Fri 13 Jul 2007
It looks like some rich business fat cats want a free pass to hire illegal labor without consequence. They are considering starting a PAC to campaign against the recently signed employer sanctions bill.
Wake up indeed. Michelle Malkin has a spine tingling piece on the cost of this county’s don’t ask – don’t tell policy toward people here illegally, even convicted sex offenders. Oh and yes, he was registered to vote!
July 13th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
A convicted sex offender, illegal alien, who is registered to vote? Wow… I’m guessing that if he’ll work for $6 an hour, those fat cats will still want him to work for them at their dealerships and hamburger places! Sickening…
July 13th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
When you guys start in with the rich fat cat rhetoric, you sound more and more like you’re reading from Big Labor/DNC talking points.
July 13th, 2007 at 1:16 pm
Gerry,
We are having a little fun with language but a case could be made that this is just another campaign in the War on the Middle Class. If they want to fight fine. They have more money, our side has more voters.
July 13th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
The Arizona Repugnant article’s own headline was: Business Elite Fight Hiring law
And that’s who it is really… Folks with lots of business and franchises who do cheat. And they want to keep getting away with it.
Your average Mom and Pop shop plays by the rules and has a hard time competing because their costs are so much higher than the cheater’s costs are. There is a real injustice there.
July 13th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
I will remind you populist sounding republican that the business elite IS your biggest constituency for funding. Folks like Click…fund your elections and projects here in S. Arizona. Go ahead and beat them up. The Dems might want their dollars instead.
July 13th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Again, this is evidence of what I have been saying all along. The length at which some of you go to fight immigration will be the undoing of this party. It might be a place where Unions and the Right see eye to eye at times, but you will lose:
1. The Hispanic Vote for another generation.
2. This is evidence of my long standing argument number 2. You are driving the business wing of your party away. They may not vote demo…although see their support of Janet…but they will withold funds and votes.
This is the golden spike in the rift of your party. If you don’t heal it…its over.
July 13th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
kral,
I thought you lived in Pima County? Did not you see what good Click’s money did for us last time? Does the name Huffman ring a bell? Did you watch that primary where Steve tore the eventually nominee apart?
July 13th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
So not-so-bright guys have lots of money and an ax to grind with the Republican Party? They want to waste lots of money beating up Republicans including good conservatives like Jim Weiers and Russell Pearce? Hmm… Not bright, angry at GOP, lots of money? Sounds like Nathan Sproul just found himself a new campaign to run!
July 13th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
John,
You are brilliant.
What a great idea. That is the perfect assignment for NS. I hope he is as successful as he was in the last governor’s race and with efforts to repeal clean elections.
July 13th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
kral,
Let me see if I understand your admonitions. 1. We continue to look the other way while “Big Business” exploits cheap illegal labor and passes the social costs on to us, simply so we get their support. 2. We are to ignore the illegal aspect of the foreigners who have crossed into our country to work at substandard wages for “Big Business” simply so we can attrract the Hispanic vote.
Simply put, you want us to sell out this nation’s sovereignty and Rule of Law simply to win elections. No thanks. Some are much more principled than to buy into that pandering approach.
July 13th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Frankly, we’ve always been more about small businesses than big businesses. We’re more of an NFIB party than a Chamber of Commerce party. We ultimately get CoC support because they like us more than Dems, but that has more to do with Right to Work, excessive regulations, high taxes, and other issues that favor Republicans.
Small businesses are what make us strong and are what drives our economy, so let’s help those good folks who aren’t cheating and level the playing field!
July 13th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Those “elite” must be tone deaf. Did they not just see what happened in the U.S. Senate? Do they really think they can just spend some money and muscle the voters into legalizing illegal workers? How did such foolish people make so much money to begin with?
July 13th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
Adhahn isn’t an illegal alien. He was here in the US legally, an I-130 petition by his mother and step-father. That makes him a legal immigrant. He served in the US Army(can’t do that if illegal).
Yes I’m reading between the lines in saying Adhahn is a legal alien, but as someone who’s petitioned relatives here to the US, I do know a little on the subject of I-130s. Just do a google search for I-130 and you’ll see the relatives that can be petitioned. Based on the reported facts, Adhahn has to be a legal alien.(I wonder why he never became a US citizen too)
Unless Adhahn is a naturalized citizen.(Which would account for why he is a registered voter) He can be detained by ICE then for committing a felony or lying to get citizenship. Both are grounds to lose naturalization.
Bill
July 13th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
Non US citizens CAN and do join the US military. As a matter of fact, it is one way to fast track to citizenship.
July 13th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
Walter,
Yes non-citizens can join the military, but illegals can’t. There is a difference. Congress in January 2006 gave military leaders wartime powers to enlist anyone they deem “vital to the national interest.” That was after Adhahn’s service.
