Take action now: Take the Stop Amnesty Challenge.

It's up to you to block Obama's amnesty.
 

Wall Street Journal not very Swift in support for illegal immigration

The WSJ comments on the recent Swift & Co. immigration raids in "Not Very Swift". As could be expected, they oppose the raids. Let's look at a couple of their statements to see where their priorities lie.

Immigration restrictionists would have us believe that harassing businesses like Swift, the world's second-largest beef and pork processor, helps make America safer. But so far the Swift raids haven't uncovered any al Qaeda cells, merely a bunch of hard-working people trying to feed their families. The operation involved more than 1,000 federal agents in six states. And of Swift's 15,000 or so employees, a grand total of 144 have been charged to date with misidentifying themselves to get hired.

Obviously, enforcing our laws isn't "harassing" and, while their operations were temporarily disrupted, only their workers were arrested and deported with the company itself so far escaping legal action. And, of course, those "hard-workers" don't work in isolation. Their presence fuels political corruption, they send money back home to Mexico and prop up that company's oligarchy, and so on and on. And, those who were using American's identities weren't just "misidentifying" themselves; they were obviously having a negative impact on the WSJ's fellow citizens (not that that means much to them). The Wall Street Journal also fails to note that wherever you have illegal alien workers, you also have those who come to prey on them, such as the paramilitary Central American gang members arrested last year in Marshalltown, Iowa.

Put another way, 1,000 federal agents that could have been focused on potential terrorists or other dangerous threats were instead focused on a meatpacking company that hires thousands of willing unskilled workers and pays them more than twice the minimum wage with full health benefits after six months. How's that for government efficiency?

Obviously, the WSJ is ignoring such things as those wages being much lower than they were before companies like Swift were allowed to employ illegal aliens, as well as all the subsidies that those workers are receiving from U.S. citizens such as mandatory educations for their children. And, there are plenty of willing Americans that are lining up out the door to take those jobs. The WSJ is obviously not thinking of them and would probably support child labor if they could get away with it.

Immigration · Sun, 12/24/2006 - 09:54 · Importance: 4

Tue, 12/26/2006 - 00:40
Fred Dawes

how did we make this a great nation without mexico and the third world rats coming here by the million each years, and yes facts mean nothing its all about the money, but here is one fact, in my state illegals coast $400,000.00 just in anchor babies.

Mon, 12/25/2006 - 01:20
John S Bolton
www.johnsbolton.net

They also aren't about to confess the falsity of their past predictions that immigration law enforcemnent would leave such places without workers.
Facts don't seem to matter to them; they're making propaganda.
When the old party line has to be temporarily dropped, they just switch to another false one.
Since when was immigration law enforcement expected to discover terrorist cells on every major operation?
Why is it necessary to represent illegals as pure workers, as if the majority of them were not dependents, and the overwhelming majority were not on net public subsidy?