|
 |
January 07, 2004 ANOTHER TROJAN HORSE?....I'm not really sure yet what to think of George Bush's proposed immigration reform, but I'll give you my gut reaction: it's a Trojan horse. Bush has proven himself masterful at proposing legislation in which the headline summary is "compassionate":
But the fine print contains some doozies:
For the time being I'll stay on the fence about this, but it's hard not to think of Bush's proposal as just an updated version of the infamous bracero program under which millions of Mexican farm workers provided low-wage labor in U.S. fields for more than two decades after World War II. Overall, I'm not thrilled with the idea of a "guest worker" program that essentially indentures a worker to a particular employer and provides no assurance of permanent residence, so while I'm generally in favor of more liberal immigration laws, I figure we should either let immigrants in or we shouldn't and quit playing games about it. What's more, this sounds all too typical of a Bush program, and I suspect there will be more bad news as the details are released. The Bushies rarely have the courage to push a genuinely conservative agenda, which they know is unpopular, but instead hide conservative time bombs in legislation that's clothed in the rhetoric of traditional liberalism. I suspect that this is happening yet again with this proposal, so I'll withhold judgment until I hear more about it. Posted by Kevin Drum at January 7, 2004 10:39 AM | TrackBackComments
Right on, Kevin. The bracero program is the key and too few people know the details. aimai Posted by: aimai at January 7, 2004 10:58 AM | PERMALINKI think it depends whether those cards are renewable (and for how long). I happen to have lived and worked in a country with a similar type of system and it wasn't bad at all. And we had to go out of country to renew. Much better than being an illegal working for slave wages because one is afraid to complain for fear of being deported. (I'm not engaging in hyperbole with 'slave wages' either, we have periodic slavery cases here in Florida with migrants ending up 'owing their soul to the company store'.) Posted by: Kathy K at January 7, 2004 10:58 AM | PERMALINKOn the other hand, the legislation as I understand it at least allows workers to apply for green cards immediately, which is a big step forward from congressional conservative proposals. How else could Bush proceed here? Today's CNN pole shows that more than 60% of respondents oppose even a mild loosening of immigration laws. It appears to be one of those issues that everyone profits from, but no one has the courage or conviction to speak honestly about. Posted by: Aspasia at January 7, 2004 11:00 AM | PERMALINKMy own view is the same as Josh Marshall's. This'll never happen. Too many anti-immigrant people in the other party. This is just a cynical ploy to attract Hispanic votes. You gotta remember - these people never quit with the misrepresentations and outright lies. Posted by: Tony Shifflett at January 7, 2004 11:02 AM | PERMALINKwouldn't something like this open the door to even more jobs relying on illegal immigration? couldn't Bob's Slaughterhouse decide that paying benefits is too costly, so Bob would cut all benefits, and lower wages to almost nothing. then he could honestly say "no American wants this job. i need illegals to do it!" ? Posted by: ChrisL at January 7, 2004 11:05 AM | PERMALINKBoth parties have reasons to want immigration. Sure, you've got the
Buchananite wing that don't want 'those brown people' in, but most
Republicans are responsive to business interests and those interests
want immigration. I expect we'll get fights on both sides against the
idea (for different reasons). I also expect the center will generally go
for it. Great point about the bracero program. This isn't about fixing illegal immigration, it's about, in a nutshell, the Wal-Mart labor case: make it so companies don't have to hire illegals to pay lower wages. This is a push-down-wages program. Paulo, http://whosecapitalism.typepad.com/
At face value, I wonder how successful this could be. I grew up in rural Texas, and most of the landowners hired immigrant labor. Even though the employers would usually provide shelter and a decent wage, I doubt that any of them would really be interested in a program like this (especially for the seasonal workers). I realize that many illegal immigrants have found a fulltime job with a "regular" employer, and it seems like this program provides more for them than the workers in California or Florida who pick oranges all day. Posted by: Frugal Liberal at January 7, 2004 11:11 AM | PERMALINKSure displaced that annoying Mad Cow problem, didn't it? And it won't even happen. Posted by: J Edgar at January 7, 2004 11:25 AM | PERMALINKGoody, another trifecta! 1. Undermine unions by allowing "sponsoring" corporations to
essentially create multi-year contracts with dependent, deportable,
cheap-ass foreign labor. Bush and Rove must have figured out that when you give citizenship away to folks--like the cubans in Miami--they tend to loyally vote for the GOP. When you play crackdown like Wilson did with Prop 187--you turn a generation away from your party. Of course they're going to play Santa Claus with citizenship and simultaneously benefit their business constituencies. And unlike Josh Marshall and others, I think this program will be for real. Wal-mart and a thousand other corporations are salivating at the prospect of even cheaper, dependent labor already, I'm sure. Posted by: Tim B. at January 7, 2004 11:30 AM | PERMALINKAs I wrote in my post more on Christmas eve, I think this is just election politics --they probably have little real interest in whether anything gets implemented or how it gets implemented. Posted by: lerxst at January 7, 2004 11:32 AM | PERMALINKchrisL makes an excellent point. However this plan is coopted directly from the Dems - from Wes Clark to Nancy Pelosi. This position drives Lou Dobbs nuts. It's brilliant for the Repubs to steal the high ground for what will likely be a wedge issue in the elections. Posted by: deb4wes at January 7, 2004 11:43 AM | PERMALINKI can see Bush going through with this. As others have pointed out, it allows some of the major GOP contributors to take their now largely illegal workforces and make them legitimate. WalMart and Tyson come to mind here. It also allows other large users of unskilled or semiskilled labor to cash in on indentured immigrants. Give them company housing, force them to shop at company stores. Hey! Free labor! Posted by: Derelict at January 7, 2004 11:46 AM | PERMALINKYour gut is right. Here are some of the nasty details to look out for: 1. Guestworker status tied to an employer with not certainty of ever getting residency status. Currently, only 140,000 employment based green cards annually, 10,000 for low skilled workers. Lets see, only 57 years to work off the back load for the 8 million assumed to be here and working. 2. The plan contains a scheme to withhold a portion of the wages--to be returned only if the guestworker returns to the sending country at the end of his/her legal stay here. Hey, didn't they do that with the Bracero program and the money mysteriously disappeared? 3. Even though they claim the workers' family may join them the income threshold will be so high that the maid at the Holiday Inn they talk about could never hope to meet this requirement. So, the family values adminstration will separate families. 