That people can claim illegal immigration is not hurting America or costing us much money with a straight face is amazing. And frightening. Their ignorance in this area no doubt spills over into others.
Someone on this blog asserted that the cost of caring for illegal aliens is a “drop in the bucket” for the individual taxpayer, but the person fails to take into account the aggregate cost to the states for educating, medicating and incarcerating people who who shouldn’t be receiving any benefits from the government. If charities want to help pay for these services, that’s fine. But our government has no right taxing us to death to pay welfare for illegal aliens. It’s repugnant enough that our money’s used to pay wefare for American citizens.
I’ve linked to this report from Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) before, but this story puts it in context. Working Californians have spent an estimated $9 billion on nearly 3 million non-citizens in the state. The largest expenses go toward:
- Educating children whose first language isn’t English
- Caring for illegal aliens who have no health insurance
- Feeding and housing illegal aliens who commit crimes (nearly 30 percent of federal prisoners are illegal aliens)
And it’s only getting worse. But what is life without a little disagreement?
Gerardo Gonzalez, director of Cal State San Marcos’ National Latino Research Center, which compiles data on Latinos, criticized the report. He said it does not measure some of the contributions that immigrants make to the state’s economy.“Beyond taxes, these workers’ production and spending contribute to California’s economy, especially the agricultural sector,” Gonzalez said.
Immigrants, both legal and illegal, are the backbone of the state’s nearly $28 billion-a-year agricultural industry, Gonzalez and other researchers say.
More than two-thirds of the estimated 340,000 agriculture workers in California are noncitizens, most of whom are believed to be illegal immigrants, according to a 1998 study on farmworkers prepared for the state Legislature.
Local farmers say migrant farmworkers are critical to their businesses, and without them they would have to close their farms or move their operations overseas.
Martin [author of the report] disagrees. He said illegal immigrants displace American workers by taking low-skilled jobs, keep wages low by creating an overabundance of workers and stifle innovation by reducing the need for mechanized labor.
“The product of the illegal immigrant is not included (in the report) because if that is an essential product it will get done one way or another,” Martin said. Employers “would have to pay better wages or invest money on mechanization.”
And if all else fails, attack the messenger’s credibility:
“I think FAIR is without doubt an extremist organization that tries to portray itself as a mainstream group,” said Christian Ramirez, director of the San Diego office of the American Friends Service Committee, an advocate group for legal and illegal immigrants.
Advice for liberals: Find a word other than “extremist” if you want to insult conservatives. If presenting factual and supportable data marks one as an extremist, I’ll take that over “mainstream” any day.
Will California find relief, or will Californians continue to flee the state and head north, taking their hard-earned income with them? Will other states soon suffer to this extent under the burden of illegal aliens? I don’t know the answers to these questions, but I know one thing for certain.
I won’t be asking George Bush.
Ignorance of the facts lead to alot of claims
Don’t worry, by lunch you’ll get a few claims of racism, classism, lying etc for your post. And your post will be called part of some conspiracy or conservative disinformation campaign. The 9 billion is all the governator’s fault (with Bush’s help). And the freemasons. And the reverse vampires.
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 12.06.04 @ 7:31 am
And they’ll probably try to squeeze “homophobe” out of it, too.
Comment by La Shawn — 12.06.04 @ 7:39 am
Alas, willing employers need willing employees, so Bush says. Because of this immigration issue, I switched from Republican to unaffiliated.
Comment by Bucktowndusty — 12.06.04 @ 8:24 am
P.S. I predict this issue will break the Republican party apart.
Comment by Bucktowndusty — 12.06.04 @ 8:41 am
And that is precisely why I am an Independant Conservative Nationalist!
Borders, Language, Culture!
Michael Savage is right.
Implement the ‘Oil for Illegals’ Program now. One barrel for every illegal. Give it up, Vincente Fox!
Comment by Joshua — 12.06.04 @ 8:48 am
Is it possible that Bush has some kind of strategy in the way he is handling this? Yet, even if he does, it is important to keep the pressure on. For instance,I was very disappointed with President Reagan’s non-response to the attacks on the US in the Middle East. As it turns out, he had a plan and his focus was the Soviet Union and it was one war at a time. Looking back, this looks smart. Years from now, we may wish he had focused on militant Islam instead. At any rate, in spite of what it looked like, he wasn’t doing “nothing.” Perhaps the same thing is true of President Bush.
Comment by Evon Bachaus — 12.06.04 @ 8:57 am
This is an area where GWB has failed in a big way and seemingly plans to continue upon the same course.
Great post btw.
Comment by Keith — 12.06.04 @ 9:35 am
From the Mexican trucks issue to the laxity on illegal immigration–this is why I quit the Republican party in the days leading up to 9/11. It is no longer conservative and does not represent me anymore.
When 9/11 hit, the president’s illegal alien amnesty plan was shelved, and rightly so since it only compromises our national security. But here we are again with him announcing how he wants to push such a boneheaded plan through.
To all those who think Bush has a plan and that he’s secretly plotting to actually strengthen our borders and crack down on illegals in the long run, well, wake up! You are dreaming.
Again, linking our fortunes to Bush is a huge mistake. He is only giving lip-service to conservatives. Witness his latest mental health initiative to have all our children tested in a mandatory program to root out the potential “nutjobs.” What kind of government intrusion is this? And what about the massive strengthening of federal government? Why are we further adding to our bloated federal government? Bush is almost singlehandedly undoing all that Reagan accomplished in reducing the size of our government.
Why do we lockstep behind Bush and not speak out against his liberal policies that hurt our country in the long run?
Comment by DLE — 12.06.04 @ 10:13 am
This issue is all about labor. Mexicans would not be sneaking across the border unless they knew there was a system in place that can support them even while they have know status. I am not eluding to “education, medicatition and incarceration.” They are coming because there are a significant number of Americans that will hire an undocumented people and pay them under the table. If they could not get any work they wouldn’t risk the trip.
The reason the President is pushing for amnesty is that a number of his supporters want this. He’s not just making this up as he goes along. I believe that 1 Timothy 6:10 is well in effect in this.
Comment by BH — 12.06.04 @ 10:35 am
I agree with BH’s assertion about the issue being cheap labor. These illegal workers are forced to endure labor practices that are illegal in the U.S. (underage workers, no./length of breaks, etc.).
What I found interesting was the comment:
If the labor is cheaper outside of the U.S., why are the farmers still here?
