The presence of the illegal immigrant population depresses the wages of working class citizens, since undocumented aliens are typically willing to do work that the native born will not do at the wages commonly being offered. This should make them anathema for those who purport to speak for the working class, especially at a time of high unemployment.
Normalizing the status of illegal aliens – including, potentially, a fast track towards (voting) citizenship – offers those who depend upon the political support of a dependency class the opportunity for enduring access to the levers of power.
Quite a conundrum, innit?
Which do you choose, between supporting the little guy and staying in power?
Arizona immigrant law energizes Hispanics, Democrats
U.S. Hispanics and Democratic lawmakers furious over Arizona’s harsh crackdown on illegal immigrants expect huge weekend rallies across the United States, piling pressure on President Barack Obama to overhaul immigration laws in this election year.
Power.
Power, every time.
Professionally speaking, I’ve been on the front lines of this one for 10 years. As the pool of available construction investment dollars drys up, many of us who have played by the rules-not hired illegals-feel betrayed by a federal government who hasn’t protected us. Many of us are perhaps guilty of not raising a bigger “stink” in times of plenty, but these are the times which will determine our destiny as a country for generations.
Enough. Enforce existing law.
All of the rugged individualists are utterly individual in their power network.
FIGHT THE POWER!
Thank you, Stephen. I appreciate your integrity sir.
“Arizona’s harsh crackdown”???? Um, no, law enforcement is simply allowed to inquire about status if they suspect someone they have detained for other reasons might be an illegal democrat. The spin machine is in overdrive! Harsh would be shouting “INS” and shooting the runners.
The world turned upside down: The illegal immigrants can take to the streets and demand they be granted rights not earned, and the President of the United States stands ready to grant them this “right.” Those who read the existing law and stand up to enforce it are branded as all sorts of unsavory.
You’d think lawyers, who argue the law, would be confused with the disregard for the very rule set they demand we all live by daily.
And those who worked to fund the tax base, and stood in defense of the Nation, and who didn’t presume they could come here, unless they had followed the written, codified procedures, we are told to stand down and listen to those who should not have the voices.
Every time? Not so sure…
The Pima County (that’s Tucson) Sheriff, Clarence Dupnik has an opinion:
Link
Yes..his right to express an opinion..and his obligation, as well as his sworn duty to enforce the law..
One man’s right to express himself does not make him right.This new immigration law in AZ is simply one layer on top of another, albeit with some new bits and pieces. The one bit that I like is that it actually directs law enforcement to challenge suspected aliens.
My Dutch mother knew enough, even after becoming a citizen, to take her passport with her when we made our several trips to Mexico in the 70′s. Ya know what? Border Patrol asked her for it once in Calexico, and that without her having even spoken a word. It didn’t bother her then, and I know the new law does NOT bother her now.
And is Sheriff Dupnik a constitutional scholar? Does he demonstrate any comprehension of either Federal law, or Arizona law, outside of his bailiwick? Is a corporal qualified to render judgment on the orders of a Colonel or General? Has Sheriff Dupnik even demonstrated that he knows how many fingers are on each of his hands?
Um: no, no, no, and no…
Not to mention: remember what they say about people and opinions, Flit. Everybody has one!
Dude, seriously; your arguments have been going downhill lately. You ok over there?
The Pima County sheriff is an elected official, yes?
Hence he might take a slightly different view on the law recently passed than other elected officials in the state government who get a different voting block.
I think I’d far rather a cop who didn’t give a damn than a cop who had to stand for election, in spite of the fact that my neighbor to the north happens to be the sheriff.
Next year it might be somebody who doesn’t know me, or care. If they adhere to the law at least we meet on equal ground.
– Max
I don’t object to the man having an opinion, I just object to someone using him as an authority on the subject.
Did you miss a word in “I think I’d far rather … a cop who didn’t give a damn than a cop who had to stand for election?” Was it “support” or “encounter?”
The word I left out was encounter, I suppose. Support for law enforcement, in my opinion, is support for the rule of law. I’ve never given to a sheriff’s re-election campaign as I felt it a conflict of interest.
– Max
The Sheriff is just upset that the state law now makes him liable for adopting a policy of not fully enforcing US immigration law. Not to mention he must now verify the immigration status of every person arrested. A program used to good effect in Cobb country GA where they netted a couple of suspected murders, a few suspected rapists and 27 suspected child molesters who were then turned over to ICE.
Hold one of those protest rallies in Arizona. Then deputize the National Guard and send them in.
We knew all along that the Dems would try this, that they want to expand their voter base by waving a hand over the illegals and calling them citizens. It’s treasonous, no different than the betrayal of the European peopls by their governments (and the EU). It has the express intent of disenfranchising citizens. It’s cheaper than hiring a mercenary army to invade, but just as pernicious.
