A DAY WITHOUT GRINGOS

Doesn’t this statement seem a little racially insensitive? Have you ever wondered why some statements that seem bigoted are not treated as such unless they are made by a white male? Why is this?

For example, I remember when the Mayor of New Orleans suggested that God wanted New Orleans to be a “chocolate” city. I always felt that this statement was truly insensitive -- especially for the other victims. I guess this is another area in which there are two sets of rules. I just wonder if this is the healthiest approach. Doesn’t this actually work to reinforce stereotypes about those that can make such statements?

Today was the big rally or “boycott.” I didn’t notice it, but then I didn’t need to drive downtown. On the other hand, I have noticed a continued economic bias reported by the “press.” [Really, using the term press is probably inappropriate as it implies some type of impartiality.]

Specifically, how could anyone in the press truly "know" the economic impact of the boycott by 2 p.m. today? Could the appropriate data have been collected by 2 p.m.? If it really couldn’t have been, then why was the press suggesting so? Is this just one more indication that “big business” is controlling this issue, and has a lot to lose if the laws are actually enforced?

I still have not read anything that actually shows that the average citizen benefits from illegal immigration; or the massive flow of drugs that continue to be smuggled across the Mexican border. It is clear however that businesses do benefit from cheap labor. I guess businesses do need "subsidies" in order to keep competitive internationally and to enhance profits locally. The question is who pays for these subsidies? To me, it is really a transfer of wealth that impacts our poorest.

Another thing I don’t fully understand is the public opinion on this issue. The various poles seem to suggest that a good portion of legal residents are supportive of illegal immigration. To me, this suggests that such people are okay with businesses breaking our immigration, accounting, and tax laws. Remember, to the extent illegals are paid under the table and kept off the books, various accounting and tax laws are "creatively" ignored. If this is what the poles are suggesting, then I don’t fully understand why people are not surprised that this leads to an economic environment that encourages businesses to cut corners; creatively or otherwise. For example, to me it seems to be at odds that one person could support the criminal activity associated with illegal immigration yet be disappointed, if not shocked when a company such as Enron breaks our laws at the great expense of its employees and shareholders. Either we are a nation of laws and ideals (which apply equally to all), or we are a nation of not getting caught and the end justifies the means.

Speaking of things that make me wonder, I also find it odd that we would allow non-residents to dictate our public policy. Essentially, we are allowing criminals to dictate our public policy and this feels very strange to me. I also find it odd that the corporate press does not seem too concerned that huge amounts of drugs continue to flow across the Mexican border [not to mention that businesses continually violate our immigration, accounting, and tax laws]. Why doesn't this get more attention in the media?

I also find it odd that our government is continually and "disproportionately" locking up African Americans on non-violent drug offences, but it still refuses to limit the drugs coming across the Mexican border in any meaningful way. Instead our government issues arrests warrants for citizens (drug lords) of Colombia (that are not even in the United States). I thought our elected officials took an oath to enforce our Constitution and our laws? Yet on this issue, our government seems to be putting the blame on other nations (or their citizens). This seems odd to me. Why doesn’t it just secure the border -- assuming drugs are truly an issue of concern for our elected officials? I just don’t get this one. Do businesses and "lobbyists" really have an unhealthy relationship with our elected officials? I know that there is a powerful group of lobbyists that represent our meat producers and there is another powerful group that represents our large corporate farmers. I have also read that both of these groups "depend" on cheap labor, illegal immigrants. It makes me wonder.

I also find it odd that congress is actually considering rewarding criminals through an earned income tax credit of $2,200 to 4,400. It is one thing to limit the punishment of illegals, but to actually reward them? I don't get this one either.

One good thing from the reporting today was the descriptions of all the large companies, such as McDonalds, that regularly use illegal immigrants. [See the referenced picture above to notice the "irony" of this last point.]

On a positive note, see this link.