Thanks, Mexico, now I totally support you

[ElGuapo]

Nothing "Gringo" on Day 1 boycott:

Gringo boycott (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/04/14/mexico.boycott.ap/index.html)

Isn't "gringo" an offensive term, or a slur? Why would people who call for this kind of boycott think it's going to win people to their side? Also, as pointed out in the article, the US business community is one of ilegal immigrant's best supporters. They want legalization so the playing field can be fair between businesses, not illegal cheap labor facing honest business practices.

So what can I boycott? Are there any Mexican owned firms here?

I'm usually pretty tolerant, but I don't really like being called a "gringo" by Mexicans.

[shift6]

It isn't racism or a hate crime if it's against some craker ass whitey such as yourself (or me).

[Enidigm]

I think a big difference between this immigration debate and others is that many of the immigrants feel that we owe them.

"Yea, we know, we do the shit jobs. That's right gingo, we do the shit jobs! You owe us for doing the work you don't want to do!". I think that's the basic logic distilled.

[extarbags]

Isn't "gringo" an offensive term, or a slur?

Not necessarily (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gringo). It's only sometimes derogatory. And it's definitely not the Mexican version of "nigger," like you seem to think it is.

Be honest. Did this really sway your opinion on this issue?

[Flowers]

You have to look past the fact that some people are making racial remarks suggesting that, because they are the ejaculate of certain groups of individuals, they have more valid claim to a geographical area than the products of a cold weather orgasm.

[Matthew Gallant]

The only thing that makes sense in this thread is that it was started by somebody named El Guapo.

[bago]

Oh great, now we're going to be flooded with low-wage mexican trolls, willing to do the trolls that americans don't want to.

[DeepT]

I really think that if it becomes a major problem on May 1st, then this will only end badly for immigrants.

Also I do think it is unethical for them to do this. Its basically, in a way, blackmail. You give us what we want, citizenship or we will damage your economy.

What is the point of laws of we give in to demands like this?

American needs to simply decide what they want. If they really want legal enforcement, then we can not offer amnesty. It really will send the message that the laws can be ignored. It will embolden other immigrants who didn't want to risk it or take the trouble to go ahead and come.

If Americans decide that its ok, then we should drop law enforcement for illegal immigrants (it doesn't really work anyway) and rework our system to put those resources into assimilation system for anyone who wants to immigrate.

I think if we choose the former, we need to spend most of our time going after businesses instead of the immigrant themselves. IE: We fine the hell out of business that have illegal immigrants and discourage them from hiring them. Take away the jobs, you remove most of the problem. Of course will will have to create some kind of service for these businesses to use to authenticate that someone is not an illegal immigrant.

However, on the big picture, if we allowed anyone to walk in, register, and become an American Citizen on the spot (after some background checks) I do not understand why this is a bad thing. Why do we even care or have limits on the number of people allowed to become citizens each year?

[Rob Beschizza]

El Goatse? Limonpartido? Muchacha de la tina!

[shift6]

I really think that if it becomes a major problem on May 1st, then this will only end badly for immigrants.
Agreed.

Also I do think it is unethical for them to do this. Its basically, in a way, blackmail. You give us what we want, citizenship or we will damage your economy.
It's just organized labor. If unions can do it based on the job type, Mexicans can do it based on their ethnic identity.

[extarbags]

Also I do think it is unethical for them to do this. Its basically, in a way, blackmail. You give us what we want, citizenship or we will damage your economy.

What the hell, boycotts are unethical? Blackmail, even?

[mouselock]

Also I do think it is unethical for them to do this. Its basically, in a way, blackmail. You give us what we want, citizenship or we will damage your economy.


Well, if the boycott turns out to be so effective that it does damage the economy, I think it's a reasonable indicator that, legal or not, they're a more important portion of our country than their official status dictates, which is the point they're trying to make.


American needs to simply decide what they want. If they really want legal enforcement, then we can not offer amnesty.


Americans want them here to do the shit work we don't want to, without amassing any power to change their status. Isn't that reasonably clear by now?


However, on the big picture, if we allowed anyone to walk in, register, and become an American Citizen on the spot (after some background checks) I do not understand why this is a bad thing. Why do we even care or have limits on the number of people allowed to become citizens each year?

