Source: http://www.theamericanresistance.com/articles/art2004jan04.html
January 4, 2004; published in The Sonoran News
Because the pro-illegal alien lobby has a bottomless pit of money and can hire PR people to spin (and fabricate) anything any way, there are an undue number of myths and lies that the public (and many politicians) has bought into. The FACTS are:
1. It is NOT racist to call these people "illegal aliens" In fact, "illegal aliens" is the only term used in federal laws and regulations to describe criminals (and they ARE criminals) who come into our country illegally. They are not illegal immigrants, not undocumented immigrants, not migrant workers, and not day laborers - they're ILLEGAL ALIENS.
2. Mexico is NOT a poor country. By sending its teeming masses to our country, that status keeps on rising. Mexico has more resources per square mile than the U.S. and plenty of money to take care of its own people. Why should the taxpayers of this country subsidize Mexico's corruption?
3. Illegal aliens are NOT necessarily coming here to work. Lou Dobbs recently reported that 33 percent of our prison population is now comprised of non-citizens. Plus, 36 to 42 percent of illegal aliens are on welfare. So, for a good proportion of these people, the American dream is crime and welfare, not coming here to work.
4. Illegal aliens are NOT doing work Americans won't do. What jobs won't Americans do? In most states, Americans still clean their own houses, do their own landscaping, clean hotel rooms, work in restaurants and fast food places, paint houses, DO CONSTRUCTION WORK, work in airports, etc. - just like we have the past 200 years before "our" government allowed these people to invade our country. There are 18 million Americans who cannot find a job, so illegal aliens who are coming here to work do so at peril to American workers.
5. Illegal aliens absolutely do not contribute more than they cost. Certainly the millions in prison and on welfare aren't contributing a dime to our economy, and the ones who are working often are paid in cash with no deductions for taxes at all. The ones who use fraudulent social security numbers and qualify to pay taxes and social security have so many deductions for dependents that they pay little if any taxes. We have seen them pay less than $100 in taxes and get back $4,000 refunds (thanks to earned income tax credits and multiple dependents).Some bargain, eh?
6. The economy does NOT depend on illegal aliens. Sure, greedy CEOs (making $50 to $150 MILLION a year) and business owners depend on illegal aliens, but due to #3, #4 and #5 above, the only thing illegal aliens are contributing to is the collapse of our economy and making the rich richer.
7. Without illegal aliens, the price of agricultural products and other goods and services will NOT soar. The definitive study on this subject is the University of Iowa's "How Much Is That Tomato?" The study concludes that 'since labor is such a small component of the end-price of agricultural products (which includes price to the growers, transportation costs, processing /storage costs, grocers' profit, etc.), using minimum wage workers instead of illegal aliens would increase prices of agricultural products by approximately 3 percent in the summer and 4 percent in the winter ... hardly the making of $10 heads of lettuce, $25 hamburgers, $1,000 per night Days Inn hotel rooms like the pro-illegal alien lobby claims.
8. Consumers are NOT benefiting from lower labor costs. Again, it's CEOs and business owners who benefit from taxpayer subsidies for their illegal alien workers. The Big Three automakers say they moved so many jobs to Mexico because their labor costs are 80 percent less than in America. Anybody notice the price of new cars spiraling downward under NAFTA?
So, before you believe the prevalent pack of lies perpetuated by the illegal alien lobby, which makes billions off this government-sanctioned criminal activity, ask yourself who's saying this garbage and look at what they have to gain. Citizens Against Illegal Immigration, just like Protect Arizona NOW, is an all-volunteer, totally grass-roots organization of citizens who are making nothing and have nothing personal to gain from their efforts to fight this corruption. Whose side are you on, and what are YOU doing to save your state and country from this evil?
McKee is the state coordinator of Citizens Against Illegal Immigration, as well as director of Protect Arizona NOW. A former Quaker Sunday School teacher and Volunteer of the Year in a large metropolitan area, she has a 35-year record of charity work and philanthropy largely benefiting minorities.
Monday, June 18, 2007
Myths and lies of illegal immigration By Kathy McKee
Posted by Joyce Kavitsky at 6/18/2007 02:33:00 PM
Labels: Illegal Alien Crisis
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
I always enjoy it when old-style liberal class warfare mixes with conservatism.
I appreciate these items the most:
6. The economy does NOT depend on illegal aliens. Sure, greedy CEOs (making $50 to $150 MILLION a year) and business owners depend on illegal aliens, but due to #3, #4 and #5 above, the only thing illegal aliens are contributing to is the collapse of our economy and making the rich richer.
8. Consumers are NOT benefiting from lower labor costs. Again, it's CEOs and business owners who benefit from taxpayer subsidies for their illegal alien workers. The Big Three automakers say they moved so many jobs to Mexico because their labor costs are 80 percent less than in America. Anybody notice the price of new cars spiraling downward under NAFTA?