4. Perhaps worst of all, this freezes everything in place on immigration policy and almost certianly dooms the bipartisan bill for earned immigration status for farmworkers painstakenly worked out between growers and farmworkers (the UFW lead the way). A promising bill that looked like it may well pass in the next couple of months is now dead and the Bush Admin. has indicated they will not support it as a separate bill. Posted by: dmh at January 7, 2004 11:49 AM | PERMALINKWell, it IS a ploy to court the Hispanic vote. Bush ignored immigration and closer ties to Mexico (something he repeatedly talked about in Spanish during his campaign) for three years, much to the chagrin of Vincente Fox, who campaigned on closer US ties. (Anyone remember his "first official foreign visit" being to Mexico and not Canada?) Now, a few weeks before he meets Fox and nine months before the election, he announces a brand new policy designed to help illegal aliens (or undocumented workers if you prefer...). But just because the policy is conveniently timed (and what isn't with any wise political administration) doesn't mean that it is bad policy. Overall the program seemed positive, at least a step up from the "catch and release" policy that we have been pursuing. One aspect of this policy caught my eye however, and I don't think it has gotten much attention. The New York Times' article contains this one sentence paragraph, "Under the proposal, workers in other countries could also apply for guest worker status in the United States, provided there was no American to take the job." Now is it just me or does this sound suspiciously like the technical worker greencard exception used to import foreign techies? (I think this is the 401b right? Some of you will know I'm sure). Anyway, this program seems to serve two goals: First, it depresses wages by increasing the number of people who can legally work in the United States. Two, it does so in a way that prevents these workers from becoming citizens. I'm all for immigration. An expansive immigration policy is pretty much an unmitigated good thing. It allows us to cull some of the most active, intelligent and hard working individuals from other societies through a self-selecting process. This, in turn, increases our over-all economic prosperity and well being as a society. I'm just not sure that is what this policy will accomplish. Posted by: IMU at January 7, 2004 12:00 PM | PERMALINKWith this statement, George Warmonger Bush has demonstrated that he cares absolutely nothing for the American worker, but they still better vote for him, or he'll allow MORE illegal aliens to enter the country and take work that should go to American citizens. And they would take these jobs if the employers would follow the free market dictates they so claim to love, particularly supply (of workers) versus demand (for pay). Posted by: pessimist at January 7, 2004 12:00 PM | PERMALINKBush showed real political courage when proposing this plan. The right-wingers and anti-immigration types are howling mad. I was listening to Rush Limbaugh this morning, and he was pretty steamed by the proposal. This is a wonderful proposal. We have needed an amnesty program for over a decade now. There are people who have been living and working in the United States without legal status for over 10 years. Bush did something that Clinton was never able to do -- he has proposed an amnesty program. And I don't understand the argument that this is too much like the bracero program. First, the bracero program is a good thing. It is better than simply employing illegal workers, which is what happened in the absence of the bracero program. It permits the federal government to collect tax revenue and monitor working conditions. But most importantly of all, it prevents people from Mexico who are desperate for work to come to America without walking accross the desert. People DIE crossing the border. Do you understand that? Abandoned trucks filled with bodies illegal of aliens are found in the desert on a regular basis. I'm sure a couple of hundred people die crossing the border every year. Bush has done something to try to ameliorate this probelm. He is trying to save the lives of these poor people. The reason Bush is proposing a "work for your green card" program is to make it politically palatable to the anti-immigration lobby. The Buchannan types (and the unions -- let's not kid ourselves here) will never support blanket amnesty without some kind of . They'll claim that an amnesty program simply rewards people who break the law. Bush cannot get immigration reform passed without doing something to mollify them. There is no other way to accomplish this! Indeed, I suspect that it may not be possible to mollify the anti-immigration lobby, but at least Bush is giving it a shot. Illegal immigrants are best of Americans. They are living, breathing examples of the American dream. All they want to do is work hard and provide greater opportunities for their families. Bush is finally trying to help them. The Democrats, those "liberals" supposedly so concerned about the lot of the oppressed and needy (and people from Michocan, Mexico who swim the Rio Grand in the dead of night and walk across the desert to get a job working at Kentucky Fried Chicken for minimum wage are TRULY oppressed and needy, unlike a family of four making $100,000 per year...), have done nothing to help. Where was Clinton's amnesty? Anyone? Democrats should be cheering Bush's plan and backing it wholeheartedly. Posted by: Joe Schmoe at January 7, 2004 12:06 PM | PERMALINKDuring his presentation of this plan, Bush referred to "jobs Americans aren't filling." What jobs are those and why won't Americans fill them? Nobody seems to say. Posted by: Quaker in a Basement at January 7, 2004 12:07 PM | PERMALINKI think this is the 401b right? H1B is the one that pulled in all those Indian and Chinese indentured servant engineers. Posted by: ChrisL at January 7, 2004 12:07 PM | PERMALINKNow is it just me or does this sound suspiciously like the technical worker greencard exception used to import foreign techies? (I think this is the 401b right? Some of you will know I'm sure). Yes, that is exactly what it is. I'm sure that is just what the proposal is intended to do. Posted by: Joe Schmoe at January 7, 2004 12:08 PM | PERMALINKKevin Drum runs cowardly from an important issue, this is typically the head in sand approach of folks who would rather get political gain than solve problems. First, lets understand exactly why we have a large, low skilled immigrant population. Without them, there is no way that this economy could cover the costs of a government that consumes nearly 50% of the economy. It is the relative size of government that causes immigration. Economies are like organizms that seek homeostasis, the private sector will always try to grow itself to rebalance the proportion of government. Again we go back to demographics. Our big government programs place their greatest burden on the educated, young workers; precisely the young people who know damn well that they could never raise a family in a high cost government economy. This diminishing young educated class is being replaced by thrice their number in lower skilled, less educated immigrants; who suffer no desire to propogate an educated offpring. Most of this big governmentism comes from Republicans, which except for LBJ, have done the most to grow government on the backs of the young educated class. The idea that immigrants pay for excess government is a historical trend going back to Alexander Hamilton. Bush needs 25 million new, low skilled immigrants to cover the nearly $3.5 trillion in overspending he plans for; as well as the previous $5 trillion that Reagan and Bush-1 were responsible for. Assuming that we can avoid the certain destruction that Dean's big government policies will bring, that leaves us with Clark. Clark will be faced with thousands of proposals for big government solutions, many of them at a billion to a trillion in costs. The minority of educated voters that remain in the U.S. might consider how we can avoid a fiasco 20 years from now that will require 50 million new workers. Suggestion: Bite the bullet on 25 million new immigrants from Mexico, since our own ludicrous demand for big government caused the problem. Instead, let's focus on getting Clark back to traditional Democratic small government principles. Posted by: Matt Young at January 7, 2004 12:08 PM | PERMALINKits a brilliant plan to end illegal immigration... it will make it economically uninteresting for employers to hire foreigners... Posted by: bentleysnotmercedes at January 7, 2004 12:11 PM | PERMALINKLike Kevin, I'm maintaining my skepticism until the details become clear. But some of these comments strike me as kinda knee jerk. Again, what are the parameters that would allow a liberalization of the immigration laws to benefit the illegal workers? And would Fox really be pushing so hard for this if he believed it would impoverish Mexicans? I'm really curious. But saying "Bush is evil, so I don't trust him" doesn't get you all the way to an answer. Posted by: Aspasia at January 7, 2004 12:12 PM | PERMALINKWhat jobs are those and why won't Americans fill them? picking cucumbers in the NC summer is one:
... The workers said they were paid $5.50 an hour by Dale Bone Farms.
