The "Do Nothing" Solution to "Illegal Immigration"

Senator Marco Rubio of Florida

Both sides of the political aisle have made a major issue out of the problem of the 11 million people inside the US illegally or presently undocumented. The president has said this is a priority and Florida senator Marco Rubio has agreed. They are theoretically opposed to each other, yet Rubio's proposals entailed in the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013 don't differ a great deal from Obama's. In a nutshell, Rubio has suggested that the wholesale eviction of 11 million people is impossible and that the bill offers them an opportunity for legalization and permanent residence and citizenship. Naturally, the "jump through hoops" process begins here: Fines and background checks and no federal bennies.

Sounds completely reasonable, but you'd think Rubio had suggested that the government was handing out lollipops and bon-bons, making Spanish the new "official language" and changing the "Star Spangled Banner" to "Guantanmera" by the reaction of his "conservative" peers. A cursory Google reveals an enraged base represented by such intellectual heavweights as and Ann "To Hell With Palin, I Was Here First" Coulter. Any concessions to the teeming masses of south of the border is treasonous amnesty and in their hardly humble opinions, this will lead to "de-Europeanization" (ie less white).

As far as what the generally pitiful Democrats are offering, it is only marginally different than Rubio's idea. Which is also reasonable, but overlooks the crux of the issue, because no one anywhere has to unmitigated gall (until now) to say it: "Illegal Immigration reform" is a solution in search of a problem, because in reality, it isn't a problem at all!

The way I see it, a problem means an aggrieved party and in this instance, there isn't one. People want to hire help for whatever the task is, other people agree to do it for a price, end of story. The idea that "illegal immigrants are stealing American workers jobs" sounds fairly solid on its face unless you happen to live in the American Southwest and notice that wherever day laborers congregate, there aren't a whole hell of a lot of white folks. As far as "taking away jobs that union carpenters/plumbers/electricians do", isn't it the union's job to protect their own for one and for two, a skyscraper isn't built and wired with dudes from the Lowe's parking lot. It is not worth a major contractor's license to screw with E-Verify (I passed an E-Verify check myself a few months ago for my radio show!).

Assuming you "legalized" every man, woman in child in the US tomorrow, what happens? The working person's price rises. Which means that they will be replaced by new people from Central America or Asia that will remain invisible. See, we are a free country with open borders--people can come and go as they please, this isn't a gulag (yet) (The irony of the most virulent anti-USSR voices being the loudest for a border fence is astounding). Not only is there no way to stop it, there isn't even a real reason to stop it--as China and Japan might tell you, an aging and shrinking worker base is starting to hurt them and hard.

Fact is, both major political parties support and oppose it for a pair of reasons of their own. Democrats love this, as it accelerates the "Bluing" of the Southwest with millions of new voters beholding and grateful to them, making a Republican national electoral victory mathematically impossible. The other reason they love it is because it replenishes their most loyal and organized base, labor. Republicans hate it for two reasons as well--newly legal workers will have more rights, bargaining power and higher pay, which means that a new cheap labor era is gonna take a while. The other reason is the one they vehemently deny but is as obvious as the honkers on their maps--their base's great unifier isn't economics or even social issues, but race. That the Dixiecrats of the last century are now almost entirely Republican. The glue that holds them intact, whether they'd care to admit it or not, is white supremacy. And a sea of legal Americans that are a deeper shade of soul galls them to the cores of their rancid selves. Were they serious about "sending all of these people back to where they came from", they'd boycott every and any business that employs them, which means they'd pretty much have to stop eating. I've seen what the average reactionary looks like--that ain't happening.

In fact, when the "illegals" are white, they say nothing.

Obama and Rubio both cry out that the system is "broken" but it isn't. Undocumenteds pour billions into the coffers of state and federal and don't get it back and whatever their costs are to health or schools, they're balanced off by what the public saves in lower food and service costs. They're a wash. Which means that any changes to the laissez-faire system only make everyone's life harder and more complex. If there is a solution, the easiest one would be a "seven year rule"--you prove you've actually been here 7 years, no criminal record, you take a citizenship test, that's it. 

We have undocumented people in this very neighborhood. They want the same things we do. That's good enough for me.









A regular employer does have to perform checks like asking for a SSN and proof of the right to work here, e.g. a work visa, green card or naturalization certificate.

However that does not apply to the temporary hiring of contract workers. So when you call a plumber to fix your shower, you don't have to ask him to prove he has a right to live and work in the US. That's the situation when you hire an illegal on Army Street. Or call a plumber.

