Non-union packers walk out in solidarity with fired immigrant co-workers

This is huge...
Yesterday, hundreds of non-union workers walked off the job at America's largest pork slaughterhouse in solidarity with their fired immigrant co-workers:

In a move highly unusual for nonunion workers, more than 500 employees walked out yesterday at the Smithfield Packing Company’s hog-killing plant in Tar Heel, N.C., the largest pork slaughter plant in the world.

Workers involved in the walkout said it was fueled by anger over Smithfield’s recent decision to fire several dozen immigrants who the company said had presented false Social Security numbers in applying for a job.

Several of the workers said their action had largely crippled production at the plant, which employs 5,500 people and slaughters 32,000 hogs a day. But Smithfield officials said production had merely been slowed a little.

The walkout coincided with a big push by the United Food and Commercial Workers to unionize the Smithfield employees in Tar Heel, about two-thirds of them Hispanic immigrants. A number of workers said the discontent stemmed not just from the recent firings but also from brusque treatment, the speed of the production line and widespread injuries. [NYT]

Workers are fed up. Few mainstream pundits will acknowledge the bravery of the Houston janitors or the Smithfield packers. Perhaps some will say that the Democratic midterm victory empowered or perpetuated this defiance. I think the truth is that the Democratic victories and the resurgence of organized labor are part of the same phenomenon. Americans are sick and tired of the divisive, racist, union-busting status quo, and they're making their voices heard at the ballot box and on the street.

Aside: If you've got photographs from the front lines that you'd like to share, please tag them on Flickr. It's free to open an account, and you can make your shots available to progressive bloggers and readers around the world.

Suggested tags: Houston, janitor, strike, SEIU (or) Tar Heel, packer, Smithfield, strike

Make sure to turn the "blog this" function on for all Flickr users.

Comments

[The Continental Op]

Rather less dramatic, perhaps, but also significant: a group of FedEx Ground delivery drivers in Massachusetts have voted in favor of representation by the Teamsters. This is a major victory. FedEx insists that the drivers are "independent contractors", despite the fact that the company exercises near total control over the most minute details of their work. The NLRB followed a California court and numerous administrative agencies around the country in ruling that the drivers are in fact FedEx employees.

[Gaijin Biker]

Several weeks ago Smithfield Packing, a subsidiary of Smithfield Foods Inc., sent hundreds of workers “no-match letters,” notifying them that the name and Social Security number they had given the company did not match records of the Social Security Administration. In recent days, the company began firing those who were unable to explain the discrepancies.

I don't get it. Doesn't Smithfield have a legal obligation to fire workers who lied about their social security numbers and their immigration status? Is it supposed to break the law in order to show that it's down with the working man?

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

Well, if the workers won't work, they won't work. We all control our own labor.

I don't know the law in NC. Maybe these workers could be fired for walking off the job. However, Smithfield would probably be hard-pressed to fire all 500 of them for this infraction. As they say, if you default on a $500 loan, you have a problem. If you default on a $500 million loan, the bank has a problem. Likewise, if one worker walks off the job because she's pissed at the boss, the worker has a problem. But if 500 workers get pissed off, the boss has a problem, NLRB or no NLRB.

What's Smithfield going to do? Hire illegal immigrant scabs in their place? Smithfield has put itself in a bit of a tactical bind here, if I do say so myself.

If you think all employers do SSN searches on their employees, you're sorely mistaken. Smithfield went out of its way to go after these people--probably because they were suspected union organizers.

This little gesture on Smithfield's part is going to cost them big time.

[soullite]

You now how they always say "there must have been a time when we could have said no". Well, it's a lie. Saying no was never going to be enough. Words won't be enough.

If these policeman disapeared, that would be enough. Fear works on everyone.

[vern]

Lindsay, you may have a point WRT Smithfield deciding to randomly search the SSNs now. But that's hardly the point.

Your argument would tend to negate the reality that, if there were indeed illegal SSNs in use, they should have been discovered. Perhaps they would have been discovered at an even less opportune moment for some of the workers, or a more opportune moment for Smithfield. But the fact that they were found now, when it's apparent the workers are trying to organize, should in no way impede the application of law against those who indeed had illegal SSNs.

At what point would it ever be acceptable to fire someone who got their job illegally if the crime was committed by an illegal alien? The democratic party seems to want to give them all a pass because they deserve an opportunity to be here. Why don't they want to give a pass to those who did it the right way?