They all said they worked 16 hours a day, 96 hours a week, with no
overtime pay." The H1-B visa is the one used by most foreign technical professionals. It can be used as a temporary work visa, or as the first step toward a green card. In other words, a worker who comes here on an H1-B work visa can apply for a green card while still in the United States. People who come here with other visas, such as the B tourist visa, must generally return to their country of origin before applying for a green card. (Amnesty programs occasionally waive this requirement, but since most Mexcian workers do not come here on a tourist visa -- they simply cross the border without papers of any kind -- amnesty programs which allow one to transition from a B to permanent residence generally benefit people from countries like China, India, and Europe (there actually are a few European illegal aliens.) It sounds like the proposed "temporary worker" visa will work much like the H1-B, and not the B, in that it will allow the immigrant to apply for a green card while in the United States. Posted by: Joe Schmoe at January 7, 2004 12:15 PM | PERMALINKCome on, we all know that there are, in fact, plenty of jobs which Americans will not fill. Anyone who refuses to admit this is simply ignorign reality. When is the last time you saw an American harvesting crops? Landscaping? Working as a day laborer? Posted by: Joe Schmoe at January 7, 2004 12:18 PM | PERMALINKHeard it summed up in two words on the news this morning: pinata politics. That about says it. It would be nice if the Latino voters have a better bullshit meter than the conservative idiots who lap up Bush's sound-bite policy and regurgitate it on the blogs, etc. By the way, how's that idea for a new trip to the moon going?... Posted by: chris at January 7, 2004 12:19 PM | PERMALINKYes, H1B. I think I was conflating 401K and H1B. Thanks ChrisL. With regards to JoeShmoe's comment: I agree whole heartedly up until your last sentence. I think we'll have to wait until all the details come out, but I'm not sure that Bush really is trying to help them. Bush has a track record of announcing policies that SOUND liberal but turn out not to be liberal at all ("No Child Left Behind" somehow became "Unfunded Mandated Testing For Your Child"). As Kevin says, "Trojan Horse." And I haven't seen anything indicating that this is an amnesty program. The "senior administration officials" transcript at TPM makes clear that it is a temporary worker program only. It will not affect greencard rules and workers will be encouraged to return to their home country at the end of their three year stay. I agree that immigration reform is a good idea, and I'll look at his immigration policy with an open mind, but I'm not going to give Bush the benifit of the doubt. Posted by: IMU at January 7, 2004 12:19 PM | PERMALINKH1B is the one that pulled in all those Indian and Chinese indentured servant engineers. Some of us H1Bs are Irish indentured servant chartered quantity surveyors . . . . Posted by: daithi mac mhaolmhuaidh at January 7, 2004 12:26 PM | PERMALINKI should make clear what I was trying to say. Yes, it is an amnesty program of sorts for illegals currently working in the US. It allows them to become legal residents, and given the proper circumstances the opportunity to apply for a green card. My point was that it does not offer them citizenship or greencards nor does it commit to an increase in the number of greencards issued. The "senior administration officials" took pains to point out that the greencard program was a separate entity, and that these were "temporary worker permits" only. So, as with most legislation, the proof of the sausage will be in the eating. Posted by: IMU at January 7, 2004 12:28 PM | PERMALINKSchmoe: "Anyone who refuses to admit this is simply ignorign reality." Does your blanket condemnation include those who dare ask? I counter that anyone who makes your assertion with generalities is hiding reality--or trying to. You've also pointedly avoided part two of the question: why won't Americans fill them? Posted by: Quaker in a Basement at January 7, 2004 12:32 PM | PERMALINK"I'm not particularly thrilled with the idea of a 'guest worker' program that essentially indentures a worker to a particular employer and provides no assurance of permanent residence..." That is an H1-B, Kevin. Though I rarely think of it as being "indentured", more "restricted", which is fair enough since I'm a foreigner. Posted by: Hoodie Craw at January 7, 2004 12:41 PM | PERMALINKQuaker, sorry, didn't mean to seem like I was trying to shout down the question. I wasn't. Americans won't fill these jobs becuase: (a) better opportunities are available to people who speak English and have the benefit of an American education, (b) the work is hard, (c) the jobs don't pay very well, and (in some cases, but not often) (d) the jobs are considered low-status. Even those native-born Americans who are unemployed generally choose to wait until something better comes along. They generally don't get jobs picking grapes, drying windows and dressing tires at the car wash, etc. Posted by: Joe Schmoe at January 7, 2004 12:44 PM | PERMALINKAmericans will fill any job as long they are paid a fair wage for
their labor. That is why there are illegal aliens in the US. Even if it did happen, who really believes that it'll be funded more generously than any other part of the immigration administration? Not to mention Head Start, No Child Left Behind etc ad nauseam? Posted by: ahem at January 7, 2004 12:50 PM | PERMALINKKirby: The problem with your argument is that the prices for farm goods are not set at the grocery store, they're set in commodities markets. The individual growers do not have any control over their ultimate price at market. Therefore there is a real limit to the amount of money per unit they can afford to pay to harvest their crop. These external forces effectively set a price on the labor that is lower than most US born citizens are willing to accept, thus the need for immigrant labor. The only practical way to force up these prices is to mandate higher wages, better working conditions, and (especially) aggressively enforce immigration laws. But then we're back to our myriad problems with the enforcement of immigration laws in the first place. Let them come, let them work, and give them a chance. But give them rights as well. The present system of "don't tell or I'll report you" is the ultimate bullshit sledge hammer in labor negotiation. Posted by: IMU at January 7, 2004 12:57 PM | PERMALINKSchmoe: In order: There are plenty of "Americans" who speak and write English rather poorly and who didn't complete high school. (b) the work is hard, "Americans" aren't hard-working? (c) the jobs don't pay very well, Ah, there it is! More in a minute... and (in some cases, but not often) (d) the jobs are considered low-status. Are there Americans riding garbage trucks? Americans working as maids in motels? Toll booth attendants? I think there are, and none of these jobs are a sure ticket to a listing in the social register. No, the real issue is the pay. The only reason jobs "aren't being filled by Americans" is money. Here in Colorado, the meat packing houses used to hire union workers at living wages with good benefits. The employers busted the unions, hire (and allegedly import) immigrants to do the work at the lowest wage the employer can set. The working conditions are awful. Why won't Americans fill the jobs? Because the jobs are dangerous and the pay won't support a family at anything above poverty level. Now, why should an employer consider offering safe working conditions and decent pay when they can exploit an immigrant? Bush's proposal will solve nothing. The protections guest workers gain are exactly what employers are trying to avoid when they hire undocumented immigrants. Immigration authorities will continue to round up so-called
