Poll: Public Wants Illegals to Go Home

[GaryC 7]

I agree with you in principle about employers being the biggest benefactor in the cases where illegals are be paid under the table, although some of that savings is passed onto the consumer, particularly with agriculture. But in the case of most restaurants, particularly high profile chains, there are regulations already in place (since the immigration reform from 1986) where an employer must provide documentation. And the dilemna is exactly what you said - an employer can't assume that just because someone is hispanic and speaks little English, they are not here illegally (although if an applicant is in their early twenties and they don't speak a lick of English, chances are they haven't lived here long).

I'm not in favor of maintaining a status quo with our current situation. My argument all along has to with questioning why illegals being here has all of sudden become a hot button topic and why so many people get emotional over it. Yes, I understand the numbers have increased but again as you just pointed out - none of us can see these extra numbers of illegals - you can't walk down the street and point out the illegals from citizens. What I hear is nothing but rhetoric about how much it's costing us when there is evidence that all of us are benefitting through lower cost items. Cheap labor is a ongoing issue/problem of its own - factory jobs have all but disappeared in this country and you can't blame that on illegal immigration.

I see no single, reasonable solution beyond revamping our trade agreements and changing our relationship with Mexico economically. Allowing employer sponsered visas for low skilled laborers gives those workers legitimacy and the chance to stand up for rights against exploitation. Those two factors would take the heat out of the argument - that they are here illegally and once Mexico's economy improves - we will see a dramatic reduction in Mexicans crossing the border illegally.

So no I won't join you and others letting my emotions get in the way of looking at this pragmatically. Big deal if on the surface it seems unfair to give so many temporary visas as long as they are work based and they must go through the same process as us if they choose to become citizens. I do not think that most of them came here to become citizens (that they somehow have a hatred for their own country). It's an economic issue and so I'll continue to challenge the rhetoric thrown around about illegals like they are vermin, stealing our jobs, our country, bringing diseases, speaking Spanish, living in clown houses, raping our women, threatening our security, etc., etc. ...nothing but hot air and much of it IMO is bigotry.

And here is where you are laboring under a false assumption. For most of us it isn't bigotry, fear of criminals or to a lessor extent security (although the lack of securing our border is a huge security issue but that isn't what we are talking about when we discuss illegal workers). Speaking for myself I want the illegals to go home because they are here illegally and I want them to go home as a matter of principal. You keep clinging to the bigotry mantra because it gives you a sense of moral superiority. It gives you the ability to support your week position. So get this into your head. I don't care where they come from, why they are here or what color their skin is. They are here contrary to the law and because of that I want them to go home. Even though I have stated in no uncertain terms that I don't like the racism card you keep trying to play it. That tells me something very important about you. In my experience those that continually play the race card are themselves racists. In your case it may be reverse racism (white guilt) or it may be overt racism. Since I can only judge you by what you write here I tend to think it's the former. You can keep that ####### to yourself.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I want the illegals to go home because they are here illegally

And you are prepared to deal with the economically disruptive effects of doing so? You are prepared to uproot families that have been here for years, including the lives of young children?

Either you don't realize the impact of what you're suggesting, or....

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I have yet to find the cheaper cucumber that the illegal picked. Is there a separate shelf in the grocery somewhere where I can get the bargains that illegal labor affords me? I mean, 75% of the produce is picked by legally employed individuals leaving only 25% to be picked by illegal labor. Same goes for the restaurant where I am still searching for that 15-20% niche that will offer the savings of illegal labor to me. So, where does one go for the actual savings?

Oh, that's right. The savings ain't for the consumer. It's just for the profiteer that employs the illegal alien.

I'm not sure where you found those percentages, but I'm certain I've read those percentages were much higher. At the risk of sounding anecdotal - just go see how many non-hispanics you can find harvesting the crops or in the kitchens of restaurant across the country. And that's no accident. California was importing seasonal migrant workers for agriculture for the last century - we even made it legal for them to be here...imagine that.

