In which a group of graying eternal amateurs discuss their passions, interests and obsessions, among them: movies, art, politics, evolutionary biology, taxes, writing, computers, these kids these days, and lousy educations.

E-Mail Donald
Demographer, recovering sociologist, and arts buff

E-Mail Fenster
College administrator and arts buff

E-Mail Francis
Architectural historian and arts buff

E-Mail Friedrich
Entrepreneur and arts buff
E-Mail Michael
Media flunky and arts buff

We assume it's OK to quote emailers by name.

Try Advanced Search

  1. Seattle Squeeze: New Urban Living
  2. Checking In
  3. Ben Aronson's Representational Abstractions
  4. Rock is ... Forever?
  5. We Need the Arts: A Sob Story
  6. Form Following (Commercial) Function
  7. Two Humorous Items from the Financial Crisis
  8. Ken Auster of the Kute Kaptions
  9. What Might Representational Painters Paint?
  10. In The Times ...

Sasha Castel
AC Douglas
Out of Lascaux
The Ambler
Modern Art Notes
Cranky Professor
Mike Snider on Poetry
Silliman on Poetry
Felix Salmon
Polly Frost
Polly and Ray's Forum
Stumbling Tongue
Brian's Culture Blog
Banana Oil
Scourge of Modernism
Visible Darkness
Thomas Hobbs
Blog Lodge
Leibman Theory
Goliard Dream
Third Level Digression
Here Inside
My Stupid Dog
W.J. Duquette

Politics, Education, and Economics Blogs
Andrew Sullivan
The Corner at National Review
Steve Sailer
Joanne Jacobs
Natalie Solent
A Libertarian Parent in the Countryside
Rational Parenting
Colby Cosh
View from the Right
Pejman Pundit
God of the Machine
One Good Turn
Liberty Log
Daily Pundit
Catallaxy Files
Greatest Jeneration
Glenn Frazier
Jane Galt
Jim Miller
Limbic Nutrition
Innocents Abroad
Chicago Boyz
James Lileks
Cybrarian at Large
Hello Bloggy!
Setting the World to Rights
Travelling Shoes

Redwood Dragon
The Invisible Hand
Daze Reader
Lynn Sislo
The Fat Guy
Jon Walz


Our Last 50 Referrers

« "The Conformist" | Main | Taking Jackie Collins Seriously »

August 18, 2005

State of Emergency

Michael Blowhard writes:

Dear Blowhards --

New Mexico governor Mike (oops, make that Bill) Richardson has declared an illegal-immigration-inspired state of emergency. Richardson -- a Democrat who served in Clinton's cabinet -- claims that "The situation is out of hand," and that border enforcement is "literally nonexistent." Arizona's governor Janet Napolitano made a similar statement on Monday, and the Governator himself has gone on record saying that he's thinking of following suit. Meanwhile, Mexico itself estimates that more than 20 million Mexican nationals now live in the U.S.

Vdare's Linda Thom notices that, up where she lives in Washington State, all those low-status jobs that Americans are said to be too uppity to take are in fact done by Americans. So much for the myth that we need millions of illegals.



posted by Michael at August 18, 2005


Mike Richardson?

*Bill* Richardson.

Posted by: H. Wren on August 18, 2005 6:28 PM

Where's my brain? Tks, corrected.

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on August 18, 2005 6:29 PM

Supply creates its own demand, and restriction of supply causes its own constraint of demand. The problem is that, like Africa, we can go backwards in terms of capital invested per worker in certain lines of business, or even overall. If technology rolls backwards throughout the world though, we receate the dark age conditions, and the third world populations we are supposedly benefiting, will be consumed by resurgent infectious disease. There is a reason why not to allow multitudes to pile in on the more advanced; if they do, they will destroy that upon which they and their relatives unknowingly depend for their existence altogether, that some may go far ahead in terms of capital invested per person across a populous country. The scholars know this, but malice against civilization and humanity prevent them from telling us.

