Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Enforcement on Steroids: Homeland Security's Emerging Immigration Police State (Part II)

By Joshua Holland, AlterNet. Posted May 22, 2008.


The idea that the government isn't trying to enforce its immigration laws is hogwash -- the problem is that it's all it's doing.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

More stories by Joshua Holland

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

This is the second in a two-part series looking at immigration enforcement. Readers can find the first installment here.

In a wildly successful disinformation campaign, immigration hard-liners have convinced many Americans that the United States is not serious about enforcing its immigration laws. It's a narrative that plays to people's distrust of government and anxieties about the loss of sovereignty in the era of globalization.

With heightened attention on immigration, that narrative allows conservative lawmakers to advance their larger agenda -- justifying calls for an expanded security state with more surveillance, increased police actions and an almost endless series of increases in Homeland Security spending.

In reality, though, it's a Big Lie, and it's hard to overstate just how big it is. Not only does the United States attempt to enforce its immigration laws, it does so with the authoritarian zeal one would expect to find in the most repressive police states.

Immigration and Custom Enforcement is the second-largest police agency in the country. According to official figures analyzed by the watchdog group Detention Watch Network, ICE rounds up more than a quarter of a million people each year, half of whom have never been charged with a crime. (Being in this country without papers is a civil violation; immigration violations are the only civil offenses for which people are regularly jailed.)

In 2006, almost 200,000 immigrants were deported. With more than 1.5 million people currently in immigration proceedings, a Washington Post analysis found that ICE "holds more detainees a night than Clarion Hotels have guests, operates nearly as many vehicles as Greyhound has buses and flies more people each day than do many small U.S. airlines."

According to a suit filed by the ACLU, children as young as 3 years old are detained along with their parents in adult prisons leased by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Before the lawsuit was settled by the government, children were dressed in prison garb and guards disciplined them by "threatening to separate them from their parents." According to Amnesty International, "Children are subjected to pepper spray, placed in solitary confinement, and routinely restrained in violation of international standards." ICE runs two "family detention centers," and the Los Angeles Times reported that the agency is planning to build three new ones.

Homeland Security is one of the largest jailers in the world, "but it behaves like a lawless local sheriff," Paromita Shah, an immigration expert with the National Lawyers Guild, told the New York Times. The 280,000 people detained by ICE each year, mostly poorer workers, have limited access to legal help; there is no public defender available to low-income immigrants. According to the Minnesota Star Tribune, 3 out of 4 are left, like characters in one of Kafka's dramas, to navigate a bewildering legal system on their own.

The United States holds around 350 detainees in its "legal black hole" in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and people around the world are rightly appalled by the lack of due process afforded them. Three times that many people, picked up within the United States, have been ordered deported but can't be returned to their country and are now facing the prospect of "indefinite detention" -- they could potentially die in prison if the Bush administration and its allies have their way. In 2005, the Supreme Court ruled that the government didn't have the authority to detain immigrants forever, but Homeland Security has resisted the order.

In addition to its own detention facilities -- they're not called "jails" because those being held include many who aren't charged with a crime -- ICE leases thousands of beds in 312 county and city prisons, where a majority of immigrant detainees are held.

These include dozens of private, for-profit prison facilities. The immigration detention system has proven a cash cow for companies like Halliburton, Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) and the GEO Group. "Housing federal detainees typically brings in more per 'man-day,' an industry term for what is earned per detainee," than they can get from state prison systems," wrote Leslie Berestein in the San Diego Union-Tribune.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: immigration, detention, dhs, ice, workplace enforcement

Joshua Holland is an AlterNet staff writer.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Immigration! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
The law is the law
Posted by: michael1972 on May 22, 2008 1:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree that Illegal immigrants should be treated humanly and families should not be separated from each other. Outside of the obvious flaws that exist in the system, the government has the right to enforce the laws of the country.

