See other Immigration Articles
Title: Don't be fooled by peddlers of ‘Immigration Reform’ Scams : ’Food Costs will increase without cheap illegal labor’
Source:
federalobserver.com
URL Source: http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=9357
Published: Jul 10, 2006
Author: S. J. Miller
Post Date: 2006-07-10 15:44:34 by Grumble Jones
Keywords: None
Views: 109
Comments: 10
Part 8: ’Food Costs will increase without cheap illegal labor’ Don't be fooled by peddlers of ‘Immigration Reform’ Scams By S. J. Miller {CLICK HERE for Series Overview} A simple multiple-choice question will reveal whether you're already aware of this scam. With the production cost savings in "cheap labor," do you believe that manufacturers of goods and services: a. pass the savings along to their customers OR b. direct the increased profits to increased stock dividends, officer salaries and benefits. If you answered "a," read on - you're so naive that you're a target for the "immigration reform" scam peddlers. MORE EMOTIONAL PROPAGANDA Once again, propaganda like this tries to convince us that we're the problem rather than the lawbreakers (both illegal aliens and employers). You eat the food harvested by illegal labor, they remind you, so you're responsible for the illegal aliens that farmers hire to pick the food that goes on your table. It's truly appalling how many Americans have habitually accepted guilt for something they have no control over. Like most immigration rhetoric, this propaganda tactic isn't new: It's called "collective guilt," and was very effectively used by German Nazis after World War II to stifle calls for prosecution and punishment of high Nazi officials for their war crimes. By conning the German population into accepting guilt for the Holocaust, many German Nazis were able to blend back into society and live the rest of their days unaccountable for their crimes. Sounds very familiar doesn't it? Illegals want to blend with the rest of the population, continuing to work and live in the country without being accountable for illegal entry into the US. Of course we eat produce; we have no control over the farmer's labor force. If these advocates expect me to risk contracting scurvy or pellagra for something I have nothing to do with, they're out to lunch. This accusation came from a reader e-mail; he actually expected me to buy this drivel! When the opposition provides material that destroys their argument, it's too good to pass up. I reminded the reader that the Nazis lost World War II and suggested he get his pro-illegal immigration propaganda from winners rather than losers. DOES ILLEGAL LABOR REALLY REDUCE FOOD PRICES? "They keep the price of strawberries and other produce cheap." The image is that we'll be paying $5.00 for a head of lettuce without illegal aliens to harvest, and after gasping in shock, we'll back off and concede how mean-spirited we are to complain about the illegal aliens who "put food on our table." Shame on us for complaining! This phony baloney was exposed nearly 10 years ago at Iowa State University. (1) Recognizing that "higher prices" are due to the need to import produce when it's "out-of-season," they found small price increases varying by season and length of time (1-2 years short term; 5-7 years mid-term). Notice that the maximum is 6%! The 9 years since 1986 have given us opportunity to "test" whether we can live with the "astronomical" increases, because most grocery stores now routinely stock imported produced during the off-season. How many of us have even noticed the few pennies difference in price? So it's now up to us to decide whether the "saving" is worth the problems we have from illegal aliens. Does an Arizonan consume enough "cheap labor produce" to offset the $700 per household cost of illegal aliens in that state? (2) Does an Californian consume enough "cheap labor produce" to offset the $1,183 per household cost of illegal aliens in that state? (3) And these costs only include the state's share of education, medical care and imprisonment. They don't include the household's share of federal costs for education and welfare benefits, or the higher insurance premiums from higher crime rates and uninsured-motorist hit-and-run accidents! Nor does it include the decreased "quality of life" and reduced service levels. We all know the answer. Cost-per-household may vary from state to state, but the result is the same: If you're not one of the "elites" who benefit from "cheap illegal" labor (unskilled workers, nannies and gardeners), of course it's not worth the increased cost! Several other resource articles (4), (5) and (6) will tell more about the future of mechanized farming. My first thought was "Government policy-makers have to be aware of this, so why their insistence on continued high immigration numbers for the "jobs Americans won't do?" RECENT HISTORY OF "CHEAP LABOR" Although the "New World Order" movement began in earnest after World War II, the economic sectors waited until the early 1960s, when postwar births entered the labor force to replace World War II deaths. Since that time, the "global economy" (or "free trade movement") has produced a tricky and tenuous balancing act for the US government--both for members of Congress and the White House. While the "rob Peter to pay Paul" behavior gave the appearance of a large organization where one inept agency acted in opposition to another equally inept one, it was actually intentional and carefully orchestrated. I recall in the early 1980s on CBS 60 Minutes that USAID (Agency for International Development) provided money to aid corporations wanting to relocate their manufacturing to countries with cheaper labor costs (where labor unions were prohibited). Of course, it was done under the guise of "international development" rather than "union-busting," and the country was Malaysia. 