Theyve Come for Us All

What Cook fails to grasp by writing of a “split on immigration between the GOP

Posted by rocco on Mar 22, 2006 at 1:18 PM

Wow,

Are we reduced to slavery?

Posted by Vanella on Mar 23, 2006 at 12:18 PM

Deporting illegal aliens is reasonable, I suppose (It doesn’t really solve the problem. More will be coming over the border the next day), but arresting them is ridiculous. Would you lock a kid up who just came into your yard to retrieve a baseball, or something? Of course not.

And then Rocco’s idea of arresting them and making the illegal aliens work for us is even worse. Vanella said it earlier. It’s slavery. Wouldn’t giving jobs to the unemployed be a bit more helpful for everyone involved?

This country was founded on the belief that all men were created equal, right? Then we should start acting like it was.

Posted by Jack Novak on Mar 23, 2006 at 5:07 PM

We need to just built the wall and keep out anyone from crossing the border.  Very simple….

Posted by tina1 on Mar 23, 2006 at 9:50 PM

What Rocco is advocating would be a form of slavery. It’s reminiscent of a time when the poor were arrested for debt and forced to work for substandard wages until they paid off their debts or died. Deportation isn’t helping, arresting illegal immigrants is immoral and illogical, and building a wall is obviously impractical.

The only real way to discourage illegal immigration is to fight global poverty. If people could find jobs, justice, safety, and freedom in their own countries, they wouldn’t have to come here, to the land of the hypocritical and the home of the corrupt republican party.

Of course, when we say that the country was founed on the idea that all men were created equally, they really meant all white, male landowners. They weren’t talking about racial minorities, sexual minorities, women, the disabled, the poor, or any other group that we’re so fond of marginalizing and exploiting for our own financial gain. We’ve never been interested in real solutions to problems, just more ways to make a quick buck.

Posted by kelliepowell on Mar 23, 2006 at 10:10 PM

Rocco,

I loved the sarcasm.

————————
This whole issue is so unreal, yet so in-you-face every day.
To balance some of the glib comments on this post so far, here are a few I

Posted by whattheheck on Mar 24, 2006 at 1:05 PM

whattheheck - By pointing out that I was being satirical will only embarrass the other posters who didn’t pick up on it.  Shame on you. 

I know you often bristle at historical arguments, WTH but there are a few political moves by the US that really sped up this influx of immigrants. 

To start from the beginning: we did conquer half of Mexico.  And while this may seem like a long time ago, it wasn’t until the post-war that we developed the border states, and then really until the late 60’s and early 70’s, so the only people who lived out there were the only people who had ever lived out there - Mexicans (and the remaining Indians).

Until that time, there were a lot of traditional border crossings.  I lived for a spell in Terlingua, TX, which was a good example.  The Mexican children went to school in Terlingua, and many Texans did their shopping in Santa Elena, Mexico.  This was common, even right up to the 90’s. 

Another reason many immigrants are coming are political as well as economic.  To put it bluntly, Southern Mexican Indians are being kicked off their lands, and brutally.  That’s why most of your immigrants don’t look like Cheech Marin or Carlos Mencia anymore (they’re of northern Mexican ethnicity).  They look like Mixes, and Mixtecos, and Mayans, and are from Guerrero, Oaxaca, and Chiapas. 

Coincidentally, that’s where you can find a bevy of natural resources: timber, silver, petroleum, plutonium, etc.  Monsanto and General Paper have bought a lot of land down there.  Not to mention Plan Puebla-Panama, the land Isthmus that would connect Puebla, Mexico to Panama via train, immensely desired by multinational corporations.  It unfortunately runs right through Indian reservations (called ejidos). 

And even more coincidentally, that’s also where you can find paramilitary soldiers (they call themselves Paz y Justicia…isn’t that cute?) with American weaponry forcibly harrassing, and sometimes killing, the indigenous population. 

In short, the US government and US corporations are behind the diaspora.  So why should we be surprised that they would come here?  Maybe if we stopped stealing their land - again - they wouldn’t have to relocate. 

Perhaps the only difference between the land grabs of the 19th century and the land grabs of today is that we can’t obliterate the people.  But apparently we can arrest them.  So, back to my modest proposal…

Posted by rocco on Mar 24, 2006 at 1:46 PM

“We need to just built the wall and keep out anyone from crossing the border.  Very simple….”

People can climb over or tunnel under a wall, can’t they?

There’s a reason people do the things they do. Making it harder to do whatever it is they’re going to do won’t solve the problem. A sick person will still be sick if their medicine got rid of the symptoms, but didn’t get rid of the disease.

There’s a reason illegal immigrants are coming into the country.  As kelliepowell said, the only way to stop illegal immigration is to fight global poverty. That’s the real problem here. I understand why illegal aliens would be a problem for the country. Deporting them is well and good, but it’s a temporary solution to a permanent problem. If we caught a hundred, a thousand, or a million illegal immigrants trying to cross the border in a year because of all the money we gave the border patrol, I wouldn’t say that’s progress or a solution. I’d say that’s the Government ignoring the real issue.

Posted by Jack Novak on Mar 24, 2006 at 2:01 PM

Rocco and the Land Grab:

If you don’t believe in national sovereignty, fine.  Just say so.

The US developed an economy that allows its working class to have an excellent standard of living because of Northern European values.  Not Hispanic, Latino or Catholic values.

Protestant v Catholic.

North v South.

Birth Control. (Does anyone in Latin America take the pill?)

How many medical breakthroughts, scientific discoveries have all the Latin American countries together created compared with North America or Europe?

Where is massive corruption the norm?  Ssh: Mexico?

PC is not the real world.

Columbia is not a nice place.  Or Cuba.  Hugo Chavez is not a Liberal.  Really.

The issue is the nature of our culture.  Ours (USA) is better than theirs. (Mexico et al). 

REALITY CHECK:

Values count.

Some are better than others.

Americans have the right to define who they are, and rely on successful, proven Founding Anglo-Saxon Principles.

  Rocco, write to the Chinese Embassy and argue that China should have unrestricted borders.  Better still, go to China, or Russia, or Cuba, or Mexico, and hold up a sign that says, UNRESTRICTED IMMIGRATION.

See what ACLU or La RAZA can do for you then.

Posted by knocko on Mar 24, 2006 at 6:02 PM

Jack Novak said this….

“There

Posted by tina1 on Mar 24, 2006 at 6:26 PM

knocko: It will be difficult to respond to your posts coherently, since you don’t seem to be addressing issues.  I take it you have a strong belief in things, and feel the need to post them. 

If you don’t believe in national sovereignty, fine.  Just say so.

This is confusing.  I have no idea what you mean.  I can only guess that this is in response to my above posts in which I made: 1) a satirical case for the imprisionment of immigrants, 2) a historical comparison of the Mexican-American War and corporate subversion of the Mexican Constitution.  If anything, I’m promoting the national sovereignty of our southern neighbors.  If they didn’t have to flee, they probably wouldn’t.

How many medical breakthroughs, scientific discoveries have all the Latin American countries together created compared North America and Europe?

You are correct in stating that Mexico has not had as many medical breakthroughs as the US or western Europe.  This can be directly attributed to the lack of a scientific educational structure in the pre-Columbian Americas.  Their situation was never really allowed to grow, since we were quite fond of destroying any sort of democratic uprisings, and installing dictators.  See Guatemala, Chile, Venezuela, etc.