Bill
July 13th, 2007 at 7:21 pm
Back to the original. Businesses come and go. They NEVER leave a vacuum. Other people will put in the restaurants and the dealerships and will have learned the lessons that created the vacancies.
Americans not having jobs WILL leave an economic vacuum eventually. I can’t believe these genius businessmen have not figured out what Ford understood in the early 1900’s that his employees were also his customers.
July 13th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
What is so amazing in this is we have a man who has supported Arizona pro-family causes and organizations who has allowed his Judeo-Christian principles be compromised over money. This is very disappointing and embarassing for those of us who do support the same causes and the rule of law. Given that Magruder has lent his efforts to pro-life efforts here in Arizona, we have to ask why he didn’t file a lawsuit during all these years to fight the laws allowing for abortion? Very very very disappointing! Where are the men of God?
July 13th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
Jim Click does not need the Republican Party- The Republican Party needs Jim Click.
If I was Jim Click I would never give another dime. All the money he and many others who are being attacked have given to the party, candidates, and causes is astonishing.
The bashing that goes on “post receipt” is appaling. Reminds me of a title of a Woody Allen film called “Take the Money and Run.
People like Click and Mac Magruder have been the enduring equivalent of “thirty year mortgage material” for the party. If they were to leave us- given the current climate- the best you can hope for is to replace them with the equivalent of a cheap one night stands.
Please pray for this Arizona party. At this point, God is the one that can reach the people who are excommunicating Republicans in the name of grassroots activism.
July 13th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
The Republican Party existed and succeeded long before Jim Click was born or started selling cars. It is bigger than any one, ten, or even one hundred donors.
My guess is that this temper-tantrum will die down long before the 2008 elections. Weiers, Pearce, and the Republican Majority are what is best for these upset businessmen. Think Magruder wants to run fast food restaurants after Right to Work is repealed by Democrats? I don’t think so either.
July 13th, 2007 at 11:57 pm
No, really, WAKE UP! Find me a teenager who’s willing to work for $6.75 at a McDonald’s when there’s someone who wants to pay him/her $10 to answer phones. The problem isn’t that people like MacGruder or Click don’t want to hire legal workers; it’s that they can’t find them and they can’t afford to pay enough to attract legal workers. A McDonald’s burger costs 99 cents. Do you really think MacGruder’s going to pay $10 for a guy to make that one burger? NO! He pays what he can to keep his business viable.
How many of you actually own a business in the hospitality or construction industry? Is it really that easy to find workers?
July 14th, 2007 at 4:53 am
Jim Click and Mac Magruder are just two of a whole bunch of puppets who jump to the wishes of McStain with NS pulling the strings.
Those people threw Fife and Mac under the bus in LD11 last fall in a fools errand. They have been generous with funds as long as McStain was in control of the Party apparatus. The money they gave always provided them influence and control.
There is no question that their funds have been useful in a myriad of conservative causes, but it has not been altruistic. Those funds have been gained in a cruel process that resulted in their employees being underpaid based on historical levels. Those paid the minimum wage are actually being paid about half the amount of the minimum wage employees forty years ago when compared to the average wage of all workers in the country or when taking into account the purchasing power of the dollar.
The arguments posted above have been about the money, and not about the moral responsibility of these conservative(?) businessmen. The bottom line is that the taxpayers of Arizona are subsidizing these businesses every day of the week, even if they never do business there.
The over three billion in direct general fund costs to the taxpayers because of the illegal invasion was caused by employers like these. The people who die in the desert are caused by employers like these. The people who die on our streets and in our homes are caused by employers like these. The increase of crime is caused by employers like these. The people tied up with duct tape in drop houses as slave prisoners are created by employers like these.
These employers are only interested in their profit margins and supposedly as Christians they should know that the love of money is the root of all evil. Our founding fathers sacrificed their lives and fortunes for this nation and the rule of law, while these businessmen are sacrificing this nation and the rule of law for their lives of comfort and personal fortune.
Every employer is concerned with payroll costs as well as all the other costs that go into the price of their product. That is the excuse the Christian(?) cotton and tobacco farmers used to justify slavery. They at least did not ask the rest of the populace to fund the ongoing costs of their business with taxes and government programs.
An example of how these people work can be illustrated by the conflict in the City of Phoenix a couple of decades ago. Jerry C. was in the process of moving the Suns downtown. The city was being pressured by the gay community for a human rights ordinance. A majority of the Phoenix city council members were on record as opposing this ordinance and there were threats there would be street demonstrations downtown if it did not pass. He called two council members personally on the day of the vote and pressured them to change their position. Kathy Dubs, Frances Barwood and Thelda Williams were wearing bullet proof vests at public meetings due to death threats for opposing the ordinance and were left hanging in the wind due to Jerry’s calls.
