Who needs blacks when we can get Mexicans cheaper?

As the immigration debate rages on, one key criticism has been continually ignored by the supporters of the pseudo-amnesty and guest-worker plans circulating in Congress. Nobody seems to want to acknowledge that the argument that the illegal immigrants are merely doing jobs that Americans won’t do is a blatant lie. The truth is that these undocumented workers merely displace American workers who simply refuse to work for such low wages. There’s a great example of this occurring right now in decimated New Orleans, where construction contractors–many of them funded by FEMA and other government agencies–are dumping black resident workers, who are told “Go home!” as soon as they can get the chance to replace them with illegal immigrants (listen online or download the podcast segment entitled “Go Home!” under Bill Handel). Of course, not only are the Mexicans cheaper, but they speak little English, don’t unionize because of fears of deportation, and (as many will confirm anecdotally) are much harder workers than the Americans they replace.

Still, many don’t see this as a problem: This is simply the global labor market at work! Now, although I give the Wall Street Journal props for finally coming to the defense of this argument that illegal immigrants are simply filling jobs Americans won’t take, their reasoning is a little weak. Essentially their position is, “If they don’t come here, our jobs will go there”–except in neither case are they “our” jobs anymore, so what’s the point?

Imagine, for a minute, that China was our northern border, and India was our southern border. Would we continue to have no problem with 3 billion neighbors ready to come to America at a moment’s notice willing to work for as little as $5 a day–far more than they earn in their own countries? Mexico is poor to be sure, but Mexico’s got nothin’ on rural India or rural China.

Considering that a frighteningly high percentage of African-Americans are either high-school dropouts or not college graduates (not to mention the lower rates of white workers who fall into this category that nevertheless constitute millions of people in raw numbers), how can anyone morally justify displacing these people from a chance to work because unskilled immigrants are willing to work for less?

Regardless of how this debate ends, Republicans will lose. If they cave and offer amnesty or “earned citizenship”, the millions of illegals who come out of the shadows certainly will prefer the Democratic Party, which is far more vocal, undivided, and unhesitantly supportive of amnesty. They will also alienate many of their own base. Yet if the GOP turns against Bush and goes with an enforcement-only bill, the illegal immigration problem will still continue unabated, and Bush’s party leadership role will have been damaged perhaps beyond repair. The Dems have the elephant by the balls in this debate.

Given that the Republicans will be destined to come out losers, the best they could do is take one for the team so America can finally have a sane immigration policy. A smart immigration policy would do the following:

1. Increase legal immigration opportunies tenfold, but restrict entrance to a combination of high-skilled/high-educated labor and political/religious/ethnic refugees. The latter make very proud Americans, while the former will fill America’s true labor gaps in engineering and similar fields (read Tom Friedman’s The World is Flat for more on this major American human resources problem).

2. Invest resources in speeding up the application and review process for legal migrants. It’s a bitter injustice that educated legal immigrants must wait decades to bring their families into this country via the immigration process, while Mexicans and Central Americans can grab a few water bottles and take their chances in the Sonoran desert, take a minimum-wage job, then live here with impunity. Again, would we tolerate this if it was 1 billion Indians or Chinese to the south of us and not 100 million Mexicans?

3. Build a wall across our southern border similar to what the Israelis are doing, and then do the following: Offer an amnesty to companies who currently have workers that are illegal immigrants, then announce a harsh crackdown going forward. It’s always been against the law to hire illegal immigrants, but the law is rarely enforced. It’s well past time to enforce the law vigorously. If the law is enforced, few illegals will even try to come anymore.

4. To get current illegal residents out of the shadows, allow the option of coming forward, paying a fine, and gaining legal status, but forever being barred from the opportunity to become a full-fledged citizen. Their kids can become citizens in due time, but the parents cannot. Illegal behavior should not be ignored and forgiven so easily. Those who do not register should be deported–that is, if they still try to stay once they find it ten-times more difficult to find work if 3. above is implemented.

5. Implement a modest tax on wire transfers to out-of-country residents. Use this tax to pay for some combination of alleviating overcrowded schools, keeping open emergency rooms, building the necessary infrastructure to accommodate the population growth, and enforcing the immigration laws.

The above five measures certainly wouldn’t be politically popular among the many Latinos that the GOP is whoring itself to court, but they’d benefit America overall far more than any of the combinations of reforms now being proposed on the Hill. Indeed, there may even be mainstream support for such laws, as evidenced in some of the numbers seen in today’s LA Times poll. Aiming for the mainstream makes a lot more sense than the current proposals on the Hill, which will enrich Democrats politically far more than Republicans.

Alas, the GOP leadership these days, as evidenced not only by this issue but in their reckless spending and refusal to shut down pork-barrel politics, seem hell-bent on alienating their base and ensuring the Republican Party becomes an emerging minority party.

UPDATE: I should have included some quotes from Peggy Noonan’s article yesterday. Excerpt:

Where does all this leave me? Does my feeling for immigrants, and my afternoon at the march, leave me supporting open borders, or illegal immigration? No. Why should it? To love immigrants is not to believe America has no right to decide who can come to America and become a citizen. America has always decided who comes here. That’s why it all worked.
While the marchers seemed to be good people, and were very likable, the march itself, I think, violated the old immigrant politesse–the general understanding that you’re not supposed to get here and immediately start making demands. It would never have occurred to my grandparents to demand respect. They thought they had to earn it. It would never have occurred to them to air mass grievances, assert rights, issue a list of legislative demands. Especially if they were here unlawfully.

I happen to think America in general has deep affection for immigrants, knows they are part of the dynamic, a part of our growth and our endless coming-into-being. But when your heart is soft, and America’s is, your head must be hard.

We are a sovereign nation operating under the rule of law. That, in fact, is why many immigrants come here. They come from places where the law, such as it is, is corrupt, malleable, limiting. Does it make sense to subvert our own laws to facilitate the entrance of those in pursuit of government by law? Whatever our sentiments and sympathies as individuals, America has the right, and the responsibility, to protect the integrity of its borders, to make the laws by which immigrants are granted entrance, and to enforce those laws.

…I think those whose primary concern is preserving the Hispanic vote for the Democratic Party, or not losing the Hispanic vote for the Republican Party, are being cynical, selfish, and stupid, too. It’s not all about who gets what vote, it’s about continuing a system of laws that has allowed America to become, among many other things, a place immigrants want to come to. And it’s about admitting immigrants in a coherent, orderly, legal manner, with an eye first to what America needs. That’s how you continue a good thing, which is what we’ve had. That’s how you leave Americans who’ve been here for a while grateful for immigration, and immigrants, and loving them, and even wanting, sometimes, to kiss their hands.

UPDATE 2: Two more stories to note, both of which have bearing on this debate. First, the Associated Press reports that unprecedented numbers of migrant workers are rushing the border in anticipation of getting under some form of amnesty or guest-worker program. Meanwhile, the Pew Hispanic Center has released a study detailing the labor participation rates of illegal immigrants in various industries.