Things are changing (most of the activists I met in Mexico were in the sciences), but it takes time.  Asia of course is rapidly passing us, because our educational system is appalling. 

Mexican corruption is rampant.  This too has many factors, some of which is the fault of the US.  You can say what you like about Anglo-Saxon values, but our dominance has as much to do with Anglo-Saxon aggression.  I am ambivalent about the historical place of violence, but I hardly see it as a future aim for society.  You may differ…some people see no need to grow.

PC is not the real world.

This doesn’t make much sense, but I’m assuming you mean that political correctness does not truly reflect things as they are.  I agree.  If, however, you believe that objective historical analysis which is critical of US policy equals political correctness, then you are either confused or overprotective of your homeland. 

Colombia is not a nice place.  Or Cuba.

Ever been?

Values count.

Values do indeed matter.  Compassion, passive contemplation, logic, acceptance of biological and social diversity on a global scale, learning from history are virtues which I deeply value.  I do not care much for aggressive tactics, nor greed, nor narrow-minded self-interest, nor patriotism. 

And as for China, Russia, et al., you are right.  They are highly xenophobic countries.  Our national character is astounding - look at New York, or LA, or San Francisco, or Miami.  Vibrant, exciting places of multiple ethnicities.  How poor they would be without immigrants.

See what ACLU or La RAZA can do for you then.

Again, no idea what you mean.  I suppose this is derisive of human rights protection, specific to Chicanos?  You probably meant this as a joke, but I just don’t get it. 

I would appreciate it if you addressed my points in a similar manner, for the sake of intelligibilty.

Posted by rocco on Mar 24, 2006 at 6:47 PM

tina1:  I thought you were a Christian?  I guess not.  Christians would be familiar with the story of the Good Samaritan.

Posted by rocco on Mar 24, 2006 at 6:51 PM

PS - There’s no ‘a’ in the word ‘border.’  Lucky for you we don’t also shoot the barely literate.

Posted by rocco on Mar 24, 2006 at 6:54 PM

Blessed are the merciful, tina1.

Posted by Jack Novak on Mar 24, 2006 at 7:32 PM

Rocco,

I don

Posted by whattheheck on Mar 25, 2006 at 3:20 PM

Rocco,

This has nothing to do about being Christian, it’s about protecting our country.

If you want to see what happens if a country just lets anyone in, then just look at France.  Unemployment rate has been over 10% for the past 10 yrs and now they have another riot that is out of control.  That is 2 riots in the past year. 

30% of all inmates in the USA are illegals… which cost us about $2.4 BILLON a year.

Posted by tina1 on Mar 25, 2006 at 10:09 PM

Tina,

I went to Goggle and entered

Posted by whattheheck on Mar 26, 2006 at 7:03 AM

whattheheck - Didn’t mean to offend you…I was only referring to our debates re Civil Rights Movement, where your answer was often “That was a long time ago.”  Since I was making a similiar point, I was trying to head off a similiar response.  But what do I know…

You are correct that the Mexican government is complicit.  Are they ever.  Mexican politicians are either murderous thugs or corporatist weasels.  But you won’t see us preemptively rework their government a la Iraq anytime soon.  We make a lot of money off them. 

This is admittedly a difficult issue.  But here are some steps that I think would solve a lot of the problems we’re talking about:

1) Stop the rape of Mexico. 

2) Legalize drugs.

3) Raise minimum wage to a living wage.  Tough penalities for those who break the law by paying under the table. (why do you think business owners are the biggest proponents of hiring illegals?)

These are the core problems.  Better to address the cause rather than the symptoms.  Prediction: we won’t, and the situation will come to an ugly head.

And putting up walls is ridiculous.  So are we East Berlin now?

Posted by rocco on Mar 26, 2006 at 12:46 PM

tina1: this has nothing to do with being a Christian? 

That’s a marvelous ability you have to shelve your central belief system and the preaching of your deity when it conflicts with your gut patriotic emotions. 

By the way, in response to your dismissal of brotherly love in favor of higher employment rates, here’s another Jesusism, from Mark 10:

Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.

And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions.

And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!

                                    * * *

Basically, I just want you to admit that you aren’t a Christian, but a worshiper of false gods.  Please?

Posted by rocco on Mar 26, 2006 at 12:54 PM

Here’s an interesting story which relates to this legislation. 

Have they ‘kicked the sleeping giant’?  Could this be a second civil rights movement?  500,000 is a lot of protesters…

Posted by rocco on Mar 26, 2006 at 9:43 PM

Rocco,

No offense taken

Posted by whattheheck on Mar 27, 2006 at 7:46 AM

wth:  I agree with Hitchens on that.  Hitchens is someone I hold a lot of respect for, even though I disagree with most of his post-9/11 writings. 

At any rate, Americans have to be among the least educated in not only history but current events, at least in the industrial world.  And beyond.  I recall a moment when an eight-year old Mexican girl in Oaxaca was giving me a history lesson about globalization and its effects.  A humbling moment. 

Good points all.  And I’m not a Christian either.  But nothing gets under my skin as much as so-called Christians calling for violent tactics, or lacking sympathy in general.  It makes you wonder where they go to church. 

Re living wages: perhaps my ‘pie-in-the-sky’ suggestion, but we are at the other extreme.  Imagine working for $5.25 an hour!  That is modern-day slavery.  Think the CEOs would favor a maximum wage to counter-balance?

<blockquote>Question: When the middle class is reduced to a shadow, how does a country whose economy is two-thirds dependent on the consumer survive?  We

Posted by rocco on Mar 27, 2006 at 10:33 AM

For those with NY Times subscription, check out this editorial by Paul Krugman.  Good balanced assessment of the problem, with no solution given…

Posted by rocco on Mar 27, 2006 at 12:12 PM

rocco is concerned about the displaced illegals who won’t find jobs when the housing bubble bursts. (Or Rocco, when the US dollar collapses when the rest of the world realizes our IOU’s are as worthless as a Mexican peso since we print funny money to pay for our soaring social security, medicare and medicaid expenses).

Not to worry.  they can go to the workers’ paradises of Cuba and Venezuela.  After all, there’s all that “free” education and “freedom” (unless you’re gay, individualistic, a democratic socialist, religious or not a passive drone).

That way these “immigrants” won’t be discriminated against by the Evil White Empire.  Oh yeah, it’s the Evil White Empire that they crawl across the desert to reach, freely demonstrate in the streets of LA to stay in, and the Evil White Empire that spends billions on education and medicaid for these “immigrants” who don’t pay income taxes, often don’t secure driver licenses even when they can, and never met a can of Bud Lite that didn’t want to go 70 in a 20 mile speed zone.

But it’s OK, they would rather the simplicities of Fidel and Hugo’s paradisos than the materialistic, imperialisitic US of A.

Posted by knocko on Mar 27, 2006 at 2:31 PM

knocko: are you carefully considering your points, are are you looking for excuses to attack straw-man points that no one has brought up?  Where to you go from our discussion to disdainfully jumping on Cuba and Venezuela? 

It seems to me you are knee-jerk in your defense of anything white, Anglo, or stereotypically American.  These are complex issues, regardless of how simple you’d like them to be. 