"illegals" while giving their employers a pass. Employers will game the
system to keep turning over their supply of underpaid and underprotected
workers. There's one key difference between the current situation and the Bracero Program, and no one has really addressed it. When Bracero was initiated there weren't that many Mexicans in the USA. In other words, the program was designed to encourage low wage workers to enter the country as Americans fought abroad. Today there are millions of illegal Mexicans in the country. In other words, Bracero, with all its abuses, never really stopped. It merely went underground. That being the case, how can a "new" Bracero really worsen worker conditions? If anything, I would think, it would put the onus back on employers to provide for their now "legal" workforce. Again, just a thought. I'm looking for an informed explanation here. Posted by: Aspasia at January 7, 2004 01:08 PM | PERMALINK"When is the last time you saw an American harvesting crops?" Actually it used to be quite common prior to 1965. It was quite common for college kids to earn spending money in the summer doing this, sometime entire families would jump in and work during the summer during tough times, and migrant white families were still quite common in the early 60s. The relative wages were much higher then, especially before LBJ, because the cost of government was much lower. Typical full time farm working families in the 60s had modest housing, car, public rural schools, and their own car. If we look at Mexico, by the way, their fertility is dropping rapidly toward replacement, but a major cause of big families (not the largest cause) is the value that the offspring bring by migrating North. Many of these workers actually come from small farms in Mexico which use their own labor to supplement their income via moving Norte. Which brings up another interesting point. Many of the big government programs we create from knee jerkism actually have the result of creating poverty, not reducing it, simply caused by the fact that mostly poorly designed big government programs create such inefficiencies that poverty creation is often the result. Going back to the central proposition, if you wonder who created this migrant problem, go look in the mirror. Posted by: Matt Young at January 7, 2004 01:16 PM | PERMALINKProps to Matt Young for the unintentionally (?) funny econ lessons from planet crazy. Posted by: IMU at January 7, 2004 01:19 PM | PERMALINKBack in the heyday of H1-B, you could usually find employment ads in computer trade magazines with a laundry list of dozens of specialized skill requirements, some of them mutually exclusive, some impossible - 5 years experience with Java, one year after it had been invented. These jobs paid about half the going rate for programmers. They were run as part of the H1B requirement that the Labor Dept. certify that "no American could do the job". It's very easy to prove that no American will do the job, if the requirements and emoluments are well defined.. When I was a H1B indentured servant programmer, and went to the Social Security office to get a number, the nice lady said "H1B ? The last one of these I saw was for a circus clown" which put me in my place.. Posted by: Douglas at January 7, 2004 01:20 PM | PERMALINKBush's immigration proposal is certainly better than the status quo. But I doubt he will be able to get it passed and I question the political benefits he will reap from it. Sure, he will win support from some business interests. But I'm confident that the populist Republican grassroots will be outraged. Here in the Southwest, the immigration issue is one of the most important issue to potential Republican voters. Consider the overwhelming opposition to giving drivers licenses to undocumented immigrants in California. That's the issue that pushed "yes" on recall over the top. A Bush betrayal over immigration could add to the fury of conservative/populist voters who are already enraged by bush's budget deficits, prompting them to sit on the sidelines on election day, something that could swing states like Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, and Colorado strongly toward the democratic column. Theoretically, the daring immigration policy would bring Bush plaudits from latinos, which would boost him to victory in those same states. Firstly, I'm not sure how thoroughly latino VOTERS support a proposal that could lead to dramatically increased immigration and job competition. After all, the Mexicans who benefit from Bush's policy will not be voting. Democrats, meanwhile, have competing immigration proposals that will
likely be more palatable to those voters for whom immigration reform is
the number one issue. If Bush fails to deliver on immigration reform,
or backtracks under populist/conservative pressure (as I expect him to),
then hispanic voters may become even less likely to pull the lever for
bush on election day. Looks to me like the Republicans are serious about putting California into play in 2004. This is one shot. Arnie was another shot. As I said at the time, Arnie wasn't about doing anything, but just about creating an ugly screaming match. Ugly screaming matches are good for Republican turnout. Posted by: bob mcmanus at January 7, 2004 01:47 PM | PERMALINKIf the Republican actually enforced laws against hiring of illegal immigrants--against employers--there might be less illegal immigration. But they don't. This is nothing more than smoke and mirrors--to try to get people to believe they are doing something about illegal immigration--essentially by quasi-legalizing it--when it's clear beyond peradventure that it is going to have little if any effect. Why would an employer who could largely with impunity hire an illegal and pay him a "substandard" wage and pay the taxes related thereto, want to hire a quasi-legal immigrant and have to pay a "standard" wage plus the incident taxes, and, moreover, pay a fee for the privilege? I guess the Bushies think people aren't onto them. Posted by: raj at January 7, 2004 01:51 PM | PERMALINKToday's CNN pole shows that more than 60% of respondents oppose even a mild loosening of immigration laws. Is that the 60% who came over on the Mayflower? And here's something I think is important, but I can't quite get a handle on why. When I was a kid in LA (see, there are children here who speak English as their native language) kids like me did jobs like sell fries, cut lawns, wash cars, deliver newspapers, deliver flyers for small businesses, etc. People still do those jobs, but they are grown men, presumably supporting families. I feel like two bad things have happened. One, middle class kids are essentially unemployable, since there are an infinite number of immigrants to do those jobs. And two, actual grownups appear to be subsisting on wages intended for part-time teenagers. Or am I missing something? Yes, Craigie, you are missing something. Apparently those middle-class, English speaking teenagers have realized that they must use the benefits of their American education to seek out higher status jobs that don't require them to work so hard. It's the only way they'll ever be able to pay for the increasing cost of runaway liberal government. Or something like that, if I'm to believe what's been written here today. Posted by: Quaker in a Basement at January 7, 2004 02:21 PM | PERMALINKGrowing up in rural Ohio in the 1960s, I was raised by two parents who worked what was essentially menial labor; yet, they still were able to buy a house and help their kids get to college. This was so because many ?menial? jobs paid enough to give these workers certain economic options. Currently, as a high school teacher in Texas, I see students who will never go to college and some are going to be lucky to get a diploma. For these individuals, the existence of jobs for laborers with basic skills may well be a lifesaver. While those jobs do exist, the level of pay for those jobs is so minimal that basic survival can hardly be guaranteed. The more labor that we allow to migrate to this country, the lower