There's your central issue, Steven. Just because you see a lot of hispanics in agriculture, restaurant kitchens and construction, doesn't mean that the percentages of illegal labor that I quoted are too low. Not all hispanics, you know, are illegal aliens. The vast majority - upwards of 75% - 80% of "jobs Americans won't do" [in the context of the debate around illegal aliens, this should really be read as "jobs legally employable workers won't do" in order to keep the debate on focus] are actually done by those legally able to work in the US. The small percentage of illegals amount to no cost benefit to you and me on the product we consume but to a cost benefit only for those that employ them. You and I get to pay the bills that the illegal aliens incur while here against the law. I'd rather not pay those bills anymore. Maybe you can pick up my share seeing that you'd like to keep them all here...

I agree with you in principle about employers being the biggest benefactor in the cases where illegals are be paid under the table, although some of that savings is passed onto the consumer, particularly with agriculture.

Then I ask again, where do I go for the discounted produce that illegals have picked at lower cost? I haven't found the "lower price thanks to illegals" shelf in the store just yet. But I'll keep looking.

What I hear is nothing but rhetoric about how much it's costing us when there is evidence that all of us are benefitting through lower cost items. Cheap labor is a ongoing issue/problem of its own - factory jobs have all but disappeared in this country and you can't blame that on illegal immigration.

Again, I don't see the lower cost items. I'd appreciate if you could point me in the right direction. The relative disappearance of factory jobs (there's a lot of them around still and that'll continue to be the case) has indeed nothing to do with the illegals in the country. Those jobs are being shipped off no matter what. That said, having the number of illegal workers increase dramatically in the sectors that cannot be shipped overseas while factory jobs are shipped out really adds insult to injury for the American worker. That may just be part of the reason that the tolerance for illegal aliens is dropping. I am quite certain that if it was you whose job was affected by this problem, you'd be singing a different tune.

Reinhard, I'm not sure what publications you read or what news programs you watch, but there's a lot of good information out there if you look.

Here's just an example...

Food and Punishment

Colorado's inmates-as-farmworkers plan says plenty about our food culture

Last summer, the Colorado General Assembly passed some of the nation's most rigorous anti-immigrant policy laws. Debate was fierce -- but only because some GOP lawmakers fumed that the Democratic-engineered crackdown wasn't draconian enough.

Essentially, the state's political elite -- backed editorially by The Denver Post -- took aim at its low-wage workforce: the people who clean bedpans, prep food in restaurants, harvest vegetables, and perform other "low-value" tasks.

The new code denied most "nonessential" services, including non-emergency health care, to undocumented workers (although it didn't exempt them from paying sales tax). It also upped identification requirements to get driver's licenses, and penalized businesses for not confirming workers' documentation.

While lawmakers congratulated themselves on their foresight -- or deplored their inability to enact harsher sanctions -- immigrants began to flee Colorado. And now the state's large-scale farms, which are almost comically reliant on immigrant labor for profitability, are begging the state government to help them find workers for the growing season.

http://www.grist.org/comments/food/2007/03/15/inmates/

[GaryC 7]

I want the illegals to go home because they are here illegally

And you are prepared to deal with the economically disruptive effects of doing so? You are prepared to uproot families that have been here for years, including the lives of young children?

Either you don't realize the impact of what you're suggesting, or....

Yes I am. It's not my problem that they have been here illegally so long that they have roots. Just because they have gotten away with it for years does not forgive the crime. They should go home. All of them. Then we can institute a guest worker program and they can come back.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I want the illegals to go home because they are here illegally

And you are prepared to deal with the economically disruptive effects of doing so? You are prepared to uproot families that have been here for years, including the lives of young children?

Either you don't realize the impact of what you're suggesting, or....

Yes I am. It's not my problem that they have been here illegally so long that they have roots. Just because they have gotten away with it for years does not forgive the crime. They should go home. All of them. Then we can institute a guest worker program and they can come back.

I have two problems with that.

1. By letting them in (loose to non-existent border controls) and letting them stay (by not having stronger employer sanctions to begin with, by allowing Mexican consular cards, etc.), this country is complicit in their crime. That means you, I, Steven, all of us. We're complicit by the very fact that we enabled them. To punish them now is shameless political scapegoating.

2. To uproot families the way you are describing is immoral.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Same old argument recycled over and over.

[Peikko 1,575]

If you think that's bad immigrants to the UK undergo no health checks at all, legal or not. I was never seen by a doctor for immigration purposes. I could have had cancer, AIDS, and a dangerous mental illness and they'd have been none the wiser; and the NHS would have paid for it all.