Dealing with the employers who hires illegals would be a big step and most likely the best weapon against illegal immigration. On the other hand what will we do with those who chose to stay? I myself am not in favor paying my hard earned dollars to take care of another countries responsibly by feeding and clothing people who are here illegally. The gap between the rich and poor is getting wider and taking care of 30 or so million people (immigrants) and their families will not help the situation.

Some may say that immigrants pay taxes, but the cold hard reality is that they take up more than they put in (for the few who pay taxes with someone else's social security number).

To conclude the reality is that enforcement is necessary. The only thing I agree with in this article is that they should be treated humanly.

» RE: The law is the law Posted by: chuckdreams
» RE: The law is the law Posted by: Walks-in-Storms
» RE: The law is the law Posted by: arthur_ide
» RE: The law is the law Posted by: Lauren
» RE: The law is the law Posted by: chuckdreams
» RE: The law is the law Posted by: Cybershaman
» RE: The law is the law Posted by: Old Skeptic
Why immigration law enforcement is necessary
Posted by: davidhhahn on May 22, 2008 5:04 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In a nutshell, here are the reasons enforcement of immigration laws is necessary:

1. WHOLESALE disregard for the law; as in case of mass illegal immigration engenders only more disregard for the law. Believe me, the young folks are watching and they "get it" and the "it" is enforcement of a valid series of laws is not necessary. Just ask some young people in the Midwest where the illegal immigrants have shown up in force what they think about what illegal immigration teaches them. I have and it is shocking.

2. It is naive to assume that everyone coming across the border illegally is a wholesome and healthy individual. Our government has an obligation to know who is coming here and what they are bringing, whether it be bombs or tuberculosis.

3. Illegal Immigrant workers DO displace American workers. I don't know about this author, but I can tell you that members of my family have worked in the packing factories that now mostly employ illegal immigrants; and the wages and working conditions have gone downhill. No more way to earn a living for many American workers. Also, right in my neighborhood, many summer construction jobs such as roofing, painting, concrete work; that used to allow young people; mostly young college men, the ability to have good summer employment is just gone -- in a matter of a few years.

4. Language counts. Illegal Immigrants are not speaking English and we are well on our way to a bi-lingual nation. A big mistake. Read the writings of former U.S. Senator Hayakawa at US-English and understand why English as an official language is essential.

5. We ARE breaking up families. By encouraging and protecting illegal immigration we do encourage immigrants to LEAVE their families and come to the United States without their families.

Most of this type of writing seems to be based on the false assumption that it is OK to countenance illegality as long as it is in the name some supposed liberal state. REALITY is what is missing from this author's perspective. I suggest he live for even one month in a Midwestern town that has been radically altered by illegal immigration before he writes his next article. Get to know and talk with the citizens there, see how the illegal immigrants come to ignore established culture, consider how U.S. companies are the beneficiaries of illegal immigration and those legal, hardworking Americans are picking up the bill. Now that would be an interesting piece from Mr. Holland.

» Well, Chicken Little Posted by: liberalibrarian
» RE: Well, Chicken Little Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Well, Chicken Little Posted by: shannasmusic
» RE: Well, Chicken Little Posted by: Lauren
Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
Modern industrial society is collapsing - what will take its place?
Posted by: Last Chance on May 22, 2008 5:54 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Unless we reduce the human population, all these immigration problems will get much worse. The Earth simply cannot support 7, 8, 9, 10 billion people; and family planning clinics Worldwide is the peaceful method by which women can be given their full human rights, including the right to decide if, when and how many children to give birth. When that happens, a few women will choose to raise many children, a few will choose none, but the great majority will choose no more than 1, 2 or 3, which will then bring the human population back into balance with the Earth's ability to supply us all with food, shelter, clothing and self-government - self-government through continental networks of eco-tech villages free to trade with each other by the gentle rule of "harm to none" while carefully surrounding themselves with miles of healthy wilderness. When the people realize that alternative exists, families will choose to manage small parcels of land on which to build their own homes, grow their own food, make their own clothes and govern themselves in village councils. The Amish of Pennsylvania and surrounding area are a good economic example from which to begin.
How To Save the Earth