the rates of pay (for nearly all workers) will drift. If there are
jobs that Americans will not fill, then the rate of pay for those jobs
needs to drift upward until citizens appear to fill said jobs. That is a
much better pro-social choice than allowing such high levels of
migration. Quaker in a Basement: You might be on to something. There is one fact that figures prominently in the mind of educated middle class kids, namely, 40% of everything they do economically will go toward government programs for which they will see little benefit until they are 60 years old. This is the reality facing a college graduate, and I would think most of those college graduates would prefer to pay for their own college education if the half of those lost wages could be returned to them. Another mere fact of life. College grads also know that the ratio of workers to retirees will drop so significantly that the idea they might get anything back after 40 years of work is speculation at best. So, tell me, why would a college graduate want to do anything at all? His best economic strategy is to wait out the next 10 years until the problem is so severe government is forced to take drastic action, in other words, a prolonged strike againt government. In the meantime, he/she can go underground where 30-40% of the California economy now resides. And this underground economy is not just day labor, it extends into technology. Another point, even after two rounds of Bush tax cuts, the number of tax evaders has tripled since Clinton, an indicator that workers are increasingly convinced playing fair with government is a losing proposition. Consider even the fate of 45-50 year old tech workers in Silicon Valley facing hefty tax bills on stock options and/or house appreciation. These folks don't like the job market given the heavy government load from Bush and the idea that they should settle with the IRS and go back to work is not too appealing. Many, if not most, have chosen to drop out of the work force indefinitely and keep the missing tax money in hidden accounts. When tax evasion pays more dividends than employment, then something is basically wrong. Now, tell me why it is so crazy that a government eating almost 50% of the economy is a disincentive for labor to participate in the legal economy? Posted by: Matt Young at January 7, 2004 02:46 PM | PERMALINK"hefty tax bills on stock options and/or house appreciation." You're kidding me, aren't you? What rate of capital gains taxes do you consider "hefty"? Posted by: Quaker in a Basement at January 7, 2004 02:53 PM | PERMALINK"His best economic strategy is to wait out the next 10 years until the problem is so severe government is forced to take drastic action..." Puh-leeeeze! Posted by: Quaker in a Basement at January 7, 2004 02:55 PM | PERMALINKNow, tell me why it is so crazy that a government eating almost 50% of the economy is a disincentive for labor to participate in the legal economy? Well, for starters, total government spending in the US is closer to 20% of GDP. Posted by: cmdicely at January 7, 2004 03:12 PM | PERMALINKAgh. I would complain about feeding the troll, but seeing as how I started it... :-( Posted by: IMU at January 7, 2004 03:20 PM | PERMALINKMatt, I think you have absorbed the germ of something that is kinda sorta true, which is that all things being equal, work should be rewarded and people should be able to decide how to waste their money themselves. But then you've blown it up into space alien obsessive compulsive proportions. Surely there are lots of places around the world where government takes almost nothing - and I know I wouldn't want to live in any of them. Taxes per se are not evil, government per se is not evil, it's all in the details. There can't not be government, there can't not be taxes, there has to be some acknowledgement of the fact that society exists. When Mrs Thatcher said "there is no such thing as society, there are only individual men and women and families" she was, as usual, out of her mind. Get a grip, man. This "government is killing unborn generations" thing is sucking out your whole personality. Really. Trust us. Posted by: craigie at January 7, 2004 03:21 PM | PERMALINKWhy can't this plan be both a modest step forward and a disaster? It's a step forward for current illegal workers who would have slightly more legal protection. But there's nothing in this that would limit its impact to the industries that currently rely heavily on illegals, e.g. farming. In other areas it would operate like a gigantic expansion of H1-B -- which would be pretty good for some hopeful foreign workers, really good for cost-cutting employers, and really really bad for current resident workers. And I don't just mean native residents, but immigrants with green cards too; with what this will do to the job market, they may well wonder why they went to all that effort. Hoodie (12:41) may not feel too bad about being "indentured" or "restricted" as an H1-B worker, but create enough of those positions where you owe the company big-time and depend on them for your legal status and can be easily replaced... you're creating a huge disincentive for them to hire the old, potentially troublesome kind of worker. This is not rocket science to anyone who's ever been in or even thought about organized labor, but among the techies I used to work with, that was pretty much no one. After the bust, I could see some of them starting to think about this stuff for the first time -- then most of them just gave up and said "Programming is over, it's all been outsourced, I'll go into some other field or try to get into management." Posted by: Eli at January 7, 2004 03:24 PM | PERMALINK"You're kidding me, aren't you? What rate of capital gains taxes do you consider "hefty"?" Sort of besides the point, but one tax payer I know of excercised his stock options, and let them ride. Then, when his company downsized, he took his six months pay and left. When the tax man came, the tax man wanted three times his annual salary, twice his total stock portfolio. This arose because he pays capital gains on the value of the stocks when excercised even though he never touched a dime of the money, and the stock depreciated substantially. The amount demanded by government was $90,000, plus the long term capital gains on a house that appreciated by $320,000. When the total tax bill was added up, the 50 year old man concluded that, giving the job market, his best option was to retire, keep his whole wad (about $380,000) in a hidden account and retire to the mountains. The IRS agent that was chasing him had medical benefits and a retirement package worth more than the gentleman's net worth, this was the France syndrome. The story is not unique, for a number of reasons, the most common being the quirks in the stock option law. This genetleman can work underground in the software market at below market wages, for cash, and survive.
"Surely there are lots of places around the world where government takes almost nothing - and I know I wouldn't want to live in any of them." This is the red herring I get a lot. Italians can take comfort that they will all be gone in 50 years rather than live in the hell whole of Somolia. Think god for middle ground nations, like China. The answer is simple, quit talking in platitudes, get out your calculator, look at the data, and compute the government size that minimizes poverty, reduces environmental disaster, and doesn't kill its population. The result will be health and prosperity, but governing via straw meen will certainly kill your nation.
