NY Times Continues To Whine Despite Having Two Open Borders Candidates

6 07 2008

Cross posted from Conservative Common Man:

The typical “woe is business” sob story drips with even more typical liberal hypocrisy. Business is the enemy and is always taking advantage of poor unsuspecting, ignorant people… that is except when we can use the plight of business to further our open border agenda! The fact that the NY Times has such a ridiculous whine fest on behalf of business in today’s spewing, is rendered even more idiotic by the fact that the next president is guaranteed to coddle illegal aliens. Their side of the issue has already won the presidency, but apparently that isn’t enough.

When a liberal rag has an agenda, no level is too low to sell it. In fact, the first example of the poor business given in the offending article “Employers Fight Tough Measures On Immigration,” details the plight of a business that didn’t have to hire illegal aliens… but the point is they might have to someday!

Mike Gilsdorf, the owner of a 37-year-old landscaping nursery in Littleton, Colo., saw the need for action by businesses last winter when he advertised with the Labor Department, as he does every year, for 40 seasonal workers at market-rate wages to plant, prune and carry his shrubs in the summer heat. Only one local worker responded to the notice, he said, and then did not show up for the job.

Mr. Gilsdorf was able to fill his labor force with legal immigrants from Mexico through a federal guest worker program. But that program has a tight annual cap, and Mr. Gilsdorf realized that he might not be so lucky next year. His business could fail, he said, and then even his American workers would lose their jobs.

“We’re not hiring illegals, we’re not paying under the table,” Mr. Gilsdorf said. “But if we don’t get in under the cap and nobody is answering our ads, we don’t have employees.” His group, Colorado Employers for Immigration Reform, is pressing Congress for a much larger and more flexible guest worker program.

I am too ignorant to see how the wages Mr. Gilsdorf pays are “market-rate” if he can’t find legal workers to employ at those wages. Oops, I keep forgetting the fact that he can find legal workers to employ! I would suggest that as soon as he can’t find legal workers to employ at his “market-rate” then it is no longer “market-rate.” Are we to assume that there is full employment in his part of Colorado? If not, how can “market-rate” wages not attract employees?

Mr. Gilsdorf is not alone in his agony. An electronics assembly company in California has 20 out of 90 assembly workers whose numbers don’t match the records of the Social Security Administration. Apparently anti-discrimination rules prevent the company from checking into the discrepancy. How exactly does that work? There is a system known as E-verify, perhaps this particular company might want to use it for the 20 employees mentioned. What would be the down-side of that?

Because of the antidiscrimination rules, the executive cannot check to be certain that the 20 workers, mainly Hispanic women, are illegal. Moreover, they have advanced through training, she said, and excel at their jobs, which require the repetitive assembly of tiny parts by hand, often under microscopes.

“I can’t replace those people,” the executive said. She said that despite offering competitive wages from $9 to $17 an hour, the company had failed over the years in repeated efforts to attract nonimmigrant workers because of the state’s tight technology labor market and because of the nature of the work, exacting and tedious. If the workers were fired or arrested, she said, she could fail to meet her contracts.

“If we have to terminate 20 people, that’s going to jeopardize 100 other jobs of people who are legal, Americans, people who are making a good living,” she said.

Angelo Paparelli, an immigration lawyer who represents the company, said: “This is not an employer who wants to turn a blind eye to lawbreaking. She is facing a tightening of the enforcement vise that does not take into account Congress’s failure to create a workable system.”

I see. The problem is that Congress failed to give these businesses that employ illegal aliens everything they wanted! McCain, Kennedy and the boys ought to at least get some credit for trying to cater to the American citizen undercutting employers. Heck, if the nasty… gasp… citizens hadn’t butted in the congress could have done their duty, which is apparently written in The Constitution as:

The primary function of the Senate and House of Representatives is to ensure the free flow of illegal labor to any company that does not want to pay “market-rate.” The rights of non-citizens will be protected before the rights of citizens will be considered and Congress shall pass no law that infringes on the employment opportunities to those that might cross our borders illegally.