» Typical Malthusian BULLSHIT. Posted by: maxpayne
» Facts on the ground Posted by: Last Chance
» RE: Typical Malthusian BULLSHIT. Posted by: anneliese-nyc
» Answer Posted by: jwg
» RE: Answer Posted by: Lauren
How come there's no enforcement against ILLEGAL immigrants that are Cuban?
Posted by: maxpayne on May 22, 2008 5:57 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Go to Florida and it won't take long to find out that they're given blanket "legal" status regardless of they're coming legally or ILLEGALLY. And yet, all other immigrants get kicked out or taxed with more than enough paperwork despite their honesty ! Hint: Haitians vs Cubans . A simple google search will expose the DOUBLE STANDARD.

» It's not Florida; it's the Feds Posted by: Old Skeptic
» Listen to maxpayne! Posted by: countingdaisies
the previous comments are just asking for this response...
Posted by: ellie on May 22, 2008 6:08 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
probably not going to like this comment, but this country was founded on terrorism and illegal immigration... going back to first contact with the tribes who were here first... outside of American Indians, everyone is an illegal alien... sooooooooo....

» Good Response ! Posted by: Last Chance
» RE: Good Response ! Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Good Response ! Posted by: ninethreeone
» RE: Good Response ! Posted by: Lauren
» Wow, you are so paranoid! Posted by: brunowe
» Pure sophistry... Posted by: brunowe
» RE- Lets get down to brass tacks Posted by: michael1972
» RE: - Lets get down to brass tacks Posted by: michael1972
Pro-enforcement folks should enjoy their high levels of immigration
Posted by: Joshua Holland on May 22, 2008 6:37 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Some interesting comments. They start with the evils of immigration and the need to control it, then endorse an approach that will never accomplish that control.

Without deeper reforms, the dynamics of immigration will remain largely unchanged. The only way enforcement alone could ever work would be in a legitimate, full-blown police state.

There's quite a bit of irony in this debate.

News today - H2B work visa rules revised & made easier
Posted by: war_on_tara on May 22, 2008 7:07 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was interested to read about the H2B visa changes today. This seems like a good program that made little news until recently.

Good especially for workers from certain countries (Jamaicans come to mind, in the northeast US) where people tend not to want to become permanent US immigrants, but mostly want to earn some money & return home.

Can this kid be kept here with his family?
Posted by: ptown on May 22, 2008 7:07 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Can this kid be kept here with his family? Do YOU want this kind of illegal person in the USA?

1. Brought here when he was 5 years old.
2. Went to Bay Area schools
3. Spent 4 years as a teen in and out of juvenile hall for non-violent offenses.
4. Felony car theft at age 18.Now 18-1/2.
5. Currently in a CCA deportation prison in Arizona (since Feb. 2008, awaiting a hearing with the judge in late July).
6. Entire huge family is here in the USA undocumented
7. Poor reading/writing skills due to learning disabilities
8. Totally immersed in the ghetto thug gang life.
***I've known him since he was 14. I love him and want to keep him here.
Do you? Is this the kind of illegal we should keep here because his family is here?

» Better yet, Posted by: Last Chance
» That's fine, so Posted by: Last Chance
» RE: That's fine, so Posted by: ptown
An example of bias and what it does to argument...
Posted by: Walks-in-Storms on May 22, 2008 7:15 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Of course the Border Patrol and Homeland Security are arresting and jailing lots of people: that merely demonstrates the size of the torrent of illegals pouring into the country from Mexico (among them each day one hundred twenty hardened criminals). The author argues on the one hand that enforcement is too large, then complains that employers of illegal aliens aren't being prosecuted - it isn't enough. One must agree, however, that when the fine for employing an illegal alien is a large percentage of the business's profit, the flood of aliens from Mexico will stop. So, let's write to our representatives in congress and demand heavy fines for employers who hire illegals. When the illegal is a criminal already convicted in Mexico, or one who is caught in crime here, the fine should be doubled. Let's get serious.