Under every plan that was proposed, my now brother-in-law, who is Canadian by birth but has resided in the United States since about age 3 and served in the Coast Guard, would still be required to go through every step he has always anticipated. No fast-tracking, no quick-pay fines and poof; you're a citizen.

Another friend of mine who is from Australia and just a couple months ago received his citizenship would still, under all proposed plans, have had to go through all the same steps he had always anticipated.

Why?

If there is any plan accepted that allows for any type of fast-tracking by anyone who didn't come here legally or who remained here illegally, I advocate every single illegal of every ehnicity, but especially those of Arab or Persian or African descent to revolt and demand immediate citizenship. They are being overlooked for the Mexican and Central-Americans that are coming here illegally.

I reject opnely the notion of my position being racist, or the whole "brown threat" crap because it is that; pure crap. If this were Germans creating the problem, what would we call it? The white threat? The wurst threat?

Mexicans and Central-Americans are targeted for deportation because they are overwhelmingly the highest percentage and actual number of violaters. If it were Zambians, or Maldivians, or Marshall Islanders who were the most visible aspect of the illegal immigration problem, they would certainly, and rightly, be targeted.

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

Smithfield is publicly firing people it hired illegally. Presumably, the company won't face any penalties for failing to verify SSNs in the first place.

So, you get a nudge nudge wink wink scenario. Employers see all kinds of advantages to hiring undocumented workers: lower wages, lower safety standards, reduced risk of labor unrest, etc. So, they do it, knowing full well that they hold the power of deportation over their workers. Then, when it becomes inconvenient to keep a certain worker, the company suddenly "discovers" that that person is employed illegally.

[vern]

I'm all for sanctions against employers for hiring illegals. And if it is determined in this case that they knowlingly did so, hit 'em hard.

Problem is, there is always talk about the plight of the worker and the exploitation by the company. When do we hold the worker responsible for lying and potentially placing the employer in financial harms way?

Seriously, companies don't need legal status as a wedge between themselves and employees. There are far too many other available "reasons" for which someone could be excused. It's one among many.

But there is always this tendency to discount the actions of the worker because they are not being protected against the big bad corporation. There are corporations that are faultless, and have been damaged at the hands of those who have ignored our laws to be here and to work here.

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

It's not just firing, it's firing and exposure, with the attendant threat of deportation. That's a lot more leverage than a company has over a documented employee.

[vern]

Exactly right!

And an illegal should accept that reality before they ever step foot in America, and accept that they will always be at a disadvantage because of it.

And we should never try to change that.

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

So, the truth comes out. Before you were arguing that undocumented workers were in more or less the same position as anyone else. Now you're saying that their employers have vastly more power over them than they do over the average worker.

I don't care about whether our immigration policy is strictly fair in terms of line-jumping. That makes way less difference than the reality that the law is creating a permanent exploitable underclass that further enriches bosses and drives everyone's wages down.

[vern]

What truth comes out. I never argued any such thing. Go re-read my first comment;

At what point would it ever be acceptable to fire someone who got their job illegally if the crime was committed by an illegal alien?

And my second post;

When do we hold the worker responsible for lying and potentially placing the employer in financial harms way?

I think it's pretty clear that I hold the illegal as responsible as the employer for their predicament. And I have never and would never argue that the illegal's are or should be in the same position as anyone else. They made a choice to come and stay here illegally and should accept the reality of that; they have less or no rights to protection.

Moreove, I have always argued that employers have more pull over illegals than over legals. But that is the creation of the illegal as much as the employer. They exploit each other. The illegal uses a fake SSN or none at all knowing the employer is likely to not check hard enough to detect it, the employer ignores the fake numbers to gain the benefit of cheap or cheaper labor.

I don't care about whether our immigration policy is strictly fair in terms of line-jumping.

Therein lies part of the problem. You don't mind ignoring the law, but only in certain situations. You justify that position by saying it's a bad law or poorly implemented. But there are no efforts to change the law that don't include excusing all the law-breakers.

That will, iin effect, exploit every person who is in the system and can't be fast-tracked. Or those who are not yet in the system. And how about those who are in the U.S. legally via work visas? Think they aren't going to be exploited? No fast-tracking them.

Let me state clearly my position so there's never misunderstanding;
I support reform. Call it comprehensive or not, I don't care. It's just a word to make it sound better.
The reform needs to deal ONLY with those who are currently in the system or seeking to enter the system LEGALLY.
Those who are here in violation of the law should never be given the opportunity to become a citizen without SPECIFICALLY starting from scratch. Outside the U.S.
I think employers should be sanctioned to an extreme degree. I'm thinking $50,000 per offense. And by offense I mean individual illegal, not everytime they are found to have some. 10 illegals, $500,000 penalty.
Those penalties should be paid directly to the enforcement arm of BICE.
Workers found to be here illegally should be deported. Everytime. Without delay. The cost of those deportations will be slightly offset by the penalties.