Posted by Guest on May. 18, 2013 @ 11:06 am

rather under what circumstances an employer is breaking the law in hiring them.

As already explained to you, it depends. I

If it were illegal to pick up day workers on Army St. then those workers and the guys like me that pick them up would be arrested.

Posted by Guest on May. 18, 2013 @ 11:52 am

So you're OK with the fear and exploitation? Yeah, they broke the law coming in here. But folks like you have no problem taking advantage of their now-precarious situation. They paid for their crime by the slave wage system they put themselves in because for many the alternative is even a worse living. Say that worked a decade or more into this, you think now they need to jump through more hoops? Nuts to the hoops, we used their blood and sweat to get better prices, they've paid their dues, grant them their citizenship.

Posted by Johnny Venom on May. 18, 2013 @ 1:15 pm

a hope and a chance. Your attitude of not giving them a chance is much worse, and might drive them to commit more crimes rather than going straight.

And yes, they still have to go thru an immigration process. That's what the legal immigrants have to do, and it is a slap in their faces to skip that just because someone broke the law.

So yeah, I'm all for giving illegals a path to citizenship, but it ain't free, ya know?

Posted by Guest on May. 18, 2013 @ 2:04 pm

There is no such thing as "giving someone a job". You're paying someone an agreed upon fee to do something you don't want to do or can't do, it isn't a gift.

Just like "granting citizenship". The only thing 303 million Americans did to become citizens was to be born on the right side of an arbitrarily drawn line--were they "granted citizenship"?

Peons that see themselves as kings.....same as it ever was. 


Posted by JohnnyW on May. 19, 2013 @ 9:30 am

born overseas via the process of naturalization. Illegals have sidestepped that process. Not all of those 303 million were born here, as you stated.

Yes, income is not a gift, but an employer does grant a job offer in anticipation of a service that will be provided. Most people see getting a job offer as a positive thing.

Posted by Guest on May. 19, 2013 @ 9:48 am

The income is not a gift and neither is the job that goes with it. 

Thank you.

However, this" Illegals have sidestepped that process"?

A few things--maybe they don't want to be citizens. As their purpose in the US is to earn a living, maybe that's all they wanted--but if they did, they are surely astute enough to see that the system in question favors some over others (see "Cuba") and as such, why bother? 

Posted by JohnnyW on May. 19, 2013 @ 10:24 am

insofar as someone doesn't like it, they are free to decline it. If two people apply for a job, the assumption is that they both want it. An employer then gives the job to one of them.

Posted by Guest on May. 19, 2013 @ 1:10 pm

the wage thiever will say anything to justify his exploitation, including trying to pretend that he is a humanitarian.

Props to you for challenging him. He's driven away many reasonable commenters with his dishonesty, insults and downright idiocy.

Will we be hearing any future podcasts of you and the Angel?

Posted by Guest on May. 18, 2013 @ 2:14 pm

Dude, you live in the wrong country.

But thank you for the compliment that I have driven out some of the moneylenders from the temple. Cleaning this joint up isn't my entire mission here, but it's a part of it for sure, and I already have the scalps of Marcos and Eddie.

Posted by Guest on May. 18, 2013 @ 2:47 pm

People have more meaningful things to do with their time than engage you in internet argument (except for me at this moment.)

Comparing yourself to Jesus is certainly odd, since you appear not to share any of the values he professed.

Congrats on being king of the internet comment pages. A great accomplishment to be sure.

Posted by Guest on May. 18, 2013 @ 2:57 pm

and that that is somehow bullying, exploiting or otherwise disrespecting you. Most folks are thrilled to be hired at a wage they are willing to work for.

Illegals are here anyway. The only question is whether we should boycott them, as you appear to want, or hire them and give them a shot at the American dream, which is my approach.

What would Jesus do? I'm not holy enough to say, but I have a feeling that if he was in a position to give them work and help feed them, he would. So would I.

Posted by Guest on May. 18, 2013 @ 3:09 pm

You are making a bigger buck from their labor than if you hired someone less vulnerable (as you admit in an earlier comment.)

Food pantries, food sharings, shelters are feeding and housing people for free. Your "generosity" is laughable compared to real humanity and community.

Posted by Guest on May. 18, 2013 @ 3:28 pm

same quality. I'm sure, if you sell something on EBay, you take the highest bid, and if you're buying, you bid the lowest you can. hiring is no different.