Posted by: John S Bolton on August 18, 2005 9:56 PM

I'd take Bill Richardson's state of emergency more seriously if it weren't for one thing. Richardson is half-Mexican, on his mother's side, but throughout his long political career has never missed an opportunity to proclaim how authentically Hispanic he really is.

Posted by: Peter on August 18, 2005 10:09 PM

There once was, and still is, an American way of life which was/is social as well as economic. And the elites, across the board, were once proud of it; now they can barely bring themselves to apologize for it. The handwringing about what is happening is ineffectual because unempassioned. The drift of the southwest into a state that is technically American but organically Hispanic will continue.

Posted by: ricpic on August 19, 2005 10:06 AM

Definition of a racist: anyone who assumes that anyone south of the U.S. border doesn't have the right to (at their sole discretion)move to the U.S.; pay or not pay taxes in the U.S.; vote in the U.S. or vote at home or both; utilize U.S. social services. (Small note: these privileges are not reciprocal south of the border.)

I'm glad we've finally cleared that up. Oh, sorry, why should this be restricted to people in the New World? Ooops, did I open another can of worms?

Posted by: Friedrich von Blowhard on August 19, 2005 11:22 AM

"I'd take Bill Richardson's state of emergency more seriously if it weren't for one thing. Richardson is half-Mexican, on his mother's side, but throughout his long political career has never missed an opportunity to proclaim how authentically Hispanic he really is."

So what? He's no less American for that, or don't you have anyone in your family who were immigrants? The correct case against illegal immigration isn't that Mexicans are bad (well, that's the racist case I guess), it's that our levels of immigration are too high to genuinely assimilate new immigrants and are so high that they are driving down wages and working conditions here. The Hispanic American community is the *most* hard hit by those negative consequences, so it's very possible we can get good leadership from them on this issue. Cesar Chavez was anti illegal immigration because he saw the impact it had on farmworker wages. Plus leadership from Hispanics is likely to be quite effective because it's immune from the "racism" charge.

Posted by: MQ on August 19, 2005 3:10 PM

The low wages excuse is merely a red herring. If wages fall, eventually all other prices will fall and society as a whole benefits. Come on, admit it, white Americans just don't like Hispanics - simply because they look different and behave differently.

Posted by: Will on August 19, 2005 3:19 PM

It's not that Richardson isn't a true American because his mother was Mexican. The point is that Richardson has a skewed view of race and ethnicity. He conveniently ignores one-half of his ancestry, presumably for purposes of career advancement. Tossing one's white ancestry down the memory hole and identifying as 100% minority isn't unprecedented, of course; Halle Berry, Malcom Gladwell and Barack Obama all do the same. It just makes Richardson's views of immigration somewhat biased, though it's hard to say precisely in what way the bias runs.

Posted by: Peter on August 19, 2005 3:56 PM

Um, he's a politician. I regularly see politicans wearing yarmulkes who have no Jewish ancestry at all. Then the next week they're claiming to be Irish at St. Patrick's day. What gives!

Posted by: MQ on August 19, 2005 4:14 PM

What strikes me the most about all this is that the immigration topic is being spoken of publicly at all. A couple of years ago, just raising the question "how much immigration and of what kind is best" was enough to get you tossed out of polite society. Yet it was something loads of people cared a lot about. I'm delighted and amazed that it seems to be surfacing as a legit subject of debate.

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on August 19, 2005 4:45 PM

It's about time it's being discussed. It IS out of hand, and not for the purely selfish reasons of the U.S.

When I lived in Asheville, NC there were a lot of migrant workers. The sad part was that many of them lived in horrible conditions, but ended up trapped by their legal status. You can't seek help if you're worried about being deported. And people take advantage of that, paying them nothing but keeping them handy for cheap labor.

There's a hell of a lot of people falling through the cracks.