Democrats have been making a lot of noise lately about Republicans ignoring the rule of law and yet are willing to ignore the rule of law for the sake of illegals.

Equal rights was envisioned for the citizens of this country. Part of the application of equal rights is equal application of the law.

Why is this so difficult to understand? Do we excuse those in Congress who broke the law? Should Abramoff be let out immediately? Ney?

Should Haggard be excused for his meth use?

Where do we draw the line?

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

I'm saying we've got to change the law because it's wrecking our society, and not because we've got too many immigrants.

Driving illegal immigrants underground makes them ripe for exploitation. If you're a worker, the vulnerability of the guy beside you on the line becomes a serious problem for you. If you can't get enough votes in the NLRB election or enough asses on the picketline because your boss fires all those people she cynically hired for cheap a few months ago, their status becomes your problem. Them getting fired means no Christmas presents for your kids.

You seem more bent on revenge than on pragmatic solutions. In case you haven't notice, punishing illegal immigrants doesn't do any damned good. We've got entire sectors of our economy dominated by undocumented workers simply because they are undocumented and therefore outside the protections that American workers have fought so hard to achieve.

By punishing the undocumented worker and not the employer the state is guaranteeing cheap gardeners and housekeepers at the beck and call of the working class. This policy is literally destroying jobs, destroying job security, undermining benefits, and making the average worker worse off.

[vern]

I'm saying we've got to change the law

I agree.

it's wrecking our society, and not because we've got too many immigrants

It's wrecking our society because we have not maintained enforcement or applied it even remotely approaching evenly. As a result we absolutely DO have too many immigrants. Illegal immigrants.

It's not about revenge. It's about equality. And no, not for everybody. For those that should get it.

Why must an illegal be given priority over someone who is here legally and wanting citizenship? Explain to me how that is acceptable.

Why should an illegal have legal protections for a job they shouldn't have when those who are here on work visas that are employer-sponsored will not get the protection any faster or to greater extent, or sometimes even at all? Are you aware of the abuse that happens to LEGAL workers? No one is carrying their torch.

Punishing illegals does do good, but that's still not the point.
Punishment needs to happen to both the employee and employer.
How will you ever get the point across if only the employer suffers? How will you ever get the point across if only the employee suffers?

We've got entire sectors off our economy that are receiving aid of some sort or other due to the increase in illegals doing "the work no one else wants to do" (bullshit argument) and matriculating up through the workforce to take the jobs people DO want to do, but aren't willing to accept slave wages.

Unions work because of the collective mindset. Illegals who mow lawns for $1.50 when the legal resident wants $5.00 is not concerned with the collective, they are concerned with themselves. They are inherently contributing to the problem.

You can argue that the homeowner has a responsibility to not want the $1.50 worker over the $5.00 worker, but who is going to enforce that?

The same argument for the business. Who is going to enforce that.

And is it really only the business or homeowner creating the problem?

Clearly not.

Job security is undermined. Benefits are undermined. Loyalty is undermined.

By the illegal who is willing to work for less than everyone else.

And the business willing to let them.

And even the people who are unwilling to take even a moderate pay-cut to keep their job or keep the company going.

And again, I advocate heavy penalties against the employer. You seem to keep missing that point.

By punishing the undocumented worker and not the employer

[Trystero]

Anyone see this segment on 60 Minutes last night?

"Under the local [Hazelton, PA] law, anyone who hires an illegal immigrant or rents an apartment to one faces the loss of their business license and thousands of dollars of fines. It also requires everyone in Hazleton who rents an apartment to go to City Hall with a passport, birth certificate or immigration documents or citizenship to show that they are in the country legally. The names can then be checked against a federal data base to determine their immigration status."

The ordinance has put a serious dent in the local Hispanic community. It's not clear to me how many of those who left were actually here illegally, and how many simply felt unwelcome.

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

I bet the rental clause is unconstitutional. I've never been asked to show proof of citizenship or immigration when renting an apartment of signing a lease. It's outrageous, not to mention mind-boggling parochial. Non-citizens rent properties for all kinds of reasons all over the country and the world. Rental housing is not an immigration status issue any more than buying a hot dog or renting a friggin' car.

