In a year when a charlatan -- one that has done absolutely zip, zero, zilch to solve the various wars raging across the globe, several involving his native country -- can win a Nobel Peace Prize, nothing should come as a shock.
Yet, when a major American newspaper offers the illegal immigrant as its person of the year, one has to wonder whether or not the sun really has begun rising in the west, and if Keith Olbermann isn't sticking his foot in his mouth every time he opens it.
To drive home the point, consider the following published in Saturday's Dallas Morning News (emphasis added throughout, h/t NBer motherbelt):
He breaks the law by his very presence. He hustles to do hard work many Americans won't, at least not at the low wages he accepts. The American consumer economy depends on him. America as we have known it for generations may not survive him.
We can't seem to live with him and his family, and if we can live without him, nobody's figured out how.
He's the Illegal Immigrant, and he's the 2007 Dallas Morning News Texan of the Year – for better or for worse.
Disgraceful, yes?
Or, maybe not, for this lengthy essay at least addressed the matter from a economically honest fashion quite different than a recent Reuters piece which strongly avowed that illegal immigrants are suddenly fleeing America due to declining economic conditions here.
By contrast, the News presented some truths most media members eschew:
If there are jobs in America, Latino immigrants will come, no matter the risk. And why not? They may be at the bottom of the economic ladder here, but they're making about four times, on average, what they could back home.
Antonio, a waiter at a North Texas restaurant, was an accountant in Mexico. He and his wife thought they could make more money in Texas, so they came illegally.
"In the time I've been here, this country has been very good to me. I am a responsible person. I pay my taxes. I pay my bills on time – utilities, mortgage. I pay federal taxes, too," he says.
This country good to people? With George W. Bush in the White House?
Unfortunately, the article wasn't completely devoid of Democrat talking points:
It's unclear from the data whether illegal immigration is a plus or minus for the nation's economy overall. Harvard economist George Borjas reports that it's more or less a wash. On close inspection, Dr. Borjas, a leading expert in the field, found that immigration's financial benefits accrue to those at the upper end of the economic scale, who can buy labor and its fruits at a lower cost, at the expense of those Americans at the lower end, whose wages go down.
Ah, well...what's a piece about illegal immigration without a little of the seemingly requisite liberal class envy that comes out during every election cycle? Or, for that matter, the race card:
It's easy to say, as many immigrant advocates do, that opposition to illegal immigration derives from racist sentiment, because that's undeniably part of the mix.
Yep. All those awful Americans wanting laws to be upheld while borders are secured, especially in the middle of a war on terrorism, only feel this way because they're racist.
It's so predictable, one has to wonder why newspapers even bother, for sadly missing from this article was the concern shared by many citizens from both sides of the political aisle that a porous border represents a clear and present danger in a post-9/11 world.
In fact, the issues of terrorism and national security in this piece were totally ignored. So too were illegal drugs, and just how much narcotics, marijuana, and methamphetamine are crossing into this nation from points south.
The absence of such matters so crucial to what many Americans feel about illegal immigration makes one wonder why the News dedicated so much print space to this subject until the likely modus operandi appeared in the conclusion:
People waging a culture war – and that's what the struggle over illegal immigration is – don't give up easily. What you think of the illegal immigrant says a lot about what you think of America, and what vision of her you are willing to defend. How we deal with the stranger among us says not only who we Americans are today but determines who we will become tomorrow.
Yep. Despite some of the candor apparent in the economic section, the authors chose to arrogantly and condescendingly point fingers at folks whose sentiments in this regard, contrary to liberal dogma, go way beyond culture.
That a newspaper serving citizens so close to the problem can't see the forest beyond the trees is almost sick-making.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Sometimes one get's the
December 30, 2007 - 11:39 ET by BlazerSometimes one get's the impression they may live in an alternate reality, such as the one where law breaking, non-citizen's are declared Texan of the year.
God forbid they would do the unthinkable and maybe name the Border Patrol Agent, or the U.S. Soldier Texan of the year, two other group's that do the job's most American's dont' want to do.
Nah, of course not that's too patriotic and Texan for the media there, it would have be a non-Texan law breaking invader.
This is an absolute slap in the face to the U.S. Border Patrol who risk their lives on the Texas border daily, and to Agent's Ramos and Campion who are rotting in prison for doing their duty.
This is a slap in the face to all Texan's. If I were George Bush and read this, I would pardon Ramos and Campion right after reading this and give Scooter Libby a full pardon to boot.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
I wonder.......