What these businessmen are doing today is not any different than what they have done in the past. They portray themselves as conservative ethical and moral people as long as it does not interfere with their personal benefits. If the taxpayer has to subsidize the costs of their profitibility, that is fine with them. If your home is robbed, your property destroyed, your schools degraded, the health of the community put at risk with third world diseases – - well that is just a cost of their doing business.
FEDUP – Don’t ever forget that Jim CLick got more than a fair rate of return for the money he gave to the Party. He has invested that money in an organization that he and his friends controlled and as a result laws were passed or not passed as he pleased due to the influence he gained with those contributions.
July 14th, 2007 at 6:34 am
I vote for GOPPK. Great analysis.
And should any of these businesses ‘fail’ because of these laws (give me a break), there will be a plethora of offers to fill the spot. Funny how Rusty Childress manages to be profitable.
July 14th, 2007 at 9:24 am
If a McDonalds burger is supposed to cost $1.50 to pay the wages McDonalds is supposed to be paying, I’d rather pay full price for a burger than save fifty cents on my burger while getting stuck as a taxpayer for the more than $3Billion illegals cost our state last year alone. Taxpayers shouldn’t have to subsidize Mac Magruder.
Been to an In ‘n’ Out lately? They pay better wages, hire legal workers, make better burgers, fries and shakes, and make money selling their burgers for more than $1. Do you think they like having to compete against cheaters like Magruder and McDonalds? It probably doesn’t seem too American to them.
As for me and my house? We’re done with McDonalds!
July 14th, 2007 at 9:34 am
What about all the homeschooled or Christian schooled teenagers whose parents have taught them the work ethic? If there is a so-called “mass exodus” of illegally-employed hamburger cookers and counter wipers, is Mac going to refuse to hire these kids looking to find their first job?
July 14th, 2007 at 10:41 am
One big lie that we hear over and over is that the illegals do work that Americans won’t do. The facts say otherwise. The two industries with the highest percentage of illegal workers are agriculture and construction. In each case illegal workers constitute nearly 25% of the workforce. A large and meaningful percentage for sure, but lost in the subsequent debate is that the other 75% are LEGAL workers. So much for them doing the work no one else will do.
My guess is that Magruder is looking at illegals, not just as a cheap workforce to be exploited for personal profit, but as his main source of customers. Who needs a “Value Meal” more than those poor folks who are getting paid substandard wages at their own jobs?
Magruder can’t compete with the In ‘n’ Outs on quality, so he’s in it for cheap products and low prices. That’s fine, except when he cheats and hires illegals to keep prices down.
July 14th, 2007 at 10:49 am
AZGNAT
YOU SAID:another campaign in the War on the Middle Class. If they want to fight fine. They have more money, our side has more voters.
SO TRUE AND THEY THEMSEVES WITH THEIR GREED HELPED THE RANKS TO GROW.
July 14th, 2007 at 8:07 pm
Ann
Exactly what have they done to swell the ranks of the grass roots activists? I have been active for decades in the Party and I have never seen any of them do anything to help out in local or district activities, which is where the growth comes from.
The only place their funds have gone is to the State Party, and only when their cronies were in charge. This is the second time in the last fifteen years where the establishment lost control of the apparatus of the Party, and their attempt to destroy the Party then wasalmost successful. They boycotted any financial support to the State Party and then blamed the Chairman. Sound familiar? It should. History repeats.
It was Jack Londen who saved the Party then and Jack Londen is contributing to saving the Party now. That is a true Republican Party financial backer. He comes through when it counts and he has no desire for personal benefit.
Perhaps Jerry, Mac, etc. should follow Jack Londen’s example instead of lining their own pockets by violating the law with their hiring practices.
July 15th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
Tim S.,
If you can afford a burger at In-N-Out, then by all means, eat one there. But if you can’t, then eat at McDonald’s. You sound like a liberal who thinks that everyone should shop at Target instead of Wal-Mart or purchase a hybrid vehicle instead of a Tahoe. Last I heard, this is still America and we can make our own choices. These choices are based on our personal feelings and financials. You can’t blame someone for shopping at cheap store because they can’t afford any better.
And in fairness to In-N-Out, yes, they are competing against McDonald’s. And I have no doubt that they’re winning that battle. There’s an In-N-Out on Ray and Priest in Tempe, right across from a McDonald’s. Everytime I drive by, the In-N-Out is by far more popular than the other.
July 15th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
AZ Bronco,
Have you driven around town lately? How many “Help Wanted” signs do you see in the windows? If there were such a large group of “homeschooled or Christian schooled teenagers whose parents have taught them the work ethic” then there wouldn’t be any of those signs and we wouldn’t be having the conversation that we are about illegal workers.