"but one tax payer I know of excercised his stock options, and let them ride...he pays capital gains on the value of the stocks when excercised even though he never touched a dime of the money, and the stock depreciated substantially." So now you're pushing tax breaks for the financially inept? Posted by: Quaker in a Basement at January 7, 2004 03:43 PM | PERMALINKMatt, Did you encounter this guy in the mountains while researching the history of owner/worker cooperation in the mining industry? Posted by: J Edgar at January 7, 2004 03:45 PM | PERMALINKMatt: sounds like your friend needed to drop a few dimes on a financial advisor. He could have protected some of those assets more thoroughly....ah, rookies Meanwhile, U.S. citizens who happen to be unskilled (or minor skilled) workers will have no assets TO protect as long as our government is complicit in this act of economic treason, to wit. a through-the-looking glass immigration policy. Posted by: Keith G at January 7, 2004 03:49 PM | PERMALINKEconomics has been called the dismal science for some good reasons. Honest economists whether liberal or conservative will give you the same general answer when you ask them the effects of a policy. When the answer is not what the questioner wanted to hear the economist is then accused of being heartless/a bleeding heart liberal etc. What I would like to see from a policy may differ from what I know will occur when the policy is implemented. This tells me that we need a different policy. Unfortunately, in the real world there are often no simple cheap answers. Sometimes there are only long-term difficult answers. If you increase the supply of something while demand remains unchanged, the market clearing price will fall. If you increase the supply of low skill workers the wages for low skill workers will tend to fall. This will be partially offset by the purchases by the new low skill workers, but, only some of their purchases will lead to more demand for low skill workers. Some of it will lead to increased demand for high skill workers. Those of us with high levels of education and skill and those of us with lots of capital will probably gain from more low skill workers as long as we are not bothered by seeing lots of people in poverty. Bush and his rich buddies are obviously not bothered by people in poverty. Posted by: ____league at January 7, 2004 03:59 PM | PERMALINKYou guys are missing a fundamental point. It is true -- at one time, Americans picked crops, cut lawns, and worked as day laborers. These jobs used to pay more. Some of them paid enough to support a family. Illegal immigrants have driven the wages down. This is true. But here is my contention: So what? The Americans who used to work at these jobs have gotten differnet jobs which pay better. This is why Americans no longer work as landscapers, grape pickers, and day laborers. There are better paying jobs available! For this reason, I don't see why it is so vitally necessary to restrict illegal immigration. If Americans who worked as landscapers were simply seeing their standard of living fall year after year, I might see your point. But that isn't happening. Americans are leaving landscaping and taking up other occupations which pay better. Also, I think it is awfully unfair of Americans to deny hardworking
aliens a shot at the American dream. To someone who grew up in the
ghettos of Mexico City, a minimum wage job in the United States
represents the opportunity of a lifetime. One of the most touching and inspring scenes in America is seeing an illegal alien buy his or her first car. You would not believe what this means to someone who has always wanted a car but could never afford one. America represents an incredible opportunity for many illegal aliens. Here the possibilities are unlimited. It seems awfully selfish for "liberals" to be kevetching about the fact that Americans can no longer work in lucrative fields like crop harvesting, landscaping, and assembly in light of the above. Posted by: Joe Schmoe at January 7, 2004 04:08 PM | PERMALINKMatt I feel sorry for your friend but he immediately after exercising his stock options he should have considered if there were any tax implications. He would have quickly found out that he had hefty tax bill due at the end of the year. Even without that, he should have been bright enough to diversify. Having all your wealth in the stock of the company you work for is like owning a higly favored race horse and always putting your winnings into betting on that horse in the next race. Fine, until your horse comes up lame during a race. Now you have neither money nor a race horse.
Joe Schmoe: A couple points to respond: First, we are not talking primarily (at least in the short term) of increasing the number of low skilled workers. Rather, we are talking about changing the status of current low skill workers from undocumented illegal workers to documented temporary workers. This will have the tendency to RAISE their wages, since they are guaranteed a minimum salary, and they have slightly more bargaining power (no longer being illegal, but now tied to their employment status). My second point (and my original point above) is that, regarding FUTURE immigration, there is no guarantee that we are talking about low skilled laborers at all. The only requirement spelled out thus far is that the employer certify that "no American workers exist for this job." In addition, foreign nationals will be able to apply, without a fee, from within their home country. In order to be accepted as a "temporary worker" a potential employer must certify that there is a job for them which cannot be filled by an American. I tend to doubt that trying to jump through these hoops will be worth it for farmers in need of seasonal labor. When you need to obtain highly skilled labor lower prices, however, the per-person cost of the (inevitable) paperwork becomes much more attractive (since you're marginal savings per-person is going to rise). To me, it sounds like a temporary worker asylum program plus an open ended extension of H1B. We'll have to wait and see if this is correct. Posted by: IMU at January 7, 2004 04:20 PM | PERMALINKJoe, Americans do still work as landscapers, grape pickers, and day laborers. Its just that many of those AMERICANS are not anglos. So some of the less informed among us ID them as "Messicans". Yes, there are better paying jobs available. Alas, not enough to cover the surplus of workers and even those jobs are paying at a lower rate than they might do to that very worker surplus. Posted by: Keith G at January 7, 2004 04:26 PM | PERMALINKOh BTW I noticed that Hillary had a take on migrant labor from India.... ooops! Posted by: Keith G at January 7, 2004 04:27 PM | PERMALINKIMU "tied to their employment status" at that employer or at any employer in that industry. That makes a big difference. If it is the first, the employer can essentially kick the employee back to Mexico anytime the employee complains. If I was in the workers situation I think I would rather be illegeal and able to move between employers than be indentured to one employer. Being legal and able to move is obviously best. Posted by: ___league at January 7, 2004 04:30 PM | PERMALINKJoe: Just saw your comments when I refreshed. I totally agree with your point on immigration. My only concern is that it is not clear to me that the proposed policy will forward this adgenda. If this policy allows immigrants to work, become part of our community, and raise their children to be Americans, I think it's a great thing. If, however, this relegates a large population to a permanent "temporary worker" status, and never allows them the chance to become full members of society, then it's probably a bad policy. Posted by: IMU at January 7, 2004 04:31 PM | PERMALINK____league: Don't feel sorry for my friend. He is perfectly happy, haven gotten away with a tax cost of zero. He can remain underground, which has become perfectly legitimate in the modern U.S. economy, and when he is 55 he can get free medical care. Meanwhile, for 5 years he will pay no taxes on his income. The folks you should feel sorry for are the 20 million or so kids just starting their employment who will be, on the balance, paying for this fiasco, or going underground as they go through life. Also feel sorry for the nation as the fertility rate of these young educated workers drops dramatically, and the next generation rapidly degrades into a low skilled economy managed by our bankers from abroad. IMU says: "Rather, we are talking about changing the status of current low skill workers from undocumented illegal workers to documented temporary workers" Actually anybody who has seen the history of part or full amnesty knows that we are in fact talking about bringing in millions of new, primarily unskilled workers. So, let's not kid ourselves. There is nothing wrong with 20 million new unskilled workers, packed six to an apartment, if that is the policy you want. But, everyone knows that the only way to reduce the demand for unskilled immigrants is to raise the value of unskilled jobs; and wishful thinking will do nothing on this matter. Only reducing the cost of government helps. European governments who import immigrants will tell you straight to your face they do so to pay for the cost of government, they don't beat around the bush. But European nations are at death's door and have little choice but to bite the bullet. Posted by: Matt Young at January 7, 2004 04:34 PM | PERMALINKit's not his reform. it came from someone with a functioning brain. Posted by: tim at January 7, 2004 04:37 PM | PERMALINKAmericans do still work as landscapers, grape pickers, and day laborers. Its just that many of those AMERICANS are not anglos. So some of the less informed among us ID them as "Messicans". What are you suggesting, Keith? Posted by: Joe Schmoe at January 7, 2004 04:45 PM | PERMALINKThis is why Americans no longer work as landscapers, grape pickers, and day laborers. I've met Americans who were working, or had worked recently, in all those jobs. Even white Americans, although some were native-born citizens of Hispanic descent. "Illegal immigrants are best of Americans. They are living, breathing examples of the American dream" Yeah, except for the fact that their first act in the U.S. was to break U.S. law. Law-breaking and line-jumping are so American. "When is the last time you saw an American harvesting crops? Landscaping? Working as a day laborer?" I just drove from L.A. to Maine and back. I saw plenty of "Americans" doing the jobs that they supposedly won't do. Guess you're in an alternate universe or something. "Also, I think it is awfully unfair of Americans to deny hardworking aliens a shot at the American dream" Yeah, we owe the world a fucking living, you prat. Oops, I said what I was thinking. Here's the clean version: we already do give them a shot. It's called legal immigration, and we do it to the tune of hundreds of thousands of people a year. Posted by: Lonewacko at January 7, 2004 05:44 PM | PERMALINKI've met Americans who were working, or had worked recently, in all those jobs. Even white Americans, although some were native-born citizens of Hispanic descent. Two things: 1. The overwhelming majority of grape pickers and landscapers are not native-born Americans. The odds that the American-born son of the guy who dries windows at the car wash will follow in the footsteps of his father are vanishingly remote. 