Comment by EG — 12.06.04 @ 10:54 am
Ok I am usually silent but I have to post now.
Farmers are still here because many are being bought out and conglomorated into vertical monopolies by large corporations.
The average age of family-run working farmers is 55!!! Give it 30 years then ask why farmers are still here. They won’t be!
The amount of the small family farms is rapidly decreasing. Labor may be an issue and reason for the immigration problems, but only a small part of the reason farms are disappearing. (But since this thread is about immigration I will try not to stray off-topic) We partially own a farm with my in-laws. I have personally gone out to harvest after working 8 hours as a teacher, because we cannot get labor to work the fields.
And before anyone asks why we don’t get more food from Mexico (and as you pick up Mexican fruit from the market), realize that AMERICAN farmers have to pay for the regulated products to keep our food safe. Mexican farmers do not.
We make sure our workers are legal. But I can sympathize with the farmers who choose illegals, because otherwise they pay out to their laborers more than they themselves will earn, for far more work.
One of the real industries that cater to illegal immigration is the restaurant industry. This is a FAR bigger problem than farms. And far wider spread. They are working in places where they come in direct contact with the food we eat, without proper immunizations. I consider this a much more disatrous threat than the farms.
Yes this issue may all be about labor, but please don’t cuss the farmer with your mouth full
ANDREA
Comment by Andrea — 12.06.04 @ 11:07 am
Why are the farmers here:
One, many farms are family owned, and have been for generations.
Two, the land is here, not overseas.
Three, when a farm loses it’s profit, the farmer either sells to a company like ADM, gets taken away by the bank, or repurposes the land into something more profitable (like realestate developement). They can’t just pack up and go.
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 12.06.04 @ 11:20 am
For the first time in a very long time we have an opportunity, and opening, a window to get legislation passed to deal with this massive security and cost problem having to do with illegal enter into our country and the ‘open arms’ welcome, almost, our generous and trusting nation have shown in the past.
The House Republicans have inserted into the House version of ‘The 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act’ house bill HR 10 , a section called ‘Title III Border Security and Terrorist Travel’. The key part of Title III is it prevents States from issuing to illegal aliens a drivers license, the only defacto photo ID card we have and is used to get onto all modes of transportation and all of our secured buildings. Some 6 States allow this, would you believe.
As we speak, the House has compromised most of Title III provisions away to the Senate in order that we may get a 9/11 security bill pass to send to the President. However,
the House Republicans have refused to remove the licensing of illegal aliens part and are standing firm(see another comment I made on Lashawn’s Attorney General Gonzales appointment below).
What you have mostly heard about this in our liberal media is either nothing or these “House Republicans are obstructing the passage of a much needed 9/11 bill”.
You want read or hear too much about the ’security reasons’ behind it because it has to do with a topic liberals don’t like talking about, handling the illegal alien problem.
Please contact those mentioned in my previous comment to support these courageous Republicans, who have already compromised much, and are now ‘insisting’ the Senate compromise a little by leaving in the ‘no licensing of illegal aliens’ Title III provision.
Comment by Jim R — 12.06.04 @ 11:46 am
Just imagine how much money illegal immigrants would consume without giving back if they were paid minimum wage by the big corporate players that hire them. Im sure Many big companies, particularly those in California in Texas would be at a huge loss if they couldnt draw from a pool of dirt cheap, illegal immigrant workers.
Comment by Zeek — 12.06.04 @ 12:22 pm
Lay it out for us, “Zeek”
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 12.06.04 @ 1:02 pm
Lay what out, ‘Wuzzy?’
Comment by Zeek — 12.06.04 @ 1:05 pm
Andrea/SCSIwussy:
If the labor is cheaper outside of the U.S., why are the farmers still here?
Labor may be an issue and reason for the immigration problems, but only a small part of the reason farms are disappearing.
and One, many farms are family owned, and have been for generations.
Two, the land is here, not overseas.
Agreed. I thought the argument that illegal workers keep farms in America was ludicrous.
Comment by EG — 12.06.04 @ 1:08 pm
Mariachi - So now you’re using Zeek? FYI, I haven’t banned you so there’s no need to use yet another alias and fake e-mail address. But suit yourself.
Comment by LB — 12.06.04 @ 1:08 pm
Email addy corrected. Its not fake….
Comment by Zeek — 12.06.04 @ 1:33 pm
EG,
Imigrant labor just keeps some farmers’ cost down, but far from all.
Zeekarachi: Lay out the evil of the Texas and California corporations. Show us how they are profitting, and from who.
I assume your logic and factual details will be up to your usual standards.
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 12.06.04 @ 2:42 pm
Keep the pressure on LaShawn.
All throughtout the election cycle, I was burning from the desire to hear more about this issue, and now that we have been able to win the big prize, it is time to tell the man where he is wrong.
Thank you for continuing the pro-enforcement pressure on. If it stays on early and long, there may be some response by the ‘08 election. Of course I hope GWB has a change of heart, but his resolve is as hard as a diamond.
Keep on LB!
Comment by Byron R. — 12.06.04 @ 3:01 pm
Its pretty basic logic, im sorry if you dont understand it. Big companies employ illegal immigrants to do various jobs, and pay them substantially less than minimum wage. This isnt a theory, its a fact. Lay out how this isnt true. Companies like Walmart illegally employ these people, knowing full well they can get hard work at next to nothing.
Comment by Zeek — 12.06.04 @ 3:08 pm
SCSIwuzzy,
You do realize there is a difference between immigrant workers and illegal workers (your last post said immigrant).
Farmers apply with the Labor Dept. and State Dept. to hire foreign workers after showing they have attempted to hire American workers (notice Andrea’s comment about getting workers on her in-law’s farm). Farmers also have to supply decent housing to these foreign workers.
Illegal farm workers have been found living in chicken coops and dog houses by Government enforcers. Some farmers will attempt to trick them out of their wages. Needless to say, these people will turn to public assistance for help.
Comment by EG — 12.06.04 @ 4:55 pm
I was just watching a biography of Cindy Crawford(yes, the supermodel) last night, and it mentioned that she and her friends would pick corn during the summer to earn money. I would much rather have American H.S. and college students picking crops to earn money for college, and contributing to the system than a bunch of illegals who don’t contribute to the system, and who are actually a drain on it. And young people, if a supermodel can pick crops to earn money, then you can, too.