» That's good, but also Posted by: Last Chance
» RE: That's good, but also Posted by: Walks-in-Storms
» My representatives....... Posted by: pariter
» RE: My representatives....... Posted by: Joshua Holland
» It's just not the case Posted by: Joshua Holland
» Your account has been reactivated Posted by: Joshua Holland
Follow the privatized government contracts
Posted by: steven w on May 22, 2008 7:17 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and you will most likely find companies making zillions off of immigration enforcement.

» How so? Posted by: Last Chance
» RE: How so? Posted by: Lauren
» RE: How so? Both Ways Posted by: steven w
» RE: How so? Both Ways Posted by: Lauren
The word illegal
Posted by: arthur_ide on May 22, 2008 7:31 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The word illegal means against the law and those who have entered the USA, regardless of the reason, illegally have broken the law. As law breakers illegal aliens, regardless of age, gender, or physical condition have no rights to a job, housing, food, protection, or any other privilege that a natural born or naturalized citizen has. They should be sent back immediately to whatever nation they came from--the expense of transporting the illegal aliens must be paid for by their governments and not with USA taxpayer dollars.

» RE: The word illegal Posted by: Lauren
» RE: The word illegal Posted by: SOWILO
» RE: The word illegal Posted by: Lauren
» RE: The word illegal Posted by: michael1972
» RE: The word illegal Posted by: Lauren
» Hey Lauren Posted by: pariter
» Weeleeeee Posted by: Mexitli
» uhhuh Posted by: pariter
The more I read these arguments . . .
Posted by: Scientz on May 22, 2008 7:31 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
. . . the more I get turned off by both sides.

I, unfortunately, see a lot of merit in the opinions of those who claim that the right-wing elite and left-wing elite *both* tacitly support the illegal immigration. However, that doesn't disturb me near as much as the comments of partisan posters who take up positions at the extremes of this debate.

Those who would hyperbolically compare the voluntary yet illegal immigration of Latinos to the African slave trade, or those who compare the actions of ICE--however wrong-headed--to the Nazi Gestapo . . . you are weakening your position with that type of exaggeration.

However, with that said, those armed with anecdotes of "gangbangers" (as if an example from Los Angeles has merit in Iowa) who advocate and cheer on the arrest of these people--these arguments are so frightening that I can see why the xenophobic rhetoric might cause some on the opposite side of this debate to call them--correct or not--fascist. The poster in yesterday's debate who said the border should have machine-gun nests and landmines? Are you f#$%ing kidding me?

There needs to be some honest debate on how to fix this problem, and demonizing the other side is a zero-sum non-starter. Whether they should have been or not, the "illegals" are here, and with their families. Most of these people are *not* gangbangers. Mexico is not trying reconquer Arizona, Texas, New Mexico and California . . . at least not anymore than Norway has "conquered" Minnesota or Ireland has "conquered" Massachusetts.

Feel free to weigh in; I'm feeling extra special verbose today and will try to refrain from a flame war as long we stay civil. ;)