There is far more humanity in giving illegals a chance like I do, then refusing to hire them and see them starve, as you appear to prefer.

Posted by Guest on May. 18, 2013 @ 3:45 pm

The thing is in this situation, you're taking advantage of a legal status of someone. In a way, this is a form of economic blackmail. You know they have no real place to go for employment (if they did back home they would have never come here). So the choice is do they take the job at the low slave wage rate or do they go without food and/or shelter? That's the truth of the moment here. Well, they could look for work at another place, but the question then shifts to what degree of exploitation of a legal predicament should they face before they start to starve or face the elements?

Posted by Johnny Venom on May. 18, 2013 @ 3:57 pm

freely entered into. The workers always asks for the most pay he thinks he can get, and the boss always asks for the least pay he thinks the worker will accept.

That is how the game is played, regardless of whether the worker is an illegal or not.

You might think it is better to not hire illegals, but I sleep better knowing his children will eat and have shoes to wear.

Posted by Guest on May. 19, 2013 @ 5:27 am

in your pocket because of your super-exploitation of vulnerable labor.

Feeling generous? Transfer title of one your properties to your valued employees. And refund the illegal rent increases that you extort from "consenting" tenants by leveraging your economic superiority in the negotiating process.

"Freely entered into" implies equality of position which is not the case in your landlord/tenant relationships and most certainly in your employer/employee relationships with undocumented workers.

Posted by Guest on May. 19, 2013 @ 7:02 am

are "unfair" because the employer has the money and the employee wants it. But then the employer wants the labour of the employee and so the law rightly regards that relationship as being an equal one freely entered into, while applying some laws like minimum wage and protections against unfair dismissals.

The average person cannot concern themselves unduly with such theoretical musings. I'm sure you try and get the highest pay that you can get, and so do illegals. If their negotiating positions is weakened at all, ity is because there are so many of them. But again, that is true of any worker - rarity demands a premium.

I have provided far more illegals with food and shelter than you have. you may claim toc are about them, but your refusal to hire and pay them shows otherwise.

Posted by Guest on May. 19, 2013 @ 8:00 am

cite in your comment when you take advantage of vulnerable, undocumented workers.

You know nothing of my philosophies about wage negotiations for myself or my hiring practices, but I will share with you that I don't hire anybody as I am not a business or property owner.

Boasting on a website about exploitative behavior (even anonymously) and then trying to justify that behavior as humanitarianism is both curious and detestable.

Posted by Guest on May. 19, 2013 @ 8:21 am

any illegal?

I have, as noted, and paid more than the minimum wage.

Nobody willingly overpays for anything, and I consider my payments to be fair, competitive and helpful to the recipients.

Posted by Guest on May. 19, 2013 @ 8:31 am

his house after you die with justifications like those.

I volunteer at food pantries and food sharings to give back the little I can.

You would have made a fine plantation owner 150 years ago or so.

Posted by Guest on May. 18, 2013 @ 10:10 pm

The illegals I have hired make more than minimum wage.

Posted by Guest on May. 19, 2013 @ 5:27 am

Slaveowners paid slaves according to the existing law. And like you, they had many "moral" justifications.

"And maybe there's no peace in this world, for us or for anyone else, I don't know. But I do know that, as long as we live, we must remain true to ourselves."

Posted by Guest on May. 19, 2013 @ 6:53 am

buying and using slaves. That's a disingenuous argument, and an insulting one. No matter how much you hate illegals, hiring them is better than not hiring them.

Posted by Guest on May. 19, 2013 @ 7:54 am

refers to undocumented workers by the insulting term "illegals."

You are a modern day wage slaver and thiever. If you feel insulted, that's on you for soliciting a response to your boasts of sociopathic and illegal behavior.

Society awaits the emergence of the Toussaint L'ouverture of the undocumented and otherwise oppressed. It won't be pretty, but the attitudes and behavior expressed by people like you make it necessary.

Posted by Guest on May. 19, 2013 @ 8:08 am

for those who enter or stay in the US "illegally" (duh).

The fact that you knew exactly who i was referring to shows the currency of the term.

"Undocumented alien" is a blatant attempt at a euphemism clearly designed to try and mitigate the crimes they have committed, and the vast majority of Americans resist such political correctness and self-serving word games.

As noted, they are here anyway and need work. It is far better to help them survive here, like I do, rather than make false claims to care about them but do nothing to help them, as you do.

Posted by Guest on May. 19, 2013 @ 8:25 am

my contributions to the community, moneygrubber.