Posted by: Jill on August 19, 2005 5:37 PM

It's the unregulated nature of it all that is so troubling to me: as an immigrant myself, I'm not as worried about the numbers as some. I think we need a certain amount of immigration to stay healthy and dynamic as a society. But what is that certain amount? Cetainly open for debate.

We now have the worst of all possible systems - we know illegals are coming in, we wink-wink, nudge, nudge, 'allow' them in, and sometimes catch them and send them back, and sometimes don't. I've had family members sponsor relatives for years, and not get the visa. For them, it's excruciating to hear about the illegals. It smacks of unfairness. And, yet, we have a unique geographical relationship to Mexico.

It just needs to be controlled better: more border control, cracking down on businesses that hire illegals, taking on the large, sprawling, overly beaurocratic and largely inept INS. As Jill said above, a lot of innocents get hurt in this process. If we want the extra labor, then we should devise a system where we can, in an orderly fashion, allow people into the country legally. And not as guest workers. I want them invested in the future of this country and pledging that oath. But how you gonna streamline and make more efficient? We're talking about the government, here.

Posted by: MD on August 19, 2005 7:17 PM

Michael -
As I had mentioned in another thread, it is now possible to discuss immigration without being accused of political incorrectness because unlimited illegal immigration may be harmful to low-income, mainly minority people. If only the white middle class suffered as a result of immigration it wouldn't be p.c. to criticize immigration.

Posted by: Peter on August 19, 2005 8:59 PM

My god, how many of you are faced the situation I am faced with? I grew up in a small southern town. I got married and hd kids. Now when my wife and I decided to build our first house that we actually picked everything in, where did we go? We went to my hometown. I built on land that my great great great grandfather had farmed so many years ago. We built our dream home. Valued on the tax books at nearly 3/4 million dollars (big money in a town that averages $100K homes). Now the houses across the street all get sold to a rent lord, a slum lord in my wife's words. So what does he move in, loads of hispanic immigrants. Now, I guess you are all fixing to say I am racist. Well listen to this. These homes are 1000 square foot two bedroom one bath homes. How do 3 families, 15 to 18 people live in that? How does the sewage system handle that? OK now for more. I am faced with endless parties, drinking, cursing, etc. One of them has cars in and out endlessly. I bet 25 cars per day in and out of there. I call local laaw enforcement and they simply come over and ride by. Now, I ask you, if I were to put my house on the market, would you give me $200K or $250K for it to live across from that? Hell no you wouldn't. So I am now trapped in a lose lose situation. I can't sell out and I can't stand living here. I have went as far as to go offer the slum lord $400K for his 4 house on 4 acres. He refuses to sell. Why would he? I hear he rents by the head, by the week. He is making $2K per month per house on the Hispanics. $8K a month, I probably wouldn't sell either. But dammit I know they can't be here legally. I say close the borders. Close them to everyone and everything. Then start rounding the others up.

Hey if you want to know more. My wife works in the office at a large local hospital. If you want to know about how many of your tax dollars are going to care for these illegals when you and I pay huge health insurance premimums and can't afford to see the doctor.

I am too worked up, later!!

Posted by: John on August 19, 2005 10:30 PM

Last comment a little wrong. Our house is valued at $250,000. Not $750,000. Sorry!

Posted by: John on August 19, 2005 10:31 PM

John, I feel for you. Really, I feel your pain.

The nice wood-frame houses in my hood are being torn down, so that several giant macmansions - each with several bathrooms -can be built on a lot that once had a single 1 and one-half bath home. How does the sewage system handle that? (The best part is, when before he new dwellings have any kind of plumbing put in, the poor illegals who build them have to... well, it's not nice when you walk the dogs. If I was planning to sell a property for several hundred K, I'd spring for a port-o-potty or two.)

And boy howdy, do those multiple ACs crank out heat, and there's no long a tree for shade and no way for wind to blow.

There goes the neighborhood, indeed.

