Three agents knocked on the door of a modest duplex in a Wisconsin town just after dawn. The Mexican immigrant living on the ground floor stuck his head out.You can read the whole thing, but you catch the drift. Readers are being instructed to rankle at the new Supreme Court case and to empathize with the good, hard-working, long-suffering immigrants.
They asked his name and he gave it. Within minutes José Cervantes Amaral was in handcuffs as his wife, also from Mexico, silently watched. After 18 years working and living quietly in the United States, Mr. Cervantes, who did not have legal papers, rode away in the back seat, heading for deportation.
It is a routine that continues daily.
After Thursday’s Supreme Court decision, the president’s protections are gone, but the enforcement plan remains in effect. It is part of a particularly edgy moment for immigrants and their supporters framed by the Supreme Court ruling, Donald J. Trump’s presidential campaign and Britain’s surprise vote, influenced in part by anti-immigrant sentiments, to leave the European Union.But look at the highest-rated comments. They're not taking the cue to distinguish themselves from those terrible people who vote for Trump/Brexit and thereby increase the suffering of immigrants. Despite the promptings of the elite opinion-leaders of the NYT, they're agreeing with the Trumpers and Brexiters.
Here's the 2 highest-rated comment, each with 118 recommendations:
Michael H. Alameda, CaliforniaClose behind with 96 votes is Texas Liberal Austin, TX:
These are good, hard-working, wonderful people. Unfortunately, there are two or three billion more, just like them, who would also love to come to the USA.JRG Virginia
Meanwhile, US citizens with minimal skills and poor work habits are unemployed. Until we can motivate our own citizens to work, we have no room for anyone else. Part of the motivation would be higher wages, leading to more expensive tomatoes.
I can afford more expensive tomatoes. As a nation we can't afford a completely disenfranchised lower class, with no chance of working their way up. Charity starts at home.
Sounds good. They broke the law. Let's enforce the law. End of problem.
One more time:And DD Los Angeles with 95 votes:
These are not "immigrants without legal papers." These are illegal aliens.
They broke the law by breaking into our country. That is a deportable offense. 8 U.S. Code § 1227.
"Minor or no offenses" is a strange thing to write in describing those who by definition entered the country without permission and are thus living and working here illegally, making them de facto criminals who have broken the law.The next 3 are Kate New York, NY's "12 million left to go," and BSB Princeton's "Yes charity starts at home - their home (Mexico), not here" and B.B. NYC:
It's an undeniable fact many people gloss over and don't want to talk about.
I'm sick and tired of reading about how they don't want their families broken up. All of these illegals had no qualms leaving their families in their home countries. Many sent their children to travel alone to arrive here illegally. Chicago is experiencing more killings this year than most of these countries have in five. Yet, illegals have no problem living there.How far must I read to get to someone who experienced the NYT article the way it was intended to be experienced?
They claim they are not burden but who exactly is paying for the medical treatments, education, emergency personnel and even routine services such as sanitation collection? It's us, the taxpaying citizens/legal residents of this country. Illegals get free healthcare, welfare, education and in many cases even housing. It was just a few weeks ago, illegals boasted about getting their full ride to college and medical school programs.
Many citizens/legal residents want to work but are ignored for these side steppers who continue to break the law. Black Americans suffer the most from illegal immigration since illegals settle in their communities and insist on bringing their racist attitudes with them. Let's not forget the ones who steal identities for work, etc.
They broke the law when they arrived here illegally, therefore, they are all criminals. Deport them so we can finally focus on getting all Americans on the right path to success.
Posts
91 comments:
Words matter. The left is attempting to make failure to support open boarders equal to racism. This disgusts me. A government owes its first duty to its own citizens annd has no legitimacy when it abdicates that responsibility.
The Establishment sees illegal immigrants as cheap labor, the average person sees them as competitors at best, but more often parasites.
Mexico itself is a money sucking parasite on the American economy. Illegal immigrants send billions of dollars a year to Mexico, it is their single largest source of foreign income.
Why didn't ICE deport Mrs. Cervantes too? Typical gov't inefficiency.
One of the Left's favorite words is sustainable. Open borders is not sustainable.
While Obama was saying these people are low priority for enforcement, and deserve a path to citizenship, he has refused to grant citizenship for foreigners who have served in the military and fought in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In the past, serving in the Army and Marines was a path to citizenship. An honored tradition.
Congress has failed here as well.
Well, Jose is "out of the shadows." Isn't this what the Hildabeast wanted?
The Democrats, and the NYT, could give a rats ass about Jose, or his wife and family. They're votes.
Holy crap! A NYT comment with a lot of upvotes I completely agree with!
"God help us if the stock traders get hurt!"
"God help us if the bankers are unhappy!"
"God help us if we can't get cheap tomatoes!"
"God help us if we can't get our lawns mowed dirt cheap!"
"God help us all if my selfish desires are not met!"
Chuck is no doubt apoplectic at the loss of a one more unit of cheap labor holding down hourly wages. At the loss of a Chamber of Commerce scab.
