Tomatoes and Cheap Labor
coldr...@gmail.com
wrote:
>Cheap Tomatoes
>
>
>Tomatoes and Cheap Labor
>
>CHEAP TOMATOES?
>This should make everyone think, be you Democrat, Republican or Independent
>
>From a California school teacher - - -
>
>"As you listen to the news about the student protests over illegal
>immigration, there are some things that you should be aware of:
>
>I am in charge of the English-as-a-second-language department at a large
>southern California high school which is designated a Title 1 school,
>meaning that its student s average lower socioeconomic and income levels
>
>Most of the schools you are hearing about, South Gate High, Bell Gardens ,
>Huntington Park , etc., where these students are protesting, are also Title
>1 schools.
>
>Title 1 schools are on the free breakfast and free lunch program. When I say
>free breakfast, I'm not talking a glass of milk and roll -- but a full
>breakfast and cereal bar with fruits and juices that would make a Marriott
>proud. The waste of this food is monumental, with trays and trays of it
>being dumped in the trash uneaten.
>
>I estimate that well over 50% of these students are obese or at least
>moderately overweight. About 75% or more DO have cell phones. The school
>also provides day care center s for the unwed teenage pregnant girls (some
>as young as 13) so they can attend class without the inconvenience of having
>to arrange for babysitters or having family watch their kids.
>
>I was ordered to spend $700,000 on my department or risk losing
>funding for the upcoming year even though there was little need for
>anything; my budget was already substantial. I ended up buying new computers
>for the computer learning center, half of which, one month later, have been
>carved with graffiti by the appreciative students who obviously feel humbled
>and grateful to have a free education in America ..
>
>I have had to intervene several times for young and substitute teachers
>whose classes consist of many illegal immigrant students, here in the
>country less then 3 months, who raised so much hell with the female
>teachers, calling them "Putas"(whores) and throwing things, that the
>teachers were in tears.
>
>Free medical, free education, free food, free day care etc., etc, etc. Is
>it any wonder they feel entitled to not only be in this country but to
>demand rights, privileges and entitlements?
>
>To those who want to point out how much these illegal immigrants contribute
>to our society because they LIKE their gardener and housekeeper and they
>like to pay less for tomatoes: spend some time in the real world of illegal
>immigration and see the TRUE costs.
>
>Higher insurance, medical facilities closing, higher medical costs, more
>crime, lower standards of education in our schools, overcrowding, new
>diseases. For me, I'll pay more for tomatoes.
>
>Americans, We need to wake up.
>
>It does, however, have everything to do with culture: It involves an
>American third-world culture that does not value education, that accepts
>children getting pregnant and dropping out of school by 15 and that refuses
>to assimilate, and an American culture that has become so weak and worried
>about"political correctness" that we don't have the will to do anything
>about it.
>
>If this makes your blood boil, as it did mine, forward this to everyone you
>know.
>
>CHEAP LABOR? Isn't that what the whole immigration issue is about?
>
>Business doesn't want to pay a decent wage.
>
>Consumers don't want expensive produce.
>
>Government will tell you Americans don't want the jobs.
>
>But the bottom line is cheap labor. The phrase "cheap labor" is a myth, a
>farce, and a lie. There is no such thing as "cheap labor."
>
>Take, for example, an illegal alien with a wife and five children. He takes
>a job for $5.00 or 6.00/hour. At that wage, with six dependents, he pays no
>income tax, yet at the end of the year, if he files an Income Tax Return, he
>gets an "earned income credit" of up to $3,200 free.
>
>He qualifies for Section 8 housing and subsidized rent.
>
>He qualifies for food stamps.
>
>He qualifies for free (no deductible, no co-pay) health care.
>
>His children get free breakfasts and lunches at school.
>
>He requires bilingual teachers and books.
>
>He qualifies for relief from high energy bills.
>
>If they are, or become, aged, blind or disabled, they qualify for SSI. If
>qualified for SSI they can qualify for Medicaid. All of this is at (our)
>taxpayer's expense.
>
>He doesn't worry about car insurance, life insurance, or homeowners
>insurance.
>
>Taxpayers provide Spanish language signs, bulletins and printed material.
>
>He and his family receive the equivalent of $20.00 to $30.00/hour in
>benefits.