Posted by: j.c. on August 20, 2005 1:44 AM

Does any one ever spare a thought for those poor desperate Mexicans in Mexico? Life is much tougher there than being an illegal in America.

Posted by: Will on August 20, 2005 8:15 AM

Here's a thought for those poor desperates in other countries: Permanent Revolution. As in, you know - we physically can't fit all miserables in our luminous country, lets' export the light - out.
There is a bon mot somewhere here: Mexico, Trotsky...Must have my coffee first.

Posted by: Tatyana on August 20, 2005 8:43 AM

Not a valid objection, Tatyana. The US ranks only 143rd in terms of population density, Mexico 117th. Of course, I have to agree that your "permanent revolution" is a very effective way to kill of all those surplus people. Glad to see that you at least are not one of those who hide behind a false concern for the poor immigrants.

Posted by: Will on August 20, 2005 10:43 AM

Will -- Let me see if I've got this right: so far as these question go, the only possible humane stance for an American is to ... let in any poor foreigner who wants in? Is that right? And everyone who disagrees with that stance is ipso facto inhumane?

Hmm, last I counted, there were billions of poor people in the world. Question? How do you deal with homeless people and beggars? Do you 1) donate to some charities, and hand out some quarters and dollar bills, or 2) invite 'em into your home to live with you?

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on August 20, 2005 11:24 AM

You give them a job, Michael.

Posted by: Will on August 20, 2005 11:28 AM

You misread me, Will (I knew I should've taken a big cup before writing, it didn't come out very clear...)
I deliberately didn't say "poor desperate Mexicans" - why, do you think poor from other countries somehow are less desperate? Do you limit right to immigrate to US only to Hispanics? What about ..mmm... I don't know, people in Darfur? or Congo, don't you think they are a just a tiny bit more deserving? Even if not taking humanitarian crisis situations, I can assure you, there are millions in Vietnam, North Korea, Uzbekistan or 100 other places who would prefer to improve their lives by moving here. Why not take them all in, with no restrictions whatsoever?

Years ago, when I was still fresh in this country and was going thru extensive de-brainwashing, I was really shocked at this American notion: in case of some crisis (fire on the plane, earthquake, flood, nuclear attack, etc) a mother has an obligation to ensure her own safety first. Not her children, hers. WTF, thought I, this is inhuman, egotistic and so beastly capitalist!

But if you want the weak of this world to make it, there is really no other way. Put on your mask first, than look around for your children. They will need you strong and resoursful so you will be able to pull them out.

This is how I see current immigration situation: the world needs this country as strong and undiluted as possible, to survive. What is more effective, to spend mlns on medical research to battle AIDS or blns on accomodating affected Africans, without drugs to sustain them?

As to to Permanent Revolution, it's not my theory, and I sincerely hope its time has passed.

Posted by: Tatyana on August 20, 2005 11:55 AM

>>>>You give them a job, Michael.

Hahahaha. I know I keep at least half a dozen jobs in my pocket at all times just in case I run into some homeless people. Don't you Michael?

Posted by: pak wan-so on August 20, 2005 1:58 PM

Tatayana, I have no problem with looking after your own interests first, rather with the irrelevance (and hypocrisy) of the lowering-of-wages and exploitation-of-poor-immigrants arguments. As a white South African I am fully in favour of racial apartheid and understand perfectly well why Americans want to keep the barbarians out. What gets my goat is the hypocrisy and dissimulation.

Pak, how do the Mexicans contribute to lower wages if they aren't being employed then?

Posted by: Will on August 20, 2005 3:31 PM

Will -- I think Pak has a point. My own point would be that we all mean well and wish people well. I wish Bangladeshi peasants well too, by the way (assuming Bangladesh has peasants, something I know nothing about). But meaning-well and wishing-people-well don't automatically imply any specific political policies, and especially not the ones we have now, which seems wildly unjust to non-Mexican immigrant wannabes, as well as to the border states that are shouldering the costs of an open border. What's needed is some public debate. So I'm thrilled the topic is finally making it into the "acknowledged as something that needs to be faced" category.