I think that a big part of this is that Dems see illegal immigration as their way to a permanent electoral majority. We have been hearing for years about this, and how it is inevitable. The MSM, of course, are ,for the most part, Dem operatives with bylines. The only people who get sucked in are the upper middle class who have pretensions of sophistication and want to be accepted by their betters.
Still, it could be worse. Our Hispanics tend to assimilate. The Muslims who helped fuel Brexit stubbornly won't, and instead are picking up the fight for control of Europe that they had given up at the gates of Vienna in 1683. Yes, the US will be a lot different in 50 years, but it very likely will still have a strong Christian majority - just maybe Roman Catholic instead of Protestant. We won't be killng gays and raping women who dress the least bit provocably, like they probably will be in much of Europe.
I don't understand how Obama talking about needing people to make our beds and pick our tomatoes wasn't incredibly offensive.
You want Trump on that wall, you need Trump on that wall!
How far must I read to get to someone who experienced the NYT article the way it was intended to be experienced?
Who cares (besides you, Professor)? The Times has lost touch with Americans who once were happy to call themselves liberal. At least David Brooks recognizes that he's out of touch, though as nearly as I can tell he still can't bring himself to leave New York and meet with real, live Trump voters.
The formulation I hate when they are talking about illegal immigrants and kids-- the way they say kids are here "through no choice of their own". As if any kid has a choice in where they live, where their parents work, or the choices their parents make.
We put people in prison and separate them from the kids "through no fault" of the children. People refuse to move to where they can get better jobs and it is "through no fault" of the kids. But suddenly the illegal immigrants move and work and make their own choices and they need to not pay consequences because of their kids.
@tim in vermont, I think it's good for Progs to mow their own lawns, make their own beds, and change their kid's diapers themselves. Obviously others besides us feel the same way.
Still, it could be worse. Our Hispanics tend to assimilate.
Not any more. Assimilation is a bad thing now.
We need to shut the border totally for a decade or two and deal with what we have.
I don't understand how Obama talking about needing people to make our beds and pick our tomatoes wasn't incredibly offensive.
Oh, you don't get it. He's not a Republican or a conservative. So nothing he says can be racist or offensive.
Now if Romney or Trump said it, you'd see nothing but that for weeks on end.
The formulation I hate when they are talking about illegal immigrants and kids-- the way they say kids are here "through no choice of their own". As if any kid has a choice in where they live, where their parents work, or the choices their parents make.
We put people in prison and separate them from the kids "through no fault" of the children. People refuse to move to where they can get better jobs and it is "through no fault" of the kids. But suddenly the illegal immigrants move and work and make their own choices and they need to not pay consequences because of their kids.
Kids have no choice if their parents commit any crimes. So, apparently, the nice thing to do is to never arrest or punish a criminal who has children.
"Sure, his dad shot 32 people and his mother raped 10 kids in her care. It wasn't the child's fault and now he'll have no parents. We can't punish this kid for the sins of his parents. Let the parents go free!"
I'm on board for telling the illegal parents of kids "The child is allowed to stay but you are not. We'll either put your child up for adoption or you can take the child with you."
coupe said...
For the record, the citizenship route for soldiers is limited to legal immigrants.
lie on the enlistment papers about your immigration status is a plane ticket from Iraq to Tucson and then back to Mechico
Immigration reform. Just what in existing law do these people believe needs to be changed? If everyone already here were instantly and magically made legal, just what is wrong with existing law? Our law is already consistent with other modern nations. The immigration reformers are all about amnesty and open borders.
One thing we do need to change, though is birthright citizenship. If your parents are here illegally when you are born, you aren't a US citizen.
One of the things that the MSM won't touch with a ten foot poll is the question of why we are mired in the longest recession since the Great Depression. Normally, we would have bounced out 6-7 years ago, and maybe expecting the next in a couple of years. The reason they won't touch the question is the same reason I call it the Obama Recession. It is mostly caused by disasterous Dem policies ranging from crony capitalism to open immigration, all contributing to a doubling of the national debt under Obama. What these Dems pushing open borders in order t build themselves a permanent electoral majority either aren't telling us, or are too stupid to realize is that someone has to pay for all of these low skilled immigrants and their flocks of children. They not only put marginal workers (esp Blacks) out of jobs, they also cost a lot of money, through feeding them, giving them healthcare, housing, education, etc. Money that should gone into our economic recovery went instead into building this future Dem electoral majority. A lot of money.
I think the amazing thing about the Obama Recession has been how brain dead our political elites have been. By the time that Obama was elected with Pelosi as Speaker, Keynesian economics had been well debunked, and trying to spend our way out of the Great Depression was recognized as one of the big reasons it took so long to recover. So, almost eight years ago, the Dems found themselves in a position to reinvent Keynesian economics, and did so with abandon. Pelosi was almost giddy explaining why spending any money was the key to getting us out of the recession, so they might as well spend it on their pet projects like green energy, government employees, unions, illegal immigration, etc and let their political cronies skim off many billions for their own pockets (a part of which they would dutifully recycle to Dem coffers). It was all spending, and so it was good. It was like Christmas for a young kid - they found themselves a magic money bank that they could loot at their leisure, and did so with great abandon. I have never figured whether that woman was just stupid, or was monumentally evil and corrupt. Probably some of both.