Again, you seem to be suggesting that we need to regulate our laissez-faire economic system because sometimes the free market fails us. Liberals have been making this argument for over a century! We have always questioned those who worship at the altar of the market. Now, it seems you understand that the marketplace does have flaws.
Famed University of Chicago economist Milton Friedman was one of the biggest proponents of a deregulated marketplace. Whom found him to be a great inspiration? Ronald Reagan.
Dan, thanks for writing. I cannot take credit for writing the above post. That goes to Kathy McKee who is credited in the bold title. That is true that our American market is not perfect, but it is a lot more so then any other around the world. We can easily buy any kind of clothes or food here that we desire, whereas in Europe and England, for example, it is harder to find a Target, WalMart, KMart, type stores or large grocery stores to get what is needed and the available stores are expensive boutiques. Gas cost twice as much overseas as it does here, except at the major sources in the Middle East and South America where it is way under a dollar per gallon. So even though our marketplace is not perfect and we can't get everything for the bottom price, we are not living in a Depression nor a we even close to it.
Reasonable liberals will agree that there is no better system than a mostly-free marketplace. My point is that the people who argue for the infallibility of the marketplace are dead wrong. The market needs to be regulated because when it is left to its own devices, it becomes a meat grinder. People get screwed.
Our current immigration crisis (Believe it or not, I agree with many of your points) is proof of this. The flow of illegal labor into the country is a great example of the free market at work. Naturally, the marketplace will seek the cheapest labor possible. So, what do we have? Illegal immigrants flowing into the country to provide employers exactly what they want.
It is important to remember that it is the Republican Party, led by big business and inspired greatly by Ayn Rand, has been the primary proponent of laissez-faire economics. "Government, get out of our way!" they screamed. Now, with illegal immigration and globalization, we are reaping what they have sowed.
Dan, to be fair this immigration crisis is not the sole fault of the Republican party. This crisis can be backtracked to Democrat President John Kennedy and his racist "browning of America" philosophy on immigration. Yes opportunism is the root of this problem concerning the employers who take what they can get, but that is a bipartsian trait that hurts our country. It is not exclusively adopted by employers who are registered Republicans.
Of course, blame can be spread around. Kennedy can be blamed. Clinton can be blamed. Superman (aka Ronald Reagan) can be blamed because he granted amnesty to three million illegal immigrants.
My point is not that the Republicans are mostly to blame. My point is this: The "market is never wrong" mentality is one that has been promoted heavily by the Republican Party. That mentality has played a large role in creating this current situation.
Here's a situation happening right now. I have a friend whose brother, Scott, runs a small landscaping business in Florida. Scott uses illegal labor. Am I correct in assuming that you believe the illegal workers should be deported? What should be done to Scott?
Dan, your concern about this is refreshing. I think you labeling yourself a liberal is not totally accurate. You should be proud of being a moderate. To be liberal you would be blindly for the Kennedy illegal immigration legislation through and through mainly to tilt the country left, not through a natural evolution but through a single piece of legislation. Plus, no offense, "reasonable liberal" is an oxymoron. Concerning the 1986 illegal immigration amnesty bill that President Reagan didn't veto, I am not familar with his thoughts on the bill at the time as I have not read his day-to-day diaries yet that he wrote during his presidency (the definative unabridged books will be out in a year or two) then I can judge whether he knew he was granting outright amnesty or whether he thought that the law signed was going to be fully implemented or not. I think your friend's brother Scott can quickly change his way of business by just terminating the employment of his illegal workers, hire qualified Americans, and he may have to just pay some kind of fine if he is caught red-handed with the illegals and get a stern warning, but if he is caught twice with them, he should be closed. Plus if his workers are not legal, he as the stress of worrying about raids, his workers abondoning the job, and avoiding the IRS about the under the table pay. It would be better all around for him to hire Americans. It is not hard to find Americans who do good landscaping. Gardening is a popular hobby here, and mowing the lawning used to be, or maybe still is, an American boy's chore.
Yes, I am absolutely concerned about this. I see a problem, but I also know that we should not target all our ire at the illegal immigrants. Business is to be blamed, too.
I'm sure Scott can find plenty of qualified Americans to do quality landscaping work. But I'm not telling you anything new when I say that economics is the primary motivator for most people. If Scott can hire a Mexican to mow a lawn for $3.00 an hour why would he hire an American to do the same thing for $7.00 an hour?
Scott wouldn't, unless law enforcement cracked down on his illegal activity. (From now on, I'm going to call people like Scott an "illegal employer." If we're going to call the worker an "illegal immigrant," we should call his boss an "illegal employer.")
But the government doesn't crack down on illegal employers because they care most about protecting businesses, not the people who work for businesses. And because a vast number of politicians--from both side of the aisle--have adopted the "marketplace is always right" mentality.