It dilutes the amount of power people who are already American citizens can exercise. Used to be that you'd get subcultures, but when people immigrated to America they were expected to assimilate into the overall American culture. This isn't really the case any more, and much of the resistence is because many people don't want cultural change to be accelerated even further. I don't really know if that's racist crap or not. On the one hand, it sure sounds a lot like discrimination. On the other, if I wanted to live in any foreign country's culture, I'd go there.

I think a lot of the concern is over the rapidity of change that might be seen with a mass influx when coupled with the responsiveness of political systems to claims of cultural oppression these days.

[Matthew Gallant]

What the hell, boycotts are unethical? Blackmail, even?
Well, at least he didn't say it was terrorism.

[extarbags]

I don't really know if that's racist crap or not.

I can help you out with this one: it is.

[Guido Jones]

Nothing "Gringo" on Day 1 boycott:
So what can I boycott? Are there any Mexican owned firms here?


Last I knew, Carlos Slim Helu (owner of TelMex) owned CompUSA, Good Guys, and a large share of MCI.

Edit: Oooh He's also a board member for Philip Morris and SBC.

[Talisker]

And seriously, how many businesses will actually be affected by a one-day boycott? It'll likely be followed up with a higher than average sales day on May 2nd.

[Dirt]

Yeah, let's boycott the businesses that pay your relatives in the USA that send money back to you.

[ElGuapo]

I was only kidding about a counter-boycott. What are we going to do, boycott Cinco-De-Mayo, 4 days later?

What irks me is the terminology. Contrary to what Wiki says, I've only heard it in a deragatory fashion. To me, it's like saying "Don't buy anything made by the American Pig-Dogs". I just don't see this helping anything.

Ok though, no Corona on May 5th, as a counter boycott? Heh. That would be amusing, but I don't really think we need to escalate idiotic behavior with idiotic behavior of our own.

[mouselock]

I can help you out with this one: it is.

Why? Wanting to preserve the culture you currently have instead of having it change in a way you feel is drastic doesn't seem inherently racist to me. Isn't this effectively what the current Neocon backlash represents? While there may be racism as a subtext within this, I think it's hardly accurate to say that folks who want a return to more old fashioned cultural values are inherently racist because of that.

What's the difference? The fact that a potential cultural shift might be attached to a minority group alone doesn't make resisting that shift a racist act, does it? (Or more generically a prejudiced act.)

[ElGuapo]

As a addendum point to the last post, if not wanting Sharia law in the USA makes me culturally insensitive or racist . . . well, give me my club membership secret decoder ring now.

[BennyProfane]

I can help you out with this one: it is.

That is at best a gross oversimplification, at worst flat out wrong. Sure, there are racists and bigots in the US, who just want to keep on being good-old boys and not have to deal with any of them brown-skins folks. But there are also perfectly open-minded liberal Americans who happen to like the fact that we are a pluralist society, and yet feel that a massive influx of immigrants over a short period of time--which would be the likely outcome of a significant relaxation of immigration requirements--would result in radical changes to the cultural that would be unpleasant, if not threatening. Just as an example, a very large influx of immigrants from Mexico would likely result, in the medium term, in a strengthening of the political influence of the Catholic church, something I'd not like to see happen. As another example, a rapid growth in population, from whatever source (but it isn't likely to be from increased birthrates of current Americans) puts more pressure on the infrastructure and support systems in the US, many of which are already decayed and long past their originally designed upgrade/replacement ages. Overpopulation is the root cause of a huge number of both national and global ills, and while I'm certainly willing to admit that the US uses a hugely disproportionate share of resources per capita, that doesn't mean dealing with the sudden impact on standard of living in the US that a large swell in population would bring would be either pleasant or easily remedied.

Moderate--and regulated--immigration is good for the US, nay, vital for the US. Massive and unregulated immigration would be good for neither the US, in the short term, nor for the immigrants, in the longer term.

[extarbags]

Why? Wanting to preserve the culture you currently have instead of having it change in a way you feel is drastic doesn't seem inherently racist to me. Isn't this effectively what the current Neocon backlash represents? While there may be racism as a subtext within this, I think it's hardly accurate to say that folks who want a return to more old fashioned cultural values are inherently racist because of that.

What's the difference? The fact that a potential cultural shift might be attached to a minority group alone doesn't make resisting that shift a racist act, does it? (Or more generically a prejudiced act.)