"immigrants without legal papers."
Reminds Tank of:
men without penises
Words matter. That's why you have to say the words "Radical Islamic Terrorist Murderers."
Truth is so lost in all the neverending BS.
One thing we do need to change, though is birthright citizenship. If your parents are here illegally when you are born, you aren't a US citizen.
Agree.
Not many other countries allow this.
Interesting how much this tracks with Brexit. The "elites" want people to see things a certain way, and the people just refuse to do so.
(I've often wondered about the Democrats going all-in on illegal immigration. The average (non-wealthy) Democrats I know are not on board.
Yeh "immigrants without papers" is deliberate misinformation intended to change the discussion. Anytime I hear that, I immediately discount what the speaker has to say as propaganda designed to distract us from the reality that we cannot afford their attempt to build that permanent Dem majority through spending our grandchildren's birthright. It is illegal immigration and they are illegal immigrants. "Illegals" for short.
I can imagine Obama and the Democrats generally defending scabs as people "willing to do the work that needs to be done that others won't do for the wages on offer."
Can't we all?
@Maybee - so far, it doesn't matter. Sure, illegal immigration hurts traditional Dem constituencies worst. But their leadership has been bought off, whether the are Black ministers or union bosses. They belong to the best clubs and their kids get to go to the best schools and have the inside track on being the next generation of power brokers. As long as their supporters can be talked into voting for Dem politicians, it goes on. Unfortunately for the Dems, the white lower and lower middle classes are starting to stray into the Republican column. I think that one of these days Blacks will discover that their leaders have only themselves at heart, will realize that they are the biggest losers with illegal immigration, and will rejoin the party that freed them from slavery and ended Jim Crow. Why Black Lives Matter? So that these Black leaders can distract their communities from the reality that the Democratic Party continues, to this day, to take advantage of them, and that the biggest cause of the violence in Black communities is the fatherless child raising subsidized by Dem policies starting with LBJ's Great Society.
tim in vermont- ha! Good point!!!
Bruce Hayden, true. Dems still vote for Democrats.
"Just what in existing law do these people believe needs to be changed? If everyone already here were instantly and magically made legal, just what is wrong with existing law?"
We should go back to the pre-1965 law which favored those with skills and education. Kennedy changed that to favor families and we get chain migration from Mexico of illiterates.
I spent ten years reviewing workers comp claims. The Mexicans almost all were illiterate in Spanish, let alone English. They would claim a "second grade education in Mexico." Those young illegals claiming to be high school valedictorians would do as well in Mexico and Mexico needs them.
Canada and Australia have a point system based on skills and education. Mexico accepts no one not born there,
The NYT editors probably did not reckon "who did not have legal papers" would remind some readers of a twentieth-century pejorative used to describe Italian immigrants.
A country without borders is not a country. A country that doesn't enforce its borders and its laws will be but a memory shortly. God damn the NYT. God damn them to Hell.
No one, anywhere, has a right to immigrate to the United States.
I read somewhere that since the 1990's, the UK has had 10 million immigrants enter their country. That's an awful lot of new people to absorb for a nation the size of Oregon. No wonder they voted to leave the EU.
According to Milton Friedman, the only way illegal immigration is sustainable in a welfare state is, if it stays illegal. As soon as you start giving illegals welfare benefits, it's over folks, not gonna work. I think Friedman was correct on this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eyJIbSgdSE
You have to hand it to NYT, picking as their model undocumented victim some one named Cervantes. I expected to read about he put together a makeshift musical production with the other unfortunate prisoners in detention.
Holy crap! A NYT comment with a lot of upvotes I completely agree with!
Nobody should read too much into it. It is a major election year and the parties now have organized formal groups of posters, trolls and mobys playing offense, defense and special teams.
Observe the one name commenters and 'unknown's who suddenly appear at Althouse.
I've been around since the beginning. I dropped my surname when Lefties started to poll dirty tricks--like going to a website that connected adopted kids with parents and listing my name as father in profiles that hadn't been visited by the mother for a while.
I don't blame you. My only objection is to all the "unknowns" that have popped up.
I have had lefties go to my own blog and then use personal info to make slurs. A couple here have done it too.
Still, I make no secret of my identity since I am mostly retired.
james conrad said...
According to Milton Friedman, the only way illegal immigration is sustainable in a welfare state is, if it stays illegal. As soon as you start giving illegals welfare benefits, it's over folks, not gonna work. I think Friedman was correct on this.
Except in states where they are eligible by simply showing up. If you're hispanic and can make it to Cook County Illinois you're immediately eligible for income, housing, child credits, and medicaide. They then proceed to go out and get jobs and still collect benifits. They amass credit debt to the max and then get another fake ID($500) and do it all over again. I have people in the shop making $11.00 an hour driving Mercs and Lexus.