» Right. Posted by: pariter
» RE: ight. Posted by: Joshua Holland
» Actually Posted by: pariter
» RE: Actually Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Actually Posted by: pariter
» RE: Actually Posted by: Joshua Holland
» Ah, Josh (sigh) . . . Posted by: Scientz
» RE: Ah, Josh (sigh) . . . Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Ah, Josh (sigh) . . . Posted by: Scientz
» RE: Ah, Josh (sigh) . . . Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Ah, Josh (sigh) . . . Posted by: desidid
» New subject line Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Ah, Josh (sigh) . . . Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Ah, Josh (sigh) . . . Posted by: desidid
» RE: Ah, Josh (sigh) . . . Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Ah, Josh (sigh) . . . Posted by: desidid
» RE: Ah, Josh (sigh) . . . Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Ah, Josh (sigh) . . . Posted by: desidid
» RE: Ah, Josh (sigh) . . . Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Ah, Josh (sigh) . . . Posted by: desidid
» RE: Ah, Josh (sigh) . . . Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Ah, Josh (sigh) . . . Posted by: desidid
» RE: Ah, Josh (sigh) . . . Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Ah, Josh (sigh) . . . Posted by: desidid
» RE: Ah, Josh (sigh) . . . Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Ah, Josh (sigh) . . . Posted by: desidid
Why the Rubashkin crime family gets away with it
Posted by: sausage on May 22, 2008 7:37 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Boy, oh, boy. I just love these whiners constantly posting about "illegal immgrants'" total disrespect for the law. Well, What about the Rubashkin family crime syndicate? Or the Tyson family of chicken fame, and friends of both Wal Mart patriarch Sam Walton and Bill and Hillary Clinton?

Why hasn't ICE thrown Agriprocessors Postville CEO Sholom Rubashkin in the slammer? Why aren't the "laws" against hiring undocumented workers being enforced.

Because every law concerning the employment of "illegal" or "undocumented" immigrants on the books, from the federal government on down, contains weasel words like "willfully," "knowingly" or "intentionally."

How f*cking convenient. Sholom Rubashkin will look ICE right in the eye and say, "Gee, officer, we didn't "willfully" *wink-wink* hire these peopl. We would never "knowingly" *wink-wink-wink* hire people who came to Postville, Iowa illegally. And we would never "intentionally" *wink-wink-nudge* hire such people if we did *great-big-wink*! Here, officer, have this fine kosher corned beef."

And never mind that the Rubashkin crime family is a big contributor to Republican candidates. Oh, no.

This is all the fault of these poor, disease ridden peasants whose home countries this country's economic policies have ruined. We Americans are as innocent as newborn babes and as pure as the newfallen snow.

Yeah...right...

» corned beef isn't enough Posted by: pariter
» RE: corned beef isn't enough Posted by: pariter
But do they ?
Posted by: anneliese-nyc on May 22, 2008 8:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
return home ?

One Word: FLDS
Posted by: euphobot on May 22, 2008 9:24 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
US citizens get the same treatment: imprisoned children, separated from parents. 400 children were taken in the Texas mormon nebulous accusation.

Half of US citizen children end up without at least one parent before they are 18. Why are immigrant children more equal than our children?

» RE: One Word: FLDS Posted by: Lauren
Without Undocumented Migrants
Posted by: Mexitli on May 22, 2008 9:33 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Americans" - COUGH COUGH - would have to look at their own miserables selves.

LoL

All those dummies that watch the loo dobz show would figure out how lousy their own lives are and SHIT, we'd have a revolution on our hands with a bunch of armed yahoos running around all over the place.

So just keep pretending it's the Mexicans that eff up your lives.

» hmm, Posted by: Mexitli
When You Can't Beat Em'
Posted by: desidid on May 22, 2008 12:04 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I found this information very interesting because this coalition once came together to form the law, which would eventually make hiring illegal immigrants punishable:

In 1973, leaders from the American Federation of Labor — Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) convinced US Representative Pete Rodino to sponsor a bill that would have made employing unauthorized immigrants illegal. While the bill died in Congress, it marked the beginning of a lengthy and contentious debate.

Today both organizations have a pro-immigrant stance. Perhaps that is because they came to realize that Congress would never write a law, with teeth, nor would INS (today ICE) do the work necessary to administer the law.