So there’s not much point to dithering over whether the Arizona law was wise. It was right by Arizona law, right by the Constitution, and the right thing to do. It pointedly forces the Federal government to either do what it is Constitutionally obligated to do, protect our borders, or to admit that it has no intention of doing so for political reasons. In the short run, this looks like it plays into the hands of the Obamists. In the longer run, I’m not so sure because the Obamists already have the nation’s back up, and an opposition is ready to fight. The GOP wants to win in November? Declare plainly that they will close the borders, they will enforce existing laws on employers who knowingly hire illegals, and they will fund it by transferring the $160 million handout we were scheduled to give to Pakistan for pretending to fight terrorism. Stated that bluntly, the GOP would win big. Follow through on it, they would win bigger in 2012.
Over here in the UK, PM Brown was caught on mic calling a UK citizen, born and reared here, a “bigot” because of her persistent questioning of the PM over illegal immigration into the UK. Likewise, the significant challengers, the Lib-Dems, can’t escape the public realization that their leader wants to give the hand-wave to more than 2 million illegals. Fight’s on.
Texas had better prepare for a wave of migration as conservative businesses migrate eastward. here in good ole backward SC we did a new hotel several years ago (cable, fiber, phones, data) and the elec contractor used illegals. One Thursday morning an unmarked ford crown vic shows up and 4 guys wearing INS jackets hop out. It looked like the air raid siren had gone off as those mexcos vamoosed. These guys had previously placed officers at strategic exit spots and were just waiting and picked em off. I asked one guy how bad it really was and he said “I’ll show you”. He told them to show their identification. Every one had a drivers license, SS card, piggly wiggly cash card, etc. When he collected we found that several SS cards had the same number, with a different name. Some for several SS cards. INS guy said $15 on the street will get you one.
They reproduce, they drag the economy down, they overload social services (3 out of 4 born in Dallas hosp were illegals last year), and they will bloc vote. Bad times ahead, and this will be fast tracked before Nov mid-terms.
Which is why the Republicans should put a measure into any immigration legislation that forbid the use of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, VA or any other federal program guarantees or any loan funds from a FDIC insured bank for the purchase of new or renovated housing or commercial real estate unless documented evidence is presented that no work on the project was on done by individuals unauthorized to work in the US.
There’s an article in one of the Detroit papers this morning about how illegals in the border states already have an effect of disenfranchising voters in other states. According to this article the census data that generates congressional apportionment counts illegals. So a state with more illegals gets more congresscritters even if the illegals don’t vote. Based on demographics, methinks this is of benefit to the more “progressive” political party. (Don’t you just love that term? Who can be against progress?!)
George V.
George:
True progress? Congress.
This is one of my pet peaves. Headlines and news stories decry the Arizona “Immigration Bill.” Talking points say that it is anti-immigrant. WRONG!! It is an ILLEGAL immigration bill, and it is anti-ILLEGAL immigrant. Last I checked, by definition any ILLEGAL activity is a crime. Just like “hate crimes,” (my other pet peave) I don’t understand: why we need to a bill to enforce existing laws; and, why anyone would be against such a thing.
A crime is a crime.
The illegal alien problem needs 3 fixes, and they can be done separately (i.e., don’t need a “comprehensive” solution). And don”t get cought up with the “what do we do woith the 12 million who are already here” red herring. Let them live their lives looking over one shoulder, and stop the catch and release of those arrested for crimes other than their mere presence. Attrition will do the rest.
1. Plug the leak at the border
2. Stop catch and release
3. Make it easier for those who want to pick lettuce to come here legally (It should not take years to do it the right way)
Well, we’re all on pretty much the same page here, so I’ll take a different tack. (just luuv those Mariner’s terms
) Circa 2006, IIRC, I heard radio talk-guy Neil Boortz quote a study that put a dent in the argument that illegals “do the work that Americans won’t do.” Boortz, like others, has long argued that, absent illegals to drive down wages, many, if not most of those jobs would be filled by Americans at a higher wage–even in the supposedly “back-breaking” agricultural field harvesting area. And it is further argued by oponents of migrant labor–illegal AND legal–that, although proponents of migrants claim that w.o. the low wages they are willing to work for, the cost of food to the consumer would be sky high, such is not the case.
Now, having some personal knowledge of the economic conditions in BOTH California’s Central Valley AND the South Texas border area I don’t TOTALLY buy this argument, but Boortz’s study was an eye-opener. It claimed that if one DOUBLED the then (2006) current wages paid to migrant Ag. field workers the cost to the consumer for fruits & vegetables at the supermkt would rise an average of only $10.00/wk across the board. This, as Boortz pointed out, is about the cost of a fifth of booze (well, not MY booze, but I quibble.) Point being, doubling the wages would attract many, many Americans absent the competing illegals while still not breaking the backs of the consuming general public.
Now, while I don’t totally buy the argument–mainly because seasonal field Ag work probably needs immediate surge numbers in highly localized areas greater than American nationals could provide in those local areas–such studies do point out that there is a lot of room to raise wages to the level that would attract American workers w.o breaking the back of the American economy, contrary
to what the open borders crowd argues from a strictly economic standpoint.