Obama had vicious comments about the Court and those who disagree with him on immigration. Truly vicious. Nobody in the mainstream press called him out on it. So the left reliably retains that advantage.
Every Democrat I know conflates opposition to illegal immigration with racism, and will not accept any suggestion that there could be any other reason to object. Suggest to them (I have) that opponents might be worried about their jobs, or tired of paying for increased social services, or if they live in the Southwest, sick of living amidst drug-fueled crime, and they'll wave their hands at you and say oh, no, all that is just a cover for racism. They say, immigrants do the jobs Americans won't do, so they aren't taking jobs from people who are already here, and it's racist to suggest that immigrants are any more criminal than anyone else, and both racist and selfish not to take care of people in need. (The fact that ILLEGAL immigrants, by definition, are willing to break laws, since that's how they got here, cannot be acknowledged.) Ask these people if they want to suspend all immigration laws and let anyone in who wants to come in (I have) and they'll answer, "Of course not!" But then ask them which laws they want to enforce and who will be allowed to enter without barriers in the future they're envisioning, and they can't answer. Of course, that's because what they are actually thinking is racist. They're thinking that they'd let Hispanics enter and stay without barriers, but apply the rules to everybody else (well, maybe not to Muslims). But of course they can't admit it. So they have to insist that all the racism is on the other side, and tune out any facts that might disturb their complacency.
The Philly Inquirer reported on the anxious reaction of an illegal 45 year old Mexican woman who had been here for 23 years and yet the woman's quotes had to be provided by an interpreter! I bet the journalist who wrote the story believed her story would elicit empathy from the readers.
Rusty
I think you just confirmed Friedman's argument, Cook county bond rating was reduced to junk bond status over a year ago, it's just a matter of time until they go bankrupt. Another factor is population, people are voting with their feet & leaving, more taxes, fewer people leads to bad results.
What bugs me about the euphemism "undocumented immigrant" is that it clearly means something quite different, and should be reserved for that. A legal immigrant who can't produce his immigration documents on demand - because his house burned down, or his pocket was picked, or his dog ate them, or he just misplaced them - may be in a world of trouble, but he's still a legal immigrant, an undocumented legal immigrant. An illegal immigrant is entirely different, and is often "documented" with fake papers, or papers stolen from that first guy, whose pocket he picked. Anyone who uses the word "undocumented" to refer to illegal immigrants is either a damned liar, or is foolishly repeating the damned lies of others.
The proper term is still "illegal alien."
Flying under the radar is another problem that doesn't get much attention, legal immigrants that are on welfare. According to govt figures, over 50% of households headed by a legal immigrant are on welfare. Immigration should be a WIN WIN deal, good for the immigrant, good for us as well, sadly, that's not the way it is presently. Importing huge numbers of low skill uneducated people who wind up on govt assistance is stupid & unsustainable. We just don't have that many tomatoes to pick or beds to make Mr President, get a clue you putz!
Immigration that exceeds the rate of assimilation and integration is done with ulterior motives.
That said, progressive wars, impulsive regime changes, premature evacuation, and pro-choice abortion were revelations for any one left doubting.
What really chaffs my hide is the common theme of "jobs Americans won't do" and "who will pick our fruit and make our beds and mow our lawns?'
Broke Americans will do any job at all to make money. All illegals are not doing low paying, menial jobs. They are construction workers, auto body guys, upholsterers, butchers. Skilled labor. Many of the gardeners own their businesses. Same with maid and house-cleaning services.
Deporting the guys hanging out in front of Home Depot would be a full time job. No need to target people who have been here for "eighteen years". Which ever party comes up with a plan to fast track long term, employed illegals will have their votes forever. All the Dems have is, "we will not deport you". In my experience, productive illegals want nothing more than to be legal citizens.
It's always been magic to me how the media can make something so obviously unpopular, through polling and spinning and speeches by politicians, seem popular.
If we didn't know better, we'd think most of the country wanted to be flooded with illegal immigrants. That we were all sitting around with sad faces every time someone is deported. Especially someone who is a hard worker. A good person. Been here 18 years.
And yet, if you ask your friends, or just any normal hard working American, they don't seem too broken up about illegals getting deported.
Mexico itself is a money sucking parasite on the American economy. Illegal immigrants send billions of dollars a year to Mexico, it is their single largest source of foreign income.
It's also their numero uno social welfare program. Mexico's 1 percenters live high on the hog chiefly because when a poor campesino asks for a handout he gets told to marzo al norte. It isn't quite as cruel as that, however, the peon does get a map and a pamphlet of instructions on where and when to wade the river.
If you go to any social security office, the waiting room is filled with Hispanics and Latinos.
I sure hope we don't turn off the debt. We're going to need a shitload of dimes!
Overall, unbridled immigration is detrimental to native-born Americans, including Mexican-Americans.
