Lou Dobbs gets it
Lou Dobbs- who didn't miss the fact that today's boycott and protests was not more accurately called "A Day Without Illegal Immigrants-" reports that the movement it represents is being taken over by radicals, with an agenda somewhat other than "Immigrant Appreciation Day." He delivers an insightful critique of the failure of the media- including his own CNN- to make it clear that today's events were not simply shows of solidarity with immigrants, but demonstrations in support of illegal immigration and citizenship for illegal aliens.
He also points out something else the mainstream media have been reluctant to report:
...a meat-packing job paid $19 an hour in 1980, but today that same job pays closer to $9 an hour, according to the Labor Department. That's entirely consistent with what we've been reporting -- that illegal aliens depress wages for U.S. workers by as much as $200 billion a year in addition to placing a tremendous burden on hospitals, schools and other social services.
Not acceptable.
Comments
As for the employment of illegal labor, I cannot possibly speak for the entire industry. However, I work in the Human Resources department of a very large meat producer. I have personally seen, on several occasions, a hiring manager looking over stacks of work visas with a handheld fluorescent/blacklight in one hand, and a State Department anti-forgery guide in the other. To say nothing about the legal and ethical implications, it is not even in our company's best financial interests to hire illegal labor, since the government runs routine sting operations and levies very high fines for violations.
I understand the desire to hold accountable those corporations and individuals who employ illegal labor, and those who do should be prosecuted according to the law. However, this piece seems to have sensationalized this aspect. Remember: correlation does not imply causation. Simply because both have happened at the same time does not imply that one necessarily caused the other.
Robert
I suspect it has more to do with the discovery due to the Cuban vote in Florida that Hispanics are a huge voting bloc, extremely significant in several important states, on whom the Democrats' hold is lose enough to be pried completely away. I have not a single doubt that the President's position is due to his understanding of the fact that only Hispanics voting Republican enabled him to be elected in the first place.
Face it: taking a hard line on illegal immigration is going to drive that vote into the same category the African American vote is in, and bring the Democrat cliche about the lily white Republican party a bit closer to being accurate.
It may have to happen, but I don't like it much myself- any more than I like slamming the door on people who have to live the way the poor do in Mexico. But self-defense is self-defense. This is a phenomenon we simply cannot afford, either economically or in terms of the rule of law.