If they were even consistent, they'd make all landlords go to city hall and present proof of their citizenship in order to rent out an apartment. After all, taking money for the use of your property is analogous to taking money for your labor.

You'd almost think they this is a law for the benefit of owners and the detriment of rent-paying workers, wouldn't you?

[Alon Levy]

Democrats have been making a lot of noise lately about Republicans ignoring the rule of law and yet are willing to ignore the rule of law for the sake of illegals.

Yeah, they do. They have a history of doing that; in the 1960s, they overruled anti-segregation laws and gave black people civil rights, even those who had broken the law and refused to sit in the back of the bus.

It's wrecking our society because we have not maintained enforcement or applied it even remotely approaching evenly.

And because the US government keeps ignoring research that shows that stricter enforcement of immigration law tends to increase the number of illegal immigrants in the country.

It's not about revenge. It's about equality. And no, not for everybody. For those that should get it.

I'm glad you'd have supported the AFL's decision to exclude black people back when it was formed.

Illegals who mow lawns for $1.50 when the legal resident wants $5.00 is not concerned with the collective, they are concerned with themselves.

The illegal will work for $1.50 because in his home country he'd only get $0.30. Unions aren't just about subordinating the individual to the collective; that's what fascism is for. They're at least supposed to be about equality for all, as opposed to making the lives of those at the bottom of the world's top decile better at the expense of the lives of those in the other nine deciles.

[1984 Was Not a Shopping List]

I would only comment, as I have elsewhere, that if illegal immigrants break no other laws besides the immigration law, but only come here to work honestly from then on, then it's only logical to assume that they're not naturally criminal, but have been forced by their circumstances to break the law. There are other bases on which to refuse amnesty or fast-tracking citizenship, but from a moral standpoint, that it's immoral to break the law, this one doesn't hold water.

Also, those people who _are_ naturally criminal are plainly more easily lost in the sea of undocumented illegals who are _not_ naturally criminal, than they would be if we allowed everyone in but provided that they filled out their paperwork.

Besides which, fast-tracking everyone for citizenship would allow organization of labor, and would help to reduce under-the-table work, thus allowing the formerly illegal immigrants to pay taxes to support the services they use. As it is now, we have illegal immigrants paying no taxes, and living in fear for speaking out about dangerous working conditions, which is bad for them, and bad for the companies both, since it exposes both to liability.

[1984 Was Not a Shopping List]

Well also, that considering that the number of legal immigrants that we allow in dwarfs the number of illegals by about three to one, and that few of us have any problem with that, what exactly would be the problem with doing away with the numbers limit? Presuming, that is, that my argument above holds water logically:

if illegal immigrants break no other laws besides the immigration law, but only come here to work honestly from then on, then it's only logical to assume that they're not naturally criminal, but have been forced by their circumstances to break the law.

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

Also, everyone assumes that illegal immigrants are going to be confined to low-wage labor just because they don't speak English right away.

Think about what previous generations waves of immigrants accomplished with their own small tax-paying wealth-generating businesses.

Today's immigrants are forced into wage slavery instead of growing the economy through entrepreneurism. Think about it, people who are willing to leave their entire families and travel great distances to make a better life for themselves are a resource, not a burden. That's the spirit that makes America great.

[1984 Was Not a Shopping List]

Exactly. Nor is someone who risks death and travels hundreds of miles through a 110-degree desert, again presuming he or she breaks no other laws than this one that they're forced to through poverty at home, worthy of anyone's disdain and contempt.

[vern]

1984:

then it's only logical to assume that they're not naturally criminal, but have been forced by their circumstances to break the law

Why's that supposed to be ok? Moreover, why doesn't that argument work for, say, Kenneth Lay? He only broke a couple little laws because his circumstances forced him to.

This whole line of reasoning is bullshit. I have been homeless. Living in a sleeping bag on the side of the highway in northern Arizona in the winter homeless. At no point would it have been acceptable for me to break a law regardless of the situation I was in. Why is it for them?

but from a moral standpoint, that it's immoral to break the law, this one doesn't hold water

Why doesn't it hold water? Aren't we supposed to be a nation of laws rather than men? Moreover, this is merely a part of the argument.

Also, those people who _are_ naturally criminal are plainly more easily lost in the sea of undocumented illegals who are _not_ naturally criminal, than they would be if we allowed everyone in but provided that they filled out their paperwork.

How's that? You think that those who are, as you say, "naturally criminal" are going to follow all the rules? You think they'll always use their real name? How would catching them be any easier?