It is time to halt the illegal Democrat voter registration drive.
The minuet you describe - immigrant sob stories, reader pushback - has been repeated in dozens, if not hundreds of articles over many years. (You would have seen the same pattern in the Post and other papers.)
What's interesting is how consistent, and high-volume, the reader push-back is whenever yet another sobby-sobby livingintheshadows hardworkinghispanics somalivictimsofredneckracists jobsAmericanswontdo sufferingrefugees thinkofthechildren comprehensivereformnow propaganda piece hits the deck. A readership that will nod along obediently with any other bit of NYT or WaPo opinionating all of a sudden won't have any of it when the I word comes up. Or maybe it's just that all the racist xenophobes come out of the woodwork when they hear it.
I often hire day laborers picked up at the St. Johns Avenue gas station in Austin, Texas. I have learned how to select an experienced person to lead the three or four others, how to motivate them with a low but acceptable initial hourly rate offer and then, later, to praise their work and tell them they are getting more, how to get jalapenos with whatever I bring them for lunch, and other simple tricks of effectively buying their labor for our joint benefit.
Another thing I have learned is to avoid Cubans and Nicaraguans. Their socialist backgrounds make working with them the equivalent of hiring union labor and expecting to get anything accomplished without bribing the entire Democrat party. Guatemalans, Salvadorans, Hondurans, Costa Ricans, Mexicans, all work honestly and appreciate getting the agreed-upon pay, and really appreciate extra pay and lunch and sodas and other extras. But socialists are always socialists, and want somebody else's money for their own use with as little return as possible.
Hire Guatemalan if you really want a ditch dug right, dug fast, and dug for an agreed upon price. And if there are a lot of roots in the way once they get down there, I always pay more, as is only fair.
"livingintheshadows hardworkinghispanics somalivictimsofredneckracists jobsAmericanswontdo sufferingrefugees thinkofthechildren comprehensivereformnow"
I am deeply, deeply disappointed in you, Anglelyne. How could you possibly have forgotten "cropsrottinginthefields"?!
hombre: It is time to halt the illegal Democrat voter registration drive.
And, ahem, the Republican cheap labor, privatize-the-profits, socialize-the-cost subsidy-seeking machine.
It ain't just the Dems.
Blogger mikee said...
I often hire day laborers picked up at the St. Johns Avenue gas station in Austin, Texas. I have learned how to select an experienced person to lead the three or four others, how to motivate them with a low but acceptable initial hourly rate offer and then, later, to praise their work and tell them they are getting more, how to get jalapenos with whatever I bring them for lunch, and other simple tricks of effectively buying their labor for our joint benefit.
Many years ago I bought a home in California. It was a new home, freshly built, I would be it's first owner. I had to put in a backyard. I went to a company called "Labor Ready" that you pay and they pay their daily laborers. It was very expensive and after 3 days almost no work had been done. I was really disgusted.
So finally I went to the police and asked them where all the day laborers hang out. Got directions to a dirt lot, drove over there, and sure enough, a large pool of workers were there. This kid approaches me, maybe 18 years old, speaking perfect English and asks me what I need. I describe the work I need and he and 3 men hop into a truck and follow me to my house. Two days later, the work is all done, and it's all done well, and it's all done at a solid price.
The funny part of this story? When I hired them, I asked to see their immigration paperwork. All of them were in the country legally. All of the had "Green Cards" except for the kid who spoke English and said he was born in the United States. They laughed and asked me if I worked for border patrol. I said yes. They laughed more. But even knowing I worked for border patrol, they still did a great job. My wife even made them lunch.
The moral of the story is this: In my experience immigrants are hard workers. US Citizens tend to feel entitled. I support Immigration. I think we need a steady supply of immigration.
What I don't support is illegal immigration. What I don't support is chain immigration. What I don't support is Jus Soli (Being born here and getting citizenship, even if your parents are here illegally).
But, if you'd only just heard the second half, who would believe that I support immigration at all?
mikee
once every couple of years I will hire some Latins for yard work. The key is not to choose two who know each other. Choose one and go a half block and get another. They are great workers and nice men. My wife used to hire African American men who worked in our neighborhood and toiled side by side with them in our garden. They never wanted to come back. I myself can't keep up with my wife who is, pardon the expression, something of a slave driver.
I bought machetes for their work and they taught me how to keep them sharp. They use them perfectly, better than weed eaters. I love Latin America and Mexico and in my half asses Spanish can keep up something of a conversation. I have often been to their hometowns or nearby.
"Unfortunately, there are two or three billion more, just like them, who would also love to come to the USA."
This angle is a good one to bring to the fore when dealing with "fairness" folks. If Repubs, and Trump would just focus on putting faces to these people, it would help to defuse emotional approach lefties try to forward. Rubio did this recently but was hampered by his gang of 8 history and overshadowed by Trump's bluster and ham fisted framing.
And all of you above who brag about hiring day laborers are part of the problem. A day laborer doesn't report income. Pays no income tax- or social security. The employer, you, doesn't pay the employer's share of the social security. Leaving the day laborer free to collect unemployment or welfare, and get free lunches for their kids in school.
