assumptions about the illegals being undesirable and being counseled on how to cheat the system are also silly.

                    • Hard, well-documented fact over a long span of years. There are even training camps held in Mexico for prospective illegals as to how to negociate the border, find your way into an urban area and establish yourself. American TV journalists have participated! As for the myriad of consulates, their policy of “marticulation cards” is an open scandal.

                    • tgt

                      Evidence please. Claiming there is evidence is not the same as providing it.

            • “Also, what stealing of services? Is living in the US now a service?” Tgt,maybe he’s talking about free food and healthcare. But even at that it’s not stealing when our government gives these things to them.

              • tgt

                What free food and healthcare? Illegal immigrants can’t take advantage of those programs.

                • It is,tgt. I lived in an ag community and welfare was provided to illegals. I know this first hand.

                  • tgt

                    By first hand, that means that you witnessed illegals getting welfare. What kind of welfare? How do you know they were illegals?

                    Also, I hope you’re not offended, but based on your unwittingly passing on incorrect information in the past, I’d like some sources I can look at for this information.

                    • “By first hand, that means that you witnessed illegals getting welfare. ”
                      No offense taken. The children born to illegals are eligible for food stamps so oft times the legal relative will take them in and apply. Also they are eligible for free healthcare although I was reading the Seattle Times which stated that they are considering discontinuing this. The state pays,not the Fed.

                    • tgt

                      That’s not illegals getting benefits, that’s citizens with illegal parents getting benefits. I really hope Jack isn’t lumping the legal children of immigrants in with their parents.

                    • tgt,I missed your request for sources. I hope this link helps. I see that it states,”The Personal Responsibility and Work
                      Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-193) further restricted the
                      limited access of illegal aliens to federal public benefits and limited their
                      access to state and local public benefits.” This was instated the same year I left WA.state.
                      It also states that although food stamps are given to the children of illegals their families also directly benefit.
                      http://www.gao.gov/archive/1998/he98030.pdf
                      “We
                      also identified some cases of illegal aliens receiving SSI benefits for their
                      U.S. citizen children using data from the Social Security Administration
                      (SSA).”
                      They did indicate some fraud but no more so than legal residents.
                      Illegal parents do receive services but indirectly through their children.

                    • tgt

                      Thanks Karla. So some illegal immigrants may benefit slightly in the U.S.’s attempt to keep their citizen children in food and basic services. That’s not much for Jack’s point.

                    • Tgt,the real problem isn’t the illegals themselves but stems from those in corrupt police departments,government agencies and drug cartels which work together for mutual benefit. The crime/drug “epidemic” is directly related to that.

                    • tgt

                      I don’t see how illegals are big part of that problem.

                    • “I don’t see how illegals are big part of that problem.”
                      I know,tgt. That’s what I’m saying. I used to live in a town that was 70% Mexican. The problems we faced weren’t from the farm workers but from what I said above. Corrupt cops,drug dealers and gangs. My oldest was racially harassed at school. My car was vandalized. We couldn’t walk down the street without gang bangers on the corners. Houses were broken into regularly.It was a criminal’s paradise.It was so bad my 2 boys and I moved.I didn’t feel safe but as I say it wasn’t the farm labor’s fault.

                  • They’re a HUGE part of the problem, TGT, and in a vast number of ways. Remember; these are not just a few ragged people seeking a better life (though some are), but they are an invading horde of millions. They are not at all adverse to utilizing every public resource and benefit that they can. Groups in this country who seek political gain beyond the common good of their country, give these people aid and counseling in how they may defraud the system. Those efforts are abbetted by a vast system of Mexican consulates that, fortress-like, arise in every border state and beyond. This is an invasion of vaste proportions that we, the lawful citizens of America, are forced to subsidize. We’re fixing to end this invasion, too. Peacefully, if possible. With a thousand San Jacintos if necessary.

                    • tgt

                      Got any evidence for any of that dreck you just spewed? All I see is negative stereotyping and random accusations.

                    • You don’t have a lot of room to talk on that score, TGT. I’m only referring to personal experience and well-cited facts of the matter. The costs born by the citizens in regard to illegals is staggering.

                    • tgt

                      Citation requested. When you challenge my statements. I provide evidence to back them up. Your personal experience doesn’t support the fact claims you made, so it’s clear that you’re dissembling.

                    • Oh-give-me-a-break. You fall back on that tired ploy everytime you find yourself losing an argument. You can access online data as well as I can and likely have a lot more time on your hands to do so.

                    • tgt

                      You continue to dissemble. Either back up your statement, retract it, or admit that you aren’t arguing in good faith.

                    • No dissembling on my part. Your’s only. This is a matter of public record.

          • Bill

            But no one is going to stop you and ask you for your papers.
            One of my plumbers , who is here legally from Honduras, quit and moved to Chicago becuase he got sick and tired of being harrassed where he was living in Woodbridge.

