Skip to comments.Illegal-hiring bill spurs jest and jeers (prof opposed to capitalism - calls for transformation)
Posted on 03/04/2011 1:03:32 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
A proposed immigration law being cast in jest across the country as a way for Texans to rid the work force of illegal immigrants while protecting their low-paid nannies and gardeners drew serious concern Thursday from advocates who fear the bill could have a chilling effect across the state.
Rep. Debbie Riddle's House Bill 1202 calls for two years in jail and up to $10,000 fines for people who "intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly" hire unauthorized immigrants. Specifically exempted: Laborers relegated to "work to be performed exclusively or primarily at a single-family residence."
"House Bill 1202 has just really created an uproar in our community," said Laura Murillo, president of the Houston Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. Riddle "makes an exception for those that might clean her own house or take care of her children. If you can't read between those lines, I don't know what lines you can read between."
In an ideal world, Riddle said no one would hire illegal immigrants. But she said she included the exception because homeowners don't have access to E-verify, the federal Internet-based system that allows businesses to determine the eligibility of their employees to work in the United States.
David Smith, a spokesman for the Progressive Workers Organizing Committee, a Houston-area labor group, said he wishes Texas hadn't positioned itself to be included in conversations alongside Arizona regarding anti-immigrant laws.
"I just shudder when I see this kind of stuff," said Smith, a government professor at the College of the Mainland. "It's horrible, just horrible. They shouldn't be harassing people just trying to make a living."
(Excerpt) Read more at chron.com ...
[excerpt] "In a nutshell, it means I have a fundamental disagreement with capitalism," he said. "I think that capitalism is a system based on exploitation and oppression and domination and racism and war and lots of other things.
"So I'm totally opposed to capitalism, and I think that the majority of the people of this country ought to get together and transform the system," he said. "I think we need to replace capitalism with some kind of democratic socialism." [end excerpt]
The article does point out why the U.S. is being overrun by illegals:
Dems want them here b/c they vote overwhelming for Rats once they become legal or their kids will. Hispanic 2nd generation end up on welfare and in prison in similar ratio to blacks.
Repubs want them here (1) at the corporate level where all the money flows b/c the companies want cheap labor and (2) here are Texas ‘conservatives’ wanting to keep the cheap maid.
Meanwhile... average Joe American worker is in the 10%+ ranks of the unemployed.
It’s a mess. And it will be controversial no matter what. But to have an avowed Marxist quoted as their champion is something the illegals better wrap their head around. Those opposed need to process this too.
This administration is successfully working to divide us into warring camps. They want a showdown and I believe a breakdown, as envisioned by David Smith above.
Their website banner reads:
"Democratic Socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democraticallyto meet public needs, not to make profits for a few. To achieve a more just society, many structures of our government and economy must be radically transformed through greater economic and social democracy so that ordinary Americans can participate in the many decisions that affect our lives."
Give me a solution that won’t start a shooting war in the U.S.?
Please. I really want to hear one.
"They didn't get that at high school. They didn't get that at home, I don't think," Katz said. "There's only one place they could have gotten that, and that's in David Smith's class." [end excerpt]
[excerpt] WASHINGTON During his first 18 years in Congress, the view from Lamar Smith's office was of a parking lot. Now, in his 13th term, he looks out upon the Capitol dome. Seniority confers perquisites.
Today he chairs the House Judiciary Committee, which has custody of the immigration issue.
America, he says, has the world's "most generous legal immigration policies. We admit as many legal immigrants as the rest of the world combined."
Regarding illegal immigration, however, he proposes a program of "attrition through enforcement." Workplace enforcement, that is.
He says such enforcement has declined 70 percent in the last two years, and fines levied on employers of illegal immigrants are treated by businesses as a bearable cost of doing business as usual. Nationally, 250,000 businesses are using E-Verify, the program to quickly validate the legality of workers, and each week another 1,300 businesses sign up for the system.
Smith does not flinch from questioning the practice of "birthright citizenship" awarding citizenship to anyone born in America, including children whose parents are here illegally. He cites a Houston Chronicle report that in 2005, 70 percent of births in Houston and Dallas public hospitals were to illegal immigrant mothers. Today they account for nearly 10 percent of births nationally.
He believes the practice of birthright citizenship rests on a misconstruing of the 14th Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court, he says, has never addressed the "precise question" of the meaning of this: "All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."
He favors ending birthright citizenship as currently administered and thinks it is possible to "write a statute to get five votes" on the court. If he does write one, this soft-spoken man will be carrying a big stick of legislative dynamite. [end excerpt]
It's not about the ruling class at all. It is about the middle class. They are trying to avoid a political spectacle of someone making $60,000 hauled to court because an illegal cuts his grass. They would not mind at all to haul to court someone who make $1M for the same thing.
I personally would've proffered no exceptions. If it's wrong, it's wrong regardless of how wealthy the person is.
But it's not about the "ruling class" at all.