Yes, we do take care of them while they’re here (in the Krugman article I put up, he quotes a Swiss writer, who put it well: “We wanted a labor force, but human beings came.), but we also are the indirect cause of their fleeing Latin American states. 

Put down your anger, and objectively look at the facts.  That’s very difficult to do, I know.  You’d have to change your whole identity, wouldn’t you?  But growing is a painful process.  I believe in you, knocko.

Posted by rocco on Mar 27, 2006 at 4:02 PM

WTH
You are so RIGHT on so much of your 0946,  that I hardly dare to point out one major self-contradiction.

I agree “Stop the rape of Mexico”.  But then you say later on “apply trade pressure” to make them install a more just society ! 

Earlier on Knocko asked “Where is massive corruption the norm ?” And was pleased with himself to answer—— “Mexico ! ”

Writing from france we have a lot of corruption, quite well hidden, but in the USA it is wide out in the open !  Surely, WTH, you do not need a brit in france to add up a few $100Bn of scams on the taxpayer in the US in the last 20 or so years ?

I was in the $business when the Savings and Loans scandal broke. How many

Posted by frog on Mar 27, 2006 at 6:59 PM

My Left Knee is beginning to twitch. Amid the Brouhaha over immigration, two salient facts are being buried under a mountain of politically correct hype, and conservative fear mongering.

* Illegal immigrants take only very low wage jobs out of the economy. The only ones being hurt are the immigrants who cannot stand up for themselves and get better wages for fear of being deported.

* Immigrants have always taken low wage jobs. If they had the education and opportunities in their home country, they wouldn’t by and large leave. But, once here, they do have opportunities unthinkable in their home country, to give their children and their children’s children a future free of moribound tradition and repression. Thomas Jefferson once opined that by educating everyone, and not just the elites, America’s potential of talent in business, in science, in government, would overwhelm the world.

In a globalized economy, why are we allowing our greatest competitive advantage to be shortchanged?

I say, if they want to contribute to our economy, let them in. Maybe with all that legitimate cheap labor, we can start to re-import some of the manufacturing base we have lost over the past couple decades….

Posted by Jay Cline on Mar 28, 2006 at 9:31 AM

Rocco,

Posted by whattheheck on Mar 28, 2006 at 1:51 PM

whattheheck: that wasn’t me, it was frog.  I don’t know what 0946 means either.

But, since you got me posting, I’ll add 2 more cents.  I really think this issue is so complex than no one has a good grasp of it. 

For me, “Stop the rape of Mexico” means stop supporting the paramilitary’s political harrassment of the people,  the corporate takeover of natural resources, and the confiscation of Indian reservations (ejidos).  Frog’s point I believe has something to do with the flooding of the Mex. economy with GMO corn, destroying the self-sufficient way of life for the poor, etc.

Believe it or not, I think a lot of the conservative blogs on this issue (that aren’t blinded by fear and racism) are making more sense than some progressive sites.  I do think that immigration is a safety valve for Mexico’s corrupt government.  If the people couldn’t escape, they may revolt more quickly.  Our government (read our corporations) are only too willing to take advantage. 

Jay Cline wrote:

In a globalized economy, why are we allowing our greatest competitive advantage to be shortchanged?

I say, if they want to contribute to our economy, let them in. Maybe with all that legitimate cheap labor, we can start to re-import some of the manufacturing base we have lost over the past couple decades….

A valid counter-point.  I must admit, I have many opinions on this.  But not among them is arresting the illegals as felons.  What a nightmare that would be…

Posted by rocco on Mar 28, 2006 at 2:30 PM

Many people see illegal immigration as a form of labor migration and a consequent “taking of US jobs from Americans.”  While modern immigration is certainly a form of labor migration the question as to whether or not “American jobs” are being taken is debatable. Since there is a two tier labor market in the US, as there is in any place that has significant illegal labor immigration, the jobs being “taken” are actually intended for those who are migrating to them since no other laborers are willing to do them.  Further, such critics fail to address the fact that the US is actually taking Mexican jobs through such means as NAFTA, the dumping of subsidized grains on the Mexican market displacing Mexican small farmers, US direct foreign investment that displaces local businesses and jobs, US sponsership of IMF Stabalization Adjustment Programs that induces recessions in order to curb inflation and insure the Mexican Government’s foreign debt service, and, finally, financial and currency speculation which devalues the Peso and causes capital flight.  All these things contribute to US corporate wealth while creating the need for impoverished Mexicans to cope with the consequent poverty by migrating.  The rich benefit from both;  the liberalization of the Mexican economy and the migration of cheap labor north to the US.  If there is a culprit in all this it is globalization!

Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Mar 28, 2006 at 3:03 PM

wth,

I do NOT support “guest worker” programs.

I lived in Germany for several years and the Turks, many who have spent quite some time working in Germany, are 1) second-class citizens, 2) disinterested in Germany internal affairs, 3) financially spend little in Germany and send most back to Turkey, and 4) are completely unintegrated with the Germany society at large.

In other words, they fail to meet my first requirement of “contributing” to the economy in which they work. Establishing “Mexican enclaves” (aka Polish ghettos) is not my idea of a rational solution.

But, if they wish to partake of the American dream, well, I have always defined American as a state of mind. And living for the American dream is very much part of it.

Posted by Jay Cline on Mar 28, 2006 at 3:21 PM

Also,

One specific example I know of is the large number of family landscaping businesses. Try continuing to pay benefits plus a decent wage and compete with them. A local hospital fired their entire maintenance and grounds staff to out source to them.

I didn’t realize that maintenance and grounds staff was a high tech, high pay occupation.

Seems to me that any argument that would use that as an example of high-paying jobs falls victim to the fallacy that they should be high paying jobs.

Why do you think America lost so much of its manufacturing base? Undrepriced cheap labor overseas, or overpriced domestic labor?

I still get a kick out of the rationale of one automotive striker,
“I need a third snowmobile for my kids”

Yeah, right.

Posted by Jay Cline on Mar 28, 2006 at 3:28 PM

cabdriverinchicago, you wrote:

<blockquote>Since there is a two tier labor market in the US, as there is in any place that has significant illegal labor immigration, the jobs being

Posted by rocco on Mar 28, 2006 at 3:30 PM

Jay Cline,

you wrote:

Why do you think America lost so much of its manufacturing base? Undrepriced cheap labor overseas, or overpriced domestic labor?

True.  Though our government could have interpreted our workers’ rights laws to extend to US corporations regardless of the countries to which they relocate.  That’s a policy issue as much as an economic one.

I’m not a knee-jerk anti-globalist, but I think it could have been adapted for the benefit of all, and not just as a cost-cutting bonanza.  We’re seeing the effects of those decisions now. 

Corporations, to the extent at which they should be allowed to exist, should be free to make profit any way possible, so long as it’s legal.  However we the people should decide what the laws should be - how far they can go, and what kind of communities we want to have. 

Low-skilled work should be low-paying work, and I agree that the market should at some level determine worth.  But allowing companies to subvert laws in order to pay people less seems, well, unAmerican.

Posted by rocco on Mar 28, 2006 at 3:44 PM

On another blog, where I have argued the same thoughts, the responses to it have led me to this conclusion, one that seems so obviously clear that I fear to reveal my thoughtlessness towards it now. But it is direct response to my somewhat flippant statement about bringing home the domestic manufacturing base.