December 30, 2007 - 12:05 ET by OldSailor88What would Jim Bowie, Davy Crockett and the boys think about this? I grew up in Oklahoma, and I know the true Texan spirit. Trust me, the Dallas Morning News will be lucky if the building doesn't get stormed.
Ecce potestas casei!
It's unclear from the data
December 30, 2007 - 12:07 ET by sublight68It's unclear from the data whether illegal immigration is a plus or minus for the nation's economy overall. Harvard economist George Borjas reports that it's more or less a wash.
I find that hard to believe. No doubt illegals contribute to the economy to some degree, but I have to think that as a group they take a lot more out than they put in.
For every illegal paying taxes, how many don't? For every dollar they spend here, how many are sent back to Mexico? How many hospitals, social services and other programs have been strained beyond capacity catering to illegals?
I'd gladly pay a few cents extra for a head of lettuce to save the tax dollars being spent for illegals on the government dole.
I read that poor people cost 30,000 dollars in taxes each year
December 30, 2007 - 12:13 ET by Daniel BakerSomeone who does not speak English well will be permanently part of the working poor
A common misconception is
December 31, 2007 - 11:35 ET by Dan The Man 2A common misconception is these illegals are working for min wage or below and it is a falacy. Most in construction want 10/15 dollars an hour and they get it. They make good wages and there are few in the cities that make low wages.
A lot of it is off the books or structured as an independent contractor.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Treason
December 30, 2007 - 12:13 ET by SaltherringWe, the citizens of the United States, have traitors among us. They are among the following:
Anyone who knowingly hires an illegal immigrant
School officials who enroll illegals
Local governments who offer benefits to illegals
Health care workers who offer any service to illegals above that which would save a life
Court officials who turn illegals back onto our streets
The MSM, which agrees with the "plight" of illegals
Police officers who fail to turn illegals over to INS
INS agents who turn their backs
The Federal Government, which has done little to stem the flow or deport illegals, particularly criminal elements. Democrats desire a new class of victims for their socialist programs, while Republicans want cheap labor for their businesses. Who stands for us? No one, it seems....
"The American consumer
December 30, 2007 - 12:20 ET by robert108"The American consumer economy depends on him." Pure leftie propaganda. I would gladly pay more for some of my stuff if the invaders/parasites(they are not immigrants in any sense of the word) were kept out and sent home.
As Rush says, if cheap labor is so economically valuable, why isn't Mexico the richest nation on Earth?
On close inspection, Dr.
December 30, 2007 - 12:21 ET by MidAmericaOn close inspection, Dr. Borjas, a leading expert in the field, found that immigration's financial benefits accrue to those at the upper end of the economic scale, who can buy labor and its fruits at a lower cost, at the expense of those Americans at the lower end, whose wages go down.
This economic point is not emphasized as much as it should be. The dems, who constantly complain about 'tax cuts for the rich' have given the rich something far more valuble, cheap labor. My son bought a great house in Arizona that cost far less than a comparable house in the Midwest because of cheap (illegal) construction labor in Arizona. If the US truly needs these people in the economy let's widen the front door. The dems seem to prefer a backdoor with a sign above it that says 'courtesy of the democrat party'. The dems want to continue exploiting immigrants, living in the shadows, for their own power base instead of making them welcomed and full Americans.
Same can be said of cheap offshore labor,but we dont have to
December 30, 2007 - 13:05 ET by Daniel Bakerpay more taxes because of that
Noel asserts that Dr. Borjas' comment is a Dem talking point
December 31, 2007 - 12:34 ET by ur-conbut in reality it undermines their support of illegal immigration. Are the liberals for illegal immigration or are they for the Americans at the lower end of the wage scale? If Dr Borjas is right, and the basic laws of economics say he is, then illegal immigration harms the little guy and benefits the fat cats.
Dirty jobs
December 30, 2007 - 12:55 ET by doug1950Anyone ever watch the show "Dirty Jobs"? I have seen numerous episodes of the program and I have yet to see any of the people portrayed who appears to be from south of the border and those are some of the most disgusting jobs a human being could be asked or hired to do. I am not buying this statement these people do those jobs that Americans refuse to do. The reason folks hire them is it is cheap labor. It is purely profit driven.
