The Roundup Has Begun

[Stray Pooch]

Allowing employers the opportunity to keep such jobs low paying, and abusing that of the illegal immigrant, demonstrates a total disrespect of the immigrant, and that which makes America the place people want to come here for, to begin with

I argue that this is the second wave of this sort of illegal immigration in this nation's history.  (Let's exclude the colonists - a different and thoroughly whipped dead horse.) The first was the importation of African slaves.  Of course, the focal point of the illegality of that migration was the slave trade itself - not the imported individuals.  But the result was largely the same.  A large influx of cheap labor stimulated the economy with a non-proportionate benefit to the imported labor force.  (Yes - "non-proportionate benefit" is a glaring understatement here.)

What amazes me about this current wave is that people are effectively saying "put me on that slave-ship, baby" instead of fighting tooth-and-nail to stay free.  One might well ask if the owners of those Sizzler's and other employers of illegals shouldn't be called the plantation owners of our age (and trust me, someday they will be).

Another valid question is whether people complained, in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, that all those blacks were taking good jobs that other Americans were denied.  Then we could extend that logical comparison to ask whether or not Americans would be willing to take those jobs under the same conditions as the immigrant work force.

[kimba1]

actually the job available to blacks were very narrow so ther factors are quite different.

[Plane]

actually the job available to blacks were very narrow so ther factors are quite different.

Not as narrow as you might think , Slaves did a lot of diffrent jobs.

[Stray Pooch]

actually the job available to blacks were very narrow so ther factors are quite different.

Not as narrow as you might think , Slaves did a lot of diffrent jobs.

But in the end, where specifics may differ, the dynamics of the economic impact of this immigration are quite similar.

[kimba1]

the term history repeating itself comes to mind, but remember you still must count for varibles.
in the news we see illegals in restaurants and farms. we really don`t know what other kinds of jobs they cover.

[Plane]

actually the job available to blacks were very narrow so ther factors are quite different.

Not as narrow as you might think , Slaves did a lot of diffrent jobs.

But in the end, where specifics may differ, the dynamics of the economic impact of this immigration are quite similar.

I do see some simularities , even as some people are paying Cyotes to treat them as commodities.

The positive aspects are about the same , the economy of the US was built up by the Slave trade and by the labor of slaves , the present labor of illeagal immagrants and their contributions is a lot of building us up.

Yet surely the negative effects are diffrent and I hope lesser?

[sirs]

As communities take sides on Arizona?s recently passed immigration law, the impact is rippling thorough businesses far and wide, including dealers who have little influence in the matter.

Arizona passed a law requiring law officers to ask for proof of legal residency in cases where they believe a subject in the case may be in the country illegally. Cities all over the country have been mounting boycotts of Arizona firms in opposition to the law.

"With the economy being in the shape it is right now, it's hard enough to run your business without having obstacles thrown at you by your elected officials," says Harley-Davidson of Bloomington owner Jeff Stevens. He worries his city's boycott of Arizona businesses could cost his business and has heard from two customers who side with Arizona and say they won?t do business in Bloomington.

"The people that are passionate enough to send you a note about it ... that can just be the tip of the iceberg," Stevens told Trading Markets. "You wonder how many people are out there."

One of the people who emailed the dealership said: "Since Bloomington has decided to boycott Arizona, I will no longer do any business with anyone in Bloomington. Boycotts can go two ways."

For his part, Stevens says he'll vacation in Arizona this summer.

"I'm looking forward to contributing to their economy," Stevens says.


Choices have repercussions

[sirs]

Decision on sending L.A. officers to Arizona event delayed
Some council members want four cops to attend a Border Patrol conference in Tucson. Others don't want to break the partial boycott of the state.
By David Zahniser, Los Angeles Times
June 16, 2010

The Los Angeles City Council postponed a decision Tuesday on whether to send four police officers to a conference in Tucson ? which would create the first exception to its ban on travel to Arizona ? to give officials time to find someone else to pay for the trip.

Councilmen Greig Smith and Bernard C. Parks had asked for the first exemption to the city's Arizona boycott, which was passed as a protest of that state's policy on illegal immigration. Doing so would allow the LAPD officers to attend the five-day Airborne Law Enforcement Assn. Conference, which will be hosted by the U.S. Border Patrol.

But Smith asked for the delay after some of his colleagues, including Councilwoman Janice Hahn, voiced opposition to the exemption. A delay would give the LAPD time to see if the nonprofit Los Angeles Police Foundation would be willing to foot the bill, he said.

"Janice Hahn was going to make a big stink," said Smith, who represents part of the west San Fernando Valley. "I was willing to fight it out, but then the department said it was going to try to work this out."