Comment by Kiki B. — 12.06.04 @ 5:02 pm
EG,
I missed a word.
The farmers that apply to the govt for foreign hands, and get persmission, btw, are not illegally hiring them.
The farmers that have treated people like that are still the exception, and they need to be punished, regardless of the why and the who of the situation.
Zeekarachi:
You single out TX and CA, so how are they different from the other 48 states (what makes them special). And way to prove my point about facts.
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 12.06.04 @ 5:27 pm
Wuzzy, im not talking about the LEGAL foreign workers, im talking about people who come over illegally, and are subsequently given jobs, again illegally by profit hungry corporations. If this didnt happen, there would be very little incentive to come over.
I single out TX and CA and these are the main areas of Mexican illegal immigration, and the main areas where they are employed. What ‘facts’ do you want? I havnt said anything that is factually incorrect, so thats a bit of a red herring….as is usual with you.
Comment by Zeek — 12.06.04 @ 5:47 pm
Mariachi,
You haven’t said anything at all, really. Talking points and assertions, nothing someone can read or follow up on. It’s either take you at your word, or not. And what is with the name changes, really?
I’ve got a tract record of posting references, so I’ll put my money where my mouth is (and has been).
See, my whole point with you (and usually is) is that your arguments, even if they may be right, never have any teeth.
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 12.06.04 @ 6:46 pm
Er, sorry to burst your bubble, but the whole idea of talking points and assertions is that they encourage an educated response. Does it matter if i change my name? Why is that relevant?
Im sorry, but i dont understand what you need ‘evidence’ for. Its an established fact that corporations, big and small employ illegal immigrants for under the minimum wage. Ask me specifically what problem you have with what im saying, and ill provide a source even though i cant link…hmmm. Evidence is required when trying to back up a controversial assertion. Since what im saying isnt false, its irrelevant.
Comment by Zeek — 12.06.04 @ 7:23 pm
Credibility.
Changing your name everytime you wear it out, or when you get banned, does nothing to help your arguments, and actually hurts them by association.
As for your facts, yes, many companies use illegal labor, some directly, some indirectly. But as for the effect, which you imply is great, that is where you lack facts.
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 12.06.04 @ 8:12 pm
Pretty weak, you can only attack me for changing my username now.
The effect is naturally great, that much is obvious. Not only is the prospect of work an incentive for people to enter the country illegally, its a virtually unregulated way for corporate bigwigs to exploit yet more people. Surely, using your ‘pro-enforcement’ logic, these law breaking companies should be cracked down on as well? These are the real criminals here.
Comment by Zeek — 12.06.04 @ 8:35 pm
Zeek, here’s an easy one. You talk about profit of the big bad corporations. So tell me, what is Walmart’s profit margin? Hmmm? Why is it that a significant number of prices continue to fall over the years? Profits, eh? Or is it because retail is a cutthroat business and whoever can’t drive down prices AND costs and hence attract customers are doomed to the ashbins of history — Montgomery Wards, Kresge, Gibsons, and soon to be Kmart, Sears etc.
If you want a boogey man, it is us the mighty evvviiiil consumers. We want it all and we want it cheeap. This is the neverending quest that retailers are forced into — how low can you go. Naturally, frills and fringes erode such as insurance, wages etc.
Once upon a time, when old Sam was still driving his mint 50’s era pickup and kicking it, Wal-Mart had a Buy American policy. Noble indeed, but we-the-people didn’t give a rat for such quaint notions. We only cared about stretching our $$ as far as it would go and eventually, Wal-mart had to give up on Buy America. So who’s evil?
That’s just one. Like SCSI, I’d like to see something substantial in your court other than ‘everybody knows X’
Comment by Andy — 12.06.04 @ 9:28 pm
Zeek, I’ll make it easier and refer you to fool.com. Yeah I thought it was appropriate
=============EXCERPT=============
WebSource: http://www.fool.com/foolu/askfoolu/2002/askfoolu020117.htm
You can measure a company’s asset-heaviness by calculating its return on assets (ROA). There are a few steps involved in this, but they aren’t too tough. (Got your pencil ready?) You’ll find all the numbers you need on a company’s recent balance sheet and income statement. We’ll use Wal-Mart’s (NYSE: WMT) fiscal 2001 results as an example.
Return on assets is determined by multiplying net profit margin by asset turnover. To get net profit margin, look near the bottom of the income statement for net income and divide that by net sales (also called revenues) from the top of the statement. Dividing Wal-Mart’s net income of $6.3 billion by its revenues of $193.3 billion (yowza!), we get a net profit margin of 0.0326, or 3.26%.
Insurance companies (avg 6%), M$ (xxx%) and even oil companies (avg 8%) make higer margins, but I don’t think they directly benefit much from illegals.
Well, ok, because we have 10 million illegals here in the country, we probably sell more oil than ‘normative’ since illegals gotta drive to their underpaid jobs
Bottomline, learn a little bit about numbers and how they factor in a business, rather than repeating anti-capitalist tripe and making us laugh at such naivete.
Comment by Andy — 12.06.04 @ 9:41 pm
Pressure from the President on Congressmen Ducan Hunter and Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert has caused the Speaker of the House to Hastert to bring the 9/11 bill to a vote without ANY of the House’s ‘Title III Border Security and Terrorist Travel’ protections and provisions.
Pardon me for being suspicious, but since several of these provisions would have also effected illegal immigration and movement within our country, out pro-open border cheap labor President did not want them, even at the expense of our security.
This is especially upsetting given we have 150,000 Americans with their life and limb on the line in Iraq, to ostensibly protect our security at home, while we cannot get those, living a life of luxury in Washington, to lift a finger to do anything to help them secure OUR borders at home.
The bone that was thrown out as part of the ‘cave in’ pressure from the White House was ‘we will take up the Border Security and Terrorist Travel Title III issues next year’. I think they will ‘take it up’, but it will have little chance of even making it to the Presidents desk, and I think he knows it.
Comment by Jim R — 12.07.04 @ 10:14 am
Andy,
Damn you and your beating me to the punch ways.
But I will say it isn’t just us the consumers. It is more the government. There are so many laws and regulations, and then such sloppy enforcement of some of them.
Granted, I expect the consumer to demand the biggest bang for his buck. That is the market forces 101.
And mariachi, the root of my point is that you are a bomb tosser, not a contributor. In the future, I’ll avoid subtlety.