Besides which, fast-tracking everyone for citizenship would allow organization of labor

Illegal labor. Not legal labor, as in H1B Visas. Not citizens who are out of work. Only helps illegals and those who exploit illegals.

would help to reduce under-the-table work

Completely baseless assertion. We have more applicants each year for work visas than we give out, so there is clearly not a shortage of legal labor available. Moreover, those who become citizens will likely walk away from their "shit" job that "no one else will do" for a better job that will afford them protections. Who do you think will fill their place?

thus allowing the formerly illegal immigrants to pay taxes to support the services they use

They often pay taxes already. at's hardly the point. Moreover, there is evidence that the use of social services by illegals outstrip the additional tax revenue, so that argument is questionable at best.

As it is now, we have illegal immigrants paying no taxes, and living in fear for speaking out about dangerous working conditions, which is bad for them

Couldn't agree more. It is very bad for them. Why did they choose to put themselves in such a dangerous and exploitable position?

and bad for the companies both, since it exposes both to liability

Again, coudn't agree more. Why did they choose to put their right to work illegally over the rights of those here legally and over the rights of the company to not be exposed to potential liability by a criminal?

[vern]

considering that the number of legal immigrants that we allow in dwarfs the number of illegals by about three to one

Where'd you come up with that? The H1-B's each year are about 100,000.

Investigative journalists Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele, state in Time magazine in its September 12, 2004 issue, "It's fair to estimate, based on a Time magazine investigation, that the number of illegal aliens flooding into the U.S. this year will total 3 million/year - enough to fill 22,000 Boeing 737-700 airliners, or 60 flights every day for a year."[Source]

Did you reverse your statement? If not, I'd like you to justify it...

[vern]

Alon:

Yeah, they do. They have a history of doing that; in the 1960s, they overruled anti-segregation laws and gave black people civil rights, even those who had broken the law and refused to sit in the back of the bus.

This is hardly an equal comparison. Ignoring the rule of law is not comparable to changing the law, which is what was done in the 60's. It is not even comparable to forcing a change to the law by civil disobediance, which is also what took place in the fight for civil rights.

And because the US government keeps ignoring research that shows that stricter enforcement of immigration law tends to increase the number of illegal immigrants in the country.

And your source for that opinion is?

I'm glad you'd have supported the AFL's decision to exclude black people back when it was formed.

Perhaps you need excercise but I'd prefer you not stretch to reach a conclusion that isn't available. I would gladly support any plan to provide equal protection to every single United States Citizen. And your feeble attempt to draw a parallel between not supporting illegals right to be illegals and blacks not being represented because they were overwhelmingly in lesser skilled jobs. The blacks who were being excluded weren't being excluded because they were blacks, and I don't advocate exclusion based on race. I advocate exclusion based on citizenship or right-to-work status.

The illegal will work for $1.50 because in his home country he'd only get $0.30.

But he isn't in his own country. I thought that was the whole point of coming here; they can make a better life. So why sell themselves so much shorter than the people here? Because they aren't any more concerned about the workers here than they are about the workers back home. They will happily undercut, and I mean severly undercut their competition. Yet, as soon as they need help with their jobs, they demand to have equal protections and courtesies they refuse to extend to those already here.

Unions aren't just about subordinating the individual to the collective; that's what fascism is for.

Did you really just try to compare my position to fascism? Wow.

They're at least supposed to be about equality for all

What all? Everyone who wanders in off the street? Hardly. It's about providing equal protection to those whore willing to give equal protection back, and who would fight for the protection of other as well. How many times do you think the illegals demanding protection come out for and picket for another union? Likely never lest they be caught.

[Alon Levy]

This is hardly an equal comparison. Ignoring the rule of law is not comparable to changing the law, which is what was done in the 60's. It is not even comparable to forcing a change to the law by civil disobediance, which is also what took place in the fight for civil rights.

But the civil rights protesters did ignore the law. And you'll have to excuse illegal immigrants if uncaring politicians have made them too fatalistic to agitate for changing the law. After all, black people didn't march for equality en masse until change was in the air in the 1950s.

And your source for that opinion is?

Every political science textbook. Usually, when talking about political research, textbooks cite four different ironclad conclusions from empirical research: a single-member district elecotral system reduces the number of political parties to 2, voter turnout is higher in national elections than in local ones, immigration restrictions increase the level of illegal immigration, and countries that intend to go to war increase their defense spending.

I would gladly support any plan to provide equal protection to every single United States Citizen.