<i>And by the way

Posted by Jay Cline on Mar 28, 2006 at 4:20 PM

In short, the causes and effects of such low pay to “illegal” immigrants explains many, if not all, the current issues…..

Posted by Jay Cline on Mar 28, 2006 at 4:22 PM

Jay Cline,

You make a good point, economically speaking, and I absolutely agree. 

However, as I wrote earlier, isn’t this allowing the Mexican government to shirk responsibility to its own citizenry (this is also a conclusion I’ve arrived upon through debate on other sites)?  Doesn’t this overlook, or perhaps oversimplify, human rights violations? 

My experiences in Southern Mexico, and subsequent interest in following its politics, is one of racial oppression.  The indigenous aren’t just fleeing because of economics.  In many cases, they’ve been chased off their lands.

Can the market solve everything?  Indeed, the market is metastasizing the problem, due to corporate interest in Mexico’s natural resources.  Isn’t corporate regulation called for?  Or international condemnation (with US cooperation) of human rights violations? 

Rich Mexicans can and will keep power at all costs, particularly with US support.  If we threatened that support, Mexico would snap-to.  No question.

Posted by rocco on Mar 28, 2006 at 4:46 PM

Rich Americans can and will keep power at all costs.

No way will they threaten their Mexican partners for other than an ulterior motive.

Posted by frog on Mar 28, 2006 at 5:11 PM

frog,

Another good point.  So, I guess it would be up to citizens of a republic to work to change that, yes?  I like to think of these forums as the kindling of democracy…but without the spark of action or the oxygen of participation, well, to quote Ben Kenobi, “the Emperor has already won.”

Posted by rocco on Mar 28, 2006 at 5:23 PM

WTH 28th 0351
I don’t have a ‘problem’ with what you wrote about Mexico; I agree with the analyses here on the rape of Mexico. Moving here to ski, ?
My ‘problem’ was that no way is the US going to pressure Mexico to economic reforms to benefit the vast majority of its people.
.
The earlier delocalisation of US factories to Mexico was followed by further movement as these jobs then moved on to China, leaving unemployment and increased poverty behind. Those fleeing to the US are refugees from a failing society to another less far down that road.
(Same here in Europe, corrupt rulers sustained by our governments and multinationals, and the IMF, have been and ARE ruining their countries, so thousands die every year crossing the sahara and the mediterranean.)

The obvious answer IS to make life back home worthwhile, but how?

ROCCO
I completely agree that the forums are leading somewhere, IF they push us to action !
Instead of each of us being left with our own reflections and experience, the friction of debate helps us to go further. Over the years I have read hundreds of articles recommended by other participants.

Sometimes I have been forced to radically change my opinion, when an author demonstrates, with proof, that what I had been fed by the mainstream media and my politicians was a pack of lies.

This is painful but galvanising.

Must soon go and prepare my low-tech tools to do my low-skilled landscaping and maintenance. Thank allah for the minimum wage!

My only unpleasant employer, a well-off german with a very large holiday home here in normandy, complained at my rates, because at home he pays his Pole 8euros on the black !

It did not take me long to point out that I had as much right as him to contribute to a pension, and that if I had an uninsured accident, chainsaw or heart attack, on his property, he would be in very deep shit !

Posted by frog on Mar 29, 2006 at 5:17 AM

Rocco,

Not sure what this you are referring to when you said,

<blockquote>You make a good point, economically speaking, and I absolutely agree.

However, as I wrote earlier, isn

Posted by Jay Cline on Mar 29, 2006 at 7:50 AM

Jay Cline,

The this I was referring, admittedly lazily, was the entirety of the Mexican immigration debate: that is, the fact that we are encouraging through policy that more Mexicans flee their lands for safety and prosperity.  Even having debated this issue, and read as much as I can on it, I’m still torn and confused.

I do stand by my 3 points as far as getting clear results. 

1) We seem to more or less agree, but I’m inferring from your last statement that ‘If Mexico lets us, it’s not our fault’, which could be my misread.  Mexico may be a republic, but it is woefully corrupt and repressive.  To suggest that Mexico’s people should rise up and take control of their government is sound.  To assume that it is as facile as here is fallacious. 

2) Indeed a separate argument.  But it is wrong to conclude that druglords would become legitimate businessmen, just as Al Capone didn’t become Anheuser-Busch after prohibition. 

Illegal trade is illegal, period.  But the controlled sale of drugs - similar in nature to the sale of pharmeceuticals - would be safe, and would solve many problems, not the least of which would be the current skirmishes between corrupt Mexican military and Border Patrol. 

Besides, as a free-marketer, why not?  Because you don’t like them?  That doesn’t sound very free to me.  Besides, look at Amsterdam.  None of the Dutch I knew smoked weed…none of them wanted to mingle with the Americans!!!

3) Yes, and another separate issue.  But not solely for the Mexican workers do we need to raise the wage.  It’s an abomination.

Posted by rocco on Mar 29, 2006 at 11:35 AM

This entire issue turns on NAFTA and globalization. Since the implementation of NAFTA by Mexico in 1994, millions of hectres of Mexican farmland has been lost and hundreds of thousands of farmers producing corn and basic grains have been forced off the land.  Though the Mexican government promised that the agricultural sector would become more efficient, produce cheaper food, and receive more government aid to support technological improvements for those remaining on the land, none of the promised reforms occured.  Between 1994 and 2000, government aid to small farmers dropped from $2 billion to $500 million.  The market has been taken over by US subsidized grains and prices have gone up in urban markets.  More than 75% of Mexico’s 25 million farmers live in abject poverty frequently on about $1/day.  Between 1990 and 2000 Mexican migration to the US increased by over 80% accelerating after the passage of NAFTA.

The privatization of the Mexican banking system, also mandated by NAFTA, killed much of the labor intensive small business sector.  After Vincente-Fox sold off about 85% of the local banks to the private sector many of those who purchased them recieved lavish subsidies to the tune of $60 billion from the Mexican government to compensate for the Peso crisis of the mid-1990s.  Many local Mexican bankers turned around and sold off their banking operations to foreign-often US-banking multinationals for up to four times what they paid to the Mexican government.  By the late 1990s Mexican bank lending to local businesses dropped from 10% of total lending to well under one percent.  Over the period of the late 1990s tens of thousands of small Mexican business filed for bankruptcy.

Even the much vaunted Maquiladore sector failed to keep labor migration from occuring.  After a spurt of growth in the 1990s, over 200,000 maquiladore jobs left for China by 2000. 

The disasterous effects on Mexico of the NAFTA agreement were predictable. The US subsidizes its farmers much more than does the Mexican government. Still this is not about “free trade” or international trade in general but the consolidation of international investment at the expense of both US and Mexican workers and farmers all of whom have lost land and jobs.  Much of the trade between Mexico and the US is between large corporations and their subsidiaries. So much of the land taken over in Mexico is by agribusiness corporations or rich farmers having long term contracts with US corporations that intensively raise GE crops and sell them back to big US food processors at the expense of US farmers.  Thus, Globalization is not about freeing up markets for better goods at lower prices but consolidating the worlds production in a few hands, reaping big profits, and externalizing the costs in unemployment, high costs to consumers, and poor quality goods.  One of the predictable results in the third world is displacement and consequent labor migration to places there are jobs and relatively better incomes

Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Mar 29, 2006 at 1:29 PM

Rocco,

If you are guilty of a “misread”, it is only in intensity. My thoughts on the domestic Mexican troubles is not so much <i>If Mexico lets us, it

Posted by Jay Cline on Mar 29, 2006 at 3:43 PM

CABBY
Sometimes I wonder if anyone else reads your posts, and mine, because they carry on regardless.