The fact is American teenagers are spoiled. They’d rather be paid minimum wage to be able to get a 25% discount at Abercrombie & Fitch. They’d rather sit in an air-conditioned office where someone will pay them $10/hr to answer phones. https://javaprod.uui.asu.edu/SFAO_StudentEmployment/job_search.jsp . I did a search for employement between 6 and 7 dollars and found 20 available jobs. Another search of a job between 9 and 10 resulted in 125 listings!
So no, Mac isn’t refusing to hire these teenagers… none of them are applying!
July 15th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
Jack Londen was able to finance the party prior to campaign finance laws (and believe me, I think they’re as ridiculous as you do). The State Party does not pay any rent because Londen donated the building. You can’t do that anymore. Now, Londen can also only give $10,000 a year and he’s already given $2,500 this year.
You better hope you find more Jack Londens… at least 20 more of them for the State Party to just survive on operations alone this year.
July 15th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
Just for clarity, the ann above is lower case ann.
July 15th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
Relax Evan, I didn’t tell anyone to eat at In ‘n’ Out, I just said we were going to. I also objected to having the taxpayers subsidize the true cost of McDonalds burgers by paying the real costs of the illegal labor employed there.
The rest of your attempted whuppin’ landed well clear of the target. You seem mad at me for something I didn’t say.
July 15th, 2007 at 5:55 pm
Tim S.,
Here’s the thing – you can afford to eat at In-N-Out, others can’t. If a business that caters to the people who can’t eat at In-N-Out goes under because it can’t keep its prices low, than those people suffer the most, not you. With this employer sanction law, you’re targeting businesses that you do not even go to. You can afford to boycott the supporters of Wake Up Arizona, but others can’t.
This is the problem with the Republican Party in Arizona right now. It’s the selfish branch of the party that’s in power – the ones who want X, Y, and Z without caring how it affects other persons.
July 15th, 2007 at 5:55 pm
Evan,
If you can afford … Have you been to McDonalds lately? By the time you super-size the combo meal and your kid screams for the Happy Meal so they can get the piece of junk toy from China that breaks before you get home the cost is twice as much or more than In-N-Out. At least at In-N-Out you get a decent burger. When we go there we just cut a burger in half and share with our 4-year old. He seems more than happy and it saves us the time of picking up the broken pieces of the China toy and throwing it in the trash.
July 15th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
Remember Prop 202? It supposedly helps lower wage earners… and yet displaced thousands of people with disabilities who worked for lower than federal minimum wage due to their ability. It’s a good intention, with very harmful consequences.
July 15th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
Evan,
You don’t get out much do you? Are you honestly trying to make the point that McDonalds caters to people so poor that they cannot afford In-N-Out? If someone is really that poor then they should sign up for food stamps, go to the store and buy some real food, and cook it at home. Both fast food outlets are not a good place for poor people to eat. They are convenience locations that make money off of selling soda and French fries.
July 15th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
OVD,
No, it’s a matter of economics. Five years ago, when I wasn’t in the financial position that I’m in now, I ate at places such as Taco Bell, Burger King, or Subway. Now that I’m a little better off, I’ve substituted those places with Chipotle, In-N-Out, and local sandwicheries. I’d rather pay a few bucks more for better atmosphere and food quality, and I can choose to do so because I’m wealthier than before. If my finances where to take a plunge, you may very well find me in the drive-through line of McDonald’s. A few bucks does make a difference.
By driving stores such as McDonald’s or Wal-Mart out of the area, you’re harming the very people you’re seeking to help. Just because you don’t use the services, doesn’t mean other people don’t.
July 15th, 2007 at 8:11 pm
Evan,
I fail to see how McDonalds is a low cost solution for someone on a budget. You would be much better to eat at home or make a sandwich to take to work. If you look at nutrition per dollar McDonalds is not a great value.
July 15th, 2007 at 11:29 pm
Has it occured to you that the reason they can’t afford to eat anywhere else (if we even accept that argument) is that they’re working for less than they should because they’re illegal?
July 16th, 2007 at 12:12 am
OVD,
My family of five spends over a hundred dollars on groceries every week, and of course, it doesn’t take into account eating out (which is done maybe 1 – 2 times a week as a family). Groceries are expensive too – unless you count 99 cent Kraft Mac & Cheese boxes (should we investigate how Kraft is able to make cheap food? Illegal workers perhaps or low wages?).
Tim S.,
I guess this goes back to my original point. The business model for McDonald’s or Wal-Mart is to provide consumers with low-cost goods. There’s a market for low-cost goods, let’s not deny it. To do so, stores such as Wal-Mart and McDonald’s keep all their expenses low – from wages to the quality of items they sell.