Well, here's the thing. If someone says "I am opposed to large-scale immigration from Latin America because I don't want the dominant culture to change," doesn't that reflect an attitude that America is white people, and other people can live here, but only in small enough numbers that they won't influence our white culture? Racism might be a bit strong of a word, but that attitude is exclusionary of people specifically because of their ethnic background. What would you call it?

ust as an example, a very large influx of immigrants from Mexico would likely result, in the medium term, in a strengthening of the political influence of the Catholic church, something I'd not like to see happen.

You know what? I don't want to see that happen either, for the same reason that I don't like how much power various Protestant churches and ministers have currently. But that's reflective of a broken part of our system. It doesn't excuse the belief that cultural purity must be maintained, at all costs.

As another example, a rapid growth in population, from whatever source (but it isn't likely to be from increased birthrates of current Americans) puts more pressure on the infrastructure and support systems in the US, many of which are already decayed and long past their originally designed upgrade/replacement ages. Overpopulation is the root cause of a huge number of both national and global ills, and while I'm certainly willing to admit that the US uses a hugely disproportionate share of resources per capita, that doesn't mean dealing with the sudden impact on standard of living in the US that a large swell in population would bring would be either pleasant or easily remedied.

This has absolutely nothing to do with what we were talking about.

As a addendum point to the last post, if not wanting Sharia law in the USA makes me culturally insensitive or racist . . . well, give me my club membership secret decoder ring now.

At last, the true danger of Mexican immigration is brought to light.

[DeepT]

What the hell, boycotts are unethical? Blackmail, even?

Sorry, no, boycotts are not. Maybe I misunderstood it. I took this to mean that they not only would boycott buying products, but also working for any American businesses. Now I know this is a fine line here, and it really is hard to see where it lies.

For example:

Some manager at a local McDonalds is an asshole, the employees strike to get him removed. This is reasonable.

All medical personal want to be paid 10x as much as they were before. They refuse to help anyone (and people die due to the lack of medical care) until their demands are met. While this is a ridiculous extreme, I think it illustrates the idea that it is an unreasonable, and unethical (perhaps even immoral demand).

When you just look at the mechanics, you have employees who want something and 'strike' to get it in both cases. So it is the same mechanic. However there are things beyond the pure mechanic to take into consideration.

Somewhere between the first example and the second example is that line that should never be crossed. Where exactly it lies, I have no idea. So to simply look at that workers are allowed to strike and give it a blank check as OK, doesn't work.

At any rate if it includes a work strike in the USA, it will definitely do more harm then good. If it is just a product boycott, then that is iffy. It could backfire in the fact maybe their purchasing power isn't significant enough to matter or maybe not enough people will adhere to the boycott and make it look like they do not matter much. If it does enough to hurt (and it is just a product boycott) then it might help if there is no retaliation of banning of Mexican businesses and products.

[Jason McCullough]

Immigrants threaten strike to point out how important they are to the US economy; US citizens shriek at them to get back to work.

Massive and unregulated immigration would be good for neither the US, in the short term, nor for the immigrants, in the longer term.

That's a good point. If only there was someone who actually advocated massive, unregulated immigration that you could tell it to; I certainly can't think of anyone, and there's no one here.

Oh wait - rich businessmen who use illegal labor! Forgot about them.

[Enidigm]

Seriously Jason i know you're both as far from the Mexican border as possible and prone to exaggeration, but immigration has some real local and state issues. Not just "omg brown people on my street!" but more like "omg my hospital went bankrupt!" Or "omg we have to teach Spanish because not one student in elementary school understands English!"

And "rich" businessmen? More like all businessmen. The point about illegal labor worth remembering is that they don't pay taxes or health insurance. You could seriously argue that a "flax federal sales tax" would be more fair in capturing lost revenue in border states on this issues alone.

My parents related to me how they refused a few years ago to keep some non-resident help because she drove up every day in a nicer car then they had, and made better wages then the local nurses. Not every illegal immigrant is sweating all day long on their knees picking cotton and digging ditches.

[Dirt]

Seriously Jason i know you're both as far from the Mexican border as possible and prone to exaggeration, but immigration has some real local and state issues. Not just "omg brown people on my street!" but more like "omg my hospital went bankrupt!" Or "omg we have to teach Spanish because not one student in elementary school understands English!"

And "rich" businessmen? More like all businessmen. The point about illegal labor worth remembering is that they don't pay taxes or health insurance. You could seriously argue that a "flax federal sales tax" would be more fair in capturing lost revenue in border states on this issues alone.

