I’m sure some people don’t find it as funny, but the ridiculous bias is laughable in this LA Times article, Migrants Find a Gold Rush in New Orleans. It talks about the illegal aliens flooding into New Orleans, and in the process tries to paint a positive light on all of illegal immigration.

First, I just can’t help but feeling them attempting to force the warm fuzzies through me: Oh, these illegal immigrants can’t be that bad; they’re rebuilding the city of New Orleans. You might give the LA Times the benefit of the doubt, but wait until you hit this line: “As the Senate debates new immigration laws and marchers demonstrate across the country, these immigrants offer another reminder of the country’s reliance on undocumented labor from Latin America.” Our country’s reliance? When only 5% of our workforce is foreign, which means a lower percentage is illegal.

Then, the LA Times makes an oddly framed claim: “While the South’s feeble economy, racism and xenophobia kept out new people and influences, New Orleans took in waves of newcomers — Italians, Greeks, Germans and Irish — in the decades before World War I. Later arrivals came from Honduras, Cuba and Vietnam.” First off, they’re implying that racism and xenophobia are the only reasons for limiting immigration; they’re subtlely painting their opponents as racist xenophobes. Second, were these legal or illegal immigrants? If we are really so reliant on undocumented Mexican labor, we must wonder why those previous immigrants probably came in legally. Next, these immigrants were eventually assimilated into American culture. Illegal immigrants demonstrate a disrespect for our laws, and therefore, we have no reason to believe that they will assimilate into our society and protect our Constitution. The situations are completely different, but the LA Times is implying that they’re the same.

At least the LA Times could have a progressive bias instead of an illegal immigration bias. My irony meter went off when I came across this passage: “But beginning in the 1970s, the port downsized, businesses left town, wages fell, welfare rolls and crime rose as the public education system collapsed. A black underclass took low-skilled, low-wage jobs. Fewer immigrants moved to town.” [Emphasis mine.] Don’t you get it? Since all the black people left after their homes were destroyed, now we need Mexicans to do the dirty work. We’re replacing one underclass with another underclass.

If the LA Times was really liberal, they’d care about one underclass being replaced with another underclass. What’s the LA Times real agenda? Why are they trying to defend illegal immigration? Is it because they have illegal immigrants working for them, mowing their lawns and cleaning their houses? Alright, that’s not fair, that’s not fair on my part at all, but I wonder.

Let’s dig deeper. Next, the LA Times says, “The rest of the South, meanwhile, became what New Orleans had been: Atlanta, Memphis, Nashville and Charlotte saw tens of thousands of Mexicans arrive, taking jobs in hotels, restaurants, construction and landscaping. Mexicans slaughtered pigs in Guymon, Okla., and made carpeting in Dalton, Ga. Historians call their arrival the largest influx of foreign workers to the South since the days of slavery.”

When the passages I’ve quoted are looked at together, we see the LA Times’ story is based on a false logic. First, our country’s economy is reliant on undocumented labor, according to them. They imply that the New Orleans economy was bustling because of immigrant labor. They imply the South in general were bustling because of immigrant labor. However, they say the South’s “feeble economy” discouraged immigration. New Orleans’ down-sizing discourages immigration. So, was the economy reliant on immigration? Or was immigration reliant on the economy? Taken in context, how can they make the claim that our country is reliant on illegal aliens?

I’ll stop now. This article is ridiculous. Our country is in no way dependent on undocumented migrant labor. Pure bullshit.

“Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can’t get fooled again” — President Bush

In 1986, Congress granted amnesty to illegal immigrants who had already been in the country for some time, and Congress promised to clamp down on future illegal immigration. In 2006, Congress plans to put illegal aliens on a path to citizenship and increase border enforcement in order to clamp down on future immigration. Is anyone else getting an odd sense of deja vu?

Look, Congress, we already granted amnesty in 1986. You promised to stop illegal immigration after that. Instead, we have 12 million new illegal immigrants. You’re not going to fool the American public again. The time for amnesty is past. Do what you promised to do 20 years ago. Stop the illegal immigrants.