Throughout this whole thread, I’ve been saying that McDonald’s doesn’t hire illegal workers because it’s cheaper for them to do so. They hire illegal workers because they can’t find legal ones to do the work. None of you have disputed this.
July 16th, 2007 at 8:00 am
Well, I will dispute that. It is not that they cannot find legal workers, it is that they may not be able to hire legal workers at the same wages as illegal workers will work for.
One of my problems with the group threatening the lawsuit is that they have been the very people standing in the pulpit preaching morality to others while they have been willfully violating the laws and taking advantage of people many of whom have been brought here under modern day slave traders.
I would be opposed, but not personally offended, if the people doing this were secular humanist socialists who have always practiced and publicly worked for a system that produced the generation after generation population on the government programs for pollitical purposes.
You speak about irony, that is the most ironic part of this whole process. Jerry with his Jesus Film, Mac with his Pregnancy Crisis Centers, etc. it appears were nothing more than attempts to give themselves absolution for their business sins. What sorry examples of the Christianity they espouse and try to portray themselves as leaders in the movement.
The bottom line is that historical precedence proves that everybody gains economically with lower taxes. We could have a 30%+ tax cut if we were not spending over 3 billion dollars annually on the DIRECT costs of illegal aliens.
That would be a tide that would lift all boats – and in the process, make more money available for people to purchase food at both McDonald’s or In-n-Out.
July 16th, 2007 at 8:56 am
Of course we dispute that Evan. Are you suggesting that 100% of McDonald’s workers are illegal? If not, then you admit that those who aren’t illegal are legal, which proves that they CAN find legal workers. Fast food is not an industry with large percentages of illegal workers like agriculture and construction. Yet even those top two industries only have around 25% illegal workers. That means 75% legal workers. So enough with the notion that legal workers won’t do the work or can’t be found.
Lastly, I’m fine with legal guest workers if we don’t have enough people in this country to do all of the jobs. But secure the border first and prove to me that you can before you ask me to trust you to manage millions of guest workers.
July 16th, 2007 at 9:49 am
just a quick mention, I’m sitting reading these and wondering who of you actually has a clue as to running a business, or just for that matter simple economics?? or is it that all of you subscribe to the union theory higher wages means a better life? or do all of you believe in communism and socialism as the only reason we work is for the good of everyone else? We own businesses I believe to try and make a profit, correct? so for those of us in the mom and pop industry,(yes I run a small business) (and so you know the “corporate” world doesn’t cheat as much as you think because they are much bigger targets, it’s the mom and pops who cheat, but think we are playing by the rules, because when it comes right down to it, it’s the illegals who are cheating) since the mere mention of this bill, I’ve lost 6 guys, who I THOUGHT had clean bills of health, and I followed the federal laws in hiring, so why did I lose these people…??? I myself am completely against illegal immigration and I think we need to take a tough stance, but it scares me to look at my situation and wonder don’t we need to have a little bit more clarification as to what happens if we find someone? is there going to be a “short bus” to deliver them to? I believe to get rid of illegal immigration, the step is to take away the jobs they come here for so that’s the right step, but it’s to hard line of a stance.
July 16th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
I’ve been interested in the whole talk of whom pays whom more (In N out versus McDonalds), because my own son (who is in his teens) started looking for summer jobs. I wanted to include a link to McDonald’s. When one of his friend’s went into McDonald’s he was offered well above Min. wage, which is what I thought he would have made had he applied there. http://www.jobster.com/find/details/for/job/35541682?lid=js_result&lpos=js_02
I think at the end of the day, positions are open, and employers have availability and are becoming more and more competitive to fill these positions and are willing to pay more for employees. That said, I can’t buy the argument that these employers want to just get away with paying low wages for illegals. I just don’t think that this is the case at all.
July 16th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
“Yet even those top two industries only have around 25% illegal workers. That means 75% legal workers. So enough with the notion that legal workers won’t do the work or can’t be found.”
… we’re currently at 3.6% unemployment in Arizona and 4.5% in the US. They can’t be found!
“It is not that they cannot find legal workers, it is that they may not be able to hire legal workers at the same wages as illegal workers will work for. ”
Wow. GOP PK, are you sure you’re not a liberal in disguise? Do you not believe in free markets? In supply and demand? Goodness… if what you’re saying is true, I hope that no legal worker will work for less than $50/hr!
July 16th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
Purple
Well, first of all, I have owned three successful businesses that required a large employee base and did not have to violate any laws to make the successful.
If you look at both HB2779 and the Initiative, you do not have to do anything with your current employees. They only refer to new hires.
Julie,
If these employers do not to violate the rule of law – which you are required to follow – no one is holding a gun to their head and forcing them to do so. The reason the pay rate is in the public venue, is these same employers are the ones who have been squealing about how much more it will cost them to follow the law and it could cost them their business. (Bo-hunk but its their song)
Evan,
I believe in free and legal markets. I do not believe in the illegal drug market. I do not believe in the illegal stolen goods market. And I do not believe in the illegal alien market.