My parents related to me how they refused a few years ago to keep some non-resident help because she drove up every day in a nicer car then they had, and made better wages then the local nurses. Not every illegal immigrant is sweating all day long on their knees picking cotton and digging ditches.
My concern would be all the illegal immigrants living 'the good life' off of their credit cards.

[bago]

Yeah, like I didn't grow up in a trailer park with immigrant workers. The Gen 1 imigrants are pretty good. The Gen 2 ones latch on to gang culture and are all SUR 13 and crap. At least while adolescent. In that regard they're about as normally american as most dumb teenagers. They scrape up against the law, their parents remind thim that this is grounds for deportation and most quit being stupid teenagers. If they can't hack that, you hear the cry of La Migras! and never see them again.

Seems like a workable and mostly voluntary system to me. If you are able to integrate well enough that people have no incentive to lose you, you're in!

[Jason McCullough]

I worked with illegal immigrants in college (pool supply ahoy!) and grew up in Texas, so don't give me that shit.

How is "immigrants need medical care" and "immigrants need education" any different than everyone else living in this country? Is the per-capita cost of educating an immigrant child really that different? Is the per-capita medical consumption of immigrants that much higher? Even if they are, maybe you should go talk to the people profiting from employing them at shit wages about it. The basic story here could be "employers make money off immigrant labor and dump all the externalities on society in general."

Not every illegal immigrant is sweating all day long on their knees picking cotton and digging ditches.

Welfare queens!

[Enidigm]

Dude use some common sense.

The reason the per-capita cost of medical care and education are different are because they are paying little or nothing into the system. Is that hard to understand? I'd argue that the per-capita medical consumption of illegals was higher; mainly because high medical costs are pushing non-catastrophic use of medical care down among uninsured Americans while illegal use of "free" health care has skyrocketed.

I agre about the dumping of externalities thing, but that's simply one small piece of the puzzle. "Self-employed" illegal labor is basically a tax free business formula.


It's not just "welfare" that pays but mostly local and state governments. That's the externality. That's why primary and secondary education funding has plummeted per student near the border; because the majority whom live there now have little income on average and pay fewer taxes for those that do.

[Aszurom]

In protest to the counter-counter-protest, I'll ask that I be referred to by my new racial epithet...

Blacks can be "Negoes", Mexicans get to be "Latinos", but white people just get "caucasian", "honkey", or here in my new southern home... "Cracker".

I sorta like Cracker, but it just doesn't have that suave cultural ring to it. Thus I propose all whiteys now be referred to as,

Saltino.

[Jason McCullough]

The reason the per-capita cost of medical care and education are different are because they are paying little or nothing into the system.

That's not "cost", that's funding. If you have complaints about them not paying taxes, the obvious way to fix that is to put them on the route to becoming legal citizens, no? Or to stop them from coming here in the first place? So again, your beef here is with their employers.

[Mike O'Malley]

I sorta like Cracker, but it just doesn't have that suave cultural ring to it. Thus I propose all whiteys now be referred to as,

Saltino.

I shall begin using this posthaste.

[Igor Muravyev]

That's not "cost", that's funding. If you have complaints about them not paying taxes, the obvious way to fix that is to put them on the route to becoming legal citizens, no? Or to stop them from coming here in the first place? So again, your beef here is with their employers.

Agreed. They're here whether you like it or not, might as well make them pay taxes :).

[Matthew Gallant]

I sorta like Cracker, but it just doesn't have that suave cultural ring to it. Thus I propose all whiteys now be referred to as,

Saltino.
Well, somebody already made up a different definition for the word a little under two years ago (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Saltino), so you're out of luck. Cracker.

[Simpilot]

Nothing "Gringo" on Day 1 boycott:

Gringo boycott (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/04/14/mexico.boycott.ap/index.html)

Isn't "gringo" an offensive term, or a slur? Why would people who call for this kind of boycott think it's going to win people to their side? Also, as pointed out in the article, the US business community is one of ilegal immigrant's best supporters. They want legalization so the playing field can be fair between businesses, not illegal cheap labor facing honest business practices.

So what can I boycott? Are there any Mexican owned firms here?

I'm usually pretty tolerant, but I don't really like being called a "gringo" by Mexicans.


Welcome to America pal. No other group comes here with such arrogance and refuses to learn the native language. Nope, we have to learn a foreign language to talk to them!