60 Minutes thought it was ridiculous that American taxpayers' money being used to put them out of jobs, but it's clear now that what appeared "the left hand disconnected from the right" was intended. Sending well-paying jobs overseas both enriched corporations and removed wealth from America's middle class workers. Some industries received government assistance in surviving the new global economy eompetition while it seemed others were mercilessly thrown to the wolves. An example is the US "garment and textile" industry, who used illegal labor through the mid-1980s until both textile plants and garment factories were move first to Taiwan, then to Pakistan, India and now China. Those in New England went first while Southern factories were the last to move. In contrast, sporting equipment and hardware tools went abroad almost immediately. Whether the selection was "luck of the draw," based on campaign contributions and political influence or a combination isn't all that clear. There was likely a "master plan" somewhere that considered not just economics but politics as well. As the "offshore outsourcing" speed increases, wages for jobs that must remain in the US continue to drop, either by filling them with illegals or bringing in foreign workers to increase the labor supply (and eventually reducing the wage levels). Although we continue to hear that illegal labor enables "cheap food costs," mechanized farming has moved into nearly every food crop produced in the US as "cheap illegal labor" was no longer enough to protect US agriculture from foreign competition. (4) (5) California's grape growers (one of the final holdouts against mechanization) finally converted for the 2004 harvest. In March and April of that year, agricultural lobbyists urged Congress to pass the AgJobs Amnesty to prevent "American crops rotting in the fields." Clearly the Senator Craig/Congressman Cannon AgJobs Amnesty had little to do with actual need and/or shortage of agricultural labor, just as the increased use of "high-tech worker" visas has no basis in the old cry that "we can't find qualified Americans." It's easy to see that the alleged "shortage of workers" has nothing to do with the real agenda for the Bush "guest worker plans" or the multitude of other amnesties. "CORPORATE WELFARE"-LABOR COSTS PAID BY AMERICAN TAXPAYERS "Cheaper produce from illegal labor?" Americans already pay $6.00 per head of lettuce and $5.00 per bunch of carrots. You're just splitting payment between the grocery store and your city/county/state/federal tax bills. Benefits of “cheap labor” are limited to businesses whose receive the "taxpayer subsidy." "Cheap illegal labor" is cheap only because government policy has allowed such employers to shift costs to the American taxpayer. Not only are illegal aliens provided at no cost items for which Americans are required to pay, but their earnings are generally cash and off the books. That exempts the employer from state and federal unemployment taxes and workers compensation insurance. Workers injured on the job are dumped at the local emergency room with a story of being hurt while working at home. The hospital staff knows both the true story and the real employer, but nonetheless obligingly labels the patient as "uninsured." Sooner or later the hospital will be paid when their politician delivers "federal money" to "reimburse hospitals for medical care that federal law requires them to provide." "Federal Money?" That's taxpayers' money used to pay local hospitals to treat illegals working for employers violating the law. Do you agree that these businesses should receive "taxpayer subsidies" for their employees' wages? Free-market principles clearly provide that costs of market goods and services be paid by those who use that good or service. If you don't eat restaurant meals, why should you pay the cost for those who do? If you raise your own children, why should you pay for someone else's cheap-labor illegal nanny? If you're a vegetarian, why should you pay for "cheap labor" used by the meat packing industry? I'm allergic to strawberries, so why must I share the employers' labor costs when I don't buy his product? I - uh - must get home to - uh - pay the nanny! Yet the strongest advocates of "free migration of labor into the US" are the loudest whiners about "cheap foreign competition." They're also the people who claim to support "free trade" yet insist on "corporate welfare" from taxpayers who don't patronize the companies. Do they support "free trade" or don't they? "CHEAP LABOR" ILLEGALS RECEIVING PUBLIC ASSISTANCE? It's cheap only because of the taxpayer-funded subsidies: welfare, food stamps, rent assistance/housing subsidies. utility assistance, medical care, public medical plans, free