I also believe in the law of legal supply and demand to determine the price of the product. I do not believe in a company making an unsafe product being sold that kill people just so it will can make a larger profit. I do not believe in a company hiring workers her illegally that cannot communicate with the customers in order to make a larger profit.
I do not believe that my position is liberal, but, rather conservative in the mold of our nation’s founders and the rule of law. I do not like some of the property restrictions, NCLB, the federal Clean Air rules, etc., but I believe that I have a responsibility as a citizen to follow them and all the rest. If I do not, I expect to be held liable for violating them.
These guys feel they should violate the law and not be held accountable. THAT sounds like a liberal.
July 16th, 2007 at 11:27 pm
What I find truly amazing is the reach that some of you make that anyone who opposes this bill is less of a Christian and that this opposition somehow dilutes or greatly diminishes prior conservative contributions. Wow. Stand back and take that aroma in for a moment. Those of you in glass houses must have a spendid view.
July 17th, 2007 at 3:16 am
I do not believe tht anyone who opposes this bill is less of a Christian, but I believe that a prime tenet of Christianity is to follow the law. I could quote scriptures, but that would be superfluous.
What is disappointing is that some people have cloaked themselves in the robes of Christianity when it was beneficial to do so, while they were breaking the law at the same time. We have all heard their decrying the degradation of society for years, yet they want to add to that degradation when it is financially profitable for them to do so.
It is the hypocrisy that is the problem. By the way, there are many who are opposed to this law who are not violating the current law. They are not hypocrites in this situation, just misguided or misinformed to all of the underlying facts, in our opinion. However, those who are leading the charge on the lawsuit against HB2779, like Big Mac, cannot claim the moral high ground.
You are right that there is an aroma. It is similar to the aroma around a teacher who is a pedophile, or a police officer who takes kickbacks from drug dealers. It is a betrayal of the standards expected of any person in that position that has the aroma.
July 17th, 2007 at 3:20 am
Sorry, I used a wrong word to start out my last post.
“I do not believe tht anyone who opposes this bill is less of a Christian . . .” should have been “I do not believe that everyone who opposes this bill is less of a Christian . . .”
I don’t believe that everyone who opposes this bill will fit any one template.
July 17th, 2007 at 7:39 am
Upper Case Ann here… the whole discussion of who can afford what hamburger or what wage is paid by which fast food outlet is hardly the litmus test for wealth or prosperity. I understand the Big Mac relationship to this story and the law suite & PAC which would make the correlation obvious; but that is not the whole story.
Speaking specifically about the Mexican illegal immigrant, during the length of time that the illegal issue has been growing, a new culture has been established. Our part of that was, especially if you lived here before Simpson-Mazzoli, the cheap labor was almost a perk of our location. But, for the most part it was confined to housekeepers, gardeners, farm workers, and maybe an occasional nanny if you were an attorney/broadcaster couple. They performed the service, came and went, and the problem was not so big a deal because no one ever really believed they would want to stay here. They just came for the money and then went back home, or so we thought.
Then came Amnesty. And with it millions more hoping for the next time it would be granted, they wanted to be sure and have the required time in and besides, it is too hard to cross now. So they stayed, and assimilated to the point where they developed their own Americanized way of Mexican life. They shop in stores that cater to their taste and styles, provide the goods they see as Mexican but with the American influence of prosperity.
I have a close family member who works in an inner city school with a high population of non-English speaking children and parents. Birth certificates are required to enroll in school, so to see a Mexican birth certificate is not unusual. Without asking about citizenship, which is illegal you know…connect the dots. These children have cell phones, name brand sneakers, disposable income, and their parents are not any less polished. Pick-up trucks, gold jewelry, and big screen TV’s. Their teens work at Jack-In-The-Box or other fast food stores.
The work at Jack-In-The-Box or MacDonald’s is not because of low pay; it is because it has become uncool for American kids of this generation and is not so for other cultures. In-N-Out is a trendy, less commonplace business. They do pay well and provide benefits, but I consider the business model the reason more than the legality of the work force. Supply and demand. Sometimes the concept of “jobs Americans won’t do” is true. It isn’t because the pay is low, it is because it is a job that is not desirable in today’s American culture and with the unemployment rate so low, it is not hard to find a job that is more palatable. How many people want to drive a truck without AC in the middle of the Arizona heat on a farm or work the fields? Do you really want to lay brick, finish cement, or be the laborer on the construction site? The wage issue is not without blame here, but the ability to attract workers that will do the job at a lower price as compared to others who want higher pay, paid holidays, and benefits is part of the free market. Now, if the work force is not legal it does offer a kick in the teeth to the free market, but it is the situation we have before us.
