Our Immigration Problem:

by Glenn Littrell In response to a comment posted to my facebook wall: I would disagree with that picture... There are two primary reasons for the presence of illegal aliens coming to America: One: is that when US Corporations close American factories and ship manufacturing to Mexico they end up paying their employees there about 50 cents an hour. Because those factories don't have to adhere to any safety or pollution standards the workers live in pollution and squalor on a wage that can't even support them in their own country. As a result they come north for the same reasons our ancestors came to America, opportunity, in this case in the form of hard work for low wages. If I'm going to be upset with anyone over that situation it's going to be the corporations that don't pay those workers a fair wage. Two: is they don't come north to take American jobs, nor do they come north to take jobs that Americans won't do. They come north to get jobs they are given by businesses and corporations that don't want to pay Americans a fair wage. The culprit there is those American businessmen who entice them with wages better than at home but below the minimum here. This cycle victimizes both the American and Mexican workers and benefits American and multi-national businesses and corporations. If they paid decent wages here and there it would stem most of the illegal immigration from the south. Don't think so? So then just look to the north, Canada. You don't see a flood of illegals from there because their industries operate under similar wage, safety, and environmental standards. I want our borders to be protected, I want illegal immigration to stop, but I find it hard to villianize people who are only trying to do what's best for their families by engaging in hard work. As far as the business about them taking money out of the country, not paying taxes etc., that is a misnomer. The facts don't bear it out even though it is constantly repeated. They may not pay income taxes but they pay excise, fuel, and sales taxes. Some pay income taxes but where they don't it is because they are being paid under the table by employers who know their illegal and are trying to evade paying THIER OWN taxes. For an expose on how immigrants illegal or legal contribute to local economies I would suggest you watch an 8 minute video [ 9500Liberty ]on the fight over immigration in Prince William County,Virginia similar to the current fight starting in Arizona. We need to stop illegal immigration and fix our immigration problem, but we can do it in a manner that reflects our claim to being a great and charitable nation based on values and compassion. I'm sorry I tend to go on forever but I'm sure everyone in the family knows by now that I'm a 'bleeding heart moderate'. GlennDL

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Indecision Political Humor,The Daily Show on Facebook

Resources:

• The Better Angels of Our Nature Arizona's immigration law offers us a choice between two longstanding traditions in U.S. history: fighting for human rights or looking away while they're eroded. Which side will you be on?

• Fact Check: Undocumented Immigrants Don't Take Jobs From American Workers

• Does Immigration Cost Jobs? Economists say immigration, legal or illegal, doesn't hurt American workers.

• Q&A: Illegal Immigrants and the U.S. Economy

• Mayoral Candidate: Indianapolis Should Boycott Arizona: Jose Evans: Arizona Law Discriminatory

• The Labor Movement’s Framework for Comprehensive Immigration Reform:    
  “…immigration reform must fully protect U.S. workers, reduce the exploitation of immigrant workers and reduce employers’ incentive to hire undocumented workers rather than U.S. workers…”

• Trumka: Immigration Reform Crucial For New Economy: The United States needs a new economic strategy to replace the failed model of the past 30 years–

• Fact Sheet: Setting the Record Straight on Border Crime: Border States Are Safe Today and Only Getting Safer

Privatization Is Not The Answer.

 3-6-2010

Reference: Tom Schneider's "Privatize postal operation for optimal outcome." 3-4-10 Indianapolis Star [see bottom]

The suggestion that privatization is the solution to the postal service problems is a knee-jerk reaction to any problem identified in the public sector. What private company could take on the role of delivering mail to every address in the country? None.

If you allowed privatization of delivery by geographic areas, what company will want to deliver mail to 174 addresses along a 176-mile route in North Dakota? None.

If you allowed the privatization of the system's revenue-generating portions, how would the non-revenue producing parts [plants and transportation] be funded? The only way to do so would be to put them back on the tax roles. Something that hasn't happened in decades.

The thousands of facilities that would go back on the tax roles, many are leased. Most are aged and located in neighborhoods where they are the only business structure. This means they would most likely become vacant and a liability to local taxpayers, not an asset.

Privatization wouldn't guarantee an 'optimal outcome' or stable stamp prices; it would only guarantee lower wages and the need for elevated revenues to satisfy the profit motive. Do you want a minimum wage transient workforce handling your credit cards and personal information?

No Private company could deliver the mail if burdened by the mandates placed upon the Postal Service by Congress, such as the $5 billion annual requirement to pre-fund certain obligations. Return the 75 billion dollars the Postal service has overpaid into one of those mandated funds and let the U. S. Postal Service do what it has done for 235 years better than any country or business, deliver the mail.

In response to a post on 'Keep Saturday Delivery Alive':

That's the privatizers for you, and unfortunately, when government officials buy into privatization, this is what you get. When someone floats the idea of privatization, if the public accepts the idea, it is because the public has already become dissatisfied with the service in question. If the public dismisses the idea, then the privatizers go to plan B, which is to sabotage the agency to the point that the public becomes dissatisfied enough to buy into the agency's privatization eventually. This is accomplished by burdening the agency with restrictive funding, diminished services and goals, increased obligations, busting the union, and destroying the workforce's morale. Sound familiar?

The trial balloon of five-day delivery has been floated several times since the Reagan administration, and every time the public has rejected it. Valid concerns over low volume and recession serve to distract from the manufactured problems of the privatizers. The public has been numbed by one financial crisis after another to the point they forget that the postal service has survived low volume and financial crisis for over 200 years.