73 Responses to “Who needs blacks when we can get Mexicans cheaper?”

  1. David Kreutz says:

    Considering that a frighteningly high percentage of African-Americans are either high-school dropouts or not college graduates (not to mention the lower rates of white workers who fall into this category that nevertheless constitute millions of people in raw numbers), how can anyone morally justify displacing these people from a chance to work because unskilled immigrants are willing to work for less?

    Have you even been to a migrant worker camp? My guess is no.

    Regardless this proves that the unrestricted free market, so beloved of the right, DOES NOT WORK. The rich will always exploit the poor. Period. The idea that they are taking advantage of workers who are willing to work for low wages (which are astronomically high compared to what they could earn in Mexico) and are less likely to unionize is just another example of how laissez faire and trickle down economics just don’t work.

    Also, i’m not surprised that a right wing partisan such as yourself wants to vastly restrict immigration, yes lets keep all those poor imigrants from coming to this country, they are so bad for america after all.

    No the real answer is to make it easier for immigrants to come to this country to work, so long as they do not present a security risk. Since they are now legal immigrants buisnesses won’t be able to take advantage of them by threatening the INS on them and they wouldn’t be as preassured to work for such low wages. This is a definite case where the “free market” isn’t going to work and regulation is the answer.

  2. Joe Loy says:

    Andrew, that’s a good Toughminded Cold-eyed well-presented logical Post. There’s a lot in it that I (like David) don’t much Care for & can’t quite Stomach ~ but never-the-less, it’s Good. / Kudos.

  3. Joe Loy says:

    “Imagine, for a minute, that China was our northern border, and India was our southern border. Would we continue to have no problem with 3 billion neighbors ready to come to America at a moment’s notice willing to work for as little as $5 a day–far more than they earn in their own countries?”

    No, we wouldn’t. / But, they’re Not.

    (Forgive me now; I’m Distracted by this mind’s-eye Envisionment of the Yellow Peril marauding southwards from Prince Edward Island & Saskatchewan, and the Hindu Hordes gibbering North from Guadalajara. :)

  4. Mike Wiser says:

    David, Andrew doesn’t have a problem with immigrants in general. But he has a valid point that economically, our nation cannot absorb everyone who wishes to come here, so there need to be some sort of limits. He is merely proposing that the limits be linked to either a) stronger capabilities of the immigrants, or b) extreme need to move, given persecution.

    Also, the existence of illegal immigrants really has nothing to say about trickle-down economics. It does about the dangers of lack of any regulation, but trickle-down/supply side economics is an entirely separate issue. It therefore doesn’t do anything to help your case.

  5. Mike Wiser says:

    Funny that it keeps adding in my last name. I swear I’m not entering it…

  6. Ricardo says:

    Andrew, I really have a problem with proposal number 4. It’s too punitive and also unnecessary. I agree with you that they should not have come to this country illegally, but they should have been immediately deported. Instead, many of them were tolerated and allowed to have families and to establish roots in this country. They should have been deported before this occurred. It is now too late to bar them from becoming full members of this society. They’re here to stay. Witholding citizenship will only delay or prevent assimilation. The best thing our country can do is to accept and assimilate the illegal immigrants that are already here and prevent new ones from entering. This will be a lot easier for everybody involved.

  7. Bert says:

    Ricardo:

    Your comment is correct. This, however, was the same argument used LAST TIME amnesty was proposed.

    We gonna do this every 20 years or so, or we gonna fix the problem?

  8. Sean Vivier says:

    I really don’t understand. It seems like an awful lot of work over people crossing an imaginary line.

    PS It’s entering my last name automatically, too. So much for my posts not getting googled…

  9. A Nun Mouse says:

    1. Labor cannot compete with capital in today’s world. Capital can travel the globe in the blink of an eye. Labor cannot. This is something marx could not have predicted.

    2. I agree that it is not the case that Mexicans are doing jobs Americans won’t do. The correct statement is that Mexicans are doing jobs for less than what Americans want to be paid to do those jobs. Americans– like anyone– will do a job, any job, for a decent wage.

    3. Labor– broadly defined to include intellectual labor and creative work– creates all wealth.

  10. Joe Loy says:

    The Labor Theory of Value. A Nun Marxist, by golly. :> The Mouse is Red. :) Hello Comrade Mickey. :} [btw there are Several things old Karl did not predict.]

    Mike & Sean, I think the name thing is because we are “logged in” that way. / I don’t know what that means since we don’t Log In here the way one does on one’s Bank’s site or somesuch, any Restricted site, one’s Porn site perhaps, I wouldn’t know, mine is This one. :) But I think that’s what the Sitemeister told his Mom when she had a Name issue, Namely that her comments were posting under My name, which she has never Taken. :> I think we are logged in Invountarily. That’s Communism. Fie. The Irish Trojan is a Red. :) Hello Brendski Sergeivich. ;>

  11. G says:

    Habla Espanol? If you don’t, you’d better make sure your kids do.

  12. A Nun Mouse says:

    Yes, if one recognizes the value of labor as it struggles against capital, one must surely be a Marxist.

    I prefer Groucho.

    :-)

  13. Joe Loy says:

    misspelled Involuntarily above, obviously

  14. Angrier and Angrier says:

    I thought Republicans were pro-market economics. Without all of this illegal labor undermining the legal free market, wages would rise and there would be no problem filling these positions with American citizens. Instead, “law and order” Republicans want to allow illegals into the country, along with MS-13 and other gang elements, to undermine our free market economy. Yet another example of how Republicans are no longer Conservative but are just puppets for Big Oil and other corporate interests.

  15. Kristy says:

    Thing is, we have no model off of which to base a resolution. First of all, you have a very wide border; second, it’s between two countries with vastly different economic situations. (The only other border like it is Canada, but as a much more stable country, we’ll never see this problem with our friendly neighbors to the North.) The immigration situation is nothing like it was in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, when you had immigrants pouring into Ellis Island via steamship. Those people (mostly, all of our ancestors) knew that they weren’t going back home – likely ever – and came to the U.S. prepared to totally assimilate into the new world. This is happening with Mexican immigrants, many of whom stay entirely enraptured in their own culture: observing Mexican national holidays, living in Mexican communities, and forcing places like California into ESL situations. Universities in the UC school system have even begun offering degree programs entirely dedicated to that, and entirely in the Spanish language. I have nothing against immigration, and i am a firm believer in this Land of Opportunity and opening our borders and our values to all people, yearning to be free… But there should be some sort of regulation in place on our vast borders. Without it, we loosen the fabric of our nation’s multi-colored cultural quilt, and we make ourselves vulnerable to potentially VERY dangerous situations.

  16. Joe Mama says:

    A&A,

    Spare us the meaningless diatribe against Republicans. If I wanted to drag the discussion down to the partisan level that you’re on, I could make the no less valid argument that Democrats oppose free-trade agreements (e.g., CAFTA) because they export American jobs to underpaid Latin American workers, while at the same time favoring importing underpaid Latin American workers into the U.S. to take many of the same jobs. Thus, what many Dems seem to prefer is not preserving American jobs or bringing more undocumented workers, but importing undocumented Democrats.

  17. Lojo says:

    Angrier – “Yet another example of how Republicans are no longer Conservative but are just puppets for Big Oil and other corporate interests.”