>
>Working Americans are lucky to have $5.00 or $6..00/hour left after paying
>their bills and his.
>
>Cheap labor? YEAH RIGHT!
>
>THESE ARE THE QUESTIONS WE SHOULD BE ADDRESSING TO THE CONGRESSIONAL MEMBERS
>OF EITHER PARTY. 'AND WHEN THEY LIE TO US AND DON'T DO AS THEY SAY, WE
>SHOULD REPLACE THEM .
>
>Please pass this on to as many as possible. Immigration legislation is to
>be considered in 2010. This is important to working Americans, our economy
>and our American culture and heritage..
Good post.
cole
>
h
What's the big deal? If you're illegal, you should be deported. If you're
not, the local constabulary will quickly learn that you're legal and leave
you alone. Get over it. Since when did asking for ID become a violation of
the constitution? It's only "unreasonable search and seizure" if they do
something to you AFTER you have provided VALID ID/proof of legality. Yes,
it's snarky if they're only asking to see ID from "brown" people and not
"white" people, but it's still not illegal. They are looking for ILLEGAL
aliens. In the SW US it's unlikely that a lot of illegals will be Irish. In
Boston, the Irish are VERY likely to be illegal, target especially working
in McJobs. They get hassled all the time, and because of racial profiling,
including carding everyone with an Irish accent. No one is bitching about
that (and they shouldn't).
Gary Heston
h <tmc...@searchmachine.com> wrote:
> [ ... ]Since when did asking for ID become a violation of
>the constitution? It's only "unreasonable search and seizure" if they do
>something to you AFTER you have provided VALID ID/proof of legality.
[ ... ]
Do you have any pointers to an actual legal finding where this is defined,
or is this just how you want things to be?
Gary
--
Gary Heston ghe...@hiwaay.net http://www.thebreastcancersite.com/
Did you hear about the new saint, San Adreas? He's the patron saint of
blame, it's all his fault.
h
"Gary Heston" <ghe...@hiwaay.net> wrote in message
news:Bq2dne2w0bsvF0rW...@posted.hiwaay2...
> In article <hr7l3e$68j$2...@speranza.aioe.org>,
> h <tmc...@searchmachine.com> wrote:
>
>> [ ... ]Since when did asking for ID become a violation of
>>the constitution? It's only "unreasonable search and seizure" if they do
>>something to you AFTER you have provided VALID ID/proof of legality.
> [ ... ]
>
> Do you have any pointers to an actual legal finding where this is defined,
> or is this just how you want things to be?
>
Well, here in NY they run car stops where they make every 4th car pull over
and the driver has to produce ID. They say it's for catching drunks, but
they often do it at 2pm. How is that any different than checking for
citizenship? Maybe the car stops are not "legal" either, but they do it at
least once a month. They usually just get a few people for not wearing a
seatbelt or using a non-hands-free phone, but they could just as easily
check for citizenship. And what's wrong with that?
Jeff Thies
> "Gary Heston" <ghe...@hiwaay.net> wrote in message
> news:Bq2dne2w0bsvF0rW...@posted.hiwaay2...
>> In article <hr7l3e$68j$2...@speranza.aioe.org>,
>> h <tmc...@searchmachine.com> wrote:
>>
>>> [ ... ]Since when did asking for ID become a violation of
>>> the constitution? It's only "unreasonable search and seizure" if they do
>>> something to you AFTER you have provided VALID ID/proof of legality.
>> [ ... ]
>>
>> Do you have any pointers to an actual legal finding where this is defined,
>> or is this just how you want things to be?
>>
>
> Well, here in NY they run car stops where they make every 4th car pull over
> and the driver has to produce ID. They say it's for catching drunks, but
> they often do it at 2pm. How is that any different than checking for
> citizenship?
I think you are missing the point.
Lindsey Graham has said no less than it is unconstitutional. So has
Karl Rove. W's speech writer Michael Gerson has called it dreadful and
said this:
Under the law, police must make a "reasonable attempt" to verify the
immigration status of people they encounter when there is a "reasonable
suspicion" they might be illegal. Those whose citizenship can't be
verified can be arrested. But how is such reasonable suspicion aroused?
The law forbids the use of race or ethnicity as the "sole" basis for
questioning. So what are the other telltale indicators?
But if you believe in government overreach than this is your law.
The number of border patrol agents is double what it was two years
ago. Illegal immigrations is down more than 60% from W highs. The
problem, as always is unintended consequences. Sealing the CA border
(which is now a mere trickle) has pushed those willing to risk it into
the Sonora. The virtual fence was not only over budget, but ineffective.
Without a comprehensive plan, "fixing" one bit will just exacerbate
another problem.
As a noted conservative put it recently, the Republican Party has
become the party of the terminally upset.
Jeff
h
"Jeff Thies" <jeff_...@att.net> wrote in message
news:hr9gkq$srh$1...@news.albasani.net...
> Under the law, police must make a "reasonable attempt" to verify the
> immigration status of people they encounter when there is a "reasonable
> suspicion" they might be illegal. Those whose citizenship can't be
> verified can be arrested. But how is such reasonable suspicion aroused?
> The law forbids the use of race or ethnicity as the "sole" basis for
> questioning. So what are the other telltale indicators?
>
How about not speaking English? It's one thing to be multi-lingual, but to
not speak English at all is unlikely for someone here legally. Sure, there
are tourists and students, but again, what's the big deal about asking for
ID? I just don't get it.
Jeff Thies
> "Jeff Thies" <jeff_...@att.net> wrote in message
> news:hr9gkq$srh$1...@news.albasani.net...
>> Under the law, police must make a "reasonable attempt" to verify the
>> immigration status of people they encounter when there is a "reasonable
>> suspicion" they might be illegal. Those whose citizenship can't be
>> verified can be arrested. But how is such reasonable suspicion aroused?
>> The law forbids the use of race or ethnicity as the "sole" basis for
>> questioning. So what are the other telltale indicators?
>>
>
> How about not speaking English? It's one thing to be multi-lingual, but to
> not speak English at all is unlikely for someone here legally.
Amongst themselves, Hispanics usually speak Spanish. Irregardless of
status. Are suggesting they confront anyone speaking Spanish because it
was unknown whether they could also speak English?
Sure, there
> are tourists and students, but again, what's the big deal about asking for
> ID? I just don't get it.
But, it's not just that. No doubt why a slew of leading Republicans have
spoken against it. It's a lot of government overreach and will feed many
a lawyer, no less on the right than the left. In fact the law is written
to encourage lawsuits from the right.
Jeff
>
>
h
> Irregardless of status. Are suggesting they confront anyone speaking
> Spanish because it was unknown whether they could also speak English?
"Irregardless". Really? Hmm, since you flunk the "speak English" portion of
my proposed test perhaps it is too strict.
Jeff Thies
> "Jeff Thies" <jeff_...@att.net> wrote in message
> news:hrc2ef$ut1$1...@news.albasani.net...
>> Irregardless of status. Are suggesting they confront anyone speaking
>> Spanish because it was unknown whether they could also speak English?
>
> "Irregardless". Really?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irregardless
Hmm, since you flunk the "speak English" portion of
> my proposed test perhaps it is too strict.
>
Ignore the message, shoot the messenger. You are a piece of work.
Jeff
>
h
And you cite Wikipedia as a valid source for the English language. Heh. You
obviously have no message I wish to hear. PLONK!
Michael Coburn
Health care is not what will unwind the Democratic party. This is the
issue that could destroy the Democrats. "Free trade", offshoring, and
immigration are destroying the middle class of this country. It is not
possible to have social insurance systems for the entire world paid for
by the American producers. America must "nit up" or truly "lose its
living standards". The Republicans see it as "just don't have social
insurance and we can have brown skinned robots tending our lawns, the
Japanese can make the cars, and the Chinese can make everything else".
And according to Republicans, the Americans that "follow the leader and
do what the leader says is riiiiiiiiiiiight" will have jobs in offices
counting beans and lending money".
As to immigration: We must address the issue of swarms of illegals that
have entered the country in the last 20 years following the Reagan
amnesty and we must insure that the flow stops or that the immigrants can
contribute to the prosperity of the American middle class. The first cut
at immigration reform had some good points in that it allowed people who
had been here for a very long time and who had not caused any problems to
stay. It insisted that people who had arrived after to 2002 would have
to leave the country and apply for reentry. But it had no "card check"
or "e-verify" and no fines for employers who broke the laws. It also
granted Social Security qualifications for years worked while illegal to
those allowed to stay. The House of Representatives rightfully voted
that bill down. It was not a war between Republicans and Democrats. It
was a class war between employers and the common people. The Republicans
will march in lock step as rightarded on this one. The Democrats have to
do what is sane and rational. The politics of the current economic
situation do not bode well for rationality and Democrats. But that is
really nothing new. The left wing moonbats will continue to be the foot
shooting segment of the Democratic party.
--
"Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" -- http://GreaterVoice.org/60
Rod Speed
Like hell it is. The real middle class has very little
involvement in any of the areas affected by that stuff.
The main exception is immigrant doctors, but even there,
the middle class is nothing even remotely resembling
anything like destroyed, whatever fools like you claim.
And some fool that ended up driving a truck quite literally
isnt anything even remotely resembling anything like
middle class anyway. Thats WORKING CLASS, stupid.
> It is not possible to have social insurance systems for
> the entire world paid for by the American producers.
Having fun thrashing that straw man ?
> America must "nit up" or truly "lose its living standards".
It hasnt lost any living standards at all, fool.
There might just be a reason why so many legal and illegal immigrants move there.
> The Republicans see it as "just don't have social insurance and
> we can have brown skinned robots tending our lawns, the Japanese
> can make the cars, and the Chinese can make everything else".
Another bare faced lie, most obviously with PC software, movies,
TV series, music, aircraft, military hardware, pharmaceuticals,
and the full commercialisation of almost all technology first.
> And according to Republicans, the Americans that "follow
> the leader and do what the leader says is riiiiiiiiiiiight" will
> have jobs in offices counting beans and lending money".
Those that were part of the 4.x% unemployment rate with an
immense legal and illegal immigration rate just before those
clowns were stupid enough to allow the complete implosion
of the entire world financial system, AGAIN, did a hell of a
lot more than just count beans and lend money, fool.
> As to immigration: We must address the issue of swarms of illegals that
> have entered the country in the last 20 years following the Reagan amnesty
Not even possible now, stupid.
> and we must insure that the flow stops
Fat chance, King Canute.
> or that the immigrants can contribute to the prosperity of the American middle class.
The real world is about a hell of a lot more than just the american middle class, fool.
> The first cut at immigration reform had some good points
> in that it allowed people who had been here for a very
> long time and who had not caused any problems to stay.
Its just not feasible to send everyone else back, fool.
> It insisted that people who had arrived after to 2002
> would have to leave the country and apply for reentry.
Completely impractical.
> But it had no "card check" or "e-verify" and no fines for employers who broke the laws.
That wouldnt have stopped those who had no alternative but not employ anyone.
> It also granted Social Security qualifications for
> years worked while illegal to those allowed to stay.
Thats the only thing that makes any sense as long as they had paid their FICO.
> The House of Representatives rightfully voted that bill down.
> It was not a war between Republicans and Democrats. It
> was a class war between employers and the common people.
Only in your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasyland.
In the real world, most of the middle class are the employers, fool.
> The Republicans will march in lock step as rightarded on this one.
> The Democrats have to do what is sane and rational.
No point in asking fools like you what is sane and rational.
You cant even manage to work out who the real middle class is.
> The politics of the current economic situation do not bode well
> for rationality and Democrats. But that is really nothing new.
> The left wing moonbats will continue to be the foot shooting
> segment of the Democratic party.
Corse some fool that couldnt manage anything better than
a fucking truck driver never ever does anything like that, eh ?
liberal
Geez, in love with the sound of your own words much?
So what if the pp used the term "middle class". The point is the
damage illegals do to the US.
1) The US can no longer afford a growing population, new farmland
isn't being created and US food production is breakeven. One
significant crop infection and food prices will spiral into famine for
many Americans. The entire world is at a breakeven point, which is why
China is limiting family size.
2) Illegals underbid American citizens and legal residents for jobs
3) Illegals would go home of their own accord if their jobs
disappeared.
4) Their jobs would end if there was an reward of $25,000 - $100,000
for turning in the employer of an illegal. Even the illegal would get
the reward, and take it home with him/her.