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 12.07.04 @ 12:41 pm
Walmart is the most lucrative transnational corporation (TNC) in the world, with the largest profits and international assets. Its followed by giants like British Petroleum, Toyota, Ford, Exxon etc, etc.
Andy, nice post. Its a shame you actually seem to be ENDORSING the illegal employment of aliens, while condemning how they flock here. Oh sorry, i meant to say calling for ‘enforcement.’ How ironic.
Bottom line Andy - you are a hypocrite.
‘Damn you and your beating me to the punch ways.’
Translation - ‘I have no idea to say, so i’ll let him make up some weak, non-argument.’
Comment by Zeek — 12.07.04 @ 4:10 pm
Zeek,
Two question. Please answer. Don’t just say everybody knows.
How many illegal immigrants has Walmart hired? What lower salary did Walmart knowingly pay them less because they were illegal immigrants.
Game. set. match.
Thanks for being there SCSI and Andy.
Comment by Baklava — 12.07.04 @ 5:11 pm
Here’s something that “most” people know in CA (which is where I live). Illegal immigrants are not being hired by large corporations on a usual basis. I’m sure that there are some hiring by some companies but it’s not a usual thing.
What happens is that the low skilled labor force is populated by illegal immigrants and they get hired by people who need low skill labor such as the strawberry picking and the lawn maintenance. Even then there is a large percentage of the illegal immigrant community who stays in certain areas.
What certain areas? There are large areas of CA that are very highly populated by illegal immigrants. They tend to distribute dollars among themselves by opening up business and providing services to each other as well as receiving services from the government.
Zeek seems to try to make the case that they are all here being employed by large corporations. This simply is not the case here in CA where I am. Where I am it is smaller operations who need low cost labor and sympathetic companies (owners of same origin).
While I wish that nobody in America employed illegal immigrants and that government services weren’t given to illegal immigrants and if they were found to be illegal that they were deported,,,,,,,,, it doesn’t help or further the argument/debate to keep insisting that it’s the big businesses fault or rich republicans or any other bogey man. We need to recognize what is happening in order to fix it.
This is the land of opportunity and people who live outside of CA and TX do not see the problem in the same light because they haven’t run across these HUGE areas where for 1, 2 or 3, square miles it seems that there is nothing but a third world country with illegal immigrants (it’s pretty obvious) living in a sort of staging ground until they can come up with enough money and support from the government to move into a different neighborhood. Many stay. Many commit crime. There are many illegal immigrants in jail. Why do they have to be there. Why can’t they be deported.
I always ask in every one of the illegal immigrant posts ———- WHY does this country have to allow illegal immigration when it allows more LEGAL immigrants than all others combined?
Comment by Baklava — 12.07.04 @ 5:23 pm
Wow elzeekriachi, you really showed how Walmart, Ford etc are using illegal immigrant labor, or how it helps them be the corporate behemoths that they are. Or how Andy’s post endorses said IIL.
And how agreeing with Andy and giving him props is the same as a non-argurment.
Really puts a dent in the mariachi is a troll theory.
Baklava, I feel you. And your annecdotal evidence is better than our friend’s lack of any at all.
Anyway, enough troll feeding for me. When evidence, names or numbers return, so will I
Andy, Baklava, see you in the other threads. Or you can pop over to my blog if I ever have a good thread going.
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 12.07.04 @ 5:52 pm
‘How many illegal immigrants has Walmart hired?’
Whos to say? Its easily thousands. Around last year, federal officials arrested over 250 illegal immigrants in a raid on 60 Wal-Mart stores.
‘What lower salary did Walmart knowingly pay them less because they were illegal immigrants.’
Several illegal immigrants have actually sued Wal-Mart. They claimed they worked over 56 hours a week, werent paid overtime pay, and received about $350 each week. I’ll let you do the Maths.
Game set match indeed…..
‘Zeek seems to try to make the case that they are all here being employed by large corporations.’
I never once made this assertion, so please refrain from putting words in my mouth.
‘when it allows more LEGAL immigrants than all others combined?’
Does it? What a ridiculous assertion. Lets get it straight, you are saying the US allows in more legal immigrants than every other country in the world put together?
Comment by Zeek — 12.07.04 @ 5:56 pm
Ah, a fact. Kinda
The 250 illegal aliens arrested were employed by a subcontractor hired to clean Wal-Mart stores. Not Wal-Mart itself. The illegals who sued, it was actually Wal-Mart and 9 other named parties in NJ, under the RICO stats.
Some contend that companies (the 9 other parties) hired illegal immigrants and skirted employment laws. They were generally paid $350.00 in cash for a seven-day workweek. No payroll taxes we withheld. They allege Wal-Mart knew about these arrangements and conspired with the employers.
Wal-Mart is part of the suit because Wal-Mart has deep pockets. But Wal-Mart paid the subcontractors to clean the stores, and like almost all subcontracting arrangements, weren’t involved in the wages and contracts of the people who worked for the contractor.
As for doing the maths, $350 divided by 56 hours… that’s 6.25 an hour. The FLSA says covered workers must be paid $5.15 an hour.
Someone paid at that (minimum wage) rate, with overtime, would make $329.60. And that is before taxes. Or union dues, where applicable.
Also, note that some of the plaintiffs were paid $500, not 350 (8.93 and hour). The average pay for janitors in the US ranges from 5.79 to 13.44, with a mean of 8.76 and a median of 7.90. And again, that is pre-tax wages.
Now, factor in tax, which varies from state to state, and assume that 20% of such a workers check will be withheld. In some places, that will be high, others, low.
Anyway, if the plaintiffs had money withheld, to get their $350, and OT, they would need to be paid an hourly rate of: $6.84. Their yearly pay would be… $21,875. The plaintiff that got $500 a week would need an hourly wage of 9.77, or an annual of
$31,250.
That’s better than my first white collar job in IT! And both are far better when I worked nights cleaning and stocking Bradlees department stores.
Why would Wal-Mart only do this in 61 stores, if the money saved was so good? Why not all 2,800+ stores? And why not other parts of the biz?
Now, I can’t find a big number for world immigration, so I cannot confirm or deny baklavas assertion. However, in the 1990s, 31 percent of America’s citizens were foreign born. Not many (if any) nations could make that claim.
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 12.07.04 @ 7:25 pm
‘The 250 illegal aliens arrested were employed by a subcontractor hired to clean Wal-Mart stores.’