    The second portion is up for debate, but the first portion of that statement is widely true for most of Congress and the White House.

    And David, you cannot overhaul the immigration process for becoming a citizen while you have no control over your borders. It is simply folly to try. Even if you trim the process to a year lag time from the criminally inept 10+ year process it is now, how many migrants will decide to wait the year?

    We NEED to build the wall and enforce the laws. That is Job One. And as soon as that is done and is proven to be working (no more than 1 1/2 years after completion), then all efforts should be directed to enabling a legal immigrant to become a citizen in 6 months time.

  18. Lojo says:

    Joe –

    He is right though that large swaths of congressional republicans gave up conservative ideals. The verdict is in on that from their performance on immigration to fiscal spending.

  19. A Nun Mouse says:

    Solution is simple.

    Two track solution.

    1. Those here can stay and work towards full citizenship.

    2. Work to secure the borders as best we can in order to stop or slow the flow of illegals.

    What else is there? Why is this so complicated?

  20. uscroger says:

    “how can anyone morally justify displacing these people from a chance to work because unskilled immigrants are willing to work for less?”

    I doubt that this is a matter of morality in the context in which you explicate it. I also notice that noone is screaming about jobs being sent overseas–you, Andrew, to be specific–don’t make a mention of the lack of morality behind that issue. Or, are these jobs that Americans really don’t want so they are sent overseas?
    It is clear that racism exists. Or, isn’t it a greater sin to allow people to stay, have families, and ties to America, use their labor, and suddenly kick them out? Ricardo has a point. At any rate, take away the hispanics and the blacks will be targeted for exploitation and more racism. Take away the blacks and you’ll have, today’s society, whites against poor whites. Wages will probably go up and the cost of goods would probably increase. America would probably lose its competitive edge. Your kids might have a harder time attending a private university and maybe end up cropping the fields.
    Actions speak louder than words. A humane resolution could be found. I mean, many people treat their dogs better than they treat other people. Or, are we to reject the principle that human dignity exists and that it is our responsibilty to help the weakest link.
    And, by the way, noone talks about putting restrictions on Mexico to make them improve their economy for the sake of their people. That is a disgrace. Here you have a large country with lots of potential….’nuff said.

  21. Joe Mama says:

    Lojo, I agree that “large swaths of congressional republicans gave up conservative ideals[,]” for precisely the reasons you cite. I wholeheartedly disagree, however, with all of the rest of A&A’s aforementioned post.

  22. uscroger says:

    By the way….it’s all about work ethics. People would rather hire people with strong work ethics. Anyway, Andrew lives encapsulated within the realms of what he reads.

  23. nug says:

    Andrew appears to be a bigot and a racist.
    Considering that a frighteningly high percentage of African-Americans are either high-school dropouts or not college graduates (not to mention the lower rates of white workers who fall into this category that nevertheless constitute millions of people in raw numbers), how can anyone morally justify displacing these people from a chance to work because unskilled immigrants are willing to work for less?

    First, last I checked, white people are impoverished too. Why is this a race thing?

    Second, if you were that concerned about the lack of education of our citizens, you might actually do something about it, like pay higher taxes and get rid of private school vouchers.

    Third, I don’t think you care about the lack of education. You just feel a little guilty because you’re beginning to realize how much Corporate America is willing to rape people if given the chance. You don’t mind that high percentage of black people are diploma-less and degree-less, because it’s a ready source of cheap labor. You are probably just blaming Latin Americans because they’re usurping the black man’s role of cheap labor (which years of Republican oppression carved out for him). Republicans meant to be heartless, but not that heartless.

    Fourth, it’s funny how you’re willing to raise taxes — on somebody else.

    Fifth, their children are not citizens “in due time,” they’re citizens the moment they’re born in this country. The Constitution should not depend upon the color of a person’s skins.

    Sixth, the people of the United States totally screwed Mexico already. We should be relieved and ease our conscience that the hardest working immigrants come and contribute to our economy and their economy. How ’bout them riparian rights of the Colorado River?

    Seventh, they are not “illegals.” Do you want people to start calling you “pig”? If you’re going to label them, you might as well call them by their full label (“illegal immigrants”). Otherwise, you can call them “Latin Americans” or “Central Americans.” When a man says “illegals,” he usually follows it up by spitting tobacky on the ground.

    Andrew, you reveal much about yourself that you are more concerned about the fate of the Republican Party than you are the fate of the undocumented workers.

  24. Lojo says:

    nug –

    Wow, where to begin?

    Well…

    1) Blacks are dispropotionally represented in lower socio-economic classes. These jobs can represent, if not a means to elevate themselves, to provide for their families. I do agree with you that this is a class issue more than a race issue, but race does enter the equation when talking about the lowest economic classes.

    2) I’m just going to wait for you to prove that higher education spending = better education. Here’s a hint, it doesn’t. Washington D.C. has the highest amount of money spent per child than anywhere in the US. And guess what, the children from those schools rank in some of the lowest percentiles. Know what HAS become a big hit in DC among minority and low socio-economic status parents? Vouchers.

    3) Talk about a roundabout way to call him a racist. Why don’t you just say it? And I love that you accuse him as being racist for him advocating giving jobs back to low income blacks. I’d hate to see what you’d call him if he actually criticized someone.

    4) Though I don’t agree with his suggestion of a wire transfer tax, why is the suggestion itself bad?

    5) So now your bring race into it, saying its all about skin color. Its about LEGAL and ILLEGAL. The same suggestion holds if it is people coming illegally from Canada.

    6) Funny. I thought the hard workers fleeing their country and not putting that effort into righting their own country is doing more for screwing over Mexico. Victimology alert!!

  25. uscroger says:

    “I’m just going to wait for you to prove that higher education spending = better education. Here’s a hint, it doesn’t.”

    I used to think the same way as you, Lojo. But, it does matter. If you’re a graduate from Harvard University you have a better chance at getting solid leads when it comes to jobs. Now, imagine yourself coming from a poor family and not having enough money to buy fancy computers and gadgets, like the rest of your counterparts. Or, not having enough to sport nice attire or drive a car to get to work. Or, maybe you have a job to supplement your escalating tuition. Hopefully you’re a bit smart and can strike some luck by getting a grant. But, considering that many grants are being reduced you’re not that lucky. How do you expect to compete with the rest of your colleagues who have the means necessary to get to the answer way before you do? things have changed. Now-a-days it is all about who has the fastest most reliable information first. It takes money to make that happen. n’est pa? My arguement is superficial but it brushes up on the reality that it takes $$$$ to better achieve your talents.

  26. uscroger says:

    …or someone else’s $$$$$ to achieve yor talents.

  27. Joe Loy says:

    nug, I disagree with Andrew more of than not but I have read a lot of his writing & I have met him & talked with him and I tell you this: he is neither a bigot nor a racist. (Some in his party Are ~ and so are some in Ours, and not All of them White, either.)