Posted by Guest on May. 19, 2013 @ 8:30 am

the fact that you conceal any such assistance speaks volumes for your hypocrisy.

Illegals can spend what I give them; your empty words help nobody.

Posted by Guest on May. 19, 2013 @ 8:47 am

I'm proud and comfortable with my contributions and don't need to justify or share them with some anonymous asshole on the internet.

Boast away about your exploitative and other sociopathic behaviors. Expect enlightened readers to challenge you and spare us the pity party when they do.

Posted by Guest on May. 19, 2013 @ 2:07 pm
Posted by Guest on May. 19, 2013 @ 3:04 pm

They are coming to the US to be the lower priced labor force which is, of course, a higher wage than they can procure in their home country. This one fact many proponents hate: the 20,000,000+ illegal immigrants have passports but opted to come here in deliberate, knowing and unapologetic violation of US law. Far from being a "victim", they drain vast amounts of Educational, Judicial, Penal, Health Care and related costs that are, of course, subsidized by high earners such as myself. Once they receive "under the table wages", they often send back their untaxed earnings to be circulated in their home country's economy. Not that I don't dispassionately appreciate Kin Selection, god no. It's that this unfounded argument that proponents advance has no nexus to fiscal reality. Namely, that "once given 'legal' status", they are going to "pay their way" via taxes, as if, in the end, 90%+ will not pay far, far less in taxes than their cost to the State.


As someone that has traveled to 6 continents, it is utterly disingenuous for ANY proponent to assume that EVERY disadvantaged person living in EVERY god forsaken part of the world doesn't want (or at some level, presumably "deserve") a "better life." But "lifeboat ethics" is more and more a problem when the HALF the Congress REFUSES to raise a thin dime of revenue.

So keep your bleeding heartstrings in your breast and explain in concrete terms who pays for cost of this immigration "reform" mess?

Posted by Guest on May. 25, 2013 @ 3:23 am

So you exploit illegals while taking bread out of the mouths of natives.

Keep it up.

Posted by pete moss on May. 19, 2013 @ 11:27 am

The only "natives" (unfortunate term) who may lsoe work as a result were clearly being overpaid and were uncompetitive.

Posted by Guest on May. 19, 2013 @ 1:06 pm

And so the strawberries sit rotting in the fields because the braceros no longer come to pick them/ and the debate gets swept under the carpet of rotting fruit. We send millions of dollars in foreign aid...give it away...but we can't pay our neighbos to work for it?

Posted by Guest on May. 18, 2013 @ 8:32 pm

" Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida argued this morning on "This Week" that a key provision of the bill, the so-called "pathway to citizenship" for undocumented immigrants, would not give anything away".

Sure it does Senator, it gives or sells our American citizenship to 11 million illegal aliens that broke our Immigration Laws to get here!


It's sad when some politicians and segments of our population want to degrade our American Citizenship to the point where it has no value or meaning.


"This amnesty will give citizenship to only 1.1 to 1.3 million illegal aliens. We will secure the borders henceforth. We will never again bring forward another amnestybill like this."

-- Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy on the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.



"The agreement we just reached is the best possible chance we will have in.
years to secure our borders, bring millions of people out of the shadows and.
into the sunshine of America".
May 17, 2007.

Ted Kennedy -- Senator from Massachusetts.
Member of the Democratic Party.

Posted by Guest on May. 19, 2013 @ 4:13 am

what have you ever done to "add value" to american citizenship lol. (Bitching on the Internet doesn't count.)

Posted by marke on May. 19, 2013 @ 5:16 am
Posted by Guest on May. 19, 2013 @ 5:32 am

It's a no-win situation for you. You screamed and yelled about "illegals" [sic] and as a result you got thrashed in the last election on the strength of hispanic votes. Now some among your ilk are breaking ranks and saying that maybe we should cool the rhetoric a little and support some amnesty.

Either way, you lose. You'll never stop the growth of the hispanic population. By 2050, whites will be a minority. By 2100, hispanics will be a majority.

Fight the trend, and you'll get squashed.

Surrender, and you still lose. You may get a larger share of the hispanic vote, but you'll have more people coming in who don't vote your way. You still won't have a majority of them. And as long as you don't have a majority, the more immigration that comes in, the more votes you lose.

I actually think the Republicans do worse if they continue to rant about the illegals and oppose any loosening of the rules. Because you still can't stop the trend. Given a choice, I'd rather see the Republicans lose a massive voting block by 20-80, than lose it by 40-60 even if that block is a little bit more massive.