One of the worst jobs I ever had was selling cars when we lived close to the Bay area. This guy comes in with his adult daughter wanting to buy a truck. He's lived here for 30 years (illegally of course) and has never even tried to learn English. I declined the sale on the basis that he's an asshole.

If I moved to Germany, I'd expect to have to learn German to get by (even though most Germans speak English due to the American military being stationed there so long). Not Mexicans, they come here and want to keep being Mexicans. I don't care what they say in the privacy of their homes, that's their business. But come out in society, speak my language buddy.

[Simpilot]

Oh great, now we're going to be flooded with low-wage mexican trolls, willing to do the trolls that americans don't want to.

This is a common misconception (not the troll part, but the argument of illegals doing jobs that Americans don't want to do). Yes, they do crappy jobs for low pay. The fact is, if legals or Americans did the work, they would have to be paid a much higher pay! They come here knowing the deal they're getting.

[Ben]

Simpilot- Are you trolling? 1st generation immigrants don't learn the language. Period. The Chinese didn't, the Italians didn't, the Germans didn't. Cope.

And this, exclamation mark notwithstanding, doesn't make any sense:

This is a common misconception (not the troll part, but the argument of illegals doing jobs that Americans don't want to do). Yes, they do crappy jobs for low pay. The fact is, if legals or Americans did the work, they would have to be paid a much higher pay! They come here knowing the deal they're getting.

What's the misconception again?


I declined the sale on the basis that he's an asshole.

I'm sure your boss was pleased.

[Hetzer]

If I moved to Germany, I'd expect to have to learn German to get by (even though most Germans speak English due to the American military being stationed there so long). Not Mexicans, they come here and want to keep being Mexicans. I don't care what they say in the privacy of their homes, that's their business. But come out in society, speak my language buddy.

Nope here in germany we have the same problems with turks and arabs... many of them are living here and dont learn german (at least there womens)... And most of us talk english because of our school system... else in the french sector everybody would speak french as a second language.

[triggercut]

Dear Mr. Selfish Gene:

You sir, are Mr. Wrongy McWrongerston in so many ways that reading this thread is hurting my brain.

Let's rip to shreds some of your postulations and premises hear and in the course of things educate your ignorant self, shall we?

Wee! Mythbusting, here we come!

1. Illegal alien workers don't pay taxes. Like hell they don't. Fully 80% of the 12-14 million illegals in this country work "on the books". That means that they've presented their employer with their faked identification, and their employer pays them under the same payroll laws as they pay native-born workers. So, if you're a native born worker, take a look at your last paycheck stub. See that chasm between your "gross wages" and "net pay"? Yeah, those are withholding taxes. Federal, state, Social Security, Medicare...all withheld. Thing is, lots of us native-born workers are either paying exactly what we owe in withholding taxes, or we're getting a nice little refund at the end of the fiscal year.

Alien workers don't get tax refunds. There's no way they can file, because the IRS is much more diligent about whom they send a check to than the INS is in cracking down on fake green cards. Then there's Medicare and Social Security taxes. Aliens never get social security, while us native-born workers certainly do if we're lucky to live long enough.

And did I mention that in addition to the taxes these folks pay through withholding taxes, that their employer also pays taxes? Any employer pays a payroll tax on all "on the books" workers.

The result of all this? Well, the General Accounting Office has the scorecard, and it debunks the whole "Aliens sponge off our tax system" myth. Turns out that the GAO found that illegals pay in $80,000 per capita more for government services than they ever take out. The General Fund of the Social Security Administration currently has upwards of $400 billion in funds from illegal workers that will never be claimed. Pay taxes? Hell, for what they take out, they're paying more than you, me, or any legal native-born or naturalized worker in this country.

2. Illegal Aliens overrun our health care systems and schools. Again, myth, debunked by current government studies. First off, on healthcare, the government has found that the biggest drain--by far--on our healthcare system is the 40-50 million native-born Americans who have no appreciable health insurance or ability to pay for inflated medical care. The AMA not only agrees with this assessment, they even go so far as to say that it isn't close. As for schools, what pays for those? Taxes. Property taxes, primarily. Hey, anyone who pays rent or drives a car is paying property taxes. Illegals work on the books overwhelmingly, and pay all those taxes for schools. Then too, there's the fact of the matter that the overwhelming number of children of illegals were born in this country. That makes them US citizens. That gives them the same rights to a public school education as the rest of us.

