.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}
Miscellaneous thoughts and ramblings
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
 
Hispanic boycott
Some thoughts on this whole brouhaha:

1.) Traffic was light. Really light. I never realized how many immigrant rights supporters used the freeway every morning.

2.) I should have used the term "illegal immigrant rights" because it seems that was this is really about. On my way to work I passed a high school that was sporting a sign that read "USA: Nation of Immigrants." This was no doubt meant to be in support of the boycott, but who is saying the USA is not that? I'm a little tired of even pro-business conservatives hinting that opponents of creating incentives for illegal immigration are motivated by racism.

3.) The idea that we need illegal immigrants to jobs that no one else wants to do. That may or may not be true, but the crux is that it's not the jobs themselves that no one wants to do, it's the wages paid for those jobs. If all of the illegal immigrants earning a substandard wage became citizens tomorrow, the vast majority would become unemployed as well. Because then they'd have to be on the books, and these companies couldn't pay them 1/5 of minumum wage in cash under the ol' table.

...and who do you think would pick up the slack? Maybe those brand new illegal border crossers, given an extra oomph of the promise of citizenship.
Comments:
That's right. I think we all learned the wrong lessons from the boycott. Traffic would be a lot lighter without them. Schools would be a lot emptier without them and we'd all get along just fine. That being said, I don't know who didn't go to work on Monday. Someone who is actually here illegally wouldn't risk either their job or being caught. I think it was mostly union people and other leftists.

My housekeeper showed up Monday. She was here illegally but was given amnesty by Reagan (she nearly cried when he died). She overheard us talking about "a day without immigrants." Both my dad and Dr. Bean are immigrants and went to work. We were making sarcastic comments about it. She laughed. I wonder what she really thinks about all this.

Bottom line, if you think we don't understand the difference between legal and illegal immigrants you're just wrong.
 
I don't even like the term "immigrant" used for them because to me "immigrant" implies that they have done it legally.

Why not call them what they are? Illegal aliens.
 
Stacey: right. We know this is a country of immigrants. We can simply distinguish between immigrants and illegal aliens. Why can't we seal the border and then let in as many people as we need to do "the jobs that native Americans won't do?"
 
And that's another thing that gets me....hearing about "the jobs that native Americans won't do." Feh on that.

My husband graduated with a degree in Chemical Engineering in the late 80's when there was a glut of chemical engineers and no jobs. It took him 6 months after graduation to find a job and until he found one, know what he did? He worked at an apple orchard, picking apples.

All amnesty does is perpetuate the problem.
 
Stacey: we agree and disagree. The problem is what do you do with the people who are here now? You can't deport them all. Currently, we have an unemployment rate of under 5%, I think we could safely keep all the illegals who are currently here. After that, however, we MUST control our borders. I should mention, however, that I did not participate in the marches and do not oppose plans that do not include amnesty. As you can probably tell from reading this blog, I think we have bigger fish to fry than hard-working illegal immigrants.
 
I was not suggesting we deport them. I merely meant that in times of high unemployment I don't believe Americans would be too proud to do an honest day's work (even grunt work) to put food on the table. What I oppose is amnesty. And I definitely think the borders need to be secured.
 
Post a Comment



<< Home

Powered by Blogger