"Citizen" is a spurious distinction, like "white" or "male." And for your information, the AFL did exclude blacks for being black; like many other professional organizations, it restricted entry to white men, regardless of qualifications or occupation.

It's about providing equal protection to those whore willing to give equal protection back, and who would fight for the protection of other as well.

You'll be surprised how few minorities fight for equal protection under a racist system. You'll also be surprised how easy it is to motivate them to fight for equal protection by stopping discriminating against them.

[1984 Was Not a Shopping List]

Why's that supposed to be ok? Moreover, why doesn't that argument work for, say, Kenneth Lay? He only broke a couple little laws because his circumstances forced him to.

This whole line of reasoning is bullshit. I have been homeless. Living in a sleeping bag on the side of the highway in northern Arizona in the winter homeless. At no point would it have been acceptable for me to break a law regardless of the situation I was in. Why is it for them?

What the _fuck???_ So, if you had been starving, though you were standing next to an unattended loaf of bread, the only decent thing for you to do would have been to kindly starve to death? My candied ass. No breaking of any law is ever acceptable? That's completely insane. Even if you had been, say, homeless in Michigan instead, and gallant enough to freeze to death rather than breaking in to someone's barn, I would say that you're nuts, and that your example is nonetheless not to be copied by anyone. If I owned the barn, I'd happily accept the explanation of the homeless person that broke the lock, though I'd have to pay for it. Similarly, as mentioned, anyone who braves the 110-degree heat of several hundred miles of desert to come here, risking death along the way, is close enough to being forced to break the law for my comfort. If you're willing to simply let such people suffer instead, because you were able to gut your situation out, then I'm not sure we should necessarily conclude that your point of view is the more supportable morally. And -- my God, duh -- the reason Kenneth Lay's situation is different is because he's, um, richer. For him to steal my property would be completely different from a homeless person or a poverty-stricken immigrant (no less poverty-stricken, by the way, since we moved more and more factories to Mexico to take advantage of their low wages) to do so. You've got to be kidding me.

but from a moral standpoint, that it's immoral to break the law, this one doesn't hold water

>Why doesn't it hold water?

Well I guess it does if you think that it's reasonable for the starving man to refuse to steal a loaf of bread, or for a homeless man in freezing cold to break into a barn to sleep. I hope to God I never have that kind of "morality."

Besides which, fast-tracking everyone for citizenship would allow organization of labor

Illegal labor. Not legal labor, as in H1B Visas. Not citizens who are out of work. Only helps illegals and those who exploit illegals.

Uh... of _course,_ illegal labor. Legal labor can already organize. Citizens who are out of work cannot organize as labor movements. Keeping illegals illegal also does absolutely nothing to help citizens who are out of work.

would help to reduce under-the-table work

Completely baseless assertion. We have more applicants each year for work visas than we give out, so there is clearly not a shortage of legal labor available.

Presuming that our work visas are given out based on the amount of legal labor available, which I don't know if they are, that still has absolutely nothing to do with my point. Legalizing all applicants, allowing everyone who applies, yet who proves they have no criminal record (and if your natural criminals can forge paperwork under such a system, then are they somehow magically unable to do so now?) would render virtually all illegals legal. Being legal, they wouldn't be as inclined, as illegals are, to take under-the-table jobs and get stiffed on payday, but instead would be more inclined to want to work in a well-regulated environment with a living wage.

As to the figures of illegal immigration, I came across such figures a year ago, when doing research on the web. I can't retrieve the report I found it on, so you may consider that comment retracted and that point conceded until I do. However, the Time report that you cite seems wildly overblown on the face of it; we have 15 million illegals living here now, correct? So Time is positing that that number will increase by 20%, and 3 million more, in _one year?_ CNN has a much more realistic rate of increase http://www.cnn.com/interactive/us/0603/charts.immigration/frameset.exclude.html?eref=yahoo>here, offering rates of increase of around 150,000 to perhaps 700,000 per year, for most of the last 26 years. In any case, if we have a saturated workforce already, are you advocating we close the doors on _any_ further workers? If not, where is the cutoff? Why are these illegals too much, and is the number arrived at not arbitrary?

Finally, it should be quite obvious that if factories, capital and jobs can be exported at employers' whim, as they can, to India, China, Mexico, Indonesia, and anywhere else where folks work for $2.50 a day, are you telling me with a straight face that closing the window and disallowing low-wage workers from _entering_ the US does the slightest good, when the door is wide open to those jobs, factories, and piles of capital _exiting_? Explain that to me, but slowly please, it may confuse me.