“Look, slaves pick our cotton. Slaves work for free. Look, I’m not happy about slavery. But do you want to pay an extra dollar for your fabulous cotton T-shirt? I know I don’t. I know the American people are not going to pay an extra dollar for their cotton T-shirts in order to free the slaves. That’s economics. It’s not fair, but you can’t fight economic demand,” so said the economics professor.

Say, I gots an idea! Howzabout instead of putting illegal aliens on a path to citizenship, let’s create a permanent underclass of immigrant workers! After all, they’re only here to do the jobs we don’t want to do, right? We’ll create a class of people that can work below minimum wage just so we can get our strawberries cheap! That sounds fair and just to me! And if anyone says it’s not fair, well, you can’t fight economic demand. No matter what you do, they’ll come anyway. And we know that no American would ever take those jobs (forget the large percentage of workers that aren’t illegal). So, why not just make them a permanent underclass so we can get cheap houses and strawberries! Yay America!

This crazy fun time was partly inspired by this MSNBC article: Economics of immigration could defy laws. Honestly, if the businesses had their way, they’d be perfectly happy with a permanent underclass paid below minimum wage.

The problem after 1986 wasn’t exactly purely economics. The laws weren’t enforced, and they aren’t now being enforced. All the economic factors in the world wouldn’t let illegal immigrants through if we built a fence, instituted a draft, and patrolled our borders with soldiers. That’s a bit extreme, but it’s true. I wonder if we had enforced our laws in the first place, would we have as big a problem with illegal immigration?

The economic status quo is also malleable. We’re paying prices for gasoline that we would’ve found outrageous not too long ago. We also have to wonder about the true cost of things. Sure, I’m paying less for a fruit. Yet, my tax money might go to your child’s free lunch at school because you’re getting paid peanuts. Hm…

At least the article did have the gall to admit: “While illegal immigrants play a crucial role in the economy, their importance is sometimes overstated. Foreign workers account for less than 5 percent of the nation’s labor force. They are concentrated by industry and geography in ways that would cushion the larger economy should they removed from it. While their labor affects the prices consumers pay for some goods, it is but one component.”

Yet, the thesis of the article seems to be the all-powerful strength of economics in driving illegal immigration. Doesn’t that concession undermine the point that we can’t fight the “tremendous economic demand for illegal immigrants”?

Moreover, the article explains where the demand is coming from: “The reality, though, is that given the motivations of the businesses and workers at its center, regulating the flow of workers at the periphery of the economy will be very difficult, whether or not immigration is legal, experts say.” Although the article starts with the lovely tale of the employer who hires immigrants because he thinks his customers won’t pay extra, the real motivation to hire illegals comes from the motivation of businessmen to not have to pay as much for wages. We must realize that if it were up to businesses to decide everything, we probably wouldn’t have a minimum wage in the first place. I’m sure there are some people who agree with that we shouldn’t, but I bet the majority of Americans agree that there should be a minimum wage. So, why haven’t businesses gotten rid of the minimum wage by having their lobbyists scream about economic factors?

The moral of the story? Don’t accept the inevitability of economic factors. If we choose to clamp down on illegal immigration, it can be done, economic factors be damned. If we punish businesses for hiring illegals, then let’s see what happens to that omnipotent economic demand.

I’ve been developing a certain style to my weblogging, and I’ve been liking it. I feel like my weblog entries have been getting better… except very recently. Lately, they’ve felt silly.

I want to retain the style I’ve been developing, but still talk a lot about immigration. Thus, my goal on this weblog will be to have an open exploration on the topic of immigration. (And other topics too.) All aspects of it, without resorting to talking points of any sort. I will retain an open mind, with one exception. I can’t have an open mind on any thing that harms my country. I will, however, keep an open mind as to whether something will harm the country or not.

I’m young, only 19. I still want to be in exploration mode as to my ideals. That’s not to say I’ll suddenly close my mind when I become older, but I’ll be more sure about certain topics. I think… I dunno… I haven’t grown up yet so I don’t know if it’s like that or not.