A text book Wal-Mart official response. Meanwhile, in the REAL world….Evidence, including tape recordings shows Wal-Mart had direct knowledge of the illegal immigrants working for them.
‘As for doing the maths, $350 divided by 56 hours…’
You clearly did it wrong. Are you not aware of laws regarding overtime pay? These people were withheld taxes, failed to give them the same employee benefits as other workers and were even forced to provide cash for insurance.
‘Now, factor in tax’
Due to the dubious nature of their employment, the illegal immmigrants most likely had nothing in regards to tax paperwork.
‘Why would Wal-Mart only do this in 61 stores, if the money saved was so good?’
If you think they ONLY did in 61 stores, you are more naive than i thought. Im sure Wal-Mart would love to have all of their couple of thousand stores staffed by illegal immigrants but it may just be a TAD noticable. Using the sly cover of the contractors, they have been able to save money, totally to their knowledge.
31% or not, Baklava’s claim was ridiculous.
Comment by Zeek — 12.07.04 @ 7:57 pm
Nope, mariachi, not bad math. The point was that they weren’t paying OT (or any taxes)
The 329.60 figure is using OT for a worker at minimum wage. So a minumum wage worker, above board, would make less than the janitors caught in the sting. To take it further, that 350 to 500 did not include whatever over head and profit the contracting firm put on top (so the cost to Walmart was higher than that). Now, I’ve contracted and I’ve paid to have contractors on projects. The going over-head for hourlies is 10 to 50% (depends on skill set and such factors).
Let’s be charitable and call it 20%. So the 350 a week costs 420. Now, a legal worker has costs paid into healthcare and the taxes by the employer, but to make the illegal worker cheaper than a minimum wager would require that Walmart pay another 30% in these costs.
For a worker with a 401k or pension, and a good medical (and I mean far better than average) that would be reasonable. But not at that level.
Now, go back and re-read my post. The tax withheld was for legal workers. The point was to show what a legal worker would need to get paid to equal the take home these illegals had.
The point is, Walmart is not getting rich off illegal alien janitors. I don’t know if you’ve been out in the real world, but subcontracting to the lowest bidder is pretty common. Given the size and scope of the sting, if more Walmart outlets (and I mean signifigantly more, not a handful) were also using subcontractors this way, they’d be caught as well.
As it is, the ratio of Walmarts using legal overnight janitors to illegal is something on the order of 460 to 1.
Baklava’s point about immigration, while exagerated (possibly) in it’s numbers, is that the USA has a more open and friendly immigration policy than most, if not all other nations on Earth. I’m not in the mood to page through the CIA fact book to confirm either of your assertions.
So, how about Ford or any of the other companies you claim are getting rich off the illegals?
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 12.07.04 @ 9:27 pm
SCSI/Baklava, touchè away.
Gotta love the minute factors writ large. Game over!!!
Zeek/Mariachi/Omar whoever, yes Wal-Mart is THE largest corporation in terms of assets and revenues. Just because the IRS means Internal Revenue Service does not mean Revenue=Profit.
Let’s revist the 3% profit notion. Wal-Mart agrees to buy Vlastic Pickles - The jumbo jar kind that a normal family couldn’t possibly eat before it goes bad for $2.50 a jar, they sell it to you off the pallet for $2.99. What is their profit? 2.99/2.5 = 1.196 or 19.6%?
If you said yes, then you’d be wrong. You really ought to read The WalMart You Don’t Know at http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/77/walmart.html
That 19.6% is called a markup. The markup covers everything from shipping that jar from Cali to ye local store in Maine, receiving that jar and placing it on a shelf or placing that pallet on the aisle end-cap as the case may be. That also covers overhead, as in heating/cooling & lighting the store, not to mention contracting out janitorial services, as well as running and maintaining the computers and surveillance systems.
From a liability POV, don’t forget to set some money aside for the inevitable lawsuit from John Edwards and friends channeling the slip & fall claimants. Marketing and payroll. That’s just the big picture, there’s a tone of other cost of business line items.
But that’s all Business 101. I shouldn’t have to spell it out. If you took the class, then the teacher was probably pontificating on the evils of the VRWC instead of telling you how the biz-eco system really works. If that’s the case, you’ve been bamboozled and you should ask for a refund on your tuition.
Winners and losers are made or broken by how well the pricing team can itemize, monitor, mitigate operations costs, risks and life-cycle management trends, not to mention predicting what’s hot and what’s not.
History is replete with the charred remains of chains that have crashed & burned because they did not control costs. A&P, Safeway comes to mind, once coast to coast, they are but a shadow of their former selves.
Traditionally, grocery stores have a profit margin of 1.5%, for a store to get 2% is rare. Look it up.
Wal-Mart beats that because groceries are not all that they sell. They play an extreme balancing act of selling a little bit of this under cost, a little bit of that at cost, a lot of these at 3% and some of those at high margins. When it’s all said & done, they come out with 3.x% average profit.
Wal-Mart does well on the stock market, not because of outrageous profits, but because of paying attention to the bottom-line and potential for growth.
The key to making billions of profit is selling trillions of stuff, also known as volume, rather than selling billions at a higher margin. Hence the eternal quest for growth.
As I’ve said it before, it is the consumers that benefit. You can keep the high & mighty ground if you refuse to shop at WM and prefer to buy from the local Mom & Pop.
That’s your choice if you want to pay for that jar of pickles at $5 so M&P can afford to stay in business and drive around in their SUV. That’s the free market at play. Since WM is the biggest, only they can sell that jar at $2.99, while Store Y has to settle for $3.05. When it’s all said and done, most people voite with their wallet and prefer to spend $200 for a shopping cart of stuff instead of spending $225 elsewhere.
As for the illegals working the janitorial staff. That just means as Target trims their price to meet WM, WM contracts out to the lowest bidder, a Mexican-American owned mop-shop. WM now sees Target’s $2.99 pickle jar and lowers it by 10 cents. And so it goes, a race to the bottom — how low can you go. Granted, illegals are a willing pawn, but that is the consumer’s wish.
As for Baklava, I’ll buy in the claim that we have more immigrants at the per-capital level. Until someone shows otherwise, we may as well admit more than the other 190 countries combined. If nothing else, we’d easily increase the influx by an order of magnitude if we had a total open border, just on the pent-up desire of 100s of millions alone.
To be sure some eco-terroist and the flock of moonbats would protest this for the simple fact that a billion immigrants streaming into the US would throw our world out of balance, leading to climate chaos as earth’s orbit takes a wobble.