    You say that Andrew “appears to be” these things. That is so only for one who automatically discerns such Appearance in any Acknowledgement of the relevance of Race to issues & inequities in American (and Other) society. Which is approximately like saying that the guy who Points out the fact that there’s an Elephant in the livingroom ~ Appears to be antiPachydermal. ;>

  28. Joe Loy says:

    erratum ~ “…disagree with Andrew more often than not…”

  29. Sean Vivier says:

    I’m confused again. This time by Kristy’s comments. To preserve multiculturalism, we have to make sure Mexicans don’t celebrate Cinco de Mayo?

  30. Joe Mama says:

    Wow nug, I actually threw up in my mouth a little because your post was so bad. I’d respond to some (okay, all) of your ridiculous comments, but I fear I may actually lose IQ points for doing so.

  31. Lojo says:

    uscroger – Education spending, how its been referred here and the usual meaning attached to it is funding given to the school system. That is just money down the hole.

    But your right in that money spent by a parent to directly influence their child’s education has GREAT impact. Problem is that money is not the primary or even secondary issue with educating children of low-income parents.

    Will that elevate them to Harvard? No. But a high school degree ALONE raises them a few steps on the socio-economic ladder. Add in a community college degree, and now we’re talking. Are we talking CEO? Maybe not, but we’re not talking, “Do you want fries with that?” either.

  32. Lojo says:

    Elder Loy –

    Beautiful. Simply beautiful.

  33. Andrew Long says:

    Also, i’m not surprised that a right wing partisan such as yourself wants to vastly restrict immigration, yes lets keep all those poor imigrants from coming to this country, they are so bad for america after all.

    If you had any reading comprehension or understanding of the issue, you might have recognized that I called for allowing political/religious/ethnic refugees, who are usually very poor. I prefer these types of poor immigrants to pure economic immigrants because the former feel a stronger cultural affinity to our country, while the latter see citizenship as an economic transaction.

    And yes, the free market works. In fact, the pure free-market approach would be open borders and an open labor market. Long term, that’d be a great thing to have, as labor and capital could move freely and create economic prosperity at unprecedented rates. The problem is, the short-term disruption costs of moving to a totally open labor market with open borders would be disastrous; millions upon millions would move to America, and while the newcomers would have a much better life, overall we’d sink to a third-world lifestyle overnight. Because of the vast economic disparities across the globe, migrant labor must be restricted and regulated. The ultimate goal, though, should be a safe and secure world free of terrorism threats, with engines of prosperity in all countries, and open borders for workers to move freely among them. But we’re a long way from that goal, David. A long, long way.

  34. Andrew Long says:

    Ricardo, I respectfully disagree. Barring illegal immigrants from full citizenship rights makes good sense, and being able to gain legal status is more than enough to bring them out of the shadows. Assimilation is not an issue for first-generation immigrants but for second-generation immigrants, and the latter generation will be citizens. Assimilation itself, though, has more to do with education and inculcating American values in schools than it does with the legal status of immigrants.

  35. Andrew Long says:

    I really don’t understand. It seems like an awful lot of work over people crossing an imaginary line.

    It’s not so imaginary, Sean. Laws and jurisdictions apply and end at borders. Or do you think Mexican businesses should pay taxes to American governments? Saying that a border is simply an imaginary line is about as inane an argument as one could make. I suppose that’s all the Israelis and Palestinians are fighting over, an imaginary line?

  36. uscroger says:

    Lojo: Agree and understand.

    But,

    “Assimilation itself, though, has more to do with education and inculcating American values in schools than it does with the legal status of immigrants. ”

    Disagree. It is not education nor inculcating anything. It is the power of intelligence that some either have or lack all together. In analysis with Lojo’s comments: One could spend a fortune on a moron who will never succeed and spend his time blaming society; or, let someone find his own way by means of his own intelligent prowess. It is my understanding that assimilation is a matter of the IQ and can’t be inculcated.

    But, what truly amazes me about Andrews prerogative is how he identifies Mexicans as the illegal burden on jobs for blacks. I would agree with Mr. Joe that he knows Andrew in person and knows the intricacy of his good nature. However, Andrew’s arguement is biased and the reason why he is probabbly being labeled a bigot.

    Why?

    Well, Mexicans are not the only illegal immigrants. What about the myriad Irish, Italian, Englanders….etc. In the bronx, the Irish community is rather large. Yet, he fails to give these figures. Ultimate result is that Andrew seems to have an issue solely with Mexicans–at least that could be said from reading between the intricate lines of his *post.*

  37. Mike says:

    While it’s true that being a graduate from Harvard will increase your job prospects, that’s due to a hell of a lot more than your financial situation–the education itself means something, and as elitist as it is to point this out, Harvard typically attracts students who are far more capable than average. Especially given things like the fact that families with an income below $60,000 per year are not expected to contribute to the cost of their child’s education (previously, it was $40k). Actually, that same article goes on to detail how grants are being expanded at that school, not reduced–the same is true here at Stanford as well, though to a lesser extent, given that the maximum income for no family contributions is $45,000. Or there’s USC, which while Brendan, Dane, Andrew, Becky, and I were there doubled the number of half-tuition scholarships given out on pure academic merit. While the grant portions at many universities are shrinking, that’s by no means true across the board. And, yes, it’s harder for the poor to compete with the rich in terms of things like computer access–this is one of the reasons why public libraries have internet access. Life is undoubtedly more difficult for the poor, but it’s not insurrmountably so.

  38. uscroger says:

    I love Joe Loy’s writ style.

  39. uscroger says:

    That’s Mr. Loy to me.

  40. Andrew Long says:

    I also notice that noone is screaming about jobs being sent overseas–you, Andrew, to be specific–don’t make a mention of the lack of morality behind that issue. Or, are these jobs that Americans really don’t want so they are sent overseas?

    Nobody has a right to a job. And while economic realities mean we need to regulate labor markets, there’s not much need to regulate capital markets. Thus, it makes perfect sense to move light manufacturing abroad where wages and capital costs are lower, and I have no qualms with that; I’d rather the factory move to Mexico than Mexico move to the factory. The way we stay ahead on this is to follow prescriptions similar to what Tom Friedman calls for in The World is Flat. We need to focus on improving our education system and churning out more scientists, engineers, and other specialized professions. If we have an educated labor force and an economic system that rewards entrepreneurship and allows the forces of creative destruction to replace old industries with new ones, we will replace the jobs that leave this country with better ones. Regardless, although we have the capability to control our borders, we are quickly losing any ability to regulate international capital markets. Outsourcing will happen whether we like it or not. The trick is to accept the free flow of capital and make it work to our advantage. Fortunately, America is better at that than just about anyone else, but unfortunately, the protectionist voices are growing stronger and threaten our success. Becoming like Europe, with its socialized labor markets, tightly regulated capital markets, and protectionist politics, is simply not an option that allows economic growth.

    And, by the way, noone talks about putting restrictions on Mexico to make them improve their economy for the sake of their people. That is a disgrace. Here you have a large country with lots of potential….’nuff said.

    Plenty of people have pointed out the “safety valve” feature of illegal immigration. As more and more Mexicans come across the border, the pressure to resolve problems of corruption and inequality of opportunity internal to Mexico lessens. Vicente Fox is all for illegal immigration, because it lightens the pressure on his government to reform, and the billions of dollars in remitances help spark the economy (indeed, it’s the second largest source of income in the Mexican economy after oil production).