Medical health checks are not about prevention of disease, they are about ensuring the immigrant can afford to pay for their own health care. It is impossible for country to prevent disease from being 'imported'. Holiday makers both to and from the US are all suseptible to communicable disease and thus it will spread regardless. Why do you think medical waivers are available and frequently granted? This argument is moot re immigration whether you want it or whether you don't.

[GaryC 7]

I want the illegals to go home because they are here illegally

And you are prepared to deal with the economically disruptive effects of doing so? You are prepared to uproot families that have been here for years, including the lives of young children?

Either you don't realize the impact of what you're suggesting, or....

Yes I am. It's not my problem that they have been here illegally so long that they have roots. Just because they have gotten away with it for years does not forgive the crime. They should go home. All of them. Then we can institute a guest worker program and they can come back.

I have two problems with that.

1. By letting them in (loose to non-existent border controls) and letting them stay (by not having stronger employer sanctions to begin with, by allowing Mexican consular cards, etc.), this country is complicit in their crime. That means you, I, Steven, all of us. We're complicit by the very fact that we enabled them. To punish them now is shameless political scapegoating.

2. To uproot families the way you are describing is immoral.

I am not complicit in anything. I didn't invite them in, I didn't ask them to stay and I always wanted them to go home. I blame every congress since the 1986 amnesty bill for this mess. You think telling them to stop breaking the law is punishment? Wow, I would like you to judge me if I ever got in trouble. It's not my fault they decided to break the law and bring their families in on the crime.

To your second point. Didn't they "uproot" their families to come here in the first place? Why is it immoral to tell them to do it again to go home?

[GaryC 7]

Same old argument recycled over and over.

Hmmm... Yet more white guilt Steven? Cry me a river.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Same old argument recycled over and over.

Hmmm... Yet more white guilt Steven? Cry me a river.

Gary,

If you were aware of the historical context of the graphic Steven posted, you'd know that much of the opposition of the so-called 'Natives' was against white foreign immigrants. They also opposed the expansion of the slave states, but that was secondary to their fear of other white immigrants.

Therefore, characterizing this as white guilt is inaccurate.

[JoeMama 0]

Why is it immoral to tell them to do it again to go home?

It's not like they would have a problem with any language barriers!

I'm with ya Brother Gary!

Edited May 27, 2007 by altimixdj

[homesick_american 1]

If you think that's bad immigrants to the UK undergo no health checks at all, legal or not. I was never seen by a doctor for immigration purposes. I could have had cancer, AIDS, and a dangerous mental illness and they'd have been none the wiser; and the NHS would have paid for it all.

Medical health checks are not about prevention of disease, they are about ensuring the immigrant can afford to pay for their own health care. It is impossible for country to prevent disease from being 'imported'. Holiday makers both to and from the US are all suseptible to communicable disease and thus it will spread regardless. Why do you think medical waivers are available and frequently granted? This argument is moot re immigration whether you want it or whether you don't.

Uh...whatever. Obviously you completely missed my point.

[GaryC 7]

Gary,

If you were aware of the historical context of the graphic Steven posted, you'd know that much of the opposition of the so-called 'Natives' was against white foreign immigrants. They also opposed the expansion of the slave states, but that was secondary to their fear of other white immigrants.

Therefore, characterizing this as white guilt is inaccurate.

I am fully aware of the historical context. I paid attention in history class. It is white guilt in the sense that we "sinned" in the past and that somehow gives your side some sort of moral authority. It does not. Steven is trying to make this a bigotry argument when it isn't. It isn't bigotry to want our laws followed. I don't think asking someone who wants to come here to follow the law is immoral. Anyone that is here legally is welcome, anyone that is here contrary to the law isn't welcome. Please stop trying to paint me with the bigotry brush. I will not stand for it.

Edited May 27, 2007 by Iniibig ko si Luz forever

[Yodrak 7]

Purple Hibiscus,

Yes, they are. Look at the nature of the diseases that make a person ineligible. They are highly communicable and make the person a danger to society.

Yodrak

Medical health checks are not about prevention of disease, .....