I'm done with Mr. Selfish Gene. Anyone else have anything resembling a valid reason why gainfully employed individuals who remain illegally in this country simply because of the cost (nearly $5,000 if you're Mexican) and timesink (hundreds of hours spread out over the course of 2-4 years) required just to gain resident alien status shouldn't be granted amnesty?

[Bill Dungsroman]

That's one of the great things about being white: none of the derogatory slurs have much bite.

[chemdem]

As for schools, what pays for those? Taxes. Property taxes, primarily. Hey, anyone who pays rent or drives a car is paying property taxes. Illegals work on the books overwhelmingly, and pay all those taxes for schools. Then too, there's the fact of the matter that the overwhelming number of children of illegals were born in this country. That makes them US citizens. That gives them the same rights to a public school education as the rest of us.

I'm done with Mr. Selfish Gene. Anyone else have anything resembling a valid reason why gainfully employed individuals who remain illegally in this country simply because of the cost (nearly $5,000 if you're Mexican) and timesink (hundreds of hours spread out over the course of 2-4 years) required just to gain resident alien status shouldn't be granted amnesty?

The case for education is not as cut and dry as you make it out to be. Property taxes for a given citizen for education are taken out over the course of a lifetime, so boldly conjecturing that because an illegal directly or indirectly pays property taxes now is not equivalent to the tax balance of a lifetime. Also of note is that the average illegal family will have 4.9 children, which far exceeds the aggregate for native families. More importantly, non-native English speaking immigrant children are more expensive to teach, and if your district does not have the resources for a concurrent ESL program, immersion of fraction of non-native speakers into a classroom harms the performance of the whole class the larger the fraction present.

[Marcus]

1. Illegal alien workers don't pay taxes. Like hell they don't. Fully 80% of the 12-14 million illegals in this country work "on the books". That means that they've presented their employer with their faked identification, and their employer pays them under the same payroll laws as they pay native-born workers. So, if you're a native born worker, take a look at your last paycheck stub. See that chasm between your "gross wages" and "net pay"? Yeah, those are withholding taxes. Federal, state, Social Security, Medicare...all withheld. Thing is, lots of us native-born workers are either paying exactly what we owe in withholding taxes, or we're getting a nice little refund at the end of the fiscal year.

Yeah I love how people always over look this fact. My Dad has a business and yeah he employs some illegals but there are a few reasons why.

1. He cant find english speaking people willing to do the work.... no matter what the pay ( I am not shitting you here either he had a few people working at 18$ an hour but they all quit with in a few weeks ). He is paying the illegals 13-16 an hour and he provides them a place to live.

2. They are "on the books" as it may be so they are paying taxes on their wages but like above they are not getting anything back because they dont file. So all the money they pay out they see none of it back.

[triggercut]

As full disclosure: My business employs aliens. Most, if not all here in DC are legal.

Here in DC, most of those aliens (most of whom are Latinos) are from El Salvador. A few others are from South America.

Not all Latin-American countries are created equal. Salvadorans have a ten-fold easier time getting legal resdient alien status in this country than do Mexicans. El Salvador has our hand-picked government and are sort of our little brothers in the region; the Salvadoran embassy and INS work together to hustle their paperwork through the red tape.

When I worked in Chicago though, the whole kitchen staff was Mexican. All on the books, all making a terrific wage (a few of the guys made as much hourly as I did on salary as a first and second-year manager). I'm sure very few were legal.

Thing is: INS doesn't care. As long as an employer possesses correctly filled out I-9 forms and xerox copies of supporting documentation...they don't actually check the veracity of corresponding social security numbers or Permanent Resident Alien cards. We actually had one of our company's restaurants in Secaucus get raided by INS (they did a blanket raid on the entire block that week) and as a result, all of our restaurants had to fax in, quarterly, I-9 forms and copies supporting docs to an INS clearinghouse. Did they check the validity of the supporting documentation? No. They checked to see if I-9's were filled out correctly. That's it.

Conclusion to draw: the dirty little secret in our country is that the government is perfectly happy, even encouraging, of having illegal aliens working here--they just want them on the books and paying taxes and propping up the Social Security general fund.

[Supertanker]

I just want to add that nobody uses Gringo around here, the proper pejorative is Gabacho.