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on August 20, 2005 3:39 PM

Michael, Pak might have a point, but he hasn't made it yet. And you're blowing smoke, Michael, by being concerned about the so-called injustice to "non-Mexican immigrant wannabes". Would you really prefer that America be overrun by even more wretched
immigrants than the Mexicans are? What needs to be faced is that America is a predominantly white nation with its own cultural biases and preferences for which it need not make excuses.

Posted by: Will on August 20, 2005 4:10 PM

Once again, Will, you misread me (as well as misspelled my name).

I haven't say anything remotely close to "looking after your own interests first". I said, in short, that it's in the interests of the world' poor if we spend our money on ourselves first.
I'll rephrase, so you might finally inderstand: if this country will continue current "looking but not seeing" illegal immigrants' policy, poor and desperate people all over the world will suffer more, not less. Exactly because our resources are getting misspend; for example I'd rather see states giving tax exemptions to people investing into innovative technologies and manufacturing industries than taxing us all more so they can bring illegals to the barely passable level of education and health, let alone spend enormous sums to crime reduction.

You can be proud all you want of your racist beliefs, just not put your words into my mouth.

Posted by: Tatyana on August 20, 2005 5:43 PM

Tatyana, honestly I don't see how our viewpoints differ so much that you can feel free to accuse me of racism. I haven't even accused the Mexicans of stupidity and criminality as you seem to be doing. All I am saying is that people of any race have a right to keep to themselves. I happen to agree with you that the world would be a much better place if the wretched stopped looking to the white man to rescue them and started doing it for themselves. But I suspect there is a psychological mechanism, an unconscious conspiracy on the part of westerners to keep the benighted races in perpetual dependence - weak and harmless, in other words.

Posted by: Will on August 20, 2005 6:58 PM


Did you just say as a white South African you believe in racial apartheid? I guess I better get my 'brown' comments out of this comment-town, lest you be polluted by the proximity of a South Asian immigrant, even in cyberspace.

Good God.

*As long as the US serves as a safety valve for Mexico, the inept elites who run that country have no incentive to actually improve the lot of Mexicans living in Mexico. I have tremendous sympathy for the Mexicans who want to come and work in the states. They are not barbarians. They are human beings who are not being well served by the current system.

Posted by: MD on August 20, 2005 7:23 PM

the inept elites who run that country have no incentive to actually improve the lot of Mexicans living in Mexico.

I would say Vincent Fox is doing a wonderful job improving the lot of Mexicans in Mexico. But his strategy, so wonderful for Mexico (i.e. encouraging millions of proles to move North) is a disaster for the United States.

Posted by: onetwothree on August 20, 2005 7:48 PM

MD, since you can read and write you are obviously not a barbarian. Moreover, I am even descended from a woman known as Maria of Bengale. My first male ancestor at the Cape, who is the founder of one of the famous vineyards, married her mixed-race daughter.

Posted by: Will on August 21, 2005 8:31 AM

You keep doing it, Massa: misinterpreting me.
I never mistake poor education for stupidity, and high level of criminality (gangs, mostly) among Latin American immigrants to US is a common knowledge (which was a subject on this blog a couple of times - look in the archives, I'm not doing your work for you).

As to why other nations aren't able to develop to the level that of the West (if that's what you mean under "white people" - which in itself whole other discussion) - is a different topic altogether, and I definitely not share your opinion.
For the future - please don't associate me with yourself, do me a favor.