1Stop the Rape of Mexico , ROCCO !  For the third time , those in power in the US are raping the US, so how can you EVER imagine they are going to stop raping elsewhere ?  They do not give a monkey’s for human rights, unless it suits them as a public relations excuse for going to war somewhere.

Globalisation with a small ‘g’ is a fact. My 80yr old ma now mails me from NZ.  My $25 Chinese drill goes through granite like the $500 predecessor did.

Globalisation (big G) is about driving down the quality of life for most people in both the rich and poor nations, so that a VERY small minority will get incredibly rich.

So what are we going to do about them ?

Posted by frog on Mar 29, 2006 at 5:46 PM

Well, offhand, I’d say that we’ll continue to ignore your posts (and cabbie’s, too), since the two of you seem to know what you’re talking about while the rest of us would rather grind away at our own respective ideological axes.  No pun intended.  For example, the idea that undocumented workers are an unmiitgated social evil is nonsense, since most of them are employed by people who would otherwise be out of business without them: small to medium farmers who would otherwise be unable to compete with agribusiness, landscapers laid off from their auto plants, local restaurants competing against the national fast food chains, small manufacturers forced to cut quality and costs to supply Wal-Mart with the products they require at the prices they demand, et cetera., ad nauseum, ad infinitum.

By the way, all you Italian conservatives might be surprised to discover that the word wop is an acronym coined around the turn of the last century.  It represents the phrase “without papers”.

Posted by Major Major on Mar 29, 2006 at 8:34 PM

The point is, this country was built on the unpaid or underpaid labor of undocumented immigrants or, as the case may be, emigrants.

Posted by Major Major on Mar 29, 2006 at 8:46 PM

Jay Cline,

Re US-Mexico relations, e can do a lot short of invasion.  Like sanctions, or ending the supply of arms that they are using to advance low-intensity warfare in southern Mexico. 

Here’s where I agree with frog and cabbie: we haven’t engaged in such practices, because we’re benefiting from it.  In fact we’re encouraging it.  A memo was made public in the mid-90’s from Chase Bank, effectively telling Mexico to eliminate the Zapatista uprising. 

I’m not holding my breath for it, but I think it would be sound policy which would work.  Mexico is a sovereign nation - but in today’s world, they are a sophisticated form of a satellite nation.  We do have more of a responsibility for Mexican citizens than, say, Chinese citizens.

Posted by rocco on Mar 29, 2006 at 9:28 PM

major major:

All Italians learn what wop means by the age of 7.  It’s a proven fact.  My family, however, had papers, so I can act indignant when that term is applied to me.

Posted by rocco on Mar 29, 2006 at 9:30 PM

A few points ;
1) Since people here illegally keep a low profile, what dependable data is there on their actual numbers? If none, then we really don’t know the percentage of foereign born in this country..A century ago. We had no quotas and anyone who could get here could stay. We needed their labor. The situation today is almost the opposite. 
2) The minimum wage remains low precisely because of the surplus of unskilled, undocumented workers. There is no need to raise the minimum wage when it’s so easy to find cheap undocumented labor. 
3) Senator Clinton’s positioning aside, it is still the case that a law that punishes immigrants, and those that provide humanitarian assistance, but exempts people who hire them, is unjust. In fact the lion’s share of enforcement should focus on the employers. Building trades, restaurant chains, janitorial companies, even Wal-Mart, all exploit those here illegally, to the detriment of our own citizens.
4) The union movement here has been practically gutted by the same political forces that now promote amnesty (again) and guest worker programs. Most of their recent gains have come from those here illegally. Those workers who can be unionized will soon find themselves competing with the next wave of illegal immigrants for low wage jobs.

Posted by Kenneth D. Brown on Mar 30, 2006 at 12:56 AM

The NAFTA record is clear. Mexico experienced a 9% decline in per capital income growth by the late 1990s over the 1981 peak growth year just before the first major debt crisis of 1982.  A 28% decline in the rate of per capita new investment also occured in the 1990s over the earlier recorded peak growth period of the pre-1982 debt crisis period.

One impetus for the agreement was the incredible amount of foreign direct investment (FDI) that began pouring into Mexico up until the NAFTA treaty. Over $91 billion of Foreign Direct Investment poured into Mexico over the five years just before the treaty was signed. Mexico was one of the top five countries to collectively receive most of the nearly $400 billion in FDI that flowed to the third world from the late 1980s to the early 1990s. What was refered to in the business press as the “Mexican Meltdown” was a sudden rise in US interest rates that drew vast sums of dollars out of Mexico causing the Peso to collapse. Though a $50 billion bailout was arranged by The Clinton Administration, much damage was done to the Mexican economy from which it has never recovered and which was exacerbated by the extremely disadvantages terms of the bailout.

The almost total foreign takeover of the Mexican banking system, which deprived labor intensive local businesses of domestic bank loans that before NAFTA accounted for over 10% of the Mexican GDP, caused a wave of bankruptcies due to the sudden disappearence of local credit.  Millions of farmers lost their land and migrated to the cities or to the US when US subsidized grains were dumped on the Mexican market. The devastating impact on the Mexican economy was not compensated for by increased exports to the US which were actually greater in dollar amounts before NAFTA.  The Mexican export sector became so foreign dominated that very little of the value added of this sector accrued to local business. Most went to US Transnational Corporations. In fact, it is estimated that about 70% of US/Mexican trade is between transnational corporations or TNCs and their wholly owned subsidiaries. This has not helped stem the tide of immigration to the US and has even aggravated it. 

Globalization, and in particular the global inequality created by terms of trade and investment established and perpetuated by agreements like NAFTA, is the culprit for the unceasing Mexican immigration to the US seen today. Failing to address this issue will ensure that the immigration problem will never be adequately resolved!

Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Mar 30, 2006 at 5:29 PM

Unless, of course, we simply cease calling a problem and welcome Mexican immigrants as, well, immigrants.

Posted by Jay Cline on Mar 31, 2006 at 6:52 AM

Jay Cline,

There is no question that we should have a generous immigration policy.  Most of us decend from immigrants.  But it is a policy that needs to be controlled. Uncontrolled immigration can strain any society beyond its capacity to cope. Problems arise that are difficult to solve.  I have always believed that the overall economic growth that immigrants create through their low wage labor and savings offsets their demand for services. In fact, such services as healthcare and education consists of an efficiently provided social wage which supports this low wage labor force that enriches mostly big business (some would say at the expense of poorer tax payers in our currently regressive system of taxation).  This only further bloats financial markets and other draws for excess wealth.

Still, it is necessary regulate the immigration process.  Until we have a comprehensive program for this effort, reversing the negative effects of NAFTA is important.  It is ill understood that this is the source of so much of the increase in the rate of immigration over the past decade.  Better economic times like the 1960s and 1970s saw far lower immigration.  Immigration is created by economic instability.  Unregulated it can create instability in turn.  I support open borders. I also support regulation and control of the process and not anarchy.

Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Mar 31, 2006 at 1:08 PM

I can identify with the technique described in this article, however, with quite a different opinion regarding illegal immigrants.  The analogy of the Nazi

Posted by whattheheck on Apr 1, 2006 at 12:53 PM

Jay wrote,

Posted by whattheheck on Apr 1, 2006 at 12:55 PM

Hola, amigos;

I’ve been lurking in on this conversation when the occasion permits, and I must say I’m impressed by the reasonableness displayed.  Bang up job of facilitating the dialog, rocco.  I really like your three point plan.  A nice anchor to speculative ideation.

One thing I’ve only seen peripherally addressed in respect to what effect US policy and politicking has on Mexico (and all of Latin America) is what the current hullabaloo in Congress will have in the upcoming Mexican elections.  It seems, barring unforeseeable events, Obrador is headed to victory in the presidential race, but it remains uncertain how much that will translate into increased PRI representation in the legislature.  Though I don’t see the Senate actually passing the house bill, if the Republican leadership continues to press it at the expense of the committee bill, there is a likelihood of considerable backlash among the Mexican electorate.  Though Obrador has been careful to position himself as a centrist this could well cause his prospective government to lean even more leftward.  Not a happy prospect for US corporate interests, maybe, but any improvement in the lives of Mexican workers and small farmers is bound to relieve the pressure on cross-border migration.  I’m also wondering how an Obrador goverment’s policies might change toward the Zapatistas.

As far as domestic politics goes, anything that contributes to the on-going melt-down of the Republican Party can only be good for ordinary Americans.  Not that I feel much confidence in the Democratic leadership, but a smidgin of influence on the part of the Progressive Caucus would be a breath of fresh air.  Maybe the Capitol Police will even begin treating Cynthia McKinney with due respect. 

I can’t say I’m at all surprized by the massive demonstrations in the last week.  I work summers in a food processing plant that is ~90% Latino and something I have noticed is an increasing political awareness, especially among the Mexicanos.  These are folks some of whom I’ve worked shoulder to shoulder with for 30 years.  Most came here as illegals, most are now citizens, most with dual citizenship.  For years trying to engage any of them in politics would only elicit a cynical shrug of the shoulders.  Union participation has long been a matter dominated by patronage and nepotism.  Now the lunch table is a scene of vibrant discussion about real issues with opinions all over the place, with the possible exception that everyone despises Bush. 

This is an important distinction I’d like to make against WTH’s example of his Swedish grandfather.  When he came here from across the ocean, it was a one-way ticket.  He was here to stay.  A true immigrant.  For Mexicans it has for generations been more a matter of a migratory pattern.  For most it is no more than a two day drive to their ancestral homes.  Many now own homes and businesses here and in Mexico, too.  The idea of further restriction on a border that is already an interminable bottle-neck is almost too awful to imagine.

Gotta love the new edit button.  Kudos!.

Posted by luminous beauty on Apr 2, 2006 at 10:47 AM

Hi LB,

re:

Posted by whattheheck on Apr 2, 2006 at 11:38 AM

WTH,

Dual citizenship is within the legal guidelines.  These are people who have worked hard and struggled much to up-lift themselves. 

I totally agree about minimumum wage plus, but as long as the undocumented remain in the shadows of the law, many are prone to be exploited in sweat-shops and under-the-table day labor.  As is happening in the wake of Katrina, often being stiffed of their wages, at that.  On the other hand, many find decent, if low-paying, jobs in hotels, restaurants, dairies and the like, can return to Mexico with the certainty of a job, get documentation and return legally.  It is a complex, multi-dimensional situation,  not easily reduced to simple stereotypical assumptions.   

My co-workers often tell me to come down with them to Mexico in the off-season where the cost of living is a fraction of what it is in California.  They’ll put me up in their homes, sponsor me for citizenship, even match me up with a Mexican wife.  My work partner wants me to join him in his side-line of buying used pick-up trucks in the States and selling them for a good profit in Guadalajara.  It is sorely tempting.

Posted by luminous beauty on Apr 2, 2006 at 1:52 PM

If US citizens could compete with Mexican workers they might take those jobs.

When I was younger, I spent a year following the crops, with a buddy who grew up on a peach ranch.  In this one orchard, there were the two of us and a Mexican family working.  A man and his wife, a teen-age son, a pre-adolescent daughter and uno nino of about five. 

I was, at my best, able to fill a bin and a half a day, and my friend, who’d been doing this all his life, two plus, maybe three.  That was working practically daylight to daylight.

The family, with the three eldest on ladders, the daughter taking their full buckets and handing them empty ones, and the baby picking up falls from under the trees would fill two sets (eight bins) or more and quit for the day before the sun got hot, having taken a mid-morning lunch break.  We’d gobble down sandwiches while still in the trees.

With minimum wage at the time about $60/wk take-home, we were getting paid piece-work @ $5/bin.  You can do the math.

The differences when we were picking apples in Oregon were even more disparate, as that requires not just speed but delicacy when handling the fruit.

I don’t want to even talk about the agony of picking citrus.

To be fair, there were still, at the time, a few Okie families doing the same kind of work.

Posted by luminous beauty on Apr 2, 2006 at 3:03 PM

luminous beauty: Welcome. 

Re Obrador: interesting indeed.  My irrational take: if he’s not assassinated, they’re not worried about him.

It is scandalous how little day laborers are compensated, which your story illustrates.  And yet the average wage in Mexico is less than $2 a hour (and the cost of living in many parts was still about 80% of ours when I was there 3 years ago). 

I am most intrigued by this story for its larger theme of our schizophrenic continent.  It illustrates so well the architectural flaws in the current globalist structure. 

I believe that people casually assume that it’s always been like this.  It hasn’t.  The rise in corporate wealth - i.e. the proportion of wealth held by corporations - has skyrocketed in the last 20 years.  We just this year broke a new record of corporate profit.  And yet Darfur, and yet Mexico.

I’m of the opinion that siamese twins like us share the heart.  If there’s a revolution in Mexico, I’m curious to see if what our reaction will be…

whattheheck:

You wrote:

I would prefer true immigrants within the legal guidelines, but I would find it acceptable if they were being paid at least our minimum wage and American citizens still did not want the work.

I agree with your second point; as for the first, I would agree with LB in that these immigrants are historically unique, and differ from Swedish, or any other European immigrant.  I wrote about this in more detail above somewhere on this page.  And while I have been accused of being a non-believer of national sovereignty, I do believe the borders should be viewed differently than are currently perceived. 

Is it a coincidence that our northern border and our relationship with Canada should be so different; does it not tell of some sort of historic prejudice due to similarity of cultures?  And from that a despotic sort of disdain for our browner, more “hot-blooded” southern neighbor?

If history is a study from which something is to be learned, I think the transparency of the current US-Mexican relationship is essential for change.  A strong supporter of the ‘push-down/pop-up’ theory, I believe wall-building and isolationism would bring a total disaster.

Posted by rocco on Apr 2, 2006 at 7:51 PM

LB,

Dual citizenship

Posted by whattheheck on Apr 3, 2006 at 6:58 AM

WTH:

I’m not clear what you mean by ‘amnesty cop-out’.  There is nothing in any of the proposals I’ve read that comes close to amnesty.  They all require punitive fines and/or restrictive hoops to jump through in order to attain legal status.  You can review them for yourself

HERE.