school meals. And now assistance with home loans to enable illegal aliens to "participate in the American dream." You believed these assistance programs were only available to citizens and resident immigrants? That's certainly what the politicians want you to believe because the requirement has been part of federal law since 1996. The hypocrisy by federal and state officials on who actually uses these programs was exposed when Arizonans qualified a ballot initiative called Proposition 200. Arizona's governor and attorney general vehemently opposed the initiative, as well as both US Senators McCain and Kyl, and 7 of 8 US congressmen. So-called "private" non-profit groups. How can a non-profit group claim to be "private" when the majority of their funding is from taxpayers' money? Don't forget the "back-door" assistance provided by such groups as Catholic Charities, Lutheran Social Services, Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, American Friends Service Committee and hundreds of others. You didn't think such agencies would give help for those who violate the law? Or perhaps you believed the ACLu would oppose taxpayers' money funding these groups as a violation of "separation of church and state?" You'd be wrong on both counts. Nor can they play Sergeant Schultz with his "I know nothing." They not only knowingly help illegal aliens, but their political agenda urges expansion of benefits and "rights" for illegal aliens. The Catholic Charities, USA websiteopenly admits it: Welcome Refugees, Asylees, and Immigrants Immigrants-including documented and undocumented workers, refugees, and asylees-come to the U.S. seeking a better life for themselves and their families. Often, they are fleeing racial, religious, social, or political persecution in their home countries. All immigrants are entitled to be treated with respect and dignity. To this end, CCUSA promotes legislative reforms to restore federal benefits to legal immigrants, increase admissions of refugees and asylees, create better opportunities for undocumented workers to earn legalization, allow immigrants to reunite with their families more easily, and improve protections for immigrants under federal laws, including labor laws." (Naturally, CCUSA deliberately uses deceptive terms, refusing to call an illegal alien by the rightful name) In his October 12 2004 "Letter to the Editor" of the Arizona Republic opposing Arizona's ballot initiative Prop. 200, Reverend Chris Carpenter of Christ the King Catholic Church in Mesa, AZ (7) admits it: "When it comes to our finances, one thing is sure: If Proposition 200 is successful, our churches and charitable organizations will be in desperate need of more funds. If immigrants are denied access to basic necessities such as work, food, housing and medical treatment by civil authorities, they will turn more and more to our faith communities for these needs. My parish's financial resources are already stretched thin trying to meet immigrants' needs. However, we have a Christian obligation to feed the hungry, clothe the naked and care for the sick. Randy Graf and other political leaders who support Proposition 200 should abandon their ivory towers and admit this proposal isn't a rational or viable solution to the social problems associated with illegal immigration, and will only heighten the demands placed on our various faith institutions if it is passed." But that's not all. Rev. Carpenter also admits that illegal aliens collect public welfare benefits. (And he conscientiously follows the CCUSA "Party Line" by deceptively using "immigrants.") The reverend contradicts his "Hispanic-rights" allies; MALDEF, LULAC and LaRaza claimed that illegal aliens don't collect welfare benefits because "it's against the law." Rev. Carpenter not only acknowledged the dependence of his illegal alien "clients" on welfare, but predicts a humanitarian meltdown disaster if Prop 200 passes! By claiming that illegal aliens don't claim welfare payments and then predicting untold suffering and misery for illegal aliens deprived of welfare benefits, aren't such advocate groups contradicting themselves? Of course they are, but similar propaganda contradictions occur commonly in the immigration issue. BIG BUSINESS + ETHNIC GROUPS ARE IN BED TOGETHER! Now let's recall the question from the beginning: "What happens to the cost savings in producing a product?" We've established by now that it isn't passed to customers. There's another possible beneficiary becides the company "elites" or stockholders. I refer to their "silent partners" in acquiring cheap illegal labor, the profession ethnicists like MALDEF, LULAC, and LaRaza. Don't believe it? Just "follow the money." Reviewing the contributors and donors to such groups shows a "Who's Who?" of American corporations, including several federal government agencies. On their website, MALDEF calls them "OUR CORPORATE AND FOUNDATION PARTNERS" and groups them by amount: PLATINUM PARTNERS: $100,000+ GOLD PARTNERS: $50,000 – $99,999 SILVER PARTNERS: $10,000 – $49,000 BRONZE PARTNERS: $1,000 – $9,999 On their website, LULAC also lists their donors grouped by amount. Notice all the government agencies donating your tax money to a racially-based group: Freddie Mac, US Dept of HHS, US Dept of HUD, Environmental Protection Agency, US