[shift6]

1. Illegal alien workers don't pay taxes. Like hell they don't. Fully 80% of the 12-14 million illegals in this country work "on the books".
In addition to this, they pay sales taxes on everything they buy. Most of the Mexicans I knew back in LV weren't sending their entire paychecks to the motherland. It was more like 25-30%; round up to 1/3. Then the other two thirds they are spending to live and work here. That's rent, gasoline, food, utilities, phone, consumables, etc. with all the associated taxes and fees. This was true even for the "cash under the table" guys.

[Jason McCullough]

That's what I get for not looking up the numbers. Thanks, trigger.

[Enidigm]

Actually to be ethnically correct i think my name would have to be Mr. McFaulty O'wrongy von Falsenkoff.

You might be right about total receipts by the SSA. However i challenge you leave DC and go live in El Paso and tell me how great unfettered illegal immigration is to the health care system. Please take your kids out of private school and send them to the San Antonio public schools and then tell me how much money they're making.

I don't begrudge immigrants of any color, and as comedian Tim Wilson said "the illegal Mexican is a great American", as far as their work ethic. But just because there are some benefits doesn't invalidate the serious issues involving illegal immigration, from crime to safety to health care to cultural issues.

[Ranulf]

Simpilot- Are you trolling? 1st generation immigrants don't learn the language. Period. The Chinese didn't, the Italians didn't, the Germans didn't. Cope.


Eh, yes and no. Some did, many didn't/don't for several reasons. You could add in Russians, Koreans, Vietnamese et. al as well. The problem is, a lot of Mexican 2nd generation and later immigrants dont seem to be assimilating into American life and seem to want bi-lingual education, special considerations etc. etc..

[Dirt]

Simpilot- Are you trolling? 1st generation immigrants don't learn the language. Period. The Chinese didn't, the Italians didn't, the Germans didn't. Cope.
I'm first generation. I know the language. Thanks for stereotyping.

[Moore]

Aliens never get social security, while us native-born workers certainly do if we're lucky to live long enough.

Yeah right, see me when I'm 65 (wait, it'll be 75 by then) and I'll show you my lack of a SS check.

[Ben]

The problem is, a lot of Mexican 2nd generation and later immigrants dont seem to be assimilating into American life and seem to want bi-lingual education, special considerations etc. etc..

Yeah, but that's not an immigration issue any more.

Dirt- OMG my entire theory breaks down, let's build a wall. WTF?

[claybob]

Blacks can be "Negoes", Mexicans get to be "Latinos", but white people just get "caucasian", "honkey", or here in my new southern home... "Cracker".

I always thought Caucasian was funny considering most of the people near the Caucasuses aren't honkies.

[wisefool]

I'm first generation. I know the language. Thanks for stereotyping.

I'm first gen too. Parents would have been around 40 yrs old, I was 12ish. You could claim that first generation uneducated immigrants don't learn the language. The older the person, the less english they tend to absorb. I'd say anyone who comes past age 15 will have a heavy accent. Most kids 11 or younger get rid of any accents. It's just hard for older brains to catch on to new languages.

My ancestry is actually made up of serial-immigrants. My grandparents+parents moved to a little hispanic country, learned spanish, worked. Then we move down to the US, learn english, work, etc.

Racism is very complicated. New York is good because no single minority has a plurarity - IIRC puerto ricans are the largest group (if they count as immigrants). Second largest are dominicans (~9%), then chinese (~%8). California sounds very different if most people come from Mexico.

Some of this stuff is weird:

I kind of agree with bago. While there's a lot of stupidity and racism we endured from hispanic people, overall first generation hispanics have better ethics. They may believe in religion or other junk like that, but underneath there are some decent people I've met. Salt of the earth and what not.

Well, sort of. The second generation kids either go all white, and try to get out of the ghetto, go to college, get a good job. Speak English properly. Probably what would be called an oreo if they were black.

Then you have kids who latch on to the native American gansta crap culture. I know that in the 50s kids listened to rock and parents were all saying that stuff was crap. Then the 60s with acid music. 70s with punk rock or what not. 80s metal, etc. Does rap (*West coast) have anything inherently different that makes it so SUCKY? Or is it just prejudices of an aging person?

[Dirt]

Dirt- OMG my entire theory breaks down, let's build a wall. WTF?
Hopefully, you'll build the wall with stronger stuff than the house of cards you built with your apologist 'theory'. If you're here in the United States of America, you need to learn English. Everyone I know has and those that haven't are looked down upon.