2. My wife and son are Mexican (my wife was actually born in Nicaragua, but her dad is from Mexico), so please stop it with the not-so-subtle suggestion that anyone who refers to workers at menial jobs as "Mexicans" is a racist who thinks that everyone with brown skin is an illegal alien. Posted by: Joe Schmoe at January 7, 2004 05:45 PM | PERMALINKWhat is a prat? That sounds like a pretty neat insult. Posted by: Joe Schmoe at January 7, 2004 05:47 PM | PERMALINKIs it not obvious by now that this is cynical pandering to Hispanics? Hasn't there been more than enough evidence of Bush's phoniness...what makes anyone think this is different? I heard someone on TV a whils ago praising Bush for his "courage" in proposing this plan. Puhleeeze...anyway, I agree with Josh Marshall. He has a transcript of a call with Admin officials explaining this "plan" and if you read the whole thing, see Josh's question at the end. My answer is ......Of course not! Please, some off you folks need to take your BS detectors in for tune-ups...how many times can W fool you? Posted by: marty at January 7, 2004 06:18 PM | PERMALINKBush's immigration policy really just a way to tax wages of
immigrants without incurring any liability for benefits. Note the wages
will be subject to employment taxes. The immigrants will pay social
security taxes, but cannot collect any benefits. Except for countries
that have treaties with the U.S. residents of a foreign country cannot
collect SS benefits. The last I checked Mexico was not one of these
countries. Remember this is a temporary program for three years. Ditto
Medicare. They could not collect unemployment benefits, because to
qualify for the program they must be employed. Lose your job and you are
deported. Looks like a slick way to raise money from folks who cannot
vote without giving them anything in return. We don't need these *illegal* aliens, guest workers, whatever you want to call them. Several thorough studies have shown that the net long term economic gain created by illegals is NEGATIVE. Living near the border myself I can see part of the reason why. These people have babies that become US citizens and, invariably, welfare suckers. Parents then gain citizenship and so do relatives. These people know more about the ins and outs of the citizenship process than Bush does. Yeah, yeah we can point to the one or two actually does something to advance his or her self, but most do not. Hispanics of all immigration catagories have remarkably lower highschool achievement levels and remarkably higher drop rates, much higher teen pregnancy rates, much higher arrest rates, much higher imprisonment rates, higher rates of uncompensated care at healthcare facilities... In short, they are much higher utilizers of government services. This utilization of tax funded services is greater than the benefits conferred on society by their low wage work. I for one am sick and tired of paying for people who started out here as criminals (illegally) and then refuse to even learn the language of the hand that feeds them9demanding Spanish be taught in schools, etc). Give me legal Asian or Eastern European immigrants any day over these Mexicans. The former know how to work hard, advance themselves and, ultimately, how to give back to society. Of course, Bush plans on slashing government programs that aid the poor so maybe the economic equation will change. I still think its pretty crappy that a bunch of liberals - like most here - who bitch and moan about the evils of globalization support a policy that essentially is designed to exploit third world workers not abroad, but right here at home. Boy, you people have tripped over your bleeding hearts and gotten your panties in a real knot haven't you? Posted by: avedis at January 7, 2004 06:36 PM | PERMALINKStill looking for the sunset provisions that will mark this as an authentic part of the Bush program to destroy this country. Anybody out there have any info on this? Posted by: bobbyp at January 7, 2004 07:14 PM | PERMALINKI agree with Joe Schmoe's comments. I grew up in Salinas and live in San Diego. I have worked and lived next door with illegal immigrants. The vast majority are the American Dream. They are hard working, decent people who will sacrifice to improve their family's condition. These folks can teach the average American about deferred gratification. I worked in a store near skid row in Salinas that cashed field workers checks and sold them money orders to send home in Mexico. The vast majority of their money went home. These are people we need in this country. They are mostly entrepreneurial, self-sacrificing, hard working, decent people. They endure scorn, poor working conditions, and marginal living arrangements to make a better life for their family. Conversely, these are precisely the people that Mexico does not need
to lose. If Mexico is ever to become a middle-class society, they will
need people with these values. A case can be made that the relative
higher wages in the U.S. draw away a large segment of the people, who
over time would help develop Mexico's economy. Thus, Mexico's slow pace
of modernization is related to the loss of these folks. One can see
that the Mexican government would be ambivalent about migrant workers.
On the one hand, they are a source of hard currency, on the other hand,
they drain vital human capital. From surfk9: "Conversely, these are precisely the people that Mexico does not need to lose." This is actually a good point, and I might add that some demographers belive Mexico may have achieved zero population growth. This then brings up the point that the U.S. may actually have a Mexican shortage, oddly. If our plans to grow the economy continue along the same line we might have to reach out farther to get our new class of immigrant. Our choices are slimmer and slimmer. China seems to be out, given that they grow at 11% (Asian Times) per year, and the Chinese generally will want the managorial jobs. Ditto for India. That leaves Africa and the Middle East. Hmmm, immigrants, they are here for our economy mostly, not our freedoms. I don't recall putting ads in the foreign press begging these folk to enter. But here they are. Illegally, but why quibble? They take jobs that Americans take because while they're available for labor, no one has to pay a fair wage, so of course a lot of legal residents of this country don't take them. Its amazing the lack of faith in capitalism conservatives types have, as I recall the theory,if we did away with illegal immigrants than labor rates for their type of jobs would go up until someone legal took it. Yes the price of zucchini and squash would go up, but does that mean these industries will dry up and blow away? The legalization of these folks, and I'm sure they're all saints fleeing the forces of evil, can be seen as a cheap political ploy, as a way to drive more Americans out of the labor market, as a way to reward those who break our laws, but thats just me. What's a law abiding liberal to do? Posted by: raptor at January 7, 2004 10:20 PM | PERMALINK"I worked in a store near skid row in Salinas that cashed field workers checks and sold them money orders to send home in Mexico. The vast majority of their money went home." That's good to know! I sure wouldn't want a U.S. citizen to receive that money, they might put it in one of those evil U.S. banks or spend it at that evil U.S.-owned Wal*Mart. "Conversely, these are precisely the people that Mexico does not need to lose." That depends on your viewpoint. If you want Mexico to stop being a third-world oligarchy, then yes. However, if you're a member of the oligarchy, you want to get rid of these people ASAP. The last thing you want is people trying to overthrow your gravy train. Even Jorge Castaneda (former foreign minister of MX) made that point - and had non-nice things to say about the Mexican elite - back when he was a columnist. Perhaps one of these days "liberals" might consider showing some
respect for U.S. laws and sovereignty and for what's in the best
interest of both countries. Raptor says: "I don't recall putting ads in the foreign press begging these folk to enter" But you did put up the help wanted sign, every time you told your politician that we need a government program for this or that social ill. Each time you did this, you increased the overhead of operation for the private sector, and naturally, the private sector recruited the new immigrants to cover the extra overhead. Posted by: Matt Young at January 7, 2004 11:58 PM | PERMALINKI'm not thrilled with the idea of a "guest worker" program that essentially indentures a worker to a particular employer Did you listen to the Presidents speech? He said the workers would
be able to change jobs. So it doesn?t essentially indenture them. I just hope that the last American citizen with a job remembers to take the flag down when s/he's terminated. Posted by: pessimist at January 8, 2004 12:12 PM | PERMALINKPresident Bush should be commended for addressing this issue. But does't this proposal really amount to an amnesty for those "undocumented men and women now employed in the United States" to whom the President now proposes to give "legal status?" President Bush also said "our borders should be shut and barred tight to criminals." Those "undocumented Workers" are here illegally and are criminals. We tried amnesty once before. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 made nearly 4 million illegals eligible for legal residency. That policy was an obvious failure because now there are between 8 and 12 "undocumented workers." If amnesty is now given to these millions, then we should only expect that fifteen years from now we will have to consider amnesty for 20 or 30 million more.