  41. uscroger says:

    Mike,

    Are you talking about grants in terms of tapping into the Alumni funds? Or, grants as they relate to what the gov. gives out? Lojo rephrased his point about money being wasted in schools that fail altogether. The reasoning behind the whole arguement is that money alone does not guarantee a good education. Assimilation came to mind also, since it would probably become difficult for a poor student at Harvard to feel fit and part of the whole. In fact, I know of rich people who drop out of Harvard and join more *liberal* schools where they see themselves fit into a culture that is more in-sync with what they want to accomplish–both personal and educational.

    And even with the high IQ–if you don’t have the $$, how is a poor kid going to develop his IQ further by just living his life vicariously.

    Analogy: It takes great talent to have a football team; but, without the $$$ incentive that talent is just going to waste.

  42. Andrew Long says:

    It is my understanding that assimilation is a matter of the IQ and can’t be inculcated.

    I reject your intellectual fatalism out-of-hand. The ability to assimilate is not driven by genetics, it is driven by education and propaganda.

    But, what truly amazes me about Andrews prerogative is how he identifies Mexicans as the illegal burden on jobs for blacks….

    Why?

    Well, Mexicans are not the only illegal immigrants. What about the myriad Irish, Italian, Englanders….etc. In the bronx, the Irish community is rather large. Yet, he fails to give these figures. Ultimate result is that Andrew seems to have an issue solely with Mexicans–at least that could be said from reading between the intricate lines of his *post.*

    uscroger, I am stating fact–not opinion–when I point out that blacks lose their jobs to Mexicans in places like New Orleans. Not only that, but the number of illegal immigrants from Ireland, Italy, England, et al is laughably minor compared to what we experience with Mexico. Plus, most illegal immigrants we have from non-Latin America tend to come here on some type of visa (usually education) and then overstay beyond the visa’s expiration. These types of illegals, while they constitute a potential security threat (this was the situation with the 9/11 hijackers, some of which were actually in America on legal visas), nevertheless do not compete for the same types of lower-wage jobs that blacks and Mexicans compete for. If I admit to any bias, it is to having an Angeleno perspective. Out here in So Cal, Mexicans are displacing blacks in the urban areas, and while there are plenty of Vietnamese and other Asian illegals, they operate in a completely different economy than blacks and Latinos, and thus there is no real labor-market competition between them. So yes, it’s by and large a black vs. Mexican (and Central American) thing.

  43. uscroger says:

    “Nobody has a right to a job.”

    I was under the impression that this was the essence (not 100%) of your whole-heartedly dialogue.

  44. uscroger says:

    Andrew:

    With all due respect:
    Blacks have been in this country much longer than other cultures. At times, I feel that you are a bit confused. You, as a Republican, understand the concept of survival of the fittest and competition, and Capitalism [capital C]. Also, American’s elite competitive edge can be attributed to the influx of immigrants who contribute their scientific, economic, etc knowledge to the betterment of society. Now, sending jobs overseas might be good, as some economists have argued and as you say. But, you’re argument on this post is about jobs being taken away from Americans [blacks]who in fact want to do those jobs. The bias with this arguement is that it is not the Mexican’s fault but the employer who opts to capitalize on an asset, rather than a liability, by hiring people he/or she probably believes will do the job to the best of his ability–yes, at a lower wage. We could debate all day long on this matter. I do understand your sentiments.

    By the way, all the education in the world will not do a thing to a moron. First it takes determination and intelligence. So, IQ arguement prevails over assimilation.

  45. David Kreutz says:

    Lojo you are correct that merely throwing money at a problem won’t solve it. However that is not an argument for underfunding, in many cases drastically, education. The solution is to properly fund AND make good use of those funds. The argument that there is enough funding now its just being wasted may be true in a few isolated cases, but by and large the simple fact of the matter is that our schools and our teachers do not recieve enough funding to do the job that the public seems to expect of them. The same people who complain about how our test scores (a stupid and pointless measurment as is) are low compared to other countries, etc etc are the same ones who vote down levies and bonds. And then you have the erroneously named No Child Left Behind act one of the biggest bipartisan blunders in recent memory.

    The problem in this country is far too many people want immediate results, they aren’t willing to invest in the long term solution. If we were to take one days worth of spending from the Iraq war and put it into education we could do great things.

  46. Andrew Long says:

    But, you’re argument on this post is about jobs being taken away from Americans [blacks]who in fact want to do those jobs. The bias with this arguement is that it is not the Mexican’s fault but the employer who opts to capitalize on an asset, rather than a liability, by hiring people he/or she probably believes will do the job to the best of his ability–yes, at a lower wage.

    I’m not attributing ill morality to any one party. Each is doing what is natural: the employer is getting a cheaper laborer; and the Mexican is taking the job, which beats any opportunity he would have in Mexico. My beef is with allowing this to happen so easily by not enforcing our borders. There are millions of construction jobs, service jobs, and light manufacturing jobs out there that Americans (white and black) would gladly do at higher wages. If illegal immigrants disappeared, undoubtedly many of these jobs would move abroad (agribusiness and manufacturing would be hit hardest), but quite a few of them would still remain with us (especially in construction and the service economy). And lower class American workers would benefit, raising many out of poverty and lessening the gap between the rich and the poor.

    uscroger, you seem stuck on the whole “black” thing in my post. I made it a “black vs. Mexican” issue for two key reasons. First, the first story I referenced was about black workers working to rebuild New Orleans being kicked out of their jobs and told to go home once the Mexicans arrived. This is a direct black vs. Mexican conflict. FEMA subcontractors are not firing blacks to hire Irish, they’re not firing blacks to hire Indians, they’re firing blacks to illegally hire Mexicans. Thus the specificity of the tussle. Second, as a racial/ethnic class, blacks undoubtedly comprise the great majority of the American poor; in America, too often being black means being poor. How will that ever change if we keep taking jobs away from the poor (i.e. blacks) and give them to Mexican immigrants willing to work for less? Admittedly, the Latino immigrants do a lot of things right; much of the urban blight of LA has actually improved as Mexicans have caused the gentrification of old black neighborhoods in the city. But the bad outweighs the good, IMO.

  47. Andrew Long says:

    If it makes you feel better, uscroger, illegal immigration hurts Latino immigrants too. As employers hire poor Latinos and the workers establish themselves, gain specialized training and leadership roles, and begin to accumulate the competitive edge in a tight labor market to make higher wages, new immigrants lessen the pressure from a tight labor market and allow the employers to replace older, seasoned Latino workers with newer, fresher, younger, and cheaper Latino workers. And the wages overall stagnate.

  48. Angrier and Angrier says:

    Joe Mama-

    This isn’t any different than China dumping cheap steel on the U.S. market and the Feds doing nothing about it. How are taxpaying American workers supposed to compete when the U.S. government doesn’t enforce immigration laws, or, for that matter, NAFTA – which was passed by a Democratic Congress.

    I’m not saying the Democrats would be any better on this issue because the Dems’ bias toward minority representation would make illegal immigrants a natural political ally. However, the Republicans have basically sold their souls to the Corporate Devil on this and just about every other issue. There is hardly anything Conservative about the Republican Party anymore.

  49. Lojo says:

    David –

    Funding though is not the key problem with education. Is it a problem? Sure. Teachers are WAY too underpaid for their job and should be much better compensated. Also, better oversight needs to be done on where funding goes to target the schools lacking in resources and facilities.

    But really, the biggest problem with education is participation from the parents. The majority of low-income parents simply pass their kids off to school as babysitter, ignoring their performance, and not stressing the importance of education at home. In fact, many parents actually shackle teachers, directly sabotaging their efforts.

    A close number two is the overall level of sheer buearucratic nightmare teachers go through that eats up about 40% of their time. It really is mind boggling. Of those reading this have never realized it, go ask a teacher the steps it takes to flunk a student or to put a special tutoring program in place. Its REALLY scary. And Dave, your right. NCLB just dogpiles on this. Its a perfect example of nice in theory, sucks in execution.

  50. Alasdair says:

    One of the problems with solutions currently being proposed is that they tend not to act to gradually correct the current immigration problems in self-sustaining ways … in engineering terms, the feedback mechanisms *inhale forcefully* !

    The ‘tax on wire tranfers of funds’ proposal has several good points to it, not the least of which is that shifts the bias towards becoming more desirable to live here with one’s family, and less desirable to live here in minimal interaction conditions so as to maximise how much can be ‘sent back home’ to family …

    Throwing money at education has not tended to work, historically … shifting the culture to where education is highly valued *does* work …

    It remains a source of bafflement to me why, in *this* country, the USA, there is one immigrant group which has consistently (statistically at least) failed miserably and yet proudly to bring itself up to full citizenship parity with those groups which have been here longer …

    Most of the immigrant groups which were not part of the initial full-citizenship colonising groups had miserable years and decades (in some cases close to a century) during which their group effectively had little or no civil rights, and were treated by the established citizenry as little better than dogs or beasts of burden or other forms of chattel … and yet, after a while, with that one exception, by aggressively pursuing education and advancement for members of their own community (whether family-based or culturally-based) who could then help the rest of that group to advance once the first ones got established with prosperity, all but one group has become part of ‘the American Dream’ … over the past couple of centuries, to be Irish or Polish or Japanese or Jewish – or – or – or – meant initial significant and severe hardship, and yet gradually led to where the majority of the group shared/shares in the prosperity of the country-as-a-whole often in spite of the wishes and actions of the established citizenry

    I know some on here will label this next part is racist cuz that’s all they apparently know how to do, but …

    What TF is it with the black/African-American/n-word/high melanin content community that it has managed to consistently and (sadly) predictably remain a victim group ? Many individuals from that community succeed consistently within their own family groups to prosper … many such individuals publicly and perceptibly and generously put resources back into their community to help others, and yet somehow it just doesn’t seem to translate into the majority of that group becoming part of the full citizenship parity level ?

    OK – that’s the observation … so what are the answers ?

    And, no, I’m not going to accept “It’s all whiteys’/honkies’/David Duke’s fault for oppressing those of high melanin content …” … there was a period way too recently when, as I understand it, in at least one state, immigrants of Chinese origin could not own property or become citizens … it sure ain’t so any more …

    And, to get it over with, NO, it’s not all The Eeeevil Booosh’s ™ fault …

    In reality, I don’t as much care whose fault it is, as I would prefer to see the impediments to advancement rendered irrelevant … don’t even fight against ’em, just smile politely at ’em, and keep on going towards betterment …

    Now, in fairness, and as disclosure, I will point out that my rugrats fo the female persuasion go to a bastion of privilege – a private all-girls grades 7-12 school (and it’s not inexpensive) … and there are (and have been) kids in their classes of varying albedo levels all the way from mine (safer to wear sunglasses when lloking at them in bright sunshine) to those whose melanin content is so high that sunglasses are not required … and they are pretty much all just kids … the pigmentation of their skins or the roundness of their eyes is just another minor identifying characteristic … and the financial resources available at home to the families of the kids varies from the way-prosperous celebrities all the way through those who are there on grant/scholarship/bursary (whatever they are called over here) – funded by a portion of the annual tuition fees paid for each kid …

    I have known of families whose daughter didn’t get in even though money was NOT an object … and I know of some whose daughters are there because they can handle the academic and other loads and add to the mix/diversity in the classrooms and extra-curricularly …

    And, yes, I know that many of the kids are from immigrant families, kids who themselves are first generation Americans … like mine … so it’s not an elitist old-family versus immigrant thing … (grin) … equally, some of the kids there are from Los Angeles area ‘aristocracy’ – Hearst/Chandler/etc scionesses (or whatever the term would be) and the like …

    So – a long-winded way, uscroger, of saying that while money doesn’t necessarily hurt, it doesn’t necessarily help, and lack of money doesn’t have to be an eliminating factor when one’s community is willing to pull together and help each other towards betterment

  51. Alasdair says:

    David @ 3:32 – “If we were to take one days worth of spending from the Iraq war and put it into education we could do great things.” – there’s a teensy tiny problem with that belief – if one takes “one days worth of spending from the Iraq war” and put it into Washington DC education run as it is currently by the local education authority, those funds would vanish even less productively that with their current use in Iraq … one must first fix the exit points where the blood is hemorrhaging before giving more than the minimum transfusions to sustain life …

    Lojo @ 3:55 – AMEN ! (well, mostly)

    There are great teachers grossly underpaid – and atrocious ‘teachers’ grotesquely overpaid …

    I FULLY agree that the parental (which is basically cultural) support for the school and teachers and education of our kids is probably the single most important factor in how well the kids at the school that my kids currently attend end up doing …

    Which raises the question – how does one show other groups in this country just how incredibly effective parental imvolvement is ?

  52. uscroger says:

    Andrew: You have some good points that somehow seem suppressed by the overload of information you try to exfoliate. This matter also seems to have a racist breeze attached and masked behind a post title. I think you’re the one who used the term ‘hordes’ at some point.
    Anyway, all good solutions are possible and one can only hope that human suffering may be alleviated. out

  53. nug says:

    Joe Loy: You’re right; I was harsh on Andrew. However, I disagree that Andrew pointed out an elephant. That black people are turned away from jobs has no greater weight, in that context, than the fact that citizens are turned away from jobs.

    Andrew: I apologize for calling you a racist. Great post, in that it generated a lot of discussion.

    Lojo: if it’s about Canadian immigrants as well, why aren’t the Minute Men training their guns on the Northern Border? Also, I dont’ think it was all that roundabout. I can’t prove that increasing funding improves education, but anyone can prove to you (more than anecdotally) that decreased education spending = crappy education. If you do not think that funding is tied to quality, then you would be perfectly willing to not have school district funding tied to school district property values, right? The wire transfer tax suggestion itself wasn’t bad; simply ironic. My sense of irony is often lost on others. And what, exactly, is “victimology”? The study of victims?

    Joe Mama: Sorry to make you ill. It happens to me sometimes, too.

  54. Alasdair says:

    nug @ 5:38 …

    “victimology” – the science of victims …

    “victimonomy” – the study of victims …

    “victim’o’loy’ – someone who calls Brendan a sassenach Bruin …

  55. Andrew Long says:

    I “exfoliate” information? Cool! That may be the best backhanded compliment I can ever remember receiving. ;-)

    Alasdair, good, provocative comment above about the black community, but I don’t think the answer is that difficult. The fact is, blacks were doing quite well in this country up until the late 1960s. Then a combination of things began to happen. Even as blacks gained civil rights and were the recipients of helpful legislation such as affirmative action, liberal court rulings and government policies began to tear the black family apart. LBJ’s “Great Society” policies such as welfare, combined with the cultural revolution’s embrace of birth control and easy divorce and its spurning of traditional morality and stigmas against sex outside marriage, tore apart the black family. Black male crime skyrocketed; single-mother homes also skyrocketed. Nearly two generations of blacks now have grown up in decaying urban centers, with two-thirds of the kids growing up without a father in their life. Putting humpty dumpty back together again may be difficult, and no one may agree on how to do it, but how humpty dumpty fell apart is perfectly obvious.

  56. David Kreutz says:

    quick poll, do you think Alasdairs constantly harping peoples spelling and trying to be clever with spelling of words is in anyway entertaining? Or do you think, like I do, that he’s just asinine.

  57. Dave Johnson says:

    It’s stunning to see how completely free-market ideology/religion will blind people… You simply refuse to recognize the realities of the world we are in. Mexico restricts labor organizing. China does that and holds its currency down.

    And the ongoing trade deficit proves that we do NOT have anything approaching free trade OR free markets. The word “trade’ has a meaning. Obviously we are not trading when others are not buying from us. So in a REAL world where our trade “partners” are playing by different rules, all we are doing is giving away the store – and our pensions and health insurance and raises. Simple fact – the deficits and trade deficits ARE tax increases that we (not the rich) will pay for.

    “in fact, the pure free-market approach would be open borders and an open labor market. Long term, that’d be a great thing to have, as labor and capital could move freely and create economic prosperity at unprecedented rates.”

    Long term, we’re all dead. But what about the real world that we live in, not libertarian religion? A free market for labor in a world full of unemployed people NECESSARILY leads to subsistence wages for those who can get jobs.

  58. Mike says:

    “A free market for labor in a world full of unemployed people NECESSARILY leads to subsistence wages for those who can get jobs.

    That assumes low barriers to entry in each field. I assume by labor you mean unskilled labor, but there are jobs that only limited numbers are capable of doing. When demand for a given skill exceeds the supply of it, those with it are never going to be restricted to subsistence level employment, particularly in those jobs which are difficult enough that there are substantial numbers who simply cannot be trained to perform them adequately, as they lack the underlying capabilities.

  59. A Nun Mouse says:

    Capitalism is institutionalized wage slavery.

  60. Jamie Jamison says:

    Blame Bush and the Republicans, it’s all their fault. Seriously, it is. We’re not even enforcing laws against illegals coming into this country any more. Want to know how bad it is? Go and read this article

    http://www.salon.com/wire/ap/archive.html?wire=D8H0JKTG3.html

    enforcement is so weak that companies are directly hiring illegals with no fear of any consequences. We’ve had a Republican president for five years, he’s done nothing about this except make nice with Vicente Fox, we’ve had a solidly Republican congress for four years now, they’ve done nothing to punish the agencies that aren’t enforcing our laws and are turning a blind eye to this problem.

    Now the Democrats aren’t any solution to this. The Dems aren’t going to enforce any laws because they’re as entranced by the idea of lots of Mexican votes as Republicans are by lots of cheap, Mexican labor. And I doubt that John Kerry would have been any different, so we’re screwed. If a third party came along and started talking about immigration they’d have a huge issue to get traction on. Sadly no such party seems to exist.

  61. Monty says:

    I agree with comments made by Jamie Jamison. Neither party has a solution, but the real solution lies with the business community. If someone with an interest could sit down with Mexican authorities and pursuade them to relax laws you could probably build an economic model in Baja California that would make them all go home on their own in 20 years, and a lot of Americans with them. Ultimately this is the real solution to border control.I could certainly elaborate but you get the idea.

  62. Lojo says:

    Monty –

    That is a big part of the problem here. If a mexican sees his countries with low paying jobs, if any, and sees not to far away another country with much higher paying jobs he just has to jump a border for, there’s hardly any debate. Frankly, I can’t begrudge that decision.

    But by having all these people coming into the US illegaly, it takes them OUT of the mexican population, thus causing the situation in that country to get worse and worse. If one year’s worth of illegal immigrants were KEPT in Mexico, that becomes a tremendous amount of political pressure on Vicente Fox and that entire government complex. That would lead to reforms, or a reform candidate. That would force the country to adapt by bettering and modernizing its economy.

  63. Monty says:

    Lojo,

    I agree our government needs to adopt much harsher diplomatic negotiations with Mexico and others for their part in this problem, and part of that solution would be to return some of the illegals to their homelands force the issue. But ultimately I believe economics is the real solution to this. I mean if I could go home to friends and family and earn a good wage I’d be on the first bus out of here.

  64. ahansen says:

    I would propose that the State of California (and/or Arizona, New Mexico, the US Military/General Motors, et al,) go into a joint venture with the State of Baja whereby the US builds 500,000 condo units (or installs all those unused double-wide mobiles languishing in NOLA,) on Mexican beachfront (with Mexican labor at prevailing wages.) California/AZ/NM/military/GM et al then offers anyone receiving a retirement pension from them a free home there for life and medical care in-country in exchange for forfeiting half of their pension and all of their health benefits. Mexico gets an influx of educated, relatively affluent retirees which their indigenous population will charge-at Mexican rates- to service. Surrounding communities and amenities will take on a more upscale nature, and Mexican families serving and managing these burgeoning communities will benefit from the influx of money and education level. They will also take all of the supercilious retired agency (think DMV) bureaucrats off our hands and segregate them behind gates where they can drink themselves to death on cheap tequila.

    In return, Mexico gets what is essentially half of California’s pension fund and a lot of retired teachers, social service workers, medical and law enforcement personnel, firefighters, prison guards, managerial and clerical workers, technical contractors, etc. to interact with and advise its population. It gets US-quality medical and commercial services as well as restaurants, recreational and entertainment facilities, and support commerce as these retirement communities grow and proliferate. Its people get an education and job skills (nursing, for example,) as they develop their service sector to American standards. And even more income will accrue when all these retiree’s kids and grandkids come to visit, or live nearby.

    For every American retiree who resides in Mexico, a corresponding number of Mexican citizens get green cards to work legitimately in the US. With good steady employment and a nice standard of living developing, illegal immigration to the US will become unnecessary, maybe even undesirable to Mexicans. The slightly lower wages earned in Mexico will be offset by the cheaper costs and better infrastructure. Conversely, the relative increase in income made possible by immigrating to the US will be offset by the increased cost of living here. Assuming the standards of living are similar, the choice will be moot.

    California gets a 50% reduction in its unmanageable pension payouts, cheaper medical costs in Mexico, and a more free-flow and equitable border environment. It’s infrastructure gets a break as a significant number of people disperse.