I know several people gainfully employed at Wal-Mart and other retail stores that have a lot of shoppers using EBT cards. And, all of the, every last one of them, is disgusted by the abuse they see on a daily basis.
Deporting illegals as quick as they're caught, and cold turkey cutoff of welfare benefits would have an immediate negative effect on the economy. Followed by long term high growth rates as business adopted to the new reality and people realized if they don't work- they don't eat.
"day laborers"
Reminds me of the term "undocumented". I guess it sounds better than "under the table" or "enabling".
Michael, Eric, and mikee,
I wish I could recommend the work done for me by those who employed Hispanic workers, but I cannot.
We have a democracy and laws made by a congress. If you want unfettered immigration, lobby, work for and pass the legislation. It is corrosive to the public order, however, to pass laws, as we have, to limit immigration and then to ignore those laws.
The law must be paramount, and if you don't like, work to change it.
Otherwise we do not have a democracy and any law is suspect.
To get to the service station on St. Johns in Austin, you will pass several intersections where beggars are holding signs saying things like "Single grandmother needs help"--and she's been there for years. Austin is full of all kinds of parasites and is not really part of Texas. It attracts people who live off other people. Not something that Texans are known for.
james conrad said...
Rusty
I think you just confirmed Friedman's argument, Cook county bond rating was reduced to junk bond status over a year ago, it's just a matter of time until they go bankrupt. Another factor is population, people are voting with their feet & leaving, more taxes, fewer people leads to bad results.
When I can sell this house I'm out of here as fast as my little legs will carry me.
Maybe I'll move to Madison.
Raise the tone of that place.
Harold: And all of you above who brag about hiring day laborers are part of the problem. A day laborer doesn't report income. Pays no income tax- or social security. The employer, you, doesn't pay the employer's share of the social security. Leaving the day laborer free to collect unemployment or welfare, and get free lunches for their kids in school.
walter: "day laborers"
Reminds me of the term "undocumented". I guess it sounds better than "under the table" or "enabling".
Bob: If you want unfettered immigration, lobby, work for and pass the legislation. It is corrosive to the public order, however, to pass laws, as we have, to limit immigration and then to ignore those laws.
The law must be paramount, and if you don't like, work to change it.
But guys, you just don't understand. I'm a libertarian and totally don't believe in the welfare state! So that totally makes my hiring illegals and hiring "under the table" OK. How dare you presume to come between a free contract made between a willing employer and a willing worker, you filthy statists who hate the free market and want the gummint interfering in business.
What's that about schooling and medical care and food subsidies and dumping the cost of all those externalities on the public...... Hey, did I tell you how hard working these guys are and what good work they do? And btw, have I mentioned that I don't believe in the welfare state?
You don't understand. My business model (or my convenience and my budget) requires illegal labor. So it's OK if I break the law. Like you guys never drive over the speed limit, right? So what's the big deal?
Hey, isn't it great to live in a country with low-corruption and respect for the rule of law? I can trust everybody else to go on obeying the law even if I just have to fudge a little bit, right? Because I'm special, you see. I'm sure you can understand if you try.
I just read that the Obama administration years ago changed the citizenship oath mandated by Congress for naturalization without there being a peep about from either the MSM or Congress.
Likewise, the laws have not changed as far as I know for the requirements for legal immigrants waiting to qualify for naturalization, but the Obama administration unilaterally ignores them just as it refuses to enforce the laws regarding illegal aliens.
If our elected government, presumably carrying out our collective will, does not care, why should an individual citizen?
It's also their numero uno social welfare program. Mexico's 1 percenters live high on the hog chiefly because when a poor campesino asks for a handout he gets told to marzo al norte. It isn't quite as cruel as that, however, the peon does get a map and a pamphlet of instructions on where and when to wade the river.
24% percent of Mexico's population lives in the US...and it sure isn't the richest 24%
I come from illegals on both sides. My dad or grandfather never would have balked at being deported. My grandpa was a few times. They knew they were breaking the law and they knew the risk. It was worth it.
The House Armed Service Committee has allowed illegals to enlist in the military since the practice began in 2014 under Obama's DACA decree. Last week two amendments failed in the House which would have shut down this backdoor to citizenship.
Blogger Anglelyne said...
Harold: And all of you above who brag about hiring day laborers are part of the problem. A day laborer doesn't report income. Pays no income tax- or social security. The employer, you, doesn't pay the employer's share of the social security. Leaving the day laborer free to collect unemployment or welfare, and get free lunches for their kids in school.
walter: "day laborers"
Reminds me of the term "undocumented". I guess it sounds better than "under the table" or "enabling".
Bob: If you want unfettered immigration, lobby, work for and pass the legislation. It is corrosive to the public order, however, to pass laws, as we have, to limit immigration and then to ignore those laws.
The law must be paramount, and if you don't like, work to change it.