We have to be real about who we are in this discussion. We can try to conjure the American spirit in hopes that it will be found true; but as a mother whose children have passed the age of summer or high school jobs and with many, many more in my family and friends circles, it is more important for today’s American youth that the job is good for their image than well paying. It is as much a part of who they are as the brand of sneakers they wear. No one wears the K-Mart or Payless brand if they don’t have to, if all things are equal, why would they work at fast food if they can work at the mall?
I spoke to someone who read this post and said they were incensed at the idea that their child would not work at a specific location….. until they thought about it and realized they wouldn’t. It wasn’t the pay; it was the place and the work. Not as long as there are other jobs that pay as well or maybe even a little less, but the work is better in the mind of the worker.
This is as much about “who” we are as “who” they are.
July 17th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
I am just curious about how each of you think your daily lives will be impacted once the new law takes effect?
July 17th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
If the law is actually implemented and enforced.
Short term – slight increase in prices for good and services. Long term – slight increase in wages, slight decrease in crime, slight decrease in income taxes, slight decrease in congestion (economy slows to a more sustainable rate of growth.)
Works for me.
July 17th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
I do not know for sure how it will be impacted, but I believe could actually turn out to be exactly the opposite of the picture painted by the scare tactics of the purveyors of illegal workers. It will to some extent be determined by how rapid there is a reduction in the illegals.
However, don’t forget if one and a half million people leave the state there will be less demand and therefore the price will be reduced. Under that scenario, there will be a bigger housing supply at lower cost for first time home buyers; based on the City of Phoenix Police Department Report there will be a HUGE reduction in the crime rate; there will be a HUGE reduction in state costs for education, health care and criminal justice; there will be a reduction in everyone’s insurance premiums; emergency rooms will reopen since the major cause of non-payment patients will be gone; traffic congestion will actually be reduced; and so on.
I do not think it will result in an increase in any area including the food industry due to the lower demand. In addition, I just read a story today in the Oregonian of the new mechanical grape harvesting machine that can harvest as many grapes in twenty minutes with two people as thirty people can do in an hour. The side benefit is because they can harvest them at night there is less loss due to fermentation that occurs in daylight harvesting and because of the reduced time to harvest they can be taken to the refrigeration sheds quicker further reducing loss.
It sounds like grapes will be getting cheaper and without illegals dying crossing the desert to do the work. A good deal all around.
July 17th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
Those HUGE reductions ofcourse assume that people will cross the border(s) and leave. More likely they will cross state lines or simply stay put. Now instead of working, those idle individuals will put a bigger drain on the system.
July 17th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
I’m sick of being told “They’re only doing jobs lazy Americans won’t do”. That’s the biggest load of Bravo Sierra that’s been unloaded on John Q. Public. Right out of High School, one of my brothers became a framer on a construction site. The other, a construction plumber. I became a FARM WORKER! That’s right, a LAZY WHITE KID from the ‘burbs was out in the summer sun chopping cotton next to the illegals. We’ve been sold out by Republicrats who want illegals here for cheap labot, and Demublicans who think said illegals are instantly going to vote for them. The end result, Americans lose their country. WAKE UP! Build the fence, protect our sovereignty.JOIN THE MINUTE MEN!
July 17th, 2007 at 6:27 pm
If you take that argument, then you are saying that the opportunity to make higher wages here is not the incentive for them to come here in the first place. That is a circular argument.
If they cross state lines, it will be up to their legislatures to solve their state problem, and I believe that, under those circumstances, they will.
In addition, with the two initiatives on the ballot that also eliminates Sanctuary City policies, it will become more unstable for them to stay in Arizona – and the historical evicence is that an overwhelming majority will actually return home.
July 17th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
Thanks Pat! obviously, my post 56 was to nightcrawler.
You are right. Build the fence – Stop Sanctuary City Policies – Stop illegal hiring practices – Require government employees to establish legal residency
July 17th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
Actually the argument is valid. It is better to be poor in the USA than in Mexico. They may in fact stay put. The higher wages did in fact attact them here in the first place, the standard of living, even for the poor, will keep them here. And there in lies the rub. It all comes down to their day to day existence.
July 17th, 2007 at 7:59 pm
Normally, I would agree with you, but a part of the law that people have overlooked is the requirement that state employees must determine legal status when applying for any program that has ANY state funds.
July 18th, 2007 at 11:40 am
I see most comments are aimed at poor Mexican workers, but no one seems concerned with the undocumented children of any illegal parent, the non-Mexican who over-stayed their visa, the well educated from any part of the world, or any benefits that those individuals contribute to our society.