Festering cesspools like the NY Times and Washington Post really do take issue with the government when it actually indicates some willingness to follow the will of the electorate. I suppose these liberal mouthpieces are in for happier days given the state of American politics. The next president is highly unlikely to follow the will of the electorate on this issue as both candidates seek to compete for the title of “an illegals best friend.” Too many Republican politicians seem to think the path to re-election is to act like Democrat politicians and too many citizens just don’t seem to be involved in the nation’s affairs. These factors spell gloom for our nation and her citizens, which of course is good news for the liberal rags.

**This was a production of The Coalition Against Illegal Immigration (CAII). If you would like to participate, please go to the above link to learn more. Afterwards, email brianbonner90- at-gmail- dot-com and let us know at what level you would like to participate.

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

Advertisements

Actions

Information

One response

19 07 2008
Tom2

I’m trying to eliminate some of the confusion regarding illegal aliens and the use of three terms: Hispanic, Latino and immigrant.

Hispanic

As a 40-year resident of North Texas, I’ve become accustomed to the following definition of the term “Hispanic.” It’s an American, not English, word derived from the Spanish word Hispanohablantes, which means “Spanish speaker.” It encompasses Spain, Puerto Rico and The Philippines, et al. But Spanish is not spoken in about half of South America where Portuguese, French, Dutch, Guarani and English also are official languages. And many Caribbean nations have chosen official languages other than Spanish. The point is the term “Hispanic” is neither race nor ethnic group.

Latino

Similarly, the term Latino also is an American word originating around 1945 and derived from Latinoamericano or Latin-American. It carries a powerful 60-year old connotation of citizenship.

Immigrant

Finally, the term “immigrant” refers to people who have come to America through the use of a process established by law. Thus, the term “illegal immigrant” is oxymoronic and the term “legal immigrant” is redundant. Often hidden behind the term “immigrant,” is an illegal alien.

The Debate

Open-borders activists, liberals, Mexicans, Democrats, La Raza, LULAC, MALDEF, ACLU, and many others intentionally misuse these terms because it commingles 20 million outlaws with three distinct and well-defined groups. Mixing illegal aliens with sovereign Hispanic nations, Latino citizens and immigrants, creates a confusing, amorphous blob of humanity that defies description. Illegal aliens survive in this confusion in the same way that birds survive in flocks and fish survive in schools. The problem is most illegal aliens are not Spanish, Puerto Rican or Filipino. And they’re neither citizens nor immigrants. They’re simply what their national labels say they are. Bluntly, they’re Mexican, Iraqi, Guatemalan, Chinese, Salvadoran, et al. But hiding in this amorphy makes it difficult for law-abiding Americans to focus on them. Certainly the moms & pops who work for a living have little time to deal with such fine details.

In America, the terms Black, Amerind and several others, clearly imply American citizenship. I’d opine the term Latino fits squarely into this group and denotes American citizenship. Certainly it means neither Hispanic nor immigrant. This definition also works for the many children born to second- and third-generation Latinos who cannot read or write Spanish. Due to confusion regarding the term hispanic, our nation struggles to find a term the activists would have us use to describe these children. It’s not a major problem though, because most of these folks prefer the simpler term “citizen” or American. If a moniker is needed, Latino is good but to reduce confusion, keep in mind it also means citizen.

Pro-illegal-alien activists and racists really hate this clarification because it removes much of their camouflage and perhaps, deep down, they might consider the term “Mexican” or “Guatemalan” too coarse for polite conversation. They’ve already written volumes objecting to the terms “illegal” and “alien.” It’s a dilemma for them because I doubt they’d openly object to the terms Mexican or Guatemalan even though they cannot quite bring themselves to use the terms.

I hope media leaders like yourself will help in this effort by including this information wherever you deem appropriate and by using the terms correctly.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




%d bloggers like this: