Buried in the Oct. 30 Washington Post was a bland headline: "Report Points to Faster Recovery in Jobs for Immigrants."

The story, however, contained social dynamite that explains the rage of Americans who are smeared as nativists and xenophobes for demanding a timeout on immigration.

In the April-May-June quarter, foreign-born workers in the U.S. gained 656,000 jobs. And native-born Americans lost 1.2 million.

From July 1, 2009, to June 30, 2010, foreign-born Hispanics gained 98,000 construction jobs. Native-born Hispanics lost 133,000. Black and white U.S. construction workers lost 511,000 jobs.

According to the Center for Immigration Studies, from Jan. 1, 2000, to Jan. 1, 2010, 13.1 million immigrants, legal and illegal, entered the United States, a decade in which America lost 1 million jobs.

From 2008 and 2009, the figures are startling. In 24 months, 2.4 million immigrants, legal and illegal, arrived, as U.S. citizens were losing 8.6 million jobs.

Query: Why are we importing a million-plus workers a year when 17 million Americans can't find work? Whose country is this?

Why do we not declare a moratorium on all immigration, until our unemployment rate falls to 6 or 5 percent? Charity begins at home. Ought we not take care of our own jobless first before we invite in strangers to take their jobs?

According to the Pew Hispanic Center, each year between 300,000 and 400,000 "anchor babies" are born to illegal aliens. These newborns are entitled to citizenship, free health care and education, welfare and food stamps.

Concerned about the impact of illegal aliens on the United States? Don't miss Tom Tancredo's book, "In Mortal Danger: The Battle for America's Border and Security"

Their parents – almost all are poor or working-class – rarely pay any state or federal income tax.

How long can we keep granting citizenship and full social welfare benefits to the children of people who break our laws and break into our country or overstay their visas? How long can we keep bringing in workers to take jobs when our unemployment rate hovers around 10 percent?

Again, according to the Pew Center, the number of anchor babies here now is about 4 million. Add to that 3 million to 4 million born each decade, and it will not be long before Colorado, Nevada, Arizona and Texas resemble California, which is on the brink of default.

If no action is taken, the Republican Party will soon be unable, even in wave elections, to win the presidency, as it won nothing and indeed lost state legislative seats in California in 2010.

The border will disappear, and America will be a geographical expression, not a country anymore.

Legal scholar William Quirk describes a new phenomenon in the invasion of America: "maternity tourism." Pregnant Asian women pay $15,000 to agents to ensure they are in the United States when their child is born so that they can return home secure in the knowledge he or she will be a U.S. citizen with the right to a U.S.-taxpayer subsidized education in college.

Though the nation has awakened to the threat to social cohesion and national solvency, Harry Reid is still attempting to ram through a lame-duck Senate an amnesty for illegal aliens up to age 30 who claim they were brought here before they were 16, have a high school diploma or GED and state that they intend to go to college within six years.

An estimated 2.1 million illegal aliens would be amnestied, put on a path to citizenship, and be eligible for student loans and more.

According to Alabama's Jeff Sessions, ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee:

"Aliens granted amnesty by the Dream Act will have the legal right to petition for entry of their family members, including their adult brothers and sisters and the parents who illegally brought or sent them to the United States, once they become naturalized U.S. citizens. In less than a decade, this reality could easily double or triple the 2.1 million green cards that will be immediately distributed as a result of the Dream Act."

Lawbreaking would be rewarded. Chain migration would continue. A permanent powerful magnet would be provided to all foreigners to sneak into the United States and be sure to bring the kids.

As Rep. Dana Rohrabacher argues, one effect of the Dream Act will be to move illegals applying to college ahead of many Americans, as 80 percent of illegals are Hispanics and eligible for affirmative action.

U.S. soldiers coming home from Afghanistan will "sit in back," as Obama puts it, when competing against amnestied illegals.

Several days ago, UCLA's Kent Wong addressed a pro-amnesty rally in Los Angeles' MacArthur Park. Wong turned the race card face up.

When Reid's bill passes, said Wong, "the young people of the Dream Act movement will go on to accomplish and do great things. ... You will go on to become lawyers, teachers, doctors and members of the U.S. Congress to replace those old white men. ..."

If the Dream Act passes, Wong is right about whose time has come and gone. May the tea party take names at the call of the roll.

12/17/2010 12:05:13 PM

Whose

12/17/2010 12:10:43 PM

*yawn* where was this copy/pasted from?

12/17/2010 12:13:24 PM

Quote :

"Query: Why are we importing a million-plus workers a year when 17 million Americans can't find work? Whose country is this?"

Because Americans are lazy and immigrants are not.

12/17/2010 12:23:16 PM

Quote :

"If the Dream Act passes, Wong is right about whose time has come and gone."

Hilarious sentence.

- Wong is right!

Ha!



[Edited on December 17, 2010 at 12:35 PM. Reason : -]

12/17/2010 12:35:26 PM

this shit needs to be in Soap Box.

also

Quote :

"Because Americans are lazy and immigrants are not."

12/17/2010 12:47:15 PM

^ agreed, but i think it's worth mentioning that after a couple of generations, the immigrants' descendants fall into the same 'fat and lazy' mindset.

12/17/2010 1:04:04 PM

How about you tell us where you got your information, just so I know if there's even a shred of truth to your statistics before I start tearing your post apart.

12/17/2010 1:18:26 PM

Quote :

"Because Americans are lazy and immigrants are not."

No, its because illegal immigrants have no bottom level to what they can get paid.

There's a guy at work that we recently hired to be an on-staff handyman, who lost his job because of illegals. This guy is the definition of hard working blue collar, and started brick laying in high school because his father, grandfather, etc was in the business, and kept at it when he graduated because it was decent and easy money (even if back breaking).

Years later, he got put out of business by competition from illegals, who would work for a fraction that he could on house construction projects. Prices on his services dropped too far and he could no longer continue his business and lost his job.

He got the job he has now because he knew the CEO in some fashion, but he talked about while he was looking at jobs, everything out there right now requires a college degree and/or 3+ years of experience. Pretty startling to me, as I've never a first hand account of how illegals take someone's job.

Now do I know exactly what job applications he was looking at? No. But if the guy is a former brick layer he couldn't have been looking too high

[Edited on December 17, 2010 at 1:40 PM. Reason : lkj]

12/17/2010 1:34:39 PM

i think the soap box lost its thread...

12/17/2010 2:11:13 PM

belongs in the soapbox but since it's here...


these immigrants take lower ILLEGAL wages for jobs given to them by American companies. immigration is simple >crack down heavily on the companies hiring these illegals > companies are forced to pay legals a fair wage > aliens can't find jobs and they go back home. problem solved

12/17/2010 3:46:18 PM

Quote :

"these immigrants take lower ILLEGAL wages for jobs given to them by American companies. immigration is simple >crack down heavily on the companies hiring these illegals > companies are forced to pay legals a fair wage > aliens can't find jobs and they go back home > get voted out of office when the price of stuff goes up"

ftfy

12/17/2010 4:23:33 PM

you're gonna need a source; i'll trust thrown around statistics from some sources, but not the crazy uncle who forwarded you an email.

12/17/2010 5:29:40 PM

http://buchanan.org/blog/

12/17/2010 5:46:48 PM

Quote :

"Years later, he got put out of business by competition from illegals, who would work for a fraction that he could on house construction projects. Prices on his services dropped too far and he could no longer continue his business and lost his job."

There is nothing illegal about someone accepting a pay cut to stay competitive. Contractors do it all the time. I have no idea why hourly or salaried workers should be exempt. Was unemployment really so much better than a few fewer dollars an hour?

12/17/2010 5:59:20 PM

Quote :

"^ agreed, but i think it's worth mentioning that after a couple of generations, the immigrants' descendants fall into the same 'fat and lazy' mindset."

of course, that's why we always need new immigrants to invigorate the work force. Otherwise we'd turn into Italy.

12/18/2010 8:56:35 AM

We need to lower the minimum wage. There are people out there that would work for 7.00 an hour, but it's illegal to do so. That's absurd.

12/18/2010 9:37:59 AM

Quote :

"verything out there right now requires a college degree and/or 3+ years of experience. Pretty startling to me, as I've never a first hand account of how illegals take someone's job."

Welcome to the world where it's possible and encouraged for everyone and their brother to go to and complete college. Now you need a degree just to be a secretary, since having a college degree doesn't provide any indication of your education or work ethic and doesn't stand you out among any of the thousands of others that got a BA in Underwater Basket Weaving because they were told all their life they couldn't get a good job without a degree.

12/18/2010 9:38:12 AM

Quote :

"We need to lower the minimum wage. There are people out there that would work for 7.00 an hour, but it's illegal to do so. That's absurd."

I really must ask you, are you a college libertarian and/or never worked a day in your life? I can't imagine any other reason why you would believe the trite you choose to type.

The are no people who would work for $7/hr when they could otherwise have unemployment, excepting for illegals and college students who have no real responsibilities. Allow me to break this down for you. At $7 working 50hrs a week a person would only pull in $385.00 before tax. Are you aware how much many of the people who lost their jobs and are on unemployment pull in a week? $419, after tax. The choice is a simple calculation. Arguing the minimum wage is the problem is pedantic at best. Citing that unemployment benefits are the actual problem would at least be reasonable, even though still fundamentally flawed.