Comment by Andy — 12.07.04 @ 10:51 pm
Omar? I hadn’t thought of that…
Comment by La Shawn — 12.08.04 @ 5:25 am
California’s Illegal Aliens Cost Taxpayers Nearly $9 Billion A Year
FAIR has released their latest report on the costs of illegal aliens to taxpayers. The main costs are in education, health care and prison costs for illegal aliens in jail. North County Times California’s nearly 3 million illegal immigrants cost…
Trackback by Diggers Realm — 12.08.04 @ 6:25 am
California’s Illegal Aliens Cost Taxpayers Nearly $9 Billion A Year
FAIR has released their latest report on the costs of illegal aliens to taxpayers. The main costs are in education, health care and prison costs for illegal aliens in jail. North County Times California’s nearly 3 million illegal immigrants…
Trackback by The Command Post Op-Ed Page — 12.08.04 @ 6:30 am
Is Molotov also on the table?
Maybe our plagarist friend from last month, as well?
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 12.08.04 @ 9:08 am
No - Molotov is a fellow blogger and TCB member whose real name I know.
Comment by LB — 12.08.04 @ 9:10 am
Ah. Didn’t have the fortitude to go searching throught the archives this morning
Too busy working and following the interstate wine sales coverage.
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 12.08.04 @ 10:12 am
Andy, you clearly have some sound business sense - buts that all pretty basic stuff. I never questioned Wal-Mart’s success at maintaining an extremely lucrative enterprise. You are right, they do it for a boat load of reasons. One you missed out is their rising domination in other countries, like the UK.
Right….now on to the important stuff. Employed illegal immigrants. Again, you bring up the point of contractors, somehow clearly Wal-Mart of any wrong doing. Well, ignoring the fact it is official Wal-Mart policy to ensure they arnt employing aliens, via contractors or otherwise…..Evidence has suggested Wal-Mart knew full well of the illegal immigrants under their emplyoment. 250 spread across 60 stores is no small number, and its certainly too large a number as for it to be oblivious to Wal-Mart management. Now, Wal-Mart owns over 2000 stores across the nation. Even being VERY generous in the estimatations, simple logic suggests they employed at least 1000 across their stores.
By no stretch of the imagination does the USA receive more immigrants than every other nation in the world combined. I cant believe anyone could even consider this to a feasible idea, especially seeing as how 10 Eastern European countries have recently joined the EU….creating a small flood of people in Western Europe.
As for accusing me of being all these people….all i can say is, sad.
Comment by Zeek — 12.08.04 @ 10:50 am
Baklava commented on 07-Dec about the large numbers of illegal aliens in our prison system. I thought some who read LB’s blog (and especially those who comment) would be interested in an article I read earlier this year about the illegal alien crime wave we are experiencing in the U.S. and how our authorities have their hands tied firmly behind their back, thereby preventing any solution to the problem.
Since linking is not allowed, I’ll tell you how to find the article. Go to city-journal.org and type “The Illegal-Alien Crime Wave” into the search box in the upper right corner. The article was written by Heather MacDonald.
I read this article shortly after Bush announced his “amnesty for illegal aliens” plan in January and was absolutely fuming by the time I had completed the article. Most of us know little to nothing about the crimes committed by illegal aliens; so I will forewarn you that you may find much of MacDonald’s article to be a shock. However, I think it incredibly important that more of our country wake up to the facts surrounding the incarceration and subsequent care (three square meals a day, medical attention, etc.) that we as taxpayers fork over each year for the illegal aliens in our prison system. In addition, I think it important that we shed more light on the fact that not all illegal aliens fit the rosy picture painted by Liberals that the illegals are here to find work and raise their family to have it better than they did. Many illegal aliens who are here commit violent crimes, and when all else fails, will criss-cross the border as necessary to avoid apprehension by law-enforcement authorities (who already cannot do much because their hands have been tied by the politically-correct crowd).
Ms. MacDonald’s article is quite a marathon read — it’s several pages in length. But please don’t let the length of the article dissuade you from reading it. She has gathered a lot of evidence to support her claims and has been very thorough in her research. It’s a very good article.
Comment by DoggyDiaries — 12.08.04 @ 1:42 pm
Actually, zeek, you asked what it mattered that you ketp changing names? I think you have your answer.
When we know you’ve already used 4 names, is it really a shock that one or two more are suggested? 
Now, as for Wal-Mart.
250 over 61 stores is actually a small number. When I worked for Bradlees, a night time cleaning crew was usually 3-5 people. That works out, in that those 61 stores would average about 4 workers each out of that 250. Again, given the scope of the sting, if there were more stores (and they may have missed a few), we’d have hear about it. The fed and states would have kept on looking until they ran out of stores to check, or ceased to find violations. And keep in mind, these contracting companies handled mutiple stores, and not just Wal-Marts.
In the US, Wal-Mart has 3661 stores (550 of which are Sams). How many empolyees does that imply? Toss in the shipping fleet, the warehouses, the regional and national office staffs, HR, payroll and other sundry workers. How many people do you think work directly for WalMart? It’s over 1.2 million people. That is 4,8000+ employees for each of the 250 illegal alien floor cleaners.
Now add up the folks that owe their jobs at other companies in large part to servicing or providing for Wal-Mart. This includes the subcontractors and suppliers with large or exclusive contracts. I have no idea how large this number is.
But even without counting the ‘camp followers’, given the size of Wal-Mart, 250 is a # that can easily be over looked.
How about Ford?
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 12.08.04 @ 3:30 pm
Zeek said:I never questioned Wal-Mart’s success at maintaining an extremely lucrative enterprise…“, you continue on to say, “Evidence has suggested Wal-Mart knew full well of the illegal immigrants under their emplyoment…”
You’re the one talking, seems to me you could at least keep track of your talking points instead of obfuscating.
Let’s review the first part of the above. Of course you’re questioning WM’s success. You’ve been blaming their vast profits on deliberately hiring illegals at below minimum wages. 1) IIRC Minimum wage laws apply to legal workers, not just anyone that happens to be turning a buck within our borders. I certainly don’t recall seeing a law that says if you hire illegals, you must also pay a minimum wage. 2)SCSI & others have refuted the income in question to sufficiently show that the payout exceeds minimum wage. 3) Lucrative=bad, I already demonstrated that WM isn’t one of the most profitable companies. I’ll take it further to surmise that in terms of a per worker basis, they’re probably not even in the top 10 or even top 50. Bottomline, if there was no lucrative to business, there would be no reason for business and you and the rest of us would be living a very rural subsistence life. Who has time or money for cable TV, Internet, cars, shampoo, name brands accessories when they’re too busy scratching out a hard-scrabble plot of vegetables and hunting their meat? Th pursuit of profit is what has advanced our standard of living and driven the wheels of progress.