5) Cheap labor discourages technological substitution. China and Rome
had the first stirrings of "industrialization" more than a thousand
years ago but it was uneconomical compared to cheap slave labor.
Research is on-going today to build robots (robots, not remotely
operated devices) that have the dexterity, mobility, and decision-
making capability needed by NASA but would also be useful as a
replacement for Mexican cheap/semi-slave labor.
Maybe you hate Mexicans and have no problem with giving them jobs that
end up crippling them. Yeah, "stoop" laborers end up crippled with
spinal problems by their forties.
Rod Speed
Corse you never ever have that sort of problem yourself, eh ?
> So what if the pp used the term "middle class".
> The point is the damage illegals do to the US.
> 1) The US can no longer afford a growing population,
That is a bare faced pig ignorant lie. Very little of the
US is at anything like the density of HongKong etc.
> new farmland isn't being created
Some of it is, and there is plenty of much more intensive
use of land like with greenhouses etc and feedlotting etc.
> and US food production is breakeven.
Pigs arse it is.
> One significant crop infection and food prices
> will spiral into famine for many Americans.
How odd that that has never ever happened.
> The entire world is at a breakeven point,
Pigs arse it is.
NOT ONE modern first world country is even self
replacing if you take out immigration now and thats
true of quite a bit of the second world too.
> which is why China is limiting family size.
Its not the first world.
> 2) Illegals underbid American citizens and legal residents for jobs
Only in the dregs of the jobs. Doesnt happen with the
middle class he is mindlessly hyperventilating about.
> 3) Illegals would go home of their own accord if their jobs disappeared.
Yes, but thats just a tad hard to achieve.
And it would fuck the economy very comprehensively indeed
if anyone was actually stupid enough to go that route.
> 4) Their jobs would end if there was an reward of $25,000 -
> $100,000 for turning in the employer of an illegal.
Sure, but that would be one hell of a cost.
> Even the illegal would get the reward, and take it home with him/her.
Fuck all would be stupid enough to take it.
> 5) Cheap labor discourages technological substitution.
Not in the modern first world it doesnt, essentially because computerisation
leaves even cheap labor for dead. You're never going to see massive
rooms full of illegals manually typing out monthly statements again.
> China and Rome had the first stirrings of "industrialization" more than a
> thousand years ago but it was uneconomical compared to cheap slave labor.
And then the world moved on and the industrial revolution
happened regardless of hordes of slaves still around at that time.
The computer revolution happened regardless of
the hordes of illegals in the US at that time too.
> Research is on-going today to build robots (robots, not remotely
> operated devices) that have the dexterity, mobility, and decision-
> making capability needed by NASA but would also be useful as a
> replacement for Mexican cheap/semi-slave labor.
How odd that we havent even got one that can sweep the streets
by itself, let alone wipe little kids arses or bed ridden geriatrics either.
> Maybe you hate Mexicans
Or maybe I dont give a flying red fuck about them.
> and have no problem with giving them jobs that end up crippling them.
No one is holding a gun to their head and forcing them to come to the US illegally.
> Yeah, "stoop" laborers end up crippled with spinal problems by their forties.
Their problem. They end up a lot worse than that back where they come from, often dead.
And even just the US SS scheme would be fucked without the huge numbers
of legals and illegals paying their FICO to pay for unemployable fools like you.
Jeff Thies
> "Jeff Thies" <jeff_...@att.net> wrote in message
> news:hrc837$8mb$1...@news.albasani.net...
>> h wrote:
>>> "Jeff Thies" <jeff_...@att.net> wrote in message
>>> news:hrc2ef$ut1$1...@news.albasani.net...
>>>> Irregardless of status. Are suggesting they confront anyone speaking
>>>> Spanish because it was unknown whether they could also speak English?
>>> "Irregardless". Really?
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irregardless
>>
>> Hmm, since you flunk the "speak English" portion of
>>> my proposed test perhaps it is too strict.
>> Ignore the message, shoot the messenger. You are a piece of work.
>>
>
> And you cite Wikipedia as a valid source for the English language. Heh. You
> obviously have no message I wish to hear. PLONK!
>
No, obviously not. You only hear what you want to hear.
A well known conservative recently said that people such as yourself,
are the "Terminally Upset".
Jeff
>