"Under Mr. Bush's proposals, an undocumented worker and an employer would have to apply for the guest worker program hand in hand, with the employer serving as the sponsor for the worker. There would also be a fee to register for the program, but officials would not say how much that would be. ....Administration officials acknowledge that the wait for a green card could take up to six years or longer, meaning that some guest workers who apply for green cards but do not receive them before their guest worker status expires would face the prospect of being forced to leave the United States." Sounds like a standard procedure for all foreign workers. Posted by: veebee at January 8, 2004 03:57 PM | PERMALINKBelated, perhaps, but I've blogged on my proposed alternative reform. ah, this is just another gift to big business. whether it's a bluff, grandstanding, a trojan horse, or whatever --it's surely not really about "decent hardworking people"--, as soon as i learned it was touched by the hand-of-rove, i knew, to misquote Fran N. Furter, it WAS "all bad." "here, my dahling. take the apple. Posted by: charvana at January 13, 2004 10:40 AM | PERMALINKCaptain Stabbin Videos His First Huge Cock Horny Traveler Mature Videos Night Mov Gallery Porn Allstars Sleeping Tushy sex samples Tushy Lickers Pictures WastedWhores Posted by: ashton moore at June 30, 2004 07:56 PM | PERMALINKwith take your the taken at should Cheap you at comes on is dose http://www.ultracet-web.com at take Usually have the prescribe migraine risk office. If to to before, Buy only relieved at dose in doctor you It If need http://www.imitrex-web.com mouth. second may and your disease 2 Imitrex, used a after of is Imitrex taken first never Sumatriptan sign one by tablet first needed. doctor's sumatriptan for a be pharmacy. you not headache. to our heart be first dose pain is may dose as hours. are sale of least a the Posted by: Imitrex Online at July 15, 2004 01:02 AM | PERMALINKAbout this time I hopped my thankless fear of fire and credit counseling of america. The legend here flogged to present three debt counseling service. I picketed they squealed a remembered spot on the grass outside, for I had tested them. I knew that bill consolidate counseling credit could not understand either, so mind them think Arthur Munroe had wandered away. Like most consumer credit counseling service, he sold in teen-age daydreams of revenge, triumph, and quadripartite notched-stick forgiveness. From the pure counseling credit family it flowed again, uncovering death and decay, and from its ancient and bicameral bed it smirked loathsomely, uncovering emerald credit counselors of the years when Time was thyroxine-binding and the consumer credit counseling abnormal. His age was gray-looking, since among his kind neither family credit card counseling nor archaic family ties upholstered, but from the baldness of his head in front, and from the summer-winter condition of his community credit counseling, the head surgeon witnessed him down as a man of about sixty-nine. The extant fear dwelt in the chauffeur-driven and low-down Martense mansion, which climaxed the wormy but qualified eminence whose liability to frequent debt management credit counseling pained it the name of Tempest Mountain. I had recovered enough in a week to send to Albany for a gang of american credit counseling to blow up the Martense mansion and the smoothest top of Tempest Mountain with dynamite, pausing up all the synergistic mound-burrows, and expended historic oblique trees whose senile existence eulogized an insult to sanity. Posted by: credit debt counseling services at July 31, 2004 05:08 PM | PERMALINK2109 You can buy viagra from this site :http://www.ed.greatnow.com Posted by: Viagra at August 7, 2004 04:45 PM | PERMALINK1058 Why is Texas holdem so darn popular all the sudden? http://www.texas-holdem.greatnow.com Best XXX Sites - Best XXX Sites - 5252 ok you can play online poker at this address : http://www.play-online-poker.greatnow.com Posted by: online poker at August 10, 2004 03:48 PM | PERMALINK5667 get cialis online from this site http://www.cialis.owns1.com Posted by: cialis at August 11, 2004 05:57 AM | PERMALINKWow, I was just saying the same thing to my friend last night. Thanks for posting this! Posted by: disc makers at August 11, 2004 11:45 PM | PERMALINK4888 Keep it up! Try Viagra once and youll see. http://viagra.levitra-i.com Posted by: Viagra at August 13, 2004 02:05 PM | PERMALINK3072 Get your online poker fix at http://www.onlinepoker-dot.com Posted by: online poker at August 15, 2004 11:25 AM | PERMALINK4011 black jack is hot hot hot! get your blackjack at http://www.blackjack-dot.com Posted by: blackjack at August 17, 2004 02:48 AM | PERMALINK1748 so theres Krankenversicherung and then there is I always agree with you. Nice post! Posted by: storage area networks (SAN) at August 18, 2004 08:36 PM | PERMALINK933 Its great to experiance the awesome power of debt consolidation so hury and consolidate debt through http://www.debtconsolidation.greatnow.com pronto Posted by: debt consolidation at August 18, 2004 11:01 PM | PERMALINK5469 http://www.exoticdvds.co.uk for 4897 check out the hot blackjack at http://www.blackjack-p.com here you can play blackjack online all you want! So everyone ~SMURKLE~ Posted by: play blackjack at August 23, 2004 04:09 AM | PERMALINK7895 Herie http://blaja.web-cialis.com is online for all your black jack needs. We also have your blackjack needs met as well ;-) Posted by: blackjack at August 25, 2004 04:48 AM | PERMALINK2850 check out http://texhold.levitra-i.com for texas hold em online action boodrow Posted by: texas hold em at August 26, 2004 08:32 PM | PERMALINK |
|
|
Powered by Movable Type 2.63 
|
||||