You may have nailed it,
December 30, 2007 - 13:05 ET by motherbeltYou may have nailed it, doug. Maybe the saying should be "they do the jobs Americans won't do for so little pay."
consider Hawaii
December 30, 2007 - 12:56 ET by RousseI am weary of the idea that our economy will collapse without a pool of illegal aliens doing the jobs that no one else will. What hogwash. Consider Hawaii, a state that has virtually no illegal population. The tourist industry is doing well, the crops get picked, packed and shipped, the fish are caught and cleaned, etc ... the jobs that no one wants on the mainland?
In the meantime, the smaller populated counties in Texas (for example) are being crushed under the burden of paying for indigent medical care for people who claim to pay their own way, but don't. They buy Ford or Chevy pickups, but they don't buy medical insurance.
And Escaldes, and
December 31, 2007 - 18:20 ET by red_dragon311And Escaldes, and Navigators...my wife works at a school and the same kids who get "paid by me" lunch ( I refuse to call it "free" lunch) get picked up by these trucks.
"Get off the phone you big dope!!!!!!!!!!" Mark Levin
Thanks for the h/t nod,
December 30, 2007 - 13:11 ET by motherbeltThanks for the h/t nod, Noel, and for expanding on the article so well.
And now we've run the gamut...from ignoring illegals, to "accepting" them, to making them into downright heroes.
Amazing.
And now it has nothing to do with wanting laws enforced, and wanting to feel secure. Illegal immigration is now a "culture war" and if you're opposed to it, you're a racist.
Noel, Have we entered
December 30, 2007 - 13:17 ET by Sick-n-TiredNoel,
Have we entered some evil parallel dimension of the U.S.? Gore wins the Noble Prize, Putin is Times POY, and the illegal immigrant the POY for Texas?? I suppose you are now going to tell me something crazy like SRV is dead, yet Yoko Ono lives on to record.......DOH!!!
-click, click- I wanna go home, I wannna go home, I wanna go home!
"Controlling carbon is a bureaucrat's dream. If you control carbon, you control life," Richard Lindzen - March 2007.
I think you're right...it's
December 30, 2007 - 13:29 ET by motherbeltI think you're right...it's Bizarro World....
I Have To Disagree
December 30, 2007 - 13:44 ET by JoelCT"Ah, well...what's a piece about illegal immigration without a little of the seemingly requisite liberal class envy that comes out during every election cycle?"
I must stridently disagree with your reasoning for the wages line in the article, Noel.
When a construction boss hires a roofer, he can get away with paying seven dollars an hour to a Mexican. If an American wants the job, instead of the $10-$20 per hour the job SHOULD pay him, he has to settle for the $7 per hour wage, or else the boss will just hire another Mexican.
Hiring illegals DOES drive down the wages of the poor. It is not "class envy" to say so. To me, it is the "hidden harm" of having illegal aliens in this country, and no one seems to realize this.
To the contrary; any
December 30, 2007 - 14:29 ET by robert108To the contrary; any economist ought to recognize that when the invaders drive down wages, it simply means that there is an oversupply of labor relative to demand for same. We don't need them.
No one SHOULD be paid any wage
December 30, 2007 - 14:35 ET by Daniel BakerThey must fight for it. The illegals just make an uneven playing field because they don't com with all the insurance expenses to the boss, and they themselves don't follow the law and buy auto or health insurance. becuse they know they can freeride
In addition, since they
December 30, 2007 - 22:23 ET by robert108In addition, since they aren't really immigrants, they have no stake in our society, and accept a far lower standard of living than a real citizen, which enables them to send their parasite money back to Mexico. As I said, they are invaders and parasites. They come here to take, not to give.
JoelCT, While I might
December 30, 2007 - 15:01 ET by alamojbJoelCT,
While I might dispute the numbers you give, I agree with the gist of what you are saying.
Also, there is a secondary effect where eventually, any manager must be bilingual, so most non Latin persons are excluded. Eventually, the whole field, from labor to foreman to office managers are Hispanic. Then the rest of us are insulted by people saying whites and blacks will not do those jobs.
I have worked construction in between various military assignments with the National Guard, so I have watched this with some interest. I currently have my own one man fence company. I am the boss and the worker. I compete with fence companies staffed by illegal aliens. It is not very promising right now, though I admit my advertising could use some work, plus I am trying to learn the ins and outs of self employment. I hear the oil companies are now paying quite a bit to put up fences around new oil and gas wells, so I probably need to develope that lead.
The poison of Multiculturalism has made people so that if the "Borg" of Star Trek were to show up saying "resistance is futile, you will be assimilated", half the Western World would call those of us who resisted "Bigots"
I will admit that
December 30, 2007 - 15:16 ET by alamojbI will admit that commercial roofing, especially metal roofing, is very ruff on very light skinned white guys like myself. I worked for a commercial metal roofing company a few years back and found myself wearing long sleeve shirts in triple digit temps. With metal roofs you not only get hit by the sun coming down, but by the sun reflecting up. It also does not help that normal hard hats do not provide much protection to your face from the sun . I went and bought one of the those cowboy hard hats with a big brim. They let me wear it, but I think OSHA does not really like those because they do not glance blows off as well as a traditional hard hat. I even saw some of the Hispanic guys take a square pizza box, cut out a hole in the center and put it on their hard hat like a square sombrero. I really think OSHA needs to rethink the whole hard hat thing for folks working in the sun, since the government keeps telling us UV leads to cancer.
The poison of Multiculturalism has made people so that if the "Borg" of Star Trek were to show up saying "resistance is futile, you will be assimilated", half the Western World would call those of us who resisted "Bigots"
alamo
December 30, 2007 - 15:28 ET by botgtry this and a white rubber roof is not fun either
"Man created god(s) Anything believed was created by man"-----
Looks good. I did note it
December 30, 2007 - 16:15 ET by alamojbLooks good. I did note it only fit their companies hard hat. A hat which appeared to have vents on top- another improvement over traditional hard hats. Now that I build fences, I do not wear hard hats. I am not sure if OSHA really requires it for that work. I wear a full brimmed straw hat now. Much cooler, lighter and good protection from the sun.
But that link you supplied does look good.
The poison of Multiculturalism has made people so that if the "Borg" of Star Trek were to show up saying "resistance is futile, you will be assimilated", half the Western World would call those of us who resisted "Bigots"
JoelCT
December 31, 2007 - 09:51 ET by Noel SheppardJCT,
You "stridently disagree" with my reasoning for the wages line in this article? Cool. Could you stridently do so by stridently providing links to economic reports stridently supporting your contention that illegal immigrants are driving down the wages of the poor? And, can you do so citing qualified entities not tied to Democrat politicians or organizations, please?
For instance, don't bother us with shills like Krugman, Reich, Stiglitz, and DeLong to name a few that are about as credible on this subject as Bill Clinton is fidelity.
What I'm looking for here, JCT, is an actual, comprehensive economic analysis on this issue, not an opinion piece. Fair enough?
I await your response with great eagerness. ns
With all due respect, Noel
December 31, 2007 - 10:56 ET by RJWhy the emotional, sarcastic reaction to Joel's post? You wrote an opinion piece and Joel responded with his own opinion. He wasn't aggressive or insulting, but, apparently, the word "stridently" set you off.
Your piece didn't provide links to "comprehensive economic analysis" to prove the contention that illegals don't drive down the wages of the poor, but you demand that he provide links to prove they do.
BTW, here's my opinion: 1)There will always be employers who are willing to hire illegals for lower wages and lower expenses. 2)That, in turn, gives them a competitive edge over other businesses. 3)Those other businesses are often forced to lower their wages in order to stay in business.
Looks to me as if it's a straight line from illegals to lower wages for the American poor. What am I missing?
RJ
December 31, 2007 - 12:17 ET by Noel SheppardRJ,
Aren't I entitled to emotional sarcasm from time to time, especially during the holidays and on my vacation? How 'bout cutting me a modicum of the slack you graciously allocated to Joel, hmmm? :-)
Yes, maybe I overreacted a tad, and maybe I owe Joel an apology for doing so. However, before I prostrate myself in the name of group harmony, let's look at some meanings of the word "strident," shall we, just to see whether I should have been set off by the use of this adjective:
No matter how you slice it, judging by these definitions, Joel was either unpleasantly loud and harsh or sharply insisting on being heard.
Let's assume the latter. If he was so insistent on making his arguments heard, maybe he should have offered some support to his protestations. Don't you think it's appropriate when someone stridently disagrees with a postulate in a public forum said individual provide some evidence that the opinion rendered was indeed errant? Isn't that what debate and discourse is about?
On the flipside, before being challenged, do you think it is writers' responsibility at a media bias website to provide economic reports in every article about press coverage of financial matters? Do you think that's what our readers are looking for? If so, how many articles do you envision being published here if they need to rise to such a level?
That all said, I stridently apologize to Joel for jumping down his throat on New Year's Eve. Fair enough? ns
Noel, let's play "name that meaning"
December 31, 2007 - 13:05 ET by RJIt's always dangerous to too deeply interpret the intent of another, but from the tone and context of his post, it seems clear that Joel wasn't trying to be "unpleasantly loud and harsh or sharply insisting on being heard".....more likely it was:
Main entry: clarion
Part of speech: adjective
Definition: clear
Synomyms: blaring, definite, inspiring, loud, ringing, shrill
Antonyms: dull, low, muffled, muted, soft
(Source: Roget's New Millennium Thesaurus)
As for the "flipside", if you demand Joel provide links to economic reports, then certainly you should be willing to provide the same to bolster your side, don't you think?
And I boisterously wish you a Happy New Year! :^)
RJ
December 31, 2007 - 18:23 ET by Noel SheppardRJ,
Let's consider this from a totally different perspective. When I first started posting on the Internet, it was almost exclusively about stocks, business, finance, and the economy. Assume for a second that some analyst or economist posted an article or comment about what the market or the economy was doing. Anybody could just respond with a "I stridently disagree" post, correct? However, why should this analyst or economist take any refutations seriously from unknown entities unless they included some support for their assertions? That would be quite a waste of his time, as well as those frequenting said site, yes?
After all, I can go to any website as an unknown entity and just stridently disagree with one of the main writers without providing anything to support my refutations, correct? Why should such person respond to my simple "I stridently disagree" unless I have proved him wrong with citations from known entities possessing some credibility in the field?
Or, do you think "I stridently disagree" by a completely unknown entity should be enough to warrant attention? In this instance, would you prefer I spent the majority of my time at this website addressing unknown members who posit such fervent disagreements with my views with no supporting evidence to their positions, or write more articles for the consideration of other members likely including yourself?
Think about it before you answer. ns
Happy New Year, Noel
December 31, 2007 - 19:09 ET by RJ...that was just so you know I'm not getting bogged down in "defending" Jason at all costs. This is just an end of year discussion between a coupla guys.
Honestly, I strongly suspect Jason misused the word. He was giving an opinion (which I agreed with) and he even provided reasons. But that single word ticked you off. BTW, you haven't demanded links from me...and please don't bother, because I ain't gonna do it. :^)
As far as your question about providing links as supporting evidence, I also firmly believe that what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Again, Happy New Year, Noel.
RJ
December 31, 2007 - 19:22 ET by Noel SheppardRJ,
As you likely are well aware, this gander is always ready to provide the sauce when asked, agreed? However, I've always felt such was incumbent upon the challenger.
If I suggest one plus one equals two for example, anyone that disagrees should be compelled to provide evidence to support his position don't you think?
Now, you might counter with a logical rebuttal that what I posited was not as definite as such a simple arithmetic equation. Though I would agree, I would still state that as you were the one initiating the refutation, the onus was firmly upon you to provide support for your position if you were at all serious about it.
Make sense? Barring such, my conclusion would be -- a logical one, mind you! -- that you were just doing this for sport, and not really worth my time. Make sense?
Happy New Year! ns
Noel
December 31, 2007 - 19:32 ET by RJAnything I write is "worth your time." Whenever you see the initials "RJ", you should open the post with anticipation akin to Christmas Morning. :^)
Seriously, I was being serious in this debate, not sporting with you....just didn't want to make it into a serious macho thing on New Year's Eve.
RJ
December 31, 2007 - 19:47 ET by Noel SheppardRJ,
Serious macho thing? Stop it. I think we're not communicating. Something's missing. The medium is failing us somehow.
As such, the only thing to do is to head out with my family and begin celebrating this tremendously arbitrary annual ceremony. In fact, there's a martini out there somewhere with my name on it. I hear it a calling. Don't you? :-)
Have a great evening. ns
Noel
January 1, 2008 - 11:15 ET by RJWait a minute. Aren't you Noel Crankshank, the famous civilian astronaut? Well, heck, no wonder we're not communicating....one of us is definitely from Mars, while the other....
Well, Happy New Year, too, whoever you are.... :^)
This is the same Dallas
December 30, 2007 - 14:42 ET by alamojbThis is the same Dallas Morning News that opposes new coal powered generators being built in Texas. The power grid is predicted to be unstable in less than two years due to increased demand. Between 2000 and 2006 Dallas and Houston gained 600,000 and 800,000 people for a net growth total of 1,400,000 people in 6 Years! (I don't remember which one had the greater amount) A lot of this, though not all, was from South of the border. Californians seem to be moving to Texas in droves- I wonder how much of this is indirectly related to the heavy flood into that state of illegals. (California is a bit smaller than Texas, but more importantly, a great percentage of California land is Federally owned and thus off limits to human occupation. Thus the land squeeze ( increased prices) will be felt earlier in a State like that.)
Texas is now the leading State for Wind Generated electricity, but the best wind is not near the most populated areas. I fear Texas will be another California, with rolling brownouts, very soon.
The poison of Multiculturalism has made people so that if the "Borg" of Star Trek were to show up saying "resistance is futile, you will be assimilated", half the Western World would call those of us who resisted "Bigots"
Must everything be apocalyptic?
December 31, 2007 - 01:32 ET by UnsaneNot if we don't start demanding more juice now!
Bang on the Legislature. I wrote them wanting more nukes. There's no reason we can't add a reactor or two to Comanche Park or the STNP.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
The illegal crossing RACIST sign
December 30, 2007 - 14:55 ET by Lame CherryWhile not touching on the stupidity of Dallas MN, I wonder why no one has ever asked what liberal came up with the border buster sign.
Look really close at that sign and the creatures on it do not appear quite human, but more a cross of something that crawled out of a cave or is in the forests of Africa yet.
Are the liberals who came up with these signs saying that illegals are less than human? Perhaps they are like Bob Barker pets in needing to be rounded up and cared for in the pen of America?
If one beholds the said border buster sign, it is a wonder the feminists have signed off on it, because there you have the ape type male leading the rather thick looking lesbian butch Rosie dragging a child along with no support from said senor.
My questions in this is why is the Dallas Morning News featuring this, why have liberals created signs which show Mexicans as rather "thick", short legged and ugly animal type people and why have feminists allowed women and children to be shown as helpless.
These are the liberals putting these signs up. These are the liberals who created them. This is what liberals view the Mexican as.............and if one RESEARCHES this in Mexicans, etc.... are being used as slave house servants and slave laborers, we have at Newsbusters a VISUAL affirmation of what I blogged about as the Letterman Syndrome in liberals squeal most about racism, bigotry and homophobes because they are the ones promoting it.
Someone came up with this sign.........a LIBERAL and LIBERALS approved it. This is how liberals view border busters as subhumans not capable of caring for themselves and need crumbs from the massah's table.
OK who is going to ask Obama, Hillary, Edwards and Gore to answer for the signs their ilk have created.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
Hey, LC, some liberals also
December 30, 2007 - 15:34 ET by motherbeltHey, LC, some liberals also thought that the designers of the WTC firefighters' monument could make one of the FF appear to be Hispanic, and another African-American, in bronze statues.
Not that they would use sterertypical facial features, or anything......
As a resident of Arizona
December 30, 2007 - 18:14 ET by DEVILDOCMOMthis article makes me sick. Head over to FOX News and read this article Violent Border Smugglers Scare U.S. Scientists. Ah, yes, the hard working illegal. My son, who served in Iraq with the 5th Marines as a Navy Corpsman, was a Boy Scout who use to camp in this once lovely area. This is, may I add, a National Monument...our "leaders", ALL of them are failing us on this issue.
I have posted before that I am an ER RN in Tucson, I often work Triage and tire of illegals who come in unable to speak basic English. Yes, they are treated well, as are all our patients, but it is VERY frustrating knowing they are on the "You and I" insurance.
I say exploit them to the fullest
December 31, 2007 - 00:06 ET by SlicksterBefore sending them home make them pay back everything they have scammed from America, 6 months to a year in a forced labor camp should do it. Any sympathizers should be right alongside them.
If the illegal immigrant is
December 31, 2007 - 20:36 ET by kstcIf the illegal immigrant is the "Man of the Year" does that mean Johnny Sutton came in a close second?
Texan of the year?
January 2, 2008 - 09:52 ET by rpkinmdIllegal aliens are the Texans of the year? I thought you had to be a legal resident of the state to be a Texan. What a denigration of proud people to be represented by law braking illegal aliens.
Legal resident
January 2, 2008 - 09:57 ET by sarcasmoIt depends. Apparently not for one deep thinker...
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul. (All purpose anti-slander-link, sadly-needed these days...)