As far as minimum wage it would be nice to see piece-work abolished in the farm labor and apparel manufacture markets.  There has been some reform here in California, where labor contractors are required to pay out FICA, SS, SDI, etc. from their workers wages, and have Workers Compensation insurance, but those with false documents cannot access those programs or recieve income tax with-holding refunds, so I don’t understand your point in this regard.

As far as health care, illegals are in the same boat as 40 million plus US citizens who are without health insurance.  Before you go on about them recieving ‘free’ health care, I suggest you visit the emergency room of any US hospital that is usually the sole recourse for these people, and then tell me how easy they have it.  You could compare the equivalent systems in Canada, Europe or (gasp) Cuba.  You can travel to Cuba, it is just that you might be arrested on returning to the US (land of the free, home of the brave).

Why require employers to go to the expense of going to Mexico to find workers.?  Why not allow Latin Americans temporary visas to travel here in search of jobs where the employers seldom even bother with advertising in local newspapers?

Peaches are not a subsidized crop.  Prices are regulated by the market.  The plant where I work used to be a grower owned co-op until the dumbasses hired a hot-shot CEO who ransacked the company, drove it into bankrupcy and left with a monster ‘golden parachute’.  Now it’s an LLC owned by the insurance company that held the largest share of debt.  It’s on the block now and they’re manuevering things so the new owners can squeeze out the Union.  Don’cha just love the capitalist system?

Posted by luminous beauty on Apr 3, 2006 at 11:56 AM

Rocco,

Posted by whattheheck on Apr 3, 2006 at 12:00 PM

WTH:

I’m in favor of a well regulated fair market.  As egalitarian as can be reasonably achieved. 

I have no problem with the label libertarian, but left libertarian or social libertarian.  Capital “L” unregulated ‘free-market’ Libertarians can go stuff themselves.  I don’t even mind being called an anarchist, but labels really count for zilch, it’s the ideas behind them that are important.

Posted by luminous beauty on Apr 3, 2006 at 12:18 PM

LB,

IMO G.H.W. Bush chose amnesty rather than deal with a complex problem. At the same time he threw the door open for more illegals to come across.

Bush has indicated he wants a plan which will let those already here illegally, stay and

Posted by whattheheck on Apr 3, 2006 at 12:38 PM

WTH
Completely agree with you that the employers should be hit hard.

Without them, the spectacle of undocumented day-labourers clamouring and competing for work would disappear ?

When I came to france 23years ago, the official system was that employers theoretically suffered heavily for employing ‘black’ labour. In fact there were, and are,  very few Inspectors , so it was bad luck if they were caught.  .  The exceptionally scary case for them was when a worker was seriously injured, and being uninsured, the full weight of medical costs, and disability compensation,  was charged personally to them, the employer.

When I worked in an icecream factory deep-freezer in 1965 I was pro-union, we needed them !, at the very same time I heard of the absurd restrictive-practices in british ship-building I was very unhappy !

Posted by frog on Apr 3, 2006 at 4:24 PM

<blockquote>My wife has been both a volunteer and an employe at a local hospital for over twenty years. People who cannot pay are not turned away, but using the emergency room is the most expensive way to care for them. It dilutes the staff

Posted by luminous beauty on Apr 3, 2006 at 7:09 PM

The ONLY way to get really good medical care is to go to the best doctors available, in the best equipped medical facility, know everything you can about your own health conditions prior to going, and speak up when you don

Posted by whattheheck on Apr 4, 2006 at 7:34 AM

CORRECTION:

Much less value than when I handled my Dad’s…

edit

Posted by whattheheck on Apr 4, 2006 at 7:47 AM

Misery loves company—- Universal Economic Screwing .

The UK’s NHS “reforms” follow each other so fast, all are dizzy. Recently many hundreds of nurses fired, also scores of doctors and specialists , just in one city .
Subcontractors are used more and more to cut costs, exploiting low-paid workers, and getting rich. The scam of PFI (private finance initiatives) has loaded 30year debt on hospitals at outrageous rates. Off balance-sheet for the government..

One customer works in a 500 staff NHS office; they all had to re-apply for their jobs, taking a week of evenings to fill the forms, 15% resigned in disgust, and the Management Consultants were paid <b>

Posted by frog on Apr 4, 2006 at 9:04 AM

frog,

Is that $600 per annum? Sheesh!  My COBRA coverage, if I could afford it, is ~$400/ month.  So-called 90% coverage (actually ~60%) with $100 deductible and only for procedures.  Drug coverage is pretty good though, as long as I get generics at discount stores.  Fortunately, I’m pretty healthy, so far.

A few years ago, I was working with a German engineer who was whining about having to go to clinics full of Hausfrauen and their snotty kindern.  He immigrated here in late middle age, so his health care is now mostly old guy specialists.  He wouldn’t believe me when I told him GP offices here were just as crowded with runny-nosed little brats. 

Last time I was in Mexico, treatment was nominally free, but patients were responsible for everything but the salaries of doctors.  Una poquita mordida helpful if you want quick attention, though. 

What I’ve heard from people who’ve been in Cuba sounds too good to be true.  Well supplied clinics everywhere, uncrowded waiting rooms, top-notch care and pharmaceuticals, and they still send thousands of doctors to other countries.

I just read a story about Venezuela flying indios campesinos from Yucatan to Venezuela for eye surgery by Cuban doctors.  The story as reported here in the US was dominated by negatives.  Chavez trying to influence Mexican elections, not enough clinics for Venezuelans, the ubiquitous statement that Chavez is paranoid about the Bush Administration for no apparent reason, and so on.

Posted by luminous beauty on Apr 5, 2006 at 7:50 AM

luminous
Well, maybeI I got the exchange rate wrong, but no more than $700 per annum.  And I get the works. I don’t go much to the doc, but on a yearly bloodtest he fills the page as he wants, and all paid for. (My new doc forgot the PSA test for ageing males, but nobody’s perfect) . Any dentist here does “rootcanal” work, unlike our friend WTH who got refered to a ‘specialist’‘.

CUBA is a very interesting story. France, UK, are short of docs, how crazy can you get in a supposedly advanced society, and Cuba has them to spare. No wonder GWBushco considers them a dangerous alternative.

I heard the eye-surgery cataract story from a Dominican, too, they just had to pay their keep and a very very few dollars.

I started to look up COBRA, by google, and gave up, becos the sites assumed already that I knew what it was. I do not.

Posted by frog on Apr 5, 2006 at 1:16 PM

frog,

Congress passed the landmark Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) health benefit provisions in 1986. The law amends the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), the Internal Revenue Code and the Public Health Service Act to provide continuation of group health coverage that otherwise would be terminated.

COBRA contains provisions giving certain former employees, retirees, spouses and dependent children the right to temporary continuation of health coverage at group rates. This coverage, however, is only available in specific instances. Group health coverage for COBRA participants is usually more expensive than health coverage for active employees, since usually the employer formerly paid a part of the premium. It is ordinarily less expensive, though, than individual health coverage.

Posted by luminous beauty on Apr 5, 2006 at 1:24 PM

Luminous

COBRA at Euros4000/$4800 pa seems outrageous.

But there again, I am only insuring myself against the last 30 odd % of costs. The rest is guaranteed either by unemployment status, or by my and my employers’ contributions.

in france these are very heavy !

Posted by frog on Apr 5, 2006 at 2:13 PM

Luminous
My other threads here are right down , my posts do not, and nor do others I get mailed about.

WAYNE

This is not proof, but it fits. Those who pervert justice, taxlaws, scam and steal the Republic in every possible way, indulge in murderous wars, well, quite possible they are sexually perverted too?

Posted by frog on Apr 5, 2006 at 3:02 PM

I’ve run across some interesting observations.  Back a few years ago when the number of illegal immigrants in the US was thought to be around seven million instead of eleven million, it was estimated that they contributed about $7 billion to the social security tax fund (about $1000.00/undocumented worker) and many more billions to the medicare and general tax funds.  Since these workers were and continue to be issued social security numbers and have taxes deducted accordingly they are paying into a system from which they will not be able to draw payments. This, in addition to their lower than average wages, means they put in more than they take out.

Perhaps these figures pertain only to those with green cards and who have some kind of work visa but the overall contribution of non-citizen workers is positive in terms of its role in the increase in the overall US savings rate, rate of annual GDP growth,  averting of labor shortages, and contribution to government revenues.  Many of the jobs that they fill would not go to US citizens at a higher wage but would be outsourced or eliminated altogether.  Many economists believe that should the roughly one quarter million illegal agricultural workers (of a total workforce of about 839,000) be sent back over the border, much of the harvest that they currently pick would soon be replaced by more expensive imports straining the already high US balance of trade deficit.  The five categories of employment that have high rates of illegal participation is resturant work, agriculture, construction, housekeeping/caregiver, and groundskeeping/maintainence.  In no category save that of agriculture is illegal participation over 25%.  In essence, no US citizen really loses his job to an illegal.  Even in the case of the construction trades most of the 400,000 illegals work in California where the industry is now experiencing serious labor shortages and where a lack of cheap labor would simply slow increases in, or dry up, housing inventory of all types boosting already high prices. 

In essence, there is no economic reason to fear illegal immigration.  The real unemployment level isn’t low-closer to a 6% rate if you include discouraged workers, and what the US Labor Department calls “marginally attatched” workers (those not consistently searching for jobs), than to the official rate of just under 5%.  Still there is a two-tier labor market in the US whereby the overall US unemployment rate is not impacted by illegals. In fact, illegal immigration may even expand employment!  American racist nationalism is at the heart of the needless hysteria.  This hysteria is a run-up to more dangerous fear mongering and an erosion of democracy.  Diversity and immigration is the strength and lifeblood of the USA.  Let’s keep up the immigration and stop the fascists dead in their tracks!!!

Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Apr 5, 2006 at 5:48 PM

Cabby
I’m still looking for the US estimate of those working without a SS number, what we call on the ‘black’—no insurance or tax of any sort paid ?
Agreed that those with greencards, special visas, contribute far more than they get back. So all “illegals” are working black ?
Agree with some of the economic points you make, but the presence of immigrants, anywhere, may, or MUST in some cases, lead to downward pressure on wage-rates ? If I remember right, Ricardo called it the Iron Law of wages, and the other guy the Reserve Pool of labour ?

I wish it were true that no US worker really loses his job to an illegal, but I still have doubts.

Here you cannot get a SS number without being legal. Thus obliged to work on the black or live off friends, family, charity, drugdealing. .  Our increasingly business-friendly (fascist) government reduces the already grossly inadequate number of OSHA inspectors, and is trying to use those left to enforce immigration controls, against much Union resistance !

Headline unemployment rates are usually misleading.  Well, plain wrong . 
France—10%,  UK—5%,  =  UK WINS !
But here one can declare work up to 78hrs a month, and still count as unemployed, while increasing millions in the UK scrape by miserably on a collection of part-time low-paid jobs, and are ‘employed’ .
Somehow, I wonder if your real figure of 6% is not too low ? The discouraged and marginally attached slip easily through the statistical net.

Posted by frog on Apr 6, 2006 at 5:24 AM

HERE is table 12 from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics.  U3 is the official number.  My understanding is U6 is the equivalent of the EUROSTAT standard.  There are some fudges in the US system that I’ve long heard about but can’t find references for, such as, in the US, military personnel are included in the number of employed and not in Europe, prison and jail inmates are not included in the labor force unless they are employed in work furlough programs and increasingly, privatized prison jobs at less than minimum wage.

WTH had a link to some investor site I thought was on this page, but I can’t find, that discussed some of the playing with numbers that goes on here.  Maybe you can link that again?

frog,

Here the term for working ‘on the black’ is ‘under the table’.  There is a lot of it.

Posted by luminous beauty on Apr 6, 2006 at 7:38 AM

Another point I should mention is that these figures are based on household surveys which excludes the homeless.  Estimated that 3.5M Americans are homeless for some time in any given year.

Posted by luminous beauty on Apr 6, 2006 at 7:49 AM

Another curious fact is that in spite of a growing population, the labor pool total is decreasing.  I’ve heard arguments that some of this is due to forced early retirement from down-sizing.  I really don’t know.

Posted by luminous beauty on Apr 6, 2006 at 8:02 AM

Luminous

Good work, and thanks ! Unemployment U6 at 9% for feb2006 is not lightyears away from the 9.8 or so we have here.
In Paris and other high rent areas there is/are? a growing number who have legal jobs, but are SDF—- Sans Domicile Fixe—homeless.  Some live in tents on wasteland, within sight of luxury apartments, nuff said.

Off to sharpen my mower and do a little over the table.

Posted by frog on Apr 6, 2006 at 8:41 AM

Frog,

The “other guy” is Karl Marx and he made reference to a reserve army of labour.  I do think even 6% is to low an estimate for US unemployment but it is one that we can easily agree on. Many say it can be any where from 7-8% and some might even insist it is as high as 10%.  I do think there is a lot of underemployment and certainly low wage employment.  The fastest growing job categories are in the unskilled services sector and mostly paying well under the median wage of $16.00/hour. 

One interesting figure from some of the recent studies I’ve seen is that between 2000 and 200f5,  only 9% of the net increase in jobs went to those born in the US despite the fact that native born Americans account for 61% of the overall increase in the workage population (ages 18-54).  This can mean that illegals are competing successfully for jobs that many Americans would take but more likely is the fact that the greatest job growth is in sectors that pay very poorly such as resturant and hotel employment, agricultural labor, caregiving, grounds maintainence, urban transportation, and non-union custodial work.  Very few Americans want to do these jobs and prefer to work two jobs instead of work in the above mentioned occupations. Part of the reason for the rapid job growth in these sectors is the acceptability of paying lower wages.

Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Apr 6, 2006 at 10:28 PM

Cabby,
LB’s link “HERE”, above explains difference U3 and U6. U6 more comparable with most european statistics.
More figures to mull over, more concepts to question, thanks as usual.
Off to return rotavator. 86yr old Resistant still works his garden, maybe get his thoughts on globalisation. .!

Posted by frog on Apr 7, 2006 at 12:39 AM

I FOUND the site that I thought WTH had referred to about how US economic statistics get tweaked.  These guys say that if the same standards used historically were still practiced, US unemployment would be ~12%.

Posted by luminous beauty on Apr 7, 2006 at 7:40 AM

bookmarked. Thanks a bundle, LB, for giving me brain-overload , but keep it coming !
I remember under Thatcher, one statistician counted 15 cheaty tweaks to unemployment figgers.
Bon weekend all, off to see the revolting students in Caen.

Posted by frog on Apr 7, 2006 at 8:15 AM