Posted by: Tatyana on August 21, 2005 9:34 AM

As usual, only fallacies can be offered in defence of greatly increasing the aggression on the net taxpayer, through mass immigration of those who are illiterate in English, and otherwise almost certain to go on net public subsidy. Restriction of immigration disproportionately blocks non whites. Enforcement of the laws against murder also disproportionately affects minorities, but that is no excuse for wanting to legalize murder. Instead of rational arguments the antirestrictionists of immigration have only their ad hominem approaches and slippery slope equivocations, along the lines of: immigration restriction=racism=nazism=mass murder. Actually though the exact reverse association is closer to the truth; a country with no effective restriction of immigration, such as the Congo, is invaded and beset by 'racist' tribal warfare, nazism of an african variety, and mass murder. Millions have died as a result of the wars in that country, and they were started and kept going by refugees who exploited the absence of border control. Likewise Hitler himself was an illegal alien, who eluded Germany's laws restricting immigration.

Posted by: John S Bolton on August 21, 2005 3:08 PM

Tatyana, if it is only a problem of poor education and not of low intelligence, then the fault lies with the US authorities and not with the immigrants, won't you say?

"For the future - please don't associate me with yourself, do me a favor."

Well, it so happens that I believe in ethnic apartheid as well, so we're in agreement.

Posted by: Will on August 21, 2005 9:29 PM

No comeback, eh Tatyana? I guess the Will triumphs again...

Posted by: Will on August 22, 2005 9:41 AM

Dear Michael and Will,

“White Americans just don't like Hispanics - simply because they look different and behave differently.” Now where would Americans get such a crazy idea? The appreciation of looks and behavior is a fundamental human value maybe. Will's idea is because he behaves different from me by writing this and surely looks different, I must dislike him. I admit I do not like his behavior, but I do not know if I dislike him. His premise is people who look and behave differently must dislike one another. There is some probability attached to related premises, but the degree is far from absolute. And then the actual evidence to support the premise is noticeably missing. So we are left with nothing more than an establishment curse.

But let’s examine his core belief that people who treat some people different from others somehow need to fess up because they somehow deserve disapproval. One must infer I must fess up that I prefer my mother and father to my fellow contributor; sorry Will, I play favorites. I must fess up that I prefer my country to Mexico, and I really, really prefer Americans to Nazis.

All the Best,


Posted by: Paul Henrí on August 23, 2005 12:26 AM

Dear Michael and Jill,

Michael is so right when says it is incredible this issue can now be discussed in public. I (and the 2Best) have been discussing this for years.

Jill is perhaps going off the deep end. Instead of thinking OUR problem is, as Will does, whites dislike Mexicans because of the way they behave and look, she thinks OUR problem is some Americans dare to profit from giving the Mexicans what they want. Neither of these analysts discusses whether Mexicans have any culpability for their own behavior such as, oh I don’t know, maybe invading a foreign country.

I’ll bet they are unaware of a legal periodical, La Raza (The Race), produced by and for Mexicans in the United States. It is not even shunned by any law library on or offline. A charming publication if one is Mexican and believes the way one looks and behaves needs no fessing up.

Posted by: Paul Henri on August 23, 2005 1:08 AM

Dear Michael and Fellow Readers,

I finally got to the end of Will's stuff. I am sorry for him that he suffers from a mental illness that I cannot quite define (as I am not a psychiatrist). I can only suggest we wish him well, and God Bless Him.

All the Best,


Posted by: Paul Henri on August 23, 2005 1:19 AM

Hi Paul,

I am also not sure what my illness is. What I tried to convey with my exaggerated rhetoric is that the differences between ethnicities - in terms of values, behaviour and even aesthetic preferences - are real and deep seated and overexposure to each others differences is bound to lead to conflict.