[Mirorgate 0]

I have yet to find the cheaper cucumber that the illegal picked. Is there a separate shelf in the grocery somewhere where I can get the bargains that illegal labor affords me? I mean, 75% of the produce is picked by legally employed individuals leaving only 25% to be picked by illegal labor. Same goes for the restaurant where I am still searching for that 15-20% niche that will offer the savings of illegal labor to me. So, where does one go for the actual savings?

Oh, that's right. The savings ain't for the consumer. It's just for the profiteer that employs the illegal alien.

I'm not sure where you found those percentages, but I'm certain I've read those percentages were much higher. At the risk of sounding anecdotal - just go see how many non-hispanics you can find harvesting the crops or in the kitchens of restaurant across the country. And that's no accident. California was importing seasonal migrant workers for agriculture for the last century - we even made it legal for them to be here...imagine that.

There's your central issue, Steven. Just because you see a lot of hispanics in agriculture, restaurant kitchens and construction, doesn't mean that the percentages of illegal labor that I quoted are too low. Not all hispanics, you know, are illegal aliens. The vast majority - upwards of 75% - 80% of "jobs Americans won't do" [in the context of the debate around illegal aliens, this should really be read as "jobs legally employable workers won't do" in order to keep the debate on focus] are actually done by those legally able to work in the US. The small percentage of illegals amount to no cost benefit to you and me on the product we consume but to a cost benefit only for those that employ them. You and I get to pay the bills that the illegal aliens incur while here against the law. I'd rather not pay those bills anymore. Maybe you can pick up my share seeing that you'd like to keep them all here...

I agree with you in principle about employers being the biggest benefactor in the cases where illegals are be paid under the table, although some of that savings is passed onto the consumer, particularly with agriculture.

Then I ask again, where do I go for the discounted produce that illegals have picked at lower cost? I haven't found the "lower price thanks to illegals" shelf in the store just yet. But I'll keep looking.

What I hear is nothing but rhetoric about how much it's costing us when there is evidence that all of us are benefitting through lower cost items. Cheap labor is a ongoing issue/problem of its own - factory jobs have all but disappeared in this country and you can't blame that on illegal immigration.

Again, I don't see the lower cost items. I'd appreciate if you could point me in the right direction. The relative disappearance of factory jobs (there's a lot of them around still and that'll continue to be the case) has indeed nothing to do with the illegals in the country. Those jobs are being shipped off no matter what. That said, having the number of illegal workers increase dramatically in the sectors that cannot be shipped overseas while factory jobs are shipped out really adds insult to injury for the American worker. That may just be part of the reason that the tolerance for illegal aliens is dropping. I am quite certain that if it was you whose job was affected by this problem, you'd be singing a different tune.

Reinhard, I'm not sure what publications you read or what news programs you watch, but there's a lot of good information out there if you look.

Here's just an example...

Food and Punishment

Colorado's inmates-as-farmworkers plan says plenty about our food culture

Last summer, the Colorado General Assembly passed some of the nation's most rigorous anti-immigrant policy laws. Debate was fierce -- but only because some GOP lawmakers fumed that the Democratic-engineered crackdown wasn't draconian enough.

Essentially, the state's political elite -- backed editorially by The Denver Post -- took aim at its low-wage workforce: the people who clean bedpans, prep food in restaurants, harvest vegetables, and perform other "low-value" tasks.

The new code denied most "nonessential" services, including non-emergency health care, to undocumented workers (although it didn't exempt them from paying sales tax). It also upped identification requirements to get driver's licenses, and penalized businesses for not confirming workers' documentation.

While lawmakers congratulated themselves on their foresight -- or deplored their inability to enact harsher sanctions -- immigrants began to flee Colorado. And now the state's large-scale farms, which are almost comically reliant on immigrant labor for profitability, are begging the state government to help them find workers for the growing season.

http://www.grist.org/comments/food/2007/03/15/inmates/

As a resident of CO steven.. the article you posted is far from factual. Yes there was a crack down... the illegals though are not feelign in droves... the measure was far from "draconian" and some of the farm producers are whining because now they cant pay some 13yr old kid 12.50 a day to pick vegetables for 10-12 hrs. As to them still paying sales tax... even tourists pay that while visiting from other countries. no one is exempt. And what is wrong with requiring proof of eligibility to get a DL, or show proof to work legally here in the US. I had to when I applied for the new job, and I am sure you did too when you applied for your new job.