[Edited on December 18, 2010 at 10:44 AM. Reason : clarification]

12/18/2010 10:43:03 AM

Why would it be flawed? The Austrians will say if you remove the unemployment, people will have to compete on wages and they'll lower through simple supply/demand rules. The Keynesians will then argue this results in less spending leading to more layoffs, more labor competition, and ultimately a liquidity/deflationary spiral. But I don't think there is anything flawed about supply/demand.

[Edited on December 18, 2010 at 11:02 AM. Reason : .]

12/18/2010 10:58:56 AM

I've been out of college and working for a couple years. I'll let that one slide, though. There are absolutely people that would work for 7 bucks an hour. They already do, just under the table. You're right that UI is part of the issue. In many cases, it's better to take unemployment than to work at all. This is a recession. We can delude ourselves into believing that a certain standard of living can be legislated via price controls, but it will only lead to further unemployment. Wages must be allowed to fall.

12/18/2010 10:59:39 AM

Quote :

"The are no people who would work for $7/hr when they could otherwise have unemployment"

Untrue. When the minimum wage was raised, a fraction of 1% of the workforce was affected. Therefore, eliminating the minimum wage would matter.

That said, there is nothing wrong per-se with unemployment benefits, as long as they are time limited, which they are usually. As such, the minimum wage is a permanent problem, where-as unemployment benefits are only a problem right now.

12/18/2010 11:30:12 AM

Quote :

"WHO IS AMERICA IS THIS???"

12/18/2010 11:47:15 AM

real Americans don't burden themselves with grammar. they're too busy pulling themselves up by their bootstraps.

12/18/2010 11:54:30 AM

Quote :

"6 OR 5 PERCENT"

12/18/2010 12:31:30 PM

This just in, people willing to do the same work at a lower cost will get jobs at a faster rate than those demanding higher compensation.

More at 11.

12/18/2010 9:11:21 PM

Quote :

"The are no people who would work for $7/hr when they could otherwise have unemployment"

What about people who wouldn't be able to pull in that much unemployment, or any at all, like people who got fired from their previous jobs?

12/18/2010 10:55:20 PM

there's a little thing called welfare.

12/19/2010 1:33:45 PM

The fact is one should not be granted the rights and priviledges of being a US citizen just become your mom hopped the border and squirted you out.

12/20/2010 2:39:44 PM

yes they should

12/20/2010 2:45:55 PM

if you are you born in the US, you're an american. you'll go to school. you'll pay taxes. maybe you'll go to college, maybe you'll join the navy. it doesn't matter who's cunt you fall out of.

12/20/2010 2:52:58 PM

Quote :

"There are absolutely people that would work for 7 bucks an hour. They already do, just under the table."

With that statement, you basically fight my argument for me. These same people wouldn't take the job for $7/hour when taxed because they money they earn would be that much less and they would find a way to skirt the system.

Quote :

"We can delude ourselves into believing that a certain standard of living can be legislated via price controls, but it will only lead to further unemployment. Wages must be allowed to fall."

How does it lead to further unemployment? Regardless if a company can afford to pay someone $5/hour to do a job if they can doesn't mean they will necessarily hire. The company will continue to aim for maximum productivity from each individual employee and hire when and only when the company can no longer meet demand. As a result 1) lower wages will not inspire companies to hire again (which is a poor argument to begin with since the majority of the jobs lost aren't exactly minimum wage jobs) and 2) if companies did start paying people only $5/hr then no one would be able to afford the products being made, which means no demand, which means no need for the newly hired employees. I'm not saying that I disagree with you on the principle of legislating wages, but I am saying you need to not quit your day job because arm chair economics isn't your bag.

Quote :

"Untrue. When the minimum wage was raised, a fraction of 1% of the workforce was affected. Therefore, eliminating the minimum wage would matter. [/qoute] Your fact is out of scope with my claim. I stated that no one on unemployment would work for 7.00/hr. An increase or decrease in the work force with an increase in minimum wage does not in any way illustrate the desire of a person to work at 7.00 when or when not on unemployment. [quote]Why would it be flawed?"

Because Americans are a pretty spoiled and lazy bunch who, by large, would still choose to eat away at their savings rather than work for a wage they consider below them. There is a healthy difference in what is good theoretically and what happens in reality.

Quote :

"What about people who wouldn't be able to pull in that much unemployment, or any at all, like people who got fired from their previous jobs?"

The only reason they wouldn't pull any is if they got fired for just cause. Seeing as it is pretty difficult to get fired these days the people who were fired are not likely the ilk who are going to buckle down and take whichever job they can find.

12/20/2010 4:20:09 PM