Dept of Homeland Security, University of Texas, El Paso: DIAMOND PARTNERS: $100,000+ PLATINUM PARTNERS: $ 75,000 – $99,999 GOLD PARTNERS: $ 50,000 – $74,999 SILVER PARTNERS: $ 30,000 – $49,999 BRONZE PARTNERS: $ 20,000 - $29,999 CONTRIBUTORS: $ 10,000 - $19,999 SUPPORTERS: $ 2,000 - $ 9,999 LA RAZA (from IRS TAX FILINGS 2002-2003) Direct Public Support $ 27,021,260 (a) 69% Indirect Public Support $ 1,750,000 (b) 5% Government Grants, contracts $ 5,757,452 16.7% Program Service Revenue $ 4,564,844 (c) Interest on Savings $ 28,729 TOTAL REVENUE $ 39,307,510 (a) LA RAZA lists contributors in their Annual Report but doesn't list amounts. Government agencies appear here too: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, NASA, Office of Illiois Attorney General, Sallie Mae Fund, US Dept of Commerce, US Dept of Education, US Dept of HUD, US Dept of HHS, US Dept of Labor (b) from 'umbrella charity groups like United Way or similar) (c) from "clients" who use their services, primarily Registration fees at their annual conference and publication sales. Considering that the ethnic advocates have always claimed "big corporate business" as their enemy, why the close financial ties? Does such heavy corporate funding represent the "corporate shakedown" or perhaps a true allianace? Or a combination of the two? I've concluded that ethnic advocacy is a tax-exempt and "criticism-proof" lobby group for corporate need of "cheap labor." I'd be interested in others' conclusions. The interests are in bed together, and the best proof is the voting records of their members of Congress. A 1996 vote by two Arizona members of Congress to end the Workplace Verification Program will illustrate. The big-business, big-money interests who want cheap labor couldn't find a better protector than Senator John McCain; Hispanic Congressman Ed Pastor has historically been a protector of the welfare of "his people." Yet both voted to end the voluntary Workplace Verification program in the 7 pilot states. McCain voted YES on the Abraham Amendment to S1654, and Pastor voted YES on the Chabot Amendment to HR 2202. Although they serve different interests, they vote alike when it comes to employers who hire illegals. Both want as little hindrance as possible. Another example of "strange bedfellows" popped up on the matter of the pending Social Security Totalization treaty with Mexico (Chapter 7, The "Compassionate Immigration reform" Scam). Considering the huge impact to seniors living on Social Security, it was a mystery why AARP hadn't taken an opposing stand and urging protests by their members to Congress. When the news of the totalization treaty became public in December 2002, several friends joined me in contacting AARP to learn what they planned to do. Inquiries to their call center and e-mail notes from their website produced the same response--AARP wasn't aware of any treaty with Mexico on Social Security. Continued follow-up notes and news articles to David Mitchel (AZ AARP President) through January 2004 produced his continued denials of any plan of paying Social Security benefits to Mexican nationals illegally in the US. The light dawned after reviewing LULAC and MALDEF's corporate donors for 2003: AARP is a "Bronze Partner" of MALDEF (donating $1,000 - $9,999) and a "Platinum Partner" of LULAC (donating $75,000—$99,999). I immediately contacted Mr. Mitchel to ask if his continued "denial" was related to AARP's financial support of MALDEF and LULAC. So far, Mitchel hasn't even sent me a card. So it was no surprise to Arizonans when AARP publicly opposed Prop 200. Doesn't the first "A" for "American" in their name violate the principles of "Truth in Advertising?" ~ Resources ~ (1) Wallace Huffman & Alan McGunn, How Much Is that Tomato in the Window?; Retail Produce Prices Without Illegal Farmworkers, Center for Immigration Studies, February 1996. (2) The Cost of Illegal Immigration to Arizonans, June 3 2004, Federation for American Immigration Reform. (3) The Cost of Illegal Immigration to Californians, January 2005, Federation for American Immigration Reform. (4) How to pick an orange, Karen Brandon, LA Times, January 4, 2005. (5) Migrant fieldworkers are losing their traditional livelihood to mechanized pickers and global competition, San Diego Union Tribune, January 23 2005. (6) In Florida Groves, Cheap Labor Means Machines, New York Times, March 22 2004. (7) Letters to the Editor, Prop 200 stand insults charities, Arizona Republic, October 12 2004. (8) Jon Dougherty, Mexicans to collect US Social Security? WorldNetDaily, December 19 2002. Monday: Part 9 - The "US economy will collapse without illegal alien labor" Scam ~ About the author ~ S. J. Miller is a former veteran of the IT industry who sought another career rather than "follow the jobs" abroad, and a lifelong resident of border states, California, Texas, Arizona, and Nevada. (c) S. J. Miller, 2005. All Rights Reserved "Published originally at http://FederalObserver.com: republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact." The S. J. Miller Archive on The Federal Observer
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Ferret Mike, Everyone on the 'Orange Juice' thread. All (#0)
a. pass the savings along to their customers OR b......... Only a FRaudian would answer "A" with a straight face.
"Freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in ...into an unbearable hell and a choking life." Just think of how cheap lettuce would be if we'd only bring back slavery. The darkies weren't THAT unhappy - they all had banjos, right? The real cost of our produce and services is NOT what we pay for it. It's all the costs that go into supporting this illegal immigrant population that are picked up by the taxpayer. That head of lettuce probably actually costs us $20 bucks at this point, when you factor in educating immigrant children, transporting them, giving them health care, housing, and policing and penal services.
"I woke up in the CRAZY HOUSE."
I ran through the actual numbers and came up with a six cent increase in the price of a head of lettuce of the labor costs going from eight $/hour to twentyfive $/h. Something else is the driver of this.
ROFL!!! TRUE!
I'm still waiting to see all those "savings" the stores got from firing everyone and installing auto-checkers and making me bag and carry out my own groceries.
"The more I see of life, the less I fear death" - Me.
isnt that a crock?? I never go to those lines cause I know those auto-checkers were responsible for someone losing their job.
Hope ya brought a chair.
The business owners are privatizing the profits (they get it) and socializing the costs (we pay for them).
"Benjamin Franklin was shown the new American constitution, and he said, 'I don't like it, but I will vote for it because we need something right now. But this constitution in time will fail, as all such efforts do. And it will fail because of the corruption of the people, in a general sense.' And that is what it has come to now, exactly as Franklin predicted." -- Gore Vidal
When that happened, first thing I did was look for another store, regardless of cost. I found one. Tom Thumb. No auto-checkers. Only real people. If that changes, I'll go to the local independent grocer, Roy Pope Grocery, or local family owned stores online.
"Freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in ...into an unbearable hell and a choking life."
#2. To: Grumble Jones (#0)
With the production cost savings in "cheap labor," do you believe that manufacturers of goods and services:
-OBL
"Prohibition...goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A prohibition law strikes at the very principles upon which our govt was founded."
- Lincoln
#3. To: Grumble Jones (#0)
#4. To: Grumble Jones (#0)
#5. To: mehitable (#3)
Just think of how cheap lettuce would be if we'd only bring back slavery. The darkies weren't THAT unhappy - they all had banjos, right?
#6. To: IndieTX (#2)
a. pass the savings along to their customers OR b........
#7. To: Pissed Off Janitor (#6)
I'm still waiting to see all those "savings" the stores got from firing everyone and installing auto-checkers and making me bag and carry out my own groceries.
#8. To: Pissed Off Janitor (#6)
I'm still waiting to see all those "savings" the stores got from firing everyone and installing auto-checkers and making me bag and carry out my own groceries.
#9. To: mehitable (#3)
The real cost of our produce and services is NOT what we pay for it. It's all the costs that go into supporting this illegal immigrant population that are picked up by the taxpayer.
#10. To: Pissed Off Janitor, tom007 (#6)
'm still waiting to see all those "savings" the stores got from firing everyone and installing auto-checkers and making me bag and carry out my own groceries.
-OBL
"Prohibition...goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A prohibition law strikes at the very principles upon which our govt was founded."
- Lincoln
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest