“Do this! Do that! Hurry up! There’s just no good help any more.”
Imagine you could go through life surrounded by indentured servants on whom you depended, yet to whom you never had to say, “Please” or “Thank you.”
In the cartoon series, The Backyardigans, five imaginative little children turn a backyard into exotic locales. In “The Secret of the Nile,” set in ancient Egypt, “Princess Tasha” sings “I love being a princess,” because her servants (slaves) must be at her beck and call. As the servants tell us, in asides, “Princess Tasha never says ‘Please’ or ‘Thank you.’”
When the Nile suddenly dries up, the Sphinx teaches Princess Tasha the secret of the Nile: You must always say “Please” and “Thank you.” When the princess finally shows gratitude to her servants, the Nile is replenished.
America today has millions of real-life Princess Tashas - but they haven’t been enlightened by the Sphinx. (Enlightened by the Sphinx?! Oh, well.) One wealthy seven-year-old tells his illegal immigrant nanny, “You are our slave!” A privileged six-year-old, herself a Chinese-born adoptee, tells her immigrant nanny, “I’m going to tell my mommy to fire you!” The Princess Tashas have picked up the attitude of their employer-criminal parents who have come to believe they are above the law.
Although you’d never know it from the feds’ refusal to enforce the law, knowingly hiring illegal immigrants is a crime. The parents of the princes and princesses are also guilty of tax evasion for not withholding taxes for their illegal employees and for not paying their portion of the employees’ taxes.
In one of the many stealth amnesties already in force, when an illegal is regularized in an “adjustment of status,” as per Section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), he has to pay all of the back taxes he owes, totaling thousands of dollars, plus a $1,000 fine. His former employers are never dunned for the back taxes, or forced to pay statutory fines, much less prosecuted.
If the government collected outstanding back taxes, fined, arrested, and prosecuted such employer-criminals, our illegal immigrant problem would be reduced to manageable levels, with most of the unemployed illegals heading home - to the nations to which they are loyal.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Nicholas Stix
Odd title, this.
2 - Deano
At what point do you stop blaming the illegals and start blaming the employers?
There are whole industries in the US (and Canada) that are wholly dependent on cheap, available migrant labour. California's strawberry industry is fuelled by it - workers with few rights, minimal pay, no support against injury, abuse or misuse...you are absolutely right in that to a degree nations choose their demographics but the prime culprit is ourselves - we employ the illegals (cheap nannies, gardeners, low-cost pickers, low cost day labor...the list goes on). Remove the wholesale use of cheap illegal labor as a viable, legal work expedient and you reduce the incentive to come to the job marketplace.
You can't just legislate it out of existance - the people aren't going to disappear and the illegals won't stop coming just because you've declared it so. In the end the single biggest factor that will stem the illegal tide will be the development of economic opportunities at home, rather then in the US.
3 - Nicholas Stix
... the prime culprit is ourselves - we employ the illegals (cheap nannies, gardeners, low-cost pickers, low cost day labor...the list goes on).
Who is "we," Kimosabe? I don't employ any illegals.
Remove the wholesale use of cheap illegal labor as a viable, legal work expedient and you reduce the incentive to come to the job marketplace.
It's already removed as a "legal work expedient"; it's illegal.
You can't just legislate it out of existance - the people aren't going to disappear and the illegals won't stop coming just because you've declared it so.
You can't just legislate murder or rape out of existence, either. You have to enforce the law. You have to constantly hunt down, arrest, prosecute and punish murderers and rapists and other criminals. It's already a felony for a previously deported illegal to be caught here illegally a second time; like the rest of our immigration laws, the law simply isn't enforced.
In the past, we didn't have a big illegal immigrant problem, because the authorities did their jobs. During the early 1950s, we had a million illegal immigrants in the Southwest. So the authorities rounded them up, and forcibly deported them back to Mexico. It was called Operation Wetback.
In the end the single biggest factor that will stem the illegal tide will be the development of economic opportunities at home, rather then in the US.
What is that supposed to mean? Are you saying that we should give billions of additional dollars to Mexico, or are you engaging in wishful thinking? Are you even aware that Mexico is one of the world's more prosperous nations? Didn't think so.
In any event, your post presupposes that America cannot control its borders, and that Mexicans and other illegals can flood us at will. But the border situation is due to the deliberate refusal of the federal government to do its duty, both in terms of border and interior enforcement.
4 - Mark Richard Adams
"America will face a revolutionary mix of [1]ever-growing population pressure, [2]declining wages, [3]inflationary housing prices, [4]inequality, [5]interethnic strife, [6]budget deficits, and [7]political instability.
1. If half the world's population moved to America then she would still be less populus than England (where only 10% of land is inhabited).
2. Since cheap labour reduces costs there is no reason to suppose that real wages would fall. In fact increased specialisation would allow real wages to rise without creating as much inflation.
3. The main cost of housing is labour, not land. Cheaper immigrant labour would probably reduce house prices and modern technology allows us to live further from urban settlements.
4. a) Why is inequality a bad thing? It encourages economic activity. b) How does keeping the poor people in their own countries wih fewer opportunities reduce inequality?
5. I would understand (but not agree) if you said inter-cultural strife, but inter-ethnic strife? Isn't Michelle Malkin (the author of the book referenced) Chinese - does that create strife?
6. I'm not sure where you are coming from on this one. If it's a reference to welfare then why not remove the welfare benefits and see if people still come?
7. I assume that one is reliant on at least one of the above points being true.
5 - chantal stone
...the werid thing is, as I was reading this, the Backyardigans were on in the background.
Interesting analogy
6 - Nicholas Stix
"America will face a revolutionary mix of [1]ever-growing population pressure, [2]declining wages, [3]inflationary housing prices, [4]inequality, [5]interethnic strife, [6]budget deficits, and [7]political instability.
1. If half the world's population moved to America then she would still be less populus than England (where only 10% of land is inhabited).
America already has four times as many people living here, legally and illegally, than England.
2. Since cheap labour reduces costs there is no reason to suppose that real wages would fall. In fact increased specialisation would allow real wages to rise without creating as much inflation.
When the supply of labor exceeds demand, wages fall. Econ 101.
Specialization doesn't become, because employers bring in H1-Bs (and holders of some other non-immigrant type work visas that escape me at present) and pay them half what they pay Aemrican technical workers.
3. The main cost of housing is labour, not land. Cheaper immigrant labour would probably reduce house prices and modern technology allows us to live further from urban settlements.
Land, not labor. And with immigration-induced population pressure, the cost of land, and thus housing, is exploding.
4. a) Why is inequality a bad thing? It encourages economic activity. b) How does keeping the poor people in their own countries wih fewer opportunities reduce inequality?
a) Up to a point, it's not bad, if it's not based on corruption and crime. After that point, voters demand and get egalitarian legislation. Or they revolt. b) See 2.
5. I would understand (but not agree) if you said inter-cultural strife, but inter-ethnic strife? Isn't Michelle Malkin (the author of the book referenced) Chinese - does that create strife?
Interethnic strife means that people from different groups based on race or national descent
would kill members of other groups based on race or national descent. What is unclear about that? And what does Michelle Malkin (who is an American of Phillipine descent) have to do with it?
6. I'm not sure where you are coming from on this one. If it's a reference to welfare then why not remove the welfare benefits and see if people still come?
It was tried in California, but rogue judges restored illegals' access to health and welfare programs.
7. I assume that one is reliant on at least one of the above points being true.
It's the other way around; one causes the others.
7 - Nicholas Stix
Chantal Stone: ...the werid thing is, as I was reading this, the Backyardigans were on in the background.
Interesting analogy
You get Backyardigans in the morning?! On what channel? We only get them at 4:30 p.m., and when they showed "The Secret of the Nile" again the other day, I missed it. Drat!
8 - chantal stone
It comes on at 10:30 on Nickelodeon---part of the Nick Jr. line-up.
big fans, in my house
9 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Think about this, gents. When I was going on target pracice a while ago, I got to talking to an unemployed chef. He told me of his dicussions with a caterer. It seems that the chef wanted NIS 5,000 for monthly wages - about $1,125 a month, and a reasonable amount to pay for a professional chef. The caterer blew up at him. "NIS 5,000 a month?" he screamed. "I could get three Arabs for that kind of money!" So, the caterer hired the three Arabs.
That's the effect of cheap labor. It kills an economy and creates a huge poor class exploited by a small upper class. That is what we have here in Israel these days. There is no such thing as "trickle down" when it comes to dignity or honor. When you are desperate for money, you do anything. There is no honor, there is no dignity; there is only desperation. The rich profit; the poor suffer.
Just something to think on, gents...
10 - Dave Nalle
As someone who actually knows something about hiring servants, it's not that difficult to make sure your servants are legal if you're genuinely rich. You can easily get a work visa for servants from outside of the US and bring them in at fairly low wages - since you provide room and board - and be entirely legal about it. My grandparents brought all their servants over as teenagers from Ireland. In some cases they eventually got naturalized, others went home to Ireland and some stayed here for a very long time on work visas.
Today it's just as easy to bring over legal servants from other parts of the world, especially the poorer parts of Eastern Europe. It's easy to get work visas for workers from that part of the world, and easy to find competent, reliable and educated workers there who are eager to come to America. Paying taxes on their salary isn't that big a deal - there's a nice little form for it that comes with your 1040 - and the wages are likely at least partially tax deductible. Plus since you're providing room and board for them the actual salary you pay them is probably quite low - a couple of hundred dollars a week, on which the taxes are pretty minuscule. Plus, if you're rich enough to have servants, you're rich enough to have an accountant to do the taxes.
Dave
11 - shArk
WORST egotistical, yet highly, DEEPLY insecure Opening Line of the Day:
NALLE: "As someone who actually knows something about hiring servants, it's not that difficult to make sure your servants are legal if you're genuinely rich."
In the race to display a disturbing need for self-validation via a friggin' internet discussion thread, you're running a close second to Al "I was the first to cuss the Dixie Chicks!" Barger.
Congrats!
12 - Deano
Who is "we," Kimosabe? I don't employ any illegals.
Did you have any strawberry jam on your toast this morning? It's there courtesy of illegal pickers. Strawberries are one of the single most profitable agricultural products per acre (other than marijuana) in the US but only because the picking industry is dependent on low-wage illegals as pickers.
You may not directly employ any illegals but you indirectly benefit from the (ahem) fruits of their labors.
It's already removed as a "legal work expedient"; it's illegal.
No shit, Sherlock - that's the point. The legislation needs to be enforced and employers need to be on the hook for ensuring that they are only employing legal workers, otherwise you're just creating a revolving door of illegal wage slaves and an ongoing problem (i.e. the current system). Right now there are whole industries that use of illegal labor dominates...who do you think is rebuilding most of New Orleans right now? it ain't legal labor - but are the laws being rigorously enforced - NO.
Are you saying that we should give billions of additional dollars to Mexico, or are you engaging in wishful thinking? Are you even aware that Mexico is one of the world's more prosperous nations? Didn't think so.
No, I am saying exactly what I said - namely that populations are mobile, particularly in this day and age - and they will move to where they can build opportunities and lives. You can build a bigger fence, arm more guards, legislate all day long but as long as employers in the US (or anywhere else for that matter) are willing to hire illegals to do the jobs at a cheaper price, people will find a way in.
If and when economic opportunities improve in the locales that supply cheap labor, the supply from that region will diminish as their local opportunities rise. That doesn't mean the supply of cheap labor stops, just that it relocates - maybe they are coming in via ship from China, or West Africa etc.
And yes, I am aware of Mexico's state of "prosperity"...I also didn't specify Mexico in my post, genius, so read a little more carefully next time.
your post presupposes that America cannot control its borders, and that Mexicans and other illegals can flood us at will.
No, it doesn't, that's you spinning my comments for your own purposes. You can control your border at will - you can line up your army on the border and watch every foot like a hawk all day long and I couldn't give a rat's ass. The point is that there is a economic tipping point whereby the supposed gains you want to achieve by locking down your border don't equate with the costs of enforcement.
So you can lock your border down and check every ship entering the harbor, but at what point does it become farcical and end up costing you more resources then the illegals did in the first place?
13 - Jim Wynne
There are lots of illegals who are paying taxes and not filing returns. Why do you think so many of them have bogus Social Security cards? This means that there's money being paid into Social Security that will never benefit the people who are contributing it.
of perfectly legal Americans who are paid in cash, under the table.
And there are
That's illegal, you know. So is not paying state use/sales tax on out-of-state purchases (such as via the Internet), but I'll bet that none of the people doing all of the "But it's illegal!" bleating would never not pay their own taxes, would they?
14 - Nicholas Stix
S. Jones: I would definetely agree with number 13 and also with number 11. It is so easy for this man to blaim the immigrants for everything that goes wrong. Maybe we should declare war on Mexico next? Is that what you want?
Since Mexico is already at war with us, that is what I want.
How stupid are you guys if you can not see that Asia is buying our country step by step. Illegal immigrants are not buying property.
Of course, they are, with illegal mortgages subsidized by American citizens.
Would it be humanly possible for you to know less about the subject on which you opined?
But Japan will own most of the US very soon and then your hateful blogs won't help you either when you are sitting on the street and have not pc to write more BS.
Are you saying, the Japanese are going to come into my home and seize my pc? What the hell are you saying?
BTW, last I heard, the Chinese were lending us more money than the Japanese.
How is making true statements "hateful"?
Don't bother trying to answer -- your head will explode!
15 - DrPat
This discussion illustrates what I call the "Miyagi Principle of Law Enforcement". The name comes from the first Karate Kid movie, in which Mr. Miyagi tells his young pupil: "Karate do yes, okay. Karate do no, okay. But karate do maybe, clshk! Squish like bug!"
We have nearly 20 years of "immigration enforcement maybe" to undo. With either choice, we have a hefty penalty. Amnesty or deportation will cost us plenty; continued disregard of legal penalties for breaking the law is expensive as well, and builds contempt for the law generally in both US citizenry and foreign nationals.
We must choose: either enforce the law, or eliminate the law. Because what we have now is leading inevitably to Miyagi's prediction: "Clshk! Squish like bug!"
16 - Nicholas Stix
Chantal Stone: It comes on at 10:30 on Nickelodeon---part of the Nick Jr. line-up.
big fans, in my house
Mine, too. I looked up Nick on our Time-Warner remote, and it's on Channel 6. Fortunately, it was only "Sherman the Worman" today, so it was no big loss.
17 - Richard Brodie
Jim Wynne points out: There are lots of illegals who are paying taxes and not filing returns. Why do you think so many of them have bogus Social Security cards? This means that there's money being paid into Social Security that will never benefit the people who are contributing it.
How do the SS card forgers know what numbers to use, i.e which ones haven't yet been assigned? Hell, maybe YOUR number has been used, and you will be credited with the benefit!
Isn't the SS Administration smart enough to suspect that something is wrong when the same social security number is being used simultaneously in San Diego and Boston?
18 - Nicholas Stix
Jim Wynne: There are lots of illegals who are paying taxes and not filing returns. Why do you think so many of them have bogus Social Security cards? This means that there's money being paid into Social Security that will never benefit the people who are contributing it.
So what? That some of those engaged in criminal enterprises are paying money to social security, in spite of themselves, is legally and morally irrelevant. No one forced them to commit the crimes of entering the country illegally, working illegally, and identity theft.
The issue you raised by implication ('Hey, we owe thse guys') only becomes one if you first deny that the individuals in question are committing crimes, and paying the money as part of a criminal activity.
And your suggestion that the illegals are somehow getting cheated is not only dishonest, but despicable. We owe these guys nothing.
Similarly, when Pete Rose was arrested for tax evasion, because of undeclared income from gambling winnings, he wasn't able to get off by pointing out that he had lost much more than he had won, and thus had not profited one dime off gambling, even though that was true. The IRS didn't owe Pete money. And so, off to the hoosegow, he went.
But Pete Rose is an American, so I guess that wouldn't cut any ice with you.
And there are of perfectly legal Americans who are paid in cash, under the table.
That's illegal, you know.
Duh! And your point is?
So is not paying state use/sales tax on out-of-state purchases (such as via the Internet), but I'll bet that none of the people doing all of the "But it's illegal!" bleating would never not pay their own taxes, would they?
I can only respond to your triple negative with a double duh!, so I guess your extra negative makes you the king of nihilistic, upside-down ethics.
(But I don't think your claim about Internet purchases is even true. I think you'd better come up with some law on that, to back up your claim.)
Guess what? The fact that Americans may not be saints does not justify foreigners running roughshod over our legal system. Only someone who has chosen loyalty to foreigners and disloyalty towards his own countrymen could delude himself that such pitifully fallacious arguments have any validity.
19 - Nicholas Stix
DrPat: This discussion illustrates what I call the "Miyagi Principle of Law Enforcement". The name comes from the first Karate Kid movie, in which Mr. Miyagi tells his young pupil: "Karate do yes, okay. Karate do no, okay. But karate do maybe, clshk! Squish like bug!"
We have nearly 20 years of "immigration enforcement maybe" to undo. With either choice, we have a hefty penalty. Amnesty or deportation will cost us plenty; continued disregard of legal penalties for breaking the law is expensive as well, and builds contempt for the law generally in both US citizenry and foreign nationals.
We must choose: either enforce the law, or eliminate the law. Because what we have now is leading inevitably to Miyagi's prediction: "Clshk! Squish like bug!"
"Miyagi Principle of Law Enforcement"? Excellent concept.
20 - Bliffle
Dave: "As someone who actually knows something about hiring servants, ..."
I refuse to be imprisoned by servants. Most of the Masters I have seen live in fear of their servants. Refrigerators and washing macines were invented to set us free of domination by the people we would depend on.
My father-in-law had servants, and even in his last days lived in fear that 'Louisa' would leave him. Fortunately, his influence in Paris got him admitted to "The American Hospital", as it is called, where he had a splendid bungalow and could properly entertain his girlfriends, who were many by the time he reached 85. Thus, he was freed of the oppression of servants, instead having the care of Paid Medical Professionals (paid by somebody else, of course).
My mother-in-law was constantly haunted by the notion that the servants were cheating at the grocers. Sometimes she made forays into the markets to buy Large Pieces Of Meat, which she had no idea of how to cook since she had never in her 80 years spent an hour in a kitchen (she DID know that the kitchen in her house was downstairs someplace).
They were constantly burdened by the necessity to take servants with when they traveled. Even on their various assignations and escapades.
One need only consider the plight of Gully Jimsons patron in "The Horses Mouth" (a fine novel by Joyce Cary, and an excellent movie with Alec Guiness) who, upon receiving another crank call from Jimson says "I don't care if you kill me, I'm an old man, but please stop calling and upsetting the servants: they threaten to leave and are difficult to replace". Jimson is properly chagrined, and, of course, the patrons butler gives notice, thus throwing him into despair.
No, altogether the prospect of servants and other cheap labor is greatly overrated.
21 - Dave Nalle
I'm so glad shark is worrying about my need for self-validation. Of course, if I actually had the mental problems he ascribes to me I'd be buying indentured from the Philippines, not talking about the practice of hiring servants as an observer.
Sounds like Bliffle's experiences are similar to mine. A generation or two ago servants were pretty common in upper class or even middle class households, though that need has now been filled by technology. And yes, I'd rather have my appliances than a handful of servants like my grandparents. It is nice to have a maid service come in once a week, though.
But the point is that it's still possible to get servants into the US on legal visas and it's not as expensive as you might assume. The servant market really isn't the issue here.
Dave
22 - Nicholas Stix
Stix earlier: Who is "we," Kimosabe? I don't employ any illegals.
Deano: Did you have any strawberry jam on your toast this morning? It's there courtesy of illegal pickers. Strawberries are one of the single most profitable agricultural products per acre (other than marijuana) in the US but only because the picking industry is dependent on low-wage illegals as pickers.
You may not directly employ any illegals but you indirectly benefit from the (ahem) fruits of their labors.
No, I don't. I am personally in the hole for thousands of dollars, paying for the education, medical care, social services, infrastructure costs and costs for the imprisonment of illegals.
Stix earlier: It's already removed as a "legal work expedient"; it's illegal.
Deano: No shit, Sherlock - that's the point.
No, it wasn't. You screwed up in your use of language, and then tried to put the screw-up on me.
Work on your English -- and your manners.
Stix earlier: Are you saying that we should give billions of additional dollars to Mexico, or are you engaging in wishful thinking? Are you even aware that Mexico is one of the world's more prosperous nations? Didn't think so.
Deano: No, I am saying exactly what I said - namely that populations are mobile, particularly in this day and age - and they will move to where they can build opportunities and lives. You can build a bigger fence, arm more guards, legislate all day long but as long as employers in the US (or anywhere else for that matter) are willing to hire illegals to do the jobs at a cheaper price, people will find a way in.
Wrong, again. Foreign populations seeking to enter the U.S. are as mobile as we permit them to be.
Deano: If and when economic opportunities improve in the locales that supply cheap labor, the supply from that region will diminish as their local opportunities rise. That doesn't mean the supply of cheap labor stops, just that it relocates - maybe they are coming in via ship from China, or West Africa etc.
And yes, I am aware of Mexico's state of "prosperity"...I also didn't specify Mexico in my post, genius, so read a little more carefully next time.
Of course, you were talking about Mexicans. You don't have plausible deniability. Don't pee on my leg, and tell me it's raining. (And that remark about illegals coming in by ship from Asia and Africa was a pathetic attempt to distract readers from thinking you were talking about Mexicans.)
23 - Mark Richard Adams
"America already has four times as many people living here, legally and illegally, than England."
Closer to six times but England is the size of North Carolina so it remains much more populus.
"When the supply of labor exceeds demand, wages fall. Econ 101.
Workers are consumers and producers, ergo demand increases too. There is not a fixed number of jobs that everyone is competing for.
"Specialization doesn't become, because employers bring in H1-Bs [etc]... and pay them half what they pay Aemrican technical workers."
Specialisation occurs whenever comparative advantage can be attained.
"Land, not labor. And with immigration-induced population pressure, the cost of land, and thus housing, is exploding."
Only true when land prices are very high such as in city centres where most people don't live.
"a) Up to a point, it's not bad, if it's not based on corruption and crime. After that point, voters demand and get egalitarian legislation. Or they revolt. b) See 2."
a) Do illegal immigrants vote?
b) They'd still be unequal, just unequal somewhere else.
"Interethnic strife means that people from different groups based on race or national descent
would kill members of other groups based on race or national descent. What is unclear about that? And what does Michelle Malkin (who is an American of Phillipine descent) have to do with it?"
Kill them? Are you advocating this? The point about Michelle Malkin is that she is of Asian ethnicity (I apologise for getting the region wrong) while most Americans (including hispanics) are of European ethnicity. So surely she should be creating even more strife than Mexican immigrants?
"It was tried in California, but rogue judges restored illegals' access to health and welfare programs."
Can't help you with that one. Can you change the California constitution or get rid of the judges?
24 - Richard Brodie
I'm still curious about the SS card question (#18) if anyone can enlighten me. Also how can any employer dare to risk the jail time and astronomical fines associated with having employees who are not covered by Workman's Compensation?
25 - Jim Wynne
Mr. Stix:
I don't know if your state has a sales or use tax or not, but if it does, it's probably properly referred to by the latter description, which means that the tax is on use of purchased items. The reason for the distinction is that it allows states to tax purchases made outside their own boundaries. Where I live (Wisconsin) there is a line on the state tax return form for declaring out-of-state purchases.
There's a Wikipedia article on the subject here.
My point was that if you get your shorts in a big knot over the "illegal" in "illegal immigration," you'd better check the needle on your hypocrisy meter before making grand pronouncements.
The other point I was trying to make was that because illegal immigrants are paying into SS (for example) but not taking anything out, you and I benefit. It's a benefit that goes unnoticed, for the most part, and also serves to help balance whatever drain is being placed on service that illegal immigrants do receive.