    Joint US/Mexican building contractors and financiers get a field day at taxpayer (or shareholder,) expense. (I would start a small-scale pilot program with private contractors before bringing in the inevitable Kellogg Brown and Root.)

    The hemisphere benefits as income and educational disparities are ameliorated and civil amenities reach parity. As the two populations interact, language barriers will diminish, and cultures will hybridize into a discrete identity.

    Figuring out the law enforcement protocols and voting jurisdictions I shall leave to the more bureaucratically adept who can keep in mind the political ramifications of a two-tiered exclusionary state.

  65. Loco Máx, Don says:

    Soy de México. He llevado un trabajo de Max porque puedo trabajar más barato y más rápido.

  66. Monty says:

    Thanks ahansen,

    Now if we could just get the politicians to listen.

  67. Andrew Long says:

    Jamie, are you related to Jenna?

  68. American says:

    The American National Anthem

    Oh Jose cant you see, we’re tired of supporting thee.

    When you snuck acrossed the border, it began an illegal plight.

    Over broad stripes and bright stars, We’ll continue to Fight.

    Mexican Flags we did watch, that were so sadly streaming.

    Our tempers did flare, with Mexican’s everywhere.

    Gave proof to the nite, we must send them back there.

    O say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave.

    For the land of the U. S. Citizen and the home of the American’s.

    written and produced by U.S. Citizens
    Made In America

  69. Help says:

    PLEASE READ & DO THIS. WE have a super serious problem

    WASHINGTON (AFP) Immigrants’ rights advocates, elated by the
    resounding success of Monday’s “National Day of Action,” which drew
    the backing of hundreds of thousands of protesters across the United
    States, now are planning a national boycott which they hope will have
    an even greater resonance.
    Organizers are planning the May 1 “Great American Boycott,” urging
    illegal immigrants — who cannot vote a and who have only limited
    political power — to flex their economic muscle.
    Protesters are being urged to refrain from shopping, and to stay away
    from school and work.

    You should take a moment to let that sink in.

    This is a movement orchestrated by people who entered the US
    illegally, and then want to scream about their “rights.” WHAT RIGHTS?
    YOU DON’T EVEN BELONG HERE!

    Let’s take a look at some of the many benefits that illegal aliens
    have blessed our great country with: Street gangs, graffiti, drugs,
    skyrocketing healthcare, depreciation of property value, illiteracy.
    The list could go on. What they actually have to offer (cheap labor)
    pales to what they have given our country to deal with. I’ll take
    expensive vegetables over expensive healthcare any day!

    And now, like terrorists, they are going to attack our economy — the
    one entity that makes our nation stand out from all the others. The
    backbone of our nation. The country they came to like locusts so they
    could reap the benefits is now the focus of their boycott. You’ve seen
    it on TV: Marching on our American streets waving their Mexican flags,
    boldly showing that they can be more racist than who they accuse of,
    and yet the obvious is totally oblivious to them……

    IF YOU’VE GOT IT SO BAD HERE, THEN LEAVE!!!

    To all the real Americans, you can do one small thing on May 1st, 2006. It won’t be racist, nor will it be violent. It will not be boastful, arrogant, selfish, nor distasteful. It will not be any of
    those things that our “guests” have already displayed. What it will do is nullify a movement.

    All you have to do is buy something on May 1st. Make up for what they
    will try to take away. It doesn’t have to be a new car or house
    (unless you were already planning on getting one). It simply needs to
    be a day of trading.

    Hold off grocery buying until May 1st.
    Take your wife out to eat that night.
    Get the kids pizza, hamburgers, whatever!
    Make several trips to the convenience store.
    Buy your meals at work.
    Fill up your tank.
    Shop for clothes, furniture, outdoor equipment.
    If it needs to be bought, BUY IT MAY 1st!

    Those are just a few suggestions. We’re not asking you to spend your
    inheritance that day, but just to spend more than you normally would.
    Even if it’s only a few dollars, this will help soften the blow that
    the Mexicans will try to inflict on our economy that day. It sounds
    trivial at first, but if this idea gets around, what the Mexicans set
    out to do will fail.

    NOW COMES THE HARD PART:
    This email will not self-destruct if you don’t send it to someone.
    It will not cause bad luck, nor will it make you impotent.
    It will not do some trick or show a cute little animation if you send
    it to “X” amount of people.
    You will not get paid for doing it.

    It will not spread the message though, if it just gets deleted.
    Forward at will…..

  70. Sera says:

    Let me tell you something from the mixed perspective. I am the daughter of a Mexican-American male (his mother was from Spain and his father from Mexico-both became citizens through the legitimate process and a Caucasian mother. I have many many bloodlines. I am well-educated and working on my ph.D. I speak 7 languages (spanish) included, and I have traveled the world. I vote regularly as a Democrat and I am not a criminal. But does being a Spanish-American require me to owe fealty to Mexicans or Americans? To be honest, my loyalty lies with the Americans. I believe that amnesty should not be given to those workers who have been here less than X-amount of years and that the borders should be closed. If they want to become citizens, they should do it the legal and right way.They should not be granted amnesty to stay and then get citizenship. They need to be expelled and then try. I should mention my grandfather did not cross the border. He applied for citizenship and was granted it after 8 years. He was a poor man who came to the US barely speaking English (learned enough to pass his exams)and eventually became well-educated and a success. Every member of my family are successes and we are proud of it. If he could come over with little education and and become a success (however or whatever you define a success) and get his citizenship the legitimate way, why can’t they?

  71. Sera says:

    Hmm…seems I made a type-o. My grandfather crossed the border after being granted green card and then got his citizenship. Yes, he crossed the border…but not illegally! : )

  72. Cindi says:

    There is no other country that we let in as easily as Mexico. In the Phillippines, although their education system is much closer to ours, and we accept many of their nurses,etc. They still have to wait 10 years to enter. Mexicans just jump the border, have a baby, and they are citizens. Although Mexico does not even allow U.S. citizens that kind of free access to their citizenship process. We can’t even buy land there,much less vote, or have any rights. We also need to realize that Mexico does not support the U.S. in many of their ideas. During 911, their television was telling everyone that we were at fault. I lived there for 8 yrs, and all my Mexican friends were calling me to tell me how bad the U.S. was.Before you go just wholeheartedly agreeing to let all mexicans in,please remember that just because they want the U.S. to give them complete citizenship, ask yourself if they feel that way toward us.

  73. Anonymous says:

    I do think that the U.S. should adopt the same immigration policy it has for other countries.
    My friend, who is a nurse in New Zealand was only able to enter the U.S. after she could prove
    the had a job in the U.S., and it was in an area that was especially needed.If that is the case, then why do Mexicans with no job skills have it so much easier when not just entering to work in a special
    area, but to become citizens?

    Especially when after entering this country, they go putting up not our flags, but the Flags
    of their own country? If they want to be in Mexico, its easy enough to go back. We have plenty
    of other immigrants on our waiting lists.
    Right now, we have many people from both the phillipines, and India who are educated, and we are trying to attract them for their skills in both computer science, and nursing.