Smith was the lone opponent of the partial boycott, which was enacted last month as a response to passage of Arizona's Senate Bill 1070. The law makes it a state crime to lack immigration papers and requires police to determine the status of people they lawfully stop and subsequently suspect are in the country illegally. In response, the council imposed a boycott that bars travel to Arizona and the award of new contracts to Arizona companies, unless doing so would harm the city's interests.

Hahn, one of the original proponents of the boycott, said sending the LAPD officers to Tucson, even at another group's expense, flies in the face of the council's stance.

"It's not taxpayer money, but it's somebody's," said Hahn, whose district stretches from Watts to San Pedro. "And I think it undermines the spirit of what the council did."

After reviewing Smith's request, Councilman Richard Alarcon said he agreed with the plan to send the officers. And Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa dropped hints that he was unlikely to oppose the exemption.

"What I've said to Councilman Smith is, that issue, the issue of police officers going to Arizona, was decided a long time ago," the mayor said.




Oh, the absurdity, of it all

[sirs]

California lacks the leadership Arizona has
By Leslie Eastman,
Thursday, May 20, 2010

Back when the last President was in office, there was a media phenomenon so pervasive that it earned its own moniker.  ?Bush Derangement Syndrome? was a termed coined by pundit Charles Krauthammer for the extreme paranoia about, and vitriolic attacks on, President George W. Bush. Recently, I have noticed a related syndrome: California Derangement Syndrome (CDS).

As I review the comments section of the various websites I frequent, I have noticed that the jibes directed toward California posters have become more harsh and mean-spirited. Whereas before, folks would just jest that our state was the ?land of fruits and nuts,? recently the light chiding has taken a somewhat darker turn.

I have been a Californian since 1985, and I must admit that we have brought some of this on ourselves. Recently, the San Diego City Council passed a resolution that rebuked Arizona for passing SB1070, a legislative act that merely reinforced federal immigration statutes and would not trigger a ?document review? unless there was probable cause.

A Pew poll indicates over 70 percent of Americans approve of Arizona?s stance.

Our City Council was also joined by our Board of Education in this action. Similar politically correct actions were taken by various politicos in Los Angeles and San Francisco.

Any person with an ounce of common sense could have predicted the following outcome: Arizonans are boycotting San Diego and other cities throughout California. Unlike California?s big city political elites, who do not normally vacation in the Great American Southwest, Arizonans have been known to frequent the greater San Diego area in some numbers. However, as common sense is in short supply with our elected officials, citizens in this region need to brace themselves for the economy-jeopardizing consequences. Through their formal declarations, our councilmembers have deprived San Diego services of much needed tax revenue and the education boardmembers have put their students? parents out of work this summer. I hope everyone remembers their actions when complaints about ?budget cuts? abound this year. Personally, I wrote to my own Councilmember (Marti Emerald of District 7) and specifically warned her before the vote that rebuking Arizona would have consequences in the new citizen-action-oriented environment. I will remember her stance the next time she is up for election.

Arizonans are canceling hotel and travel reservations to this area in record numbers. The drop-off in visitors is so steep that the San Diego Visitors and Convention Bureau, in conjunction with many of local tourism businesses, are releasing an open letter to the media in the next few days. Essentially, the letter is asking Arizonans to overlook politics so that they may enjoy the hospitality and attractions offered by ?America?s Finest City.?

If the CDS comments I have recently seen are any indication, our business leaders? efforts will be as successful as placing a patch kit on the gaping hole left by the iceberg scraping the Titanic. Our elected political and education leaders have clearly made their animosity known to potential Arizonan customers, who want nothing more than the already legal immigration laws enforced.

When politicians demean a key client base, generally those clients don?t return to receive more hostile treatment. Sadly, I do not think that ?open letter? will work. I suspect that only formal apologies from San Diego?s business and educational entities will be required, as well as very public withdraws of the insulting declarations. Alternatively, removing all members of the San Diego Council and Education Board who supported the rebuke of Arizona, may also prove an acceptable solution to our client base.

San Diego isn?t the only city to be the object of retaliation, either. Arizona Corporation Commissioner Gary Pierce wrote a letter to Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, noting that the city gets about 25 percent of its power from Arizona producers. Pierce is prepared to help Mayor Villaraigosa rework the contracts and divert Arizona?s power to areas not participating in a boycott.

Demeaning some of San Diego most reliable clientele during a period of economic crisis was unwise, especially for a state whose failing economy is routinely being likened to that of Greece. The Chief Executive?s annual survey of best and worst states for business places California 51st in business climate. Instead of grandstanding and being sucked into media drama, it would be more helpful if California elected representatives displayed some of the leadership skilled showed by Arizona?s officials. Perhaps, then, California wouldn?t be scraping the bottom of the economic barrel. And, perhaps, there would also be less CDS and more mutual support by and for fellow Americans.


Yea, smart move that boycotting of AZ