The reasons seem quite clear to me, for instance this article states that there have been over 1 million apprehensions. What was left unsaid is that is since 2005, the majority of those apprehensions were done by Border Patrol (their job), and that Border Patrol was responsible for 92% of the apprehensions in 2005 (again their job). This article, by omission, would have one believe that the majority of these families are apprehended at the workplace. The reason we are not speaking in more inclusive terms with regards to all illegal immigrants, is because 85% of the 2005 apprehensions were Mexican nationals. That means our entire immigration policy has become a lop-sided two nation treaty discussion, dressed up to look like an immigration policy. Am I wrong in thinking immigration policy should be how we treat every nation?

Educate yourselves, Americans have a tendancy to be lazy, perhaps that is why all these illegal employers refuse to go through the proper channels to have immigrant labor. Or maybe it's that by complying with the government they open themselves up to discrimination suits, especially those who have a policy not to hire "certain" Americans or "any" Americans.

» My Dos Centavos Posted by: Mexitli
Why is censorship necessary?
Posted by: m.seulement on May 22, 2008 4:45 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why is it that censorship is necessary for us to have a debate on immigration?

Look at the last two stories that have appeared on this topic on Alternet.

SO MANY comments have been deleted. At least 2-3 people have been BANNED from Alternet for disagreeing with the article.

Why is it that we can't have a productive debate on this topic, and we need to be GAGGING people?

» Meh. Posted by: Scientz
» look at this crap Posted by: m.seulement
» All you have to do is stay on topic Posted by: Joshua Holland
» Or follow the guidelines Posted by: Joshua Holland
» well yeah Posted by: pariter
Who Benefits?
Posted by: Southern Gal on May 23, 2008 8:36 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Who benefits from illegal immigration? The companies who get cheap labor, the private companies operating detention centers for illegal immigrants, the makers of expensive electronic monitoring fences for the borders, in other words those who make money from illegal immigration. The Democrats are pursuing Hispanic votes and are reluctant to address the issues, while the Republicans are pursuing conservative votes regarding stronger enforcement and border fences. In an election year emotions rules and potential votes count. The issues of people and families associated with illegal immigration will not get addressed anytime soon. There have to be ways that can stop the massive flow of illegal immigrants to this country and to humanely deal with the ones who are already here, but the real work will have to wait until after the elections and there is a new administration.

» RE: Who Benefits? Posted by: desidid
Will we ever hear from someone who sees both sides?
Posted by: Sojourner on May 23, 2008 10:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, employers rely on illegal immigrants. Yes, government bureaucracies like ICE will commit lots of well-documented injustices. So we get articles like this that tout one side against the other.

However, we know that the problem is being caught between those two sides. That is to say, long expose's of only one side or the other may make for wonderful sensationalism, but that's just spinning our wheels.

While we spin our wheels, the labor situation gets worse and the round-ups get worse. Thanks for nothing.

» New subject line Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: New subject line Posted by: desidid
» RE: New subject line Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: New subject line Posted by: desidid
» RE: New subject line Posted by: Joshua Holland
I have no problem with
Posted by: Joe on May 26, 2008 7:39 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
immigrants or immigration. the only reason im opposed to open borders is the people will be used by those on the left to justify various programs. i don't think most immigrants come here looking for a handout but democrats and socialists alike are always looking for a "weak" individual to exploit to advance the power of government to confiscate wealth.

if immigrants could separate from those on the left i'd have no problems.

the real deal
Posted by: patman47 on May 27, 2008 11:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the economy is making the law right now. home building down, therefore less need of workers. but, the scum meatpackers in colo. and other places still like illegals because illegals won't file for sick time etc. when the meat factories push them to work faster with sharp knives and bloody slippery floors. these people are being hurt bad. arizona has one of the lowest percentage of unemployment of all states because so many are moving here from the north, east and california. the wall is just a bush money toss to his corporate suckups. bush himself used illegal house workers when he lived in midland texas. the u.s. govt. will put up with alot from mexico because we use so much of their oil. stop using oil.