We won't either, if things continue as they're going.

I agree with the squeezing of the Middle Class concept, too.

A large part of this problem is that Mexico has *zero* motivation to do anything to inhibit illegal emigration to the US. 70% of our workforce here is Hispanic, and *every single one of them* is sending money back home.

Mexico's chief export is labor, man. Having them stop illegal emigration is like asking us to stop exporting Hollywood films (sorry, I couldn't think of anything else that we make that anyone anywhere else in the world wants).

BUT ELSPDOE WUT ABUT DEMCROACY!!!1!11!!??!?1?1@??1@?!/!/1/11/!? EVRY1 LUVS DEMOCASRY JST LOOK AT MIDLE EEST!

Where in the heck did this come from?

Um...from the guys who work in our installation department.

But...but...but..that's a job Americans won't do.:rolleyes:

Yeah, that's what most of our non-Hispanic workers tell me when they come in off of the trucks.

Bridgeport, Pa. is backing down, at least temporarily. But the Borough Council is likely to approve the measures if they stop being afraid of the ACLU. (For the record, the illegal immigrants are not Americans, so I don't see why the ACLU should be getting involved.)

BRIDGEPORT - Borough Council voted Tuesday to advertise two proposed ordinances that address illegal aliens. One measure would restrict undocumented individuals from working or renting in the borough; the other mandates that official government business be in English.

Council approved a motion to advertise the Immigration Relief Act by a 7-1 vote. The English language proposal also passed 7-1.

The approvals signal that council would likely favor both ordinances when the measures come before council in October.

"I think it was obvious tonight, that we have the seven votes (for approval)," said Councilman Pete Kohut.

Bridgeport worries an influx of illegal immigrants would put a strain on borough services, and that undocumented residences could avoid paying municipal taxes.

In July, the city of Hazleton and New Jersey's Riverside Township passed measures restricting undocumented individuals from holding jobs or renting property. The Hazleton measure also made English the city's official language.

At Bridgeport's Aug. 8 workshop meeting, Councilwoman Juanita Coover proposed drafting a similar ban that would prohibit employing or renting to illegal aliens.

However, the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania (ACLU) and several immigration groups filed a lawsuit Aug. 15 challenging Hazleton's ordinance.

The lawsuit prompted Bridgeport council to table its proposed measure on Aug. 22.

Borough Council then asked Bridgeport's solicitor Sal Bello to review the Hazleton lawsuit and report back to council.

Previously, Councilman John Pizza said the Riverside ban hastened the departure of undocumented workers there.

Last week, Hazleton voted to scrap the ordinance it approved July 13 for an overhauled version that is expected to have a better chance of withstanding a court challenge.

Hazleton's Illegal Immigration Relief Act fines landlords $1,000 for each illegal alien tenant and has the power to suspend business licenses of those employing undocumented workers.

While the revised Hazleton bill still punishes landlords and businesses, it puts the burden of verifying immigration status on the city, gives landlords and employers time to correct violations before sanctions are imposed and reduces penalties.

Hazleton agreed last week not to enforce the original measure in exchange for the ACLU's pledge not to file and injunction against the city.

Under the agreement, Hazleton must give the plaintiffs at least 20 days notice before it begins enforcing the law.
Hazleton Mayor Lou Barletta proposed the ordinance after two illegal immigrants were arrested for shooting and killing a man.

Under the new Hazleton law, the federal government would determine an individual's immigration status.

The ACLU lawsuit was filed on behalf of 11 Hazleton residents and business owners and three nonprofit organizations, according to ACLU's Web site.

The suit claims Hazleton's original ordinance violated the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause, because it seeks to override federal law and the exclusive federal power over immigration.

Also, the suit claims the city's "English only" provision violates city residents' First Amendment rights to free speech, the ACLU said.

I am now seeing 20% and 50% price increases from same period one year ago.

From MS-NBC of 4 Sept 2006: 1500 thousand immigrant laborers are not enough. Government believes 29 thousand are sufficient. Clearly 1471 thousand workers are not necessary. After all, immigration laws based in politcal agendas could not be wrong. We don't need these immigrants. Farmers must be wrong when complaining about 20% less workers and a corresponding decrease in crop yields.

Time and time again it boils down to the fact that WE HAVE ALL THE NECESSARY WORKERS ALREADY HERE either in the form of unemployed or in seasonal labor such as students (I can't think of a more fitting summer job for a highschool student than picking fruit). If we desparately need more unskilled labor (which we don't) then let the companies send visas to who they want, just no more of this "drive your truck down to the 7/11 and pick up some labor" bullshit. It's a matter of adapting, the farms are used to getting off easy with illegal labor, that's changing and they're bitching about it rather than switching to other methods.
We finally get a town that is willing to enforce the laws already in place for this kind of thing and the ACLU want to stop them, why am I not supprised.

Classic 'blame the victim' reasoning. An anti-free trade US has no merit? Since we are so fearful of immigrants, put millions of soldiers on our borders. At what point do you realize your reasoning is grossly erroneous?

Tell us where America has 1.8 million people unemployed and ready to work as migrant workers? Where are your numbers? 1.8 million needed workers and only 29,000 visas - more damning numbers. But clearly the laws could never be wrong. So you blame the victim? You blame the farmer? You blame the immigrant workers? But the laws can never be wrong? Massive price increases for produce don't bother you for one minute? Wow. I wish I could rationalize like that.

Meanwhile, the US government is again about to pass massive farm subsidized and price supports so that evil farmers can get richer. Maybe we should eliminate government welfare to farmers so they stop hiring immigrants? More walls. More guns. Blame the greedy farmer. Or maybe we have immigration laws and government subsidies that are classic anti-American, anti-free market, and so classic when extremists fear foreigners. We won the cold war to only do same USSR economics? Where is the logic in that? Next we should make collective farms.

So automatically it's a shortage of illegal aliens causing it? There was a local farmer(NJ) on the news the other night saying he had to let his crops die because he couldn't afford to fuel his irrigation pumps. He don't need no stinkin' pickers.
The cost of fuel and the fertilizers made from the same petroleum stocks, the cost of buying and maintaining equipment, property (and other) taxes, transportation of everything, the weather, competition, the weight of the jockey, and a million other things effect the price of fresh produce. Fluctuations in fresh produce prices are not unusual, even large ones.

tw, your a whirling dervish, the way you can spin anything, to support your argument. If you weren't so principled you could work for Bush.:lol:

To amplify a little on Bruce's last remark (Bruce, watch the homonyms! Did you use the right word-that-rhymes-with-yore?), the Bush Administration doesn't hire anti-American anti-victory-for-democracy Soviet-leftover communists. Tw doesn't have principles, he has pravda.

UG doesn't have arguments, he has accusations.

And often he just doesn't make sense.