But guys, you just don't understand. I'm a libertarian and totally don't believe in the welfare state! So that totally makes my hiring illegals and hiring "under the table" OK. How dare you presume to come between a free contract made between a willing employer and a willing worker, you filthy statists who hate the free market and want the gummint interfering in business.
What's that about schooling and medical care and food subsidies and dumping the cost of all those externalities on the public...... Hey, did I tell you how hard working these guys are and what good work they do? And btw, have I mentioned that I don't believe in the welfare state?
You don't understand. My business model (or my convenience and my budget) requires illegal labor. So it's OK if I break the law. Like you guys never drive over the speed limit, right? So what's the big deal?
Hey, isn't it great to live in a country with low-corruption and respect for the rule of law? I can trust everybody else to go on obeying the law even if I just have to fudge a little bit, right? Because I'm special, you see. I'm sure you can understand if you try.
Geez, you all probably would hate my daughter. She is 15 now and loves to get paid to babysit.
Before she did that, my wife, when she was a teen, also got paid to babysit.
But apparently this is such a terrible thing that it causes corruption and for people to lose respect for the rule of law.
Anglelyne are you one of those people who applaud when the cops shut down the little girls lemonade stand?
Wow.
The Chicago Tribune has one of these illegal immigrant "weeper" stories several times a week. Usually the illegal alien has been here for more than ten years, but the story usually notes that he or she answered questions through an interpreter. The reporter on the beat is named Grace Wong. She never seems to understand the irony of a person claiming to be integrated into our society not being able to answer simple and sympathetic questions in English. Often the stories involve a child left in Mexico joining the parent illegally. So now we are expected to shed tears for a family that has ignored our immigration laws for two generations. What can Grace Wong be thinking? Is that the way her family handled it?
@Birches,
Your grandfather was one of not that many in those days, and if I understand you correctly, he expected to be deported if or when he was discovered.
Today, what would be his odds on being deported versus being given a card asking him to please show up in court in 2 or 3 years time, and BTW, here is a list of the various social services we provide for you to live on while you are waiting for your case to be heard?
@Birches said...
I come from illegals on both sides. My dad or grandfather never would have balked at being deported. My grandpa was a few times. They knew they were breaking the law and they knew the risk. It was worth it.
All is fair in love and war and immigrating illegally. Sounds like the assimilation into the American way of life is now complete.
Oh the Code of the West
When you're drinkin' tequilla
The Code of the West
Toast the red, white and blue
The Code of the West
Be kind to your neighbors
Your new northern neighbors
Remember they've been awfully good to you!!
~ from The Ballad of Waterhole #3
The correct expression is illegal aliens.
eric said...Geez, you all probably would hate my daughter. She is 15 now and loves to get paid to babysit.
--
Okay..where do you draw the line? Any licensed, insured contractor could be considered a "day laborer" by the broad brush you are using.
If 2 contractors provide an estimate for a given piece of work and the homeowner decides to hire a "day laborer" under rthe table, you're fine with that?
Birches said... They knew they were breaking the law and they knew the risk. It was worth it.
--
From where?
Blogger walter said...
eric said...Geez, you all probably would hate my daughter. She is 15 now and loves to get paid to babysit.
--
Okay..where do you draw the line? Any licensed, insured contractor could be considered a "day laborer" by the broad brush you are using.
If 2 contractors provide an estimate for a given piece of work and the homeowner decides to hire a "day laborer" under rthe table, you're fine with that?
Yes.
Where do you draw a line?
If you want to do your own work on your own property on your own home, can you do that? What if you invite a friend over who has more expertise, are you ok with that?
It's just when money starts changing hands that you have an issue?
Why? What's the magic with money that changes the situation and breaks down our entire society?
"Where do you draw a line?"
I would probably draw it at the age of majority. I would pay a neighbor's kid 20 bucks to mow the lawn. I wouldn't expect to pick up some guy off the street and pay him 20 bucks to mow the lawn (partly because I'd rather that money go to my neighbor's kid).
As I understand it, minors generally can't enter into employment contracts, so it is customary to cut them some slack when they do things like babysit, deliver newspapers, do yardwork, etc. This is generally not considered exploitative because minors are not primarily trying to earn a living.
Once you're an adult, though, you should be treated like one.
Money changing hands with an illegal immigrant is a pretty clear line that undermines the working economy of the citizenry. Maybe your field of work is not vulnerable to that so you don't care.
Bogus abuse of "intership" status is another problem, among legit citizens.
eric: Geez, you all probably would hate my daughter. She is 15 now and loves to get paid to babysit.
When I was fifteen and my neighbors hired me to babysit, they weren't putting other people, who did not use my services, on the hook for my or my own kids' medical care, free school lunches, funding of ESL classes, housing subsidies, etc., etc., etc. Same with my cousin who hires himself as a Mr. Fix-It to his neighbors.
If you're not dumping part of the true cost of the services you hire on people who aren't using them themselves - e.g., hiring construction workers who access the workmen's comp kitty that you don't pay into but other employers have to - there isn't a problem.