Now you say “evidence has suggested..”, earlier you were stating claims as if they were self-evident and true. So which is it? Probable, thus requiring further investigation? Or incontrovertible — case closed — no need for the jury to retire?
Zeek said:”Im sure Many big companies, particularly those in California in Texas would be at a huge loss if they couldnt draw from a pool of dirt cheap, illegal immigrant workers.”
Are you sure about that? Personally, I don’t doubt it, hence the pressure on our politicians to back off. Naturally, there is legitimate concern. Time and time again, when the law-makers rush off to enact new laws, they do so to score re-election points without fully considering potential unintended consequences. The issue of illegals has been percolating for decades and somehow, we expect a magic bullet to fix it with one bill? Right and I have a bridge over the Guadalupe for sale. What/how would you propose we should fix it? I’ve already posted my thots on a rational way forward. All you seem to want to do is point out the hypocrisy of everyone here and tie that in with corporate greed. If we’re so greedy, then why don’t you just leave. No one forcing you to stay here.
Zeek said:”Its an established fact that corporations, big and small employ illegal immigrants for under the minimum wage. Ask me specifically what problem you have with what im saying, and ill provide a source even though i cant link…hmmm.”
Erm, unless I’m mistaken, La Shawn said one can’t hyperlink. She didn’t say anything about spelling out a link to a source. I already provided you two sources. Please do tell how any corporations can pay below minimum wage without cooking the books? Without bringing in the regulatory agencies?
Zeek said:”Its pretty basic logic, im sorry if you dont understand it. Big companies employ illegal immigrants to do various jobs, and pay them substantially less than minimum wage. This isnt a theory, its a fact. Lay out how this isnt true. Companies like Walmart illegally employ these people, knowing full well they can get hard work at next to nothing.”
Basic logic demands that you look at ALL factors, not just the ones that are convenient to your argument. Talking about logic doesn’t make a truth. Rather it is the application of logic that makes the truth. I’m not sure you understand the interplay of contributing cause and effects on the economics of illegal labor. Facts are easily cited.
Again, how does WM and others avoid having OSHA, Dept of Labor etc from cracking down on their heads? To maintain this conspiracy involves too many people pencil-whipping their records. Does WM & others hire probable illegals? Of course. As mentioned by another here, the minute some HR dept tries to validate someone’s queer papers, they’re going to have a horde of screaming moonbats swarming their offices and dragging them off to court and forced to defend charges of racism and what not.
In your world, business can’t win. If they’re scrupulous, they have to defend themselves, plus burdening their competitive edge. If they resign themselves to just accepting the paperwork without due diligence, there accused of hiring illegals in pursuit of lucrative profits (your term). No one cares about the little companies, let’s go after the deep pockets. No matter what WM does, it ain’t good enough. Why? Because they’re a big company and that is an automatic bad.
Zeek said:”Not only is the prospect of work an incentive for people to enter the country illegally, its a virtually unregulated way for corporate bigwigs to exploit yet more people.”
Oh really? Virtually unregulated? Please list the meager laws that permit this exploitation. Did you ever stop to think that perhaps our regulations are so convoluted that corporations have a staff of full time lawyers who do nothing but assist the corporate board in navigating the minefields of rules? Sometimes, the best thing to do is just move along, don’t ask, don’t tell and hope it doesn’t blow up.
Exploit more people? I suppose you were a fly on the wall and heard Mr CEO say to Ms HR, “Dadgummit, our labor costs are too high! Can’t we get more wetbacks in here so we can exploit them? The 05s are here and I need to pay for that new Maybach”. That is just too simplistic. The real argument you should be espousing is that we need to streamline and untangle the rules. If a corporation plays by the rules, they lose business & profits, if they cheat, they get busted. So they are forced to outsource in order to reduce costs and slough off the risk. Is the lowest bidder cheating? Probably so, but that’s no longer a concern since the risk is borne by the contractor. The justification is that everyone else is subcontracting and saving millions, so they will have too as well, in order to remain competitive. Like I said before, WM started out with lots of noble intentions, but then got whacked by the reality stick.
Plus consider this. If WM HQ’s governor of Arkansas and later president could sit there and ask with a straight face, “What is ‘Is?” Why shouldn’t corporations follow their political leadership and ask “What is ‘Illegal’? That’s the thing that liberals didn’t consider in rushing to defend Slick Willy and the unintended consequences of rationalization. If you can’t hold a politician to ethical standards, by what right can politicians hold corporations to ethical scandals? Folks like to talk about Enron, MCI et al, but conveniently forget that all of the shenangians happened on the “By Any Means Necessary” crowd’s watch.
“Walmart is the most lucrative transnational corporation (TNC) in the world, with the largest profits and international assets. Its followed by giants like British Petroleum, Toyota, Ford, Exxon etc, etc.” What do you mean by lucrative? That is rather vague. Is that anything like America is the most corrupt and evil country in the world?
As for WM’s growth in other countries. Yeah, so what? Everytime WM opens another store in Germany, it’s an occassion to celebrate yet another crack in Germany’s social contract with the Germans. The retail industry is so overprotective, they need a chain like WM to come in and upset the apple cart. Did you know it is illegal in Germany for any store to advertise sale prices? While the traditional retail outlets are dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st Century, it is corporations like WM, Home Depot, McDonalds that keep pushing back the hours of business and emancipating the consumers. Bravo for capitalism and the destruction of socialist polices. Now that’s what I call progress.
Also I missed my hypocrisy. I’d appreciate it if you could show me where I was talking out of both sides of my neck. Or did you get me confused with someone else. I neither endorse nor condemn the situation other than to acknowledge that it is a serious problem that requires an in-depth analysis and careful development of a series of solutions. Slapping a bandaid on it will only cause the sore to fester. I’m not convinced that this bill will do even half of what is hyped. In this case, it is better to do nothing legislatively and really conduct an objective bottom-up review, than to react rashly and pay for the multiple mistakes that are sure to follow. That’s my personal conservative view and if you had read, let alone understood, any or all of my posts to date, you’d know that.