            • Too bad. Illegal immigration is a major, major problem; it was allowed to continue far too long; it has to be addressed, and we all have to make sacrifices to address it. I’d gladly carry papers and show them if it means that the problem was being solved. Hell, I’m willing to let the TSA massage my naughty bits every time I fly because it is too politically correct and inept to devise a sensible airport screening system. Showing papers? That’s nothin’

              • tgt

                Illegal immigration is a major, major problem;

                Are you saying there’s alot of illegal immigration (true) or that illegal immigration has great negative results (false). Your conclusions only work if the latter is true.

                I’d gladly carry papers and show them if it means that the problem was being solved.

                That’s not an argument for it. It’s an argument that you don’t care about your liberty.

                Hell, I’m willing to let the TSA massage my naughty bits every time I fly because it is too politically correct and inept to devise a sensible airport screening system.

                And that’s wrong, too.

              • Bill

                So you stop evey person walking down the street becuase they have dark skin and hair? Thats bullshit and un American. Im not willing to give up my rights nor am I willing to infringe on others rights becuase someone else is breaking the law. Once you let the goverment take away a right you are not getting it back.

                You want to stop illegal immigration? Fine the companies that hire them and Im not talking about a thousand here or there I am talking $50,000.00 a person for the first offense and let it go up $50,000.00 a person each one after that. Thats will stop them from hiring them. Also make it a felony to hire them so if you hire them you go to prison.

                • Who proposed that? Check people when they apply for jobs, get arrested for a crime, rent living space, use the hospital or enroll in school. I agree that fining companies significantly, or imposing prison sentences, would be a great start.

                  • tgt

                    You did. That’s what the immigration laws do, and your comment about carrying papers shows that you want to carry this on.

                  • Bill

                    But thats not all thats happening. My guy was getting harrassed just walking hom from the 7-11, going to Home Depot. When they state says they are going to target a group of people some citizens and law enforcemnet officals take it to me those people are fair game.

                    • The fact that a law can be abusively and incorrectly used by police is never a just argument against the law itself. Yes, that sounds like harassment. Bad cops can make any law look bad.

                    • tgt

                      Jack, you’re switching up frames of reference. While a law may be good on it’s own, how it’s applied and the results that occur in our world can turn that law bad.

                      In theory, a law stating “You can’t threaten a police officer” is good. In reality, if police officers treat videography as threats, then the law is bad. If we make the law more specific and include the disclaimer that “videography is not a threat”, that should make it good again, right? Well, if officers ignore that part of the law, it’s still a bad law as we are discussing it.

      • tgt

        You’re presupposing that the legal immigrants and low skilled labor that works at farms wouldn’t be willing to do the work at the given wage, when all the evidence is to the contrary. You spun this as “all the illegals are gone” when it’s really “all the illegals AND all the legals are gone”. You don’t have to cry for any missing illegals, but unless you know these specific farmers were using illegals, you’re just celebrating in the misfortune that the state of Alabama caused them.

        • And you’re spinning like a top. We don’t “know” they were using illegals, but we know they were using illegals. The argument that “Americans won’t do this work” simply means “this work is worth more than the farmers are willing to pay,” to which the rejoinder is, “Pay up, or find another business.” The same, obviously, goes for nannies and gardeners.

          There’s no reason for legal workers or citizens to flee. If they are, that’s their own poor judgment. As for the illegals, of course. The purpose is to make them leave. Too bad if some businesses rely on criminals…in my book, they are criminals too.

          • tgt

            There’s no reason for legal workers or citizens to flee. If they are, that’s their own poor judgment.

            Are you kidding?

            • Bill

              No he isnt and thats the scary part. But he went to Harvard so what do you expect.

              • Well, I went to Sul Ross State College, Bill. That’s a long way from Harvard! But I agree with Jack. Legal American citizens, whether or not of Latin heritage, have nothing to fear from an America lawfully ridding itself of invading hordes. In fact, as experience and law enforcement statistics have constantly proven, it is American Latinos who stand the most to gain. The illeganos impact them negatively and in more ways than they do any other segment of our population.

                • tgt

                  Legal American citizens, whether or not of Latin heritage, have nothing to fear from an America lawfully ridding itself of invading hordes.

                  In a perfect world, no. In our world and the way things are implemented, they abolutely do.

                  • Nobody’s claiming perfection! But things cannot go on the way they have without ever greater turmoil.

                  • It’s a matter of protecting American citizens from those unlawfully in our country. This is a basic duty. Can’t you just stop trying to turn this into a racial issue?

                    • tgt

                      1) You haven’t supplied any reason to believe that American citizens need protection.

                      2) Even if your goal is laudable, the mechanism to meet that goal is still discriminatory and ani-American ideals. I’m not “trying to turn this into a racial issue”. There is a racial issue, and you’re pretending it doesn’t exist.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s