I somehow doubt your baby-sitting daughter's employers are imposing any of the above costs on everybody else. (And, to the best of my knowledge, it's not illegal to hire the neighbor kid for occasional babysitting without paying SS, etc.)
What's with the stupid here, eric? Did you somehow read my critique of hypocritical and "see no evil" libertarians as a plea for big guv or something? Maybe try to read a little more carefully for context and content, eh?
@Anglelyne said...
I somehow doubt your baby-sitting daughter's employers are imposing any of the above costs on everybody else. (And, to the best of my knowledge, it's not illegal to hire the neighbor kid for occasional babysitting without paying SS, etc.)
I refer you to IRS Publication 926 Household Employer's Tax Guide which specifically names babysitters.
Aha! The IRS agrees with me!
"Don't count wages you pay to—
Your spouse,
Your child under the age of 21,
Your parent (see Wages not counted, later, for an
exception), or
Any employee under the age of 18 at any time in
2016"
What's with the stupid here, eric? Did you somehow read my critique of hypocritical and "see no evil" libertarians as a plea for big guv or something? Maybe try to read a little more carefully for context and content, eh?
Yes, I did. Because I'm no libertarian. And I don't see anything wrong with hiring guys from my Church who are out of work to do work around my house. Hell, one guy was a window washer and we paid him to clean our windows. He did a terrible job, but he worked hard and earned his money. And I wouldn't have had my windows washed by anyone anyway. Nor do I feel bad when I drive down the street and see a bunch of kids offering to wash my car for their football team, or cheer team or something and I choose them instead of the car wash place down the street.
Right now we have too much regulation. It pushes people out of the work force.
If these people who are working under the table are also collecting benefits (Like my brother in law does) then I wouldn't hire them. Because I find such behavior despicable.
So, I resent the charge that I'm enabling people to collect benefits by working under the table. Instead, I'm helping out those who would help themselves. I applaud someone who works for a living.
Let's remember the first part of my story about doing it the right way. I went to a business in California called Labor Ready. A legit business and you have to pay $16.00 an hour for each person you want to hire. This was in 2003, I'm not sure what it is today. And for two days I hired 2 guys and they stood around and did almost nothing but smoke cigarettes and complain about the heat and complain about this girl they worked with who would work a day, get hurt on the job, and then go on workmen's comp or something.
Sometimes you get fed up with the system and have to go outside the system.
eric: Yes, I did. Because I'm no libertarian. And I don't see anything wrong with hiring guys from my Church who are out of work to do work around my house.
....
So, I resent the charge that I'm enabling people to collect benefits by working under the table.
Touchy, touchy. Who, pray tell, is accusing *you* of any such thing? Absolutely effing nobody. Get back to me when you've recovered from the emo-fit and can be arsed to actually read and respond to people's actual comments, instead of exploding in self-righteous butthurt over an imagined personal attack.
Sheesh.
How come they never publish any bleeding-heart articles about foreigners who wait many years to immigrate legally.
How come they never publish any bleeding-heart articles about foreigners who wait many years to immigrate legally.
Because since 1965, these people are all Caucasians from the countries that settled America--Britain, Germany, Italy, Ireland, Poland, Sweden, etc--and the NYT readers don't give a shit about them. They are also doctors and engineers and occupations like that--not the people that never stepped foot in a classroom that America needs, according to NYT readers.
The satirical depiction of the "undocumented" enabler was apt, but let's be realistic: an individual is never going to fill out an IRS form to document their small-dollar payment to an odd-jobber. A *permanent* in-home babysitter, sure (I know people who actually fill out the forms; but maybe that's an exception because of favorable tax treatment of those expenses?) This is the direction the IRS would need to go if they wanted universal reporting: make the payment tax-deductible for the payer (though do we really need more complexity? the code is already inconsistently enforced due to the cost of complete enforcement).
According to the NYT Editorial Board, a person who breaks into your home without your knowledge or permission is an undocumented shopper.
The left is going to make showy prosecutions of the most sympathetic cases headline news for as long as they can. This is akin to their tactic of shutting off the lights and saying, "Well, sorry, but you didn't vote to raise our funding and now we can't afford to turn on the lights" while snickering up their sleeves, and not doing a thing to actually save money, such as firing un-needed and overpaid senior staff administrators. Business as usual.
The Left is all about Jedi-style mind tricks. A lot of people lose their ability to reason when they hear the emotionally manipulative words, "But what about the children?" At this point I think a lot of Leftist phraseology is all part of a system of hypnotic suggestions. They utter a phrase and the mesmerized masses react in the pre-programmed manner.
One way to look at immigration is it's just another sweet government social program where parents who can't meet the requirements cheat to get the family in or stay in.
In other words, the 'undocumented' are just like citizens who fake local residency or lie about income or ethnicity to cheat their way into a really nice low-income housing project or top-rated public or college.
I know from experience 'progressives' don't have any problem evicting such families, even if they're really nice families and the kids are blameless.
Post a Comment