You don't want to call me a liberal, but like that liberal icon, Franklin Roosevelt, I am concerned about the plight of the American worker. And cheap Mexican labor (as well as globalization) has caused the median household income in this country to fall in real terms since 1999.
Dan, you are a smart person. You are correct about the wage difference in hiring American vs illegals. It is a wide gap, that is why I am 100% for a complete repeal of the Mininum Wage at both the federal and state levels. That is the reason it should be repealed because American employers, in their thriftiness to keep to a budget to make a profit, will hire non-Americans or illegals. Repealing a Mininum Wage would not hurt the American worker at all. If anything the jobs illegals hold now would open up to Americans for competitive wages and the wages would be by merit that is raised if the job is done satisfactory. It was not just Democrat President Franklin Roosevelt who cared about the plight of American workers, but also Republican presidents as well like Theodore Roosevelt who hands on negotiated with unions to avoid strikes on coal and Calvin Coolidge who as Governor of Massachusetts and president indirectly delt with unions, except through a letter to Samuel Gompers, also to avoid strikes and to advocate fair wages. I do agree with letting the market sort things out, as there either is or is not a market for something for it to survive here. In that way, unless our government subsidizes an industry like it does with the railroads and agriculture, then an industry cannot survive if its goods or services do not sell. We the consumer do know best. In cases like this with illegal immigration, we the people do have to step in to steer our government through our elected politicans in the direction of strict immigration and a crackdown on employers who violate our laws.
Despite his imperialistic tendencies, Teddy Roosevelt is one of my favorite presidents because of his trust busting.
You don't fear that an elimination of the minimum wage will hurt unskilled workers, such as those who mow lawns?
I really do not think eliminating the mininum wage would in the least hurt those who mow lawns. As it is now, Scott and others like him have already stated their preferred salary of $3.00 or whatever it may be, for the job, without a mininum wage, that would be a bottom and would go up from there or would start higher in the first place to get the best American help once crackdown is more widespread. The mininum wage is just an excuse employers use to hire the illegals. If that is gone, then their whole reasoning is gone also and they have to hire qualified Americans for a fair wage.
You make an interesting point, Joyce.
I have another question. Why do you refer to the illegal immigrants as "illegals" but you don't call illegal employers "illegals"?
You wrote this question: The mininum wage is just an excuse employers use to hire the illegals.
You could have written it this way: The minimum wage is just an excuse illegals use to hire the immigrants.
Or, to be equitable, it could be written like this: The mininum wage is just an excuse the illegals use to hire the illegals.
I hope my point is clear.
Dan, I'm not really into the semantics of name calling or labeling. I do think it would be a stretch to call American employers themselves who hire the illegals "illegals" as they are legitimate businesses that unfortunately run unethically. At this time, I cannot think of a good nickname for them, but I'm sure I can think of something interesting.
Some liberals avoid the term "illegal immigrant" and instead use "undocument worker." But I have no problem with "illegal immigrant" because they immigrated to this country illegally.
Now, let's take a look at the businesses who hire the illegal immigrants. These businesses employ people illegally. That's why they should be called "illegal employers." I'm not arguing that they should be called "illegal businesses." I would use that term for, say, a prostitution ring.
We aren't talking about simple "semantics" here. Language plays a vital role in how an argument is shaped. By reserving the term "illegal" for only immigrants, they become the villains in the debate and are forced to shoulder most of the burden for this crisis. But it's clear that businesses should bear just as much of the burden. After all, if they did not employ people illegally, Mexicans would be less likely to immigrate illegally.
Dan, you make a good point about how language can shape an argument. Would it be accurate to say something like "renegade employers"? I thought renegade would be a good term for them since it means outlaw or rebel and the businesses defy the law when they hire the illegals.
I want to get back to the term "undocumented worker" The problem with this language is that it relieves an illegal immigrant of culpability. The Mexican has committed a crime. He has done something illegal. The term "undocumented worker" is meant to deflect this fact.
This brings me to your term "renegade employer." I think it's a good start, and far more honest than "undocumented worker" because at least it acknowledges illegal activity. But because of its subtlety, I still think it absolves the employer of the fundamental truth: He has committed a crime. He has done something illegal.
Nothing better gets to the truth of that matter than the word "illegal" or maybe "unlawful." That's why I don't use the term "unauthorized immigrant."
How about "unlawful employer"?
I don't know. "Unlawful employer" just seems weak to me. Breaking any law at anytime knowingly and unknowingly is unlawful that's why I thought renegade would be good because it has the intent in the meaning.
Now we really are dealing with semantics. What matters is that we both seem to understand that there are lawbreakers on both sides and that this criminal activity cannot be tolerated any longer.
Post a Comment