As for accusing you of being all those people. I wasn’t necessarily stating it as such, I was addressing you and others that have the same worldview. Sometimes you guys read so much alike, I have difficulty telling ya’ll apart. You’ve admitted to being both ElMaricahi/Mariachi & Zeek. I also do note that the name Omar rang a bell with some people.
In closing, Baklava’s claim would be ridiculous if you had some numbers proving it. All I’m saying is that it sounds plausible enough to me.
The fact that 10 new countries joined the EU has nothing to do with immigration. IIRC, those 10 countries represent a population of approximately 50 million, thus feeding Cheinrac’s delusional hypothesis that the EU-25’s population being larger than the US will equate to an EU25 economy larger and stronger than the US. Bwahahaha. I can categorically state that the EU will never surpass the US for as long as he lives, based on simple demographics and economics.
If Mexico became the 51st State, it wouldn’t increase, on the contrary it would reduce our immigrant head count, since 10 million illegal Mexicans would now be Americans, along with the rest of the Mexicans all the way down to the Guatamala & Belize border. — America being where ever our borders roam.
Comment by Andy — 12.08.04 @ 6:10 pm
4 names? Since when? I am hiding nothing. I have used both the names ‘Mariachi’ and ‘El.’ Again, your maths fails you.
Ive said it before, ill say it again. If you think these 250 people were the only illegal immigrants Wal-Mart employed, then theres not a lot i can do for you. Keep in mind - Im using Wal-Mart as an EXAMPLE here. Suggesting Wal-Mart is the only TNC that knowingly employs illegal aliens is ridiculous.
Andy - i never questioned Wal-Marts success as a company. I am raising this issue, since you ‘pro enforcement’ folks seem to totally overlook how American TNC’s employ illegal immigrants to cut down on costs.
Taking note from your talking, you seem to think its absolutely fine that large companies employ illegal immigrants, while disagreeing with them coming here the first place. Am i the only one that sees something wrong with this? I never called for illegal immigrants to be paid the minimum wage - although that would simplify matters greatly. I didnt even call for companies to continue hiring illegal aliens.
‘Without bringing in the regulatory agencies?’
You are having a laugh, right?
‘Again, how does WM and others avoid having OSHA, Dept of Labor etc from cracking down on their heads?’
Wal-Mart has already been cracked down on, to an extent. Federal agents have claimed Wal-Mart management knew full well of the illegal immigrants under their employment. All in all however, catched every illegal immigrant working in the US is next to impossible. Illegal immigrants working here also provide a large pool of cheap, yet dubious labor.
Andy, what you are saying here is completely irrational. Its not a tall thing to ask for already profitable TNC’s to not employ illegal aliens. Since you are against people entering the country illegally, its almost unbelievable that you dont agree with my viewpoint. Alas, apparently the free market is unaccountable for any law breaking activity, in your eyes anyway.
I never suggested America was the most ‘corrupt’ country in the world. By lucrative, i mean most profitable in terms on international assets and annual profits. Ive seen several lists, Walmart has been top on a few and within the top 5 on the rest. Its main rivals for top spot are groups like Exxon, BP, Ford, chrysler etc….
As for Baklava’s claim…..Since he/she made the inane claim, i’ll let he/she provide the numbers backing it up. Even if no one else here does, i know its ridiculous to assert that the US receives more immigrants than the rest of the world combined.
Assert about the EU all you want. I’ll let you be in your state of arrogance. Oh, and the new countries of the EU have a population far in excess of 50 million. Poland alone has a total population of nearly 40 million, so that screws that hypothesis.
Comment by Zeek — 12.08.04 @ 7:20 pm
I’m soooo slow. Zeek is Omar, and I banned Omar a few months ago! Internet provider still the same and coming from the same place, IP addresses slightly different. Whatever your name is, I can’t believe you’d go to all this trouble just to comment on my blog!
Comment by La Shawn — 12.08.04 @ 7:29 pm
Again Zeek, you are taking my comments out of context, in addition to breezing over the substance of my points in order to back your assertion that ‘you pro-enforcement’ are hypocrites.
If you really are Omar, I belive I have more than adequately deconstructed your whimsy ‘EU will be a superpower’.
Since I’m using a new laptop on a 2 month roadtrip, it’d be some time before I recover my supporting data and bookmarks, but it looks like it won’t matter anyway as far as you’re concerned. But suffice to say, the notion that the EU will surpass us is simply unfounded any way you slice it.
Comment by Andy — 12.08.04 @ 7:54 pm
Zeek, Omar, a few flavors of mariachi… seems like 4 to me.
How old are you, my friend? Tell us about yourself, so that we might understand you, and by extension, perhaps understand your positions…
Andy, Baklava: ROTFLMAO
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 12.08.04 @ 8:14 pm
I too have left the GOP over this issue and its reckless spending habits. One would think that the party that harped on Clinton about the “rule of law” ad nauseum during the Impeachment hearings would understand that the rule of law applies to everyone, even your financial backers in big business who are reaping the rewards of hiring illegals.
There are several common sense solutions to reducing illegal immigration. Reduction of the welfare state, prosecution of companies who hire illegals, immediate deportation, removal of benefits and incentives, all would help reduce the amount of illegals entering the nation due to removing the incentive for them to come here.
The US will have to wake up one day and realize that we can no longer absorb the rest of the worlds economic refugees, nor should we. The creation of a permanant low skilled, illiterate underclass is not desireable and it is certainly not what this nation was founded on when it comes to immigration.
Comment by Gabriel Chapman — 12.09.04 @ 1:10 pm
Gabriel, I understand your sentiment, but in terms of population per sq mile, we can absorb 10’s of millions of the world’s hungry, tired and poor. Ideally the brain drain will cause donor countries to reform and stop the exodus.
With one primary caveat, it’s a two way street. If you come, prepare to be assimilated. That’s my biggest issue with open borders, one can’t come to a new world and yet cling to the old world to the point that we subsidize the multi-kultis.
Comment by Andy — 12.13.04 @ 1:30 pm
Invoice for reimbursement of this…
Invoice for reimbursement of expenses Due upon receipt Bill to: The People of the United States Payable to: The Taxpayers of California Failure of the Federal government to provide necessary authority and resources to the state and local government
Trackback by Drink this... — 12.13.04 @ 4:59 pm