Either way, I like the arithmetic, but I think the Repugs do worse (and thus the country does better) under the first scenario. So please, keep up the rhetoric!

Oh, and whatever you do, don't learn any Spanish. The fewer bilingual competitors I have, the better it is for my own career.

Posted by Greg on May. 20, 2013 @ 9:43 pm

I'm a liberal and would take a bullet for President Obama (no member of the GOP could ever write that, even if in jest, we know this).

This isn't "about" race or "elections" any more than we were conditioned to believe in the run-up to the Iraq debacle that (what else) it was about "liberating Iraq" and "what disaster/nuclear catastrophe that would ensue" if we DIDN'T acquiesce to a similarly "rushed" path to State action that, quite similarly, could irrevocably change the fiscal future of the US.

Taken to its illogical conclusion, we can't pay for EXISTING entitlement costs over, pray tell, is your "election" analysis relevant to the out-of-pocket cost to the taxpayers?

As a democrat, as much as I am for more presumed voters, but this is a bad idea. Why not allow them to stay without legal citizenship? They have flipping citizenship somewhere else. We can't go their home country and assert rights for any of the proffered reasons.

Sovereignty works and is.

Posted by Guest on May. 25, 2013 @ 4:35 am

Source: Inter-American Development Bank, March 2006 report, “Remittance 2005”. Mexico remains the largest recipient of remittances, at over US$20 billion, followed by Brazil and Columbia which for the first time reached over US$6 and US$4 billion respectively. Central America and the Dominican Republic combined to reach over US$11 billion; and the Andean countries totaled almost US$9 billion.

As much as 50% of remittances are unreported. As published in the Development Prospect Group Briefing #3, "This amount only reflects transfers through official channels. Econometric analysis suggests that unrecorded flows through informal channels may add 50 percent or more to recorded flows. Including these unrecorded flows, the true size of remittances, is larger than foreign direct investment flows and more than twice as large as official aid received by developing countries."

Posted by Guest on May. 19, 2013 @ 4:43 am
Posted by Guest on May. 19, 2013 @ 5:30 am

What I do with the money I earn is my business and if that business is to send it to family overseas, what's it to you?



Posted by JohnnyW on May. 19, 2013 @ 8:24 am

American millionaires and businesses, who also are free to move assets offshore at their discretion.

Posted by Guest on May. 19, 2013 @ 8:32 am

There are two separate issues being muddled.
First, is that most illegal labor eludes taxation at the employer/employee level. So, it is is disingenuous for an illegal immigrant here in our jurisdiction to say, "I earn my money just like you". No, you don't. You aren't paying taxes like a traditional US taxpayer.

As for sending untaxed money back to your relatives, while I understand that Kin Selection works and is, it is still less revenue circulated in the economy providing the services and infrastructure for you to receive it, albeit illegally without taxation.

Posted by Guest on May. 20, 2013 @ 5:38 pm

And if they are paid in cash, they have to file taxes. Maybe not all of them do that, but then not all citizens do either.

Posted by Guest on May. 20, 2013 @ 6:01 pm

That's funny.

They also "have to pay for medical services rendered" at the ER when they go in for a chest cold. But they can't pay for services, nor can the IRS collect taxes against someone that is verily "judgment proof".

Tell me, how can you credibly conflate foreign nationals here illegally to US taxpayers because "not all [US] citizens" pay taxes either.

What a farce. As someone that pays A LOT more than 99% of these illegal immigrants ever will, I take exception to the notion we taxpayers have some duty to subsidize their "better life". That is nothing short of absurd.

Posted by Guest on May. 25, 2013 @ 3:27 am

the world intrude on your entitlement that you express in your series of comments.

Immigrants die in the desert or at the hands of the border patrol or vigilantes trying to come to a place where they might make a living and improve their economic condition.

If they can get here, they face discrimination and are easily exploited because of their undocumented status.

But somehow you are the aggrieved party. A rich person of privilege with an erroneous economic analysis of immigration.

Boo fucking hoo.

Posted by Guest on May. 25, 2013 @ 6:14 am

I would take $20 billion in remittances over the untold tens of billions that is given out in our name to countries like Israel or Egypt to help finance weapons sales. At least instead of some fat cat armaments dealer laughing all the way to the bank, its the children of those in poverty laughing and smiling on their way to pick up needed food.

Posted by Johnny Venom on May. 19, 2013 @ 9:42 am