Posted by: Will on August 23, 2005 10:38 AM

Ethnic differences are a funny thing.When I lived in Chicago I had many contacts with Serbs, Bosnians and Croats and found almost all of them insufferable(humorless, self-righteous, impervious to consideration of differing opinions) without respect to individual ethnic identity. I now live in Costa Rica where there is constant tension between Costa Ricans and Nicaraguans. The attitudes (and perceptions of) the Costa Ricans toward Nicas is generally the same as that of Anglophone Americans toward Mexicans, though Costa Ricans are generally more open about them because PC is less advanced here.
Re the open borders movement(that strange coalition of cheap-labor profiteers, sentimental Christians, La Raza race hustlers and "Hate America/Hate Whitey" crazed left-wing nihilists), its fundamentally anti-democratic nature is usually ignored. They in essence deny the existemce of the US a democratic, sovereign nation where the vast majority of US citizens want their democratically enacted immigration laws enforced. Strange that the US is allegedly fighting for democracy in Iraq yet ignores the democratic rights of the people of the US when it comes to immigration.
With repect to Apartheid, it may have been preferable to the mess SA is today:

Posted by: perroazul del norte on August 23, 2005 11:58 AM

"With repect to Apartheid, it may have been preferable to the mess SA is today."

The remarkable thing is that during 40 years of apartheid the government couldn't even manage to kill a thousand of the Soviet-backed ANC insurgents and assorted terrorists, bit it took the ANC-regime less than 10 years to allow its supporters to kill 1700 white farmers and thus forcing 30000 farmers to leave their lands. Yet barely a squeak from the international media that went into paroxysms of rage about the imprisonment of a communist putchist like Nelson Mandela, who managed to survive 27 years in jail without a hair on his head getting harmed.

Posted by: Will on August 23, 2005 1:26 PM

Dear Michael and Will,

I confess to being a fellow blowhard especially after reviewing Will's recent posts. Will sets out a tragic failure of liberalism to protect whites in Africa. Liberals believe white Christians are ESSENTIALLY evil insofar as their behavior towards other cultures. Yet every single time the liberals fail to articulate their premises. They merely give conclusory statements. Am I so wrong? If Will is looking for a sponsor to immigrate, I will glad to help.

All the Best,


Posted by: Paul Henrí on August 24, 2005 2:07 AM

Paul, thanks for the generous offer, but I
am determined to stay here. As a descendant of European immigrants I have as much a right to this country as any descendant of Bantu immigrants. It is thanks to my forbears that South Africa as an entity of state exists and that even black South Africans enjoyed, until recently, the highest standard of living on the continent.

Posted by: Will on August 24, 2005 10:40 AM

Linda Thom may be right about Whidbey Island -- I haven't been there for many years. But she is definitely not right about Washington state as a whole. I live in a Kirkland, a suburb of Seattle, and Hispanics, many of them illegal I am sure, hold many of the low level jobs around here. They predominate at the closest McDonald's and Wendy's. They are almost universal in yard care and landscaping jobs. And so on.

That said, I agree that we could find Americans to do the jobs that illegals do in Washington (at perhaps slightly higher wages), with one great exception. The exception is some seasonal agricultural jobs, such as apple picking. Those jobs are very important to the state, especially east of the Cascades.

Posted by: Jim Miller on August 24, 2005 12:16 PM

Dear Michael and Fellow Blowhards,

Absurd is the relevance of the idea non-Mexicans are unwilling to pick apples. The premise is non-Mexicans will work for wages lower than most Americans. I'll bet there are Sudanese who would be willing to pick apples for less than Mexicans. And? Besides, Americans picked the apples before the Mexicans and will do so after the Mexicans are sent home. This might mean higher apple prices though!

What the commentator believes is apples will become unavailable without Mexican labor. Now let's see. Gasoline just went from over two dollars a gallon to over three dollars a gallon. Call out the Mexicans! How else can we consume 20 apples or 20 gallons of gasoline? Forget that those versatile Mexicans will save us when we need to pick apples containing vitamins and fiber we can get for next to nothing but openly oppose us when we are attacked by Mexican criminals and other assorted terrorist nations. Pointing out these facts still makes Mexicans fine folk in the view of some unthinking people.

All the Best,


Posted by: Paul Henri on August 27, 2005 6:13 AM

Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember your info?