I recently closed my business that employed an average of 22 workers. The pay rate was between $9 and $13 an hour. In the process of helping employees find new jobs, I found that 10 were illegal. I had 12 workers who were significantly better (conscientious, dedicated, hard working) than the others. Of those 12, 9 were illegal.
Also try to remember that when many of your ancestors (mostly from Europe) came here for similar reasons (jobs, hope, conditions), there were no quota restrictions, as there were no laws at that time.
The point I’m making here is that the focus here has been negative and has fundamentally disregarded the positive aspects that immigration brings to our country.
July 18th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Employer,
THe difference is they came here legally and a large percentage were turned away. They had to pass physicals, background evaluations, prove they had needed skills, and many were allowed to stay while their family members were sent back on the next boat. They followed the rules.
In addition, you guys seem to forget that we have a legal immigration policy that allows more immigration than any other country on the face of the earth. No one is in favor of shutting off the flow of legal immigrants. In fact, we now dispense about a million new permanent residents permits a year, not counting all of the temporaty visas. No exactly anti-immigration.
What if your competitor had paid no property taxes, no employer taxes, failed to remit sales tax revenues, and broke all the OSHA laws that you were required to follow? I mean, it is no different except which laws people choose to violate with impunity and want government to allow without penalty.
July 18th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
Would you favor a law that also forbids employers from hiring other types of criminals e.g. Murderers, rapists, child molesters?
July 18th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
Depending on the industry, if they had served their time, were released, and not currently in violation of any law including parole violations, I would probably oppose a blanket law as you stated.
I do favor that law as it applies to contact or influence over minors and also support such a law in other specific applications.
Again, any support for such a law would require them not being in violation of any current state or federal law. That would eliminate the illegal alien situation where they are currently in violation of federal law and state law with the passage of HB2779.
July 19th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
From the L.A. Times
1. 40% of all workers in L.A. County ( L.A. County has 10.2 million people) are working for cash and not paying taxes. This is because they are predominantly illegal immigrants
working without a green card.
2. 95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens.
3. 75% of people on the most wanted list in Los Angeles are illegal aliens
4. Over 2/3 of all births in Los Angeles County are to illegal alien Mexicans on
Medi-Cal , whose births were paid for by taxpayers.
5. Nearly 35% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican
nationals here illegally.
6. Over 300,000 illegal aliens
in Los Angeles County are living in garages.
7. The FBI reports half of all gang members in Los Angeles are most likely
illegal aliens from south of the border.
8. Nearly 60% of all occupants of HUD properties are illegal.
9 21 radio stations in L.A. are Spanish speaking.
10. In L.A. County 5.1 million people speak English, 3.9 million speak Spanish. (There are 10.2 million people in L.A. County ).
(All of the above are from the Los Angeles Times)
Less than 2% of illegal aliens are picking our crops, but 29% are on welfare.
Over 70% of the United States ‘ annual population growth
(and over 90% of California , Florida and New York )
results from immigration.
29% of inmates in federal prisons are illegal aliens.
July 20th, 2007 at 1:27 am
GOP PK,
I noticed you only responded to the part of my comment that dealt with past immigration and were also uninformed on the actual requirements for entry to the USA during most of our country’s early existance.
In comparison to present immigration (about 3/10 of 1% of our total population), the immigration of the mid and late 1800’s was massive (as much as 3% annually). Obviously our country did not suffer, but improved, as immigrants were allowed to, and did, assimilate. What would our country, or the world for that matter, be like if we had the same restrictions on immigration then as we do today? Most likely Germany would have controlled all Europe and possibly North America too, seeing that 1 in 6 persons here have German roots and would never have been here to make our nation great and powerful, nor the English, nor the Irish, nor the Italians, etc.
But enough of the past and the lessons to be learned. Let’s talk of the present and how you propose to deal with the problem. If you can answer in 500 words or less, then you have no idea of the complexity. The challenge is to create a financially sound, logical, humane, and equitable solution for all parties involved. Are you, or anyone else here, up to the task or is everyone content to just complain and offer nothing constructive?
If you take the challenge, keep in mind that Microsoft has set up an office in Canada because they can’t get home grown quality high-tech employees at any price and can’t get visas to allow foreigners into this country due to quota limitations. So you need to resolve more issues than just building fences to keep out poor Mexicans.
July 22nd, 2007 at 6:31 am
The Republicans truly are the party of the rich. The statement that they get most of their contributions from small donors is false. The large donors are coached by Republicans using legal and illegal methods for hiding their huge contributions, and making it appear as though they are small donors.
See this link for the real story:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/080200-03.htm
August 19th, 2007 at 11:01 am
Ultimate Wealth Package
Ultimate Wealth Package
August 19th, 2007 at 11:19 am
affiliate rockstar status
affiliate rockstar status