April 03, 2006
This blog post discusses two rich people admitting the real reason they support illegal immigration.
The first case is Erica Jong: she supports it so women of her class can have domestic help.
And, they cover the recent comments of "Mayor Mike" Bloomberg. He supports illegal immigration, and one of the reasons he presents is because they keep the golf courses green. If we're lucky, one of these days he'll warn us about "$200 green fees if we stop immigration" or similar. Perhaps he'll launch into a tirade about "give us your tired greenskeepers". Or, he'll discuss how we're a land of gardeners.
Posted to Immigration at April 3, 2006 11:06 AM
Comments
Actually it's worse than slavery. A slave owner was financialy responsible for his slaves and their families, and a slave was a very expensive piece of property. If a slave became seriously injured or killed on the job, it represented a real loss to the slave owner.
A person hiring a "guest-worker" or illegal immigrant passes most of his costs, especially for his family, onto the general public. If the worker is seriously injured or killed on the job, the employer simply dumps him at the nearest hospital and hires a new one.
It is hardly surprising that accidental injury and death have soared at slaughterhouses along with the hiring of illegal immigrants. If a worker loses an arm or his life, a replacement worker appears within hours and the employer passes the health care costs on to the general community with no loss to himself.
Posted by: D Flinchum at April 3, 2006 06:08 AM
Most of the criminal immigrants are slaves of the rich and powerful. Look at the farms they are used on, most are multi-billion dollar operations, not family farms. I agree about the injuries and deaths also. If a criminal immigrant is injured or killed, call 9-11 and they will be hauled away and the 'employer' will not be held responsible for anything since they did not legally hire them. Medical care and/or burial is on the taxpayer. If they get sick the employer simply calls 9-11 and off they go for free care in the E.R. Hauled several there myself in an ambulance.
Posted by: scrapiron at April 3, 2006 11:35 AM
scrapiron, you may not remember Ralph and I haven't seen him for a while in blog-world but one of his postings noted that gee-whiz, if you stop illegal immigration, then all those family farms will be hurt since it will cost too much to hire legal help. I pointed out that it is agri-business, not family farms, that is using illegal labor. And while we're at it, if imported labor is the solution for AgJobs and we have 12-20+ illegal immigrants in the US, how the hell can there possibly be a shortage of farm workers?
Posted by: D Flinchum at April 3, 2006 01:40 PM
I never posted that all those family farms will be hurt. You are a lying sack of excrement Flinchum!
Take note of this everyone: the paranoid radical anti-immigration fanatics very often make false accusations when they can't argue their position in a debate. This is a good example. Flinchum can take all week and look through the archives, but he won't find where I said that because I never did.
Posted by: Ralph at April 3, 2006 04:53 PM
And the key ingregient in slavery is that it's involuntary. Immigrants work of their free will and can leave at any time if they want.
Posted by: Ralph at April 3, 2006 05:00 PM
Alot of the problem here is that Congress is that elite that you are talking about. They can no longer relate to the average American citizen any more. Most of them are wealthy and they can't see our point of view and most of them are unconcerned about our point of view. They only listen to the groups that can give them money for their campaigns. So it doesn't seem to concern them if the American taxpayer has to pay for the care of these people and their families. And you notice that that is not part of the discussion on Capital Hill.
Posted by: DG at April 3, 2006 05:17 PM
Ralph:
Wouldn't a "guest" worker scheme have a bit of an involuntary aspect?
While "guests" would be free to sign up, what if they caused trouble, such as by complaining or even suing?
Isn't there the possibility that a "guest" would then be kicked out of the program, and would then be forced to become either an illegal alien or leave?
And, in that case, wouldn't he thereby lose his accrued benefits (legality or money)?
Doesn't that have more than a whiff of indentured servitude?
Posted by: TLB at April 3, 2006 11:27 PM
Still, the worker is not forced to work. He or she may leave at any time.
Posted by: Ralph at April 4, 2006 03:05 AM
"You are a lying sack of excrement Flinchum!"
For those of you who missed his previous appearances, Ralph is a big-time Christian. Just FYI -- you know, in case for some reason it's not obvious.
"He or she may leave at any time."
The key word here is "leave" -- as in leave the country.
OK, but what is the practical reality? It's important to consider it at times. Now, I am not sure how any proposed "guest worker" program will work -- i.e. to whom the visas will be issued. But now, the H-1B visa is held by the employer, and if you don't like your job or the working conditions, to change jobs you have to get another employer to sponsor you. This may not be automatic, to say the least, depending. So if your aim was to come to and remain in the US, you could be stuck -- i.e. sort of indentured.
And I imagine it will work the same for the proposed new "guest worker" visas -- 'willing worker, willing employer'. If you are a 'willing worker' who wants to come to the US, then you'll (most probably) have to first find a 'willing employer', who will hold the visa. And hold a lot of power over you as well.
So these proposals have the potential to create a second class group of employees, who will be predominantly of a different ethnicity than the majority, 'non-guest' population. Sound vaguely familiar?
Posted by: eh at April 4, 2006 05:31 AM
"eh", you are truly a saint to engage Ralph in reasoned debate. And yes, having employees in humble jobs who are of a different race does sound familiar. We've been down that road before, and it gave us several hundred years of social problems.
Posted by: dchamil at April 4, 2006 07:05 AM