Now my view is that we will never be able to do away with the need for seasonal temp. migrant workers completely, raising wages would attract many more Americans–especially if their illegal competition were kept out. And as for the migrants we DO need? Well, as I pointed out here recently, we once had a program in the 50s and early 60s which handled that–the “Bracero” program. It was not perfect, but worked reasonably well until overwhelmed by greater illegal immigration and the rise of Cesar Chavez and the UFW who worked to kill the program, claiming it kept workers in low-wage bondage. Which is ironic, because the whole thrust of Chavez and the UFW implied secure borders so that there wouldn’t be a steady supply of illegals to undercut union wages. Chavez was AGAINST illegal immigration. Unfortunately, the one successfull complimentary program to the Bracero program which attempted to return illegals to Mexico–Operation “Wetback”–was a one shot deal in 1954 (IIRC) despite being relatively successful. As a result, here we are today.
My point here is to say that we once had a fairly workable system to control migrant workers, and, with the right kind of combination of border security, wage hikes and some form of “Bracero 2.0″ for temp. migrants, the illegal flow could be brought under control while employing more Americans at the same time without hurting either employers OR consumers. “All” that is lacking is the will.
Virgil,
It was a Hispanic Pew Foundation study that showed that the Hispanics do NOT dominate any of the “Hispanic-dominated” industries, i.e. construction, hospitality, food industry and decrease in their numbers is NOT going to lead to the price increases. I do not have a link to it anymore (my pc fried last winter) but you can google it.
Oh, right, Olga, thanks for refreshing my memory. That study was also cited by Boortz in marshaling his argument, i.e., any way you want to dance it, this is a manageable problem: industries will neither collapse by a decrease in illegals and wage increases to attract more Americans can easily be borne by society at large–either or both or some combination thereof constituting a workable solution.
Virgil, I’m in agreement with you (and by extension, Boortz), but there’s a real-world thing that’s just been bugging me for a few years now that I thought I’d run past your Central Valley experience.
Here in the Midwest we grow corn and soybeans. In long, straight rows. That’s the static part.
Back in the late 40′s this device known as a cultivator came along, V-shaped cutting blades attached to the tractor that went between rows slicing out the weeds.
Back in the 60′s we came up with herbicides that killed a lot of the weeds before they emerged, cultivator usage slowed.
Back in the 70′s and 80′s we had gangs of kids walking soybean fields with bean hooks, looks like a cane with a hook at the end and the inside of the hook is a blade. Reach around a weed, pull, cut it.
Herbicides at that time were mostly applied prior to planting (called pre-emergence) and had a limited life-span as well as becoming ineffective after rainfall.
Today I can’t buy a bean-hook. I mean they simply aren’t made. Nor are cultivators. Quite simply, improvements in herbicides priced cultivators and kids with bean hooks out of the market.
So at what point does an increased price in cabbage-pickers result in kids dropping their Wii consoles and doing some manual labor? And if that wage gets hiked again, when do those kids get replaced by machines?
Because I can tell you when the price of chemicals became cheaper than the price of kids walking soybean fields. It happened when the minimum wage hit $4.50/hr.
Once we make all the illegal immigrants legal, subject to all the labor laws, we just priced a lot of them out of the jobs they were doing under the radar.
The law of unintended consequences. And I’m sure Congress is thinking about that angle.
– Max
VX – I completely agree with where you are headed in the post. There could (again) be a “guest worker” program for migrant laborers. This would allow foreign workers to come in to do specific jobs for specific periods. They would pay taxes and have specific visas as foreign workers. If the politicians were looking for a solution to the problem this is what they would enact, quickly.
I believe this issue is even larger than jobs and immigration. It’s fundamental to our near-term economic and security interests as the world shifts increasingly toward regional alignments.
It is in our enemies’ interest to make sure Mexico stays in chaos. It is in our interest to help establish legal frameworks to foster stable and winning trade arrangements with Mexico, especially including a legal framework for migrant labor, which is hugely important for both countries.
Ah, yes, Reuters. Love the teaser graphic on the left – some evil white guy, probably a militia nutbag, getting ready to snipe him some illegal border-crossers…
The AZ law is just an over-reaction.
All they need to do is start selling “INS” jackets (green with gold screen printing on the back and cute eagle on the front) at Target. Not only will more Pepcid be sold, boosting the economy, but the sour stomaches from seeing all those “agents” on the streets would send a good percentage of illegals home.
Add to that just two more years of Obama, and then the whole reason to come north will evaporate.
I support it anyway. The creative stuff never gets a try.
[...] a complaint from Neptunus Lex: The presence of the illegal immigrant population depresses the wages of working [...]
I wonder how those from other countries seeking to legally immigrate to the US feel about all this hubbub.