<p>
</p>
<p>Whats that supposed to mean?</p>
<p>tripperian, this is the parent’s area. If you want to visit, please act like you belong here. We disagree with each other all the time, but we try to be civil. </p>
<p>“Rudy” is Rudy Giuliani, of New York City, a popular Republican politician, who had an adulterous affair while in office.</p>
<p>Rudy the Mayor had a very steamy 18-month affair in Gracie Mansion while his wife and kid lived under the same roof. It was a regular feature on the cover of the Daily News and New York Post. He did then divorce the wifey (he is/was a Catholic) and took up with the mistress.</p>
<p>Bill Richardson and Janet Napolitano, DEMOCRATIC govs of New Mexico and Arizona respectively, have been asking for better border security for years, and it was Napolitano who first requested the use of the National Guard. Napolitano also was the creator of the Arizona Counter-Terrorism Information Center.</p>
<p>Schwarzenegger, it should be noted, very publicly opposes the use of the National Guard at the border.</p>
<p>Eariler this year (2006) this administration through Rummy, asked for reductions in the National Guard inorder to be more efficient, mobile, and cost savings. It seems to me that US Government, Border Patrol, is outsourcing their responsibility and moving the cost from the federal budget to the states. IMHO.</p>
<p>1 I was going to ask Tripparian how old he/she was, because the comments were “surprising” (being polite, to say the least)
2. My favorite: I would rather have a president screw one intern than the entire USA. AND rather have a president lie about an affair than lie about war, torture, wiretapping, spy revealing etc etc etc. Always waiting for the next lie to surface.
3. the Unemployment rate is bogus. Once you’re off the roster for unemployment insurance you’re considered a discouraged worker and not counted as looking for work. That means Long term unemployment is not on the books and not clearly evident. I know this because I’m in the employment field.</p>
<p>Did anyone notice that the “Democratic Response” after the speech (only carried on MSNBC that I could tell) was that the Dems pretty much agree with the President’s approach? THAT was a first.</p>
<p>Yup, dig. Bush’s immigration stance is infuriating his base. The Dems are actually on board with him. And who said that liberals hate everything that Bush says? LOL!</p>
<p>“Yup, dig. Bush’s immigration stance is infuriating his base. The Dems are actually on board with him. And who said that liberals hate everything that Bush says? LOL!”</p>
<p>quite true</p>
<p>I am as liberal as they come but I can not support either the Senate or Bush’s approach to the immigration bill. This constant refrain about us being a nation of immigrants conveniently misses the fact that we are also a nation of laws. There is an irony to the notion that the longer one has been here illegally, the greater the likelihood that “earned amnesty” will be granted.</p>
<p>As far as I am concerned, neither Bush nor the Democrats really want to fix this problem. Simply put, as long as the incentive to come here illegally exists there will be a continual stream of people coming to the country illegally. It is striking there is no focus, by either Bush or the Democrats, on prosecuting employers who hire illegals s because both Republicans and Democrats are to one degree or the other beholden to business interests who would like to have access to cheap labor.</p>
<p>Even if amnesty were granted - no matter what it is called - in a few years time we would be confronted with several million more illegals in the country. After all, in 1986, the Simpson-Mazzoli bill granted amnesty to 2-3 million illegals with promises that there would be tighter border security and action against employers hiring illegals - and nothing happened.</p>
<p>Optimisticdad, I happen to agree with you 100% about the US being a nation of laws. I don’t agree with the far right stance on immigration, nor the far left. I find myself not really agreeing with Bush either, who is waffling around trying to find a position that will help him rally his base while not pizzing off everyone else.</p>
<p>To me, the fault lies with those who hire the illegals, and pay them slave wages. I can’t fault the person looking for a better life, only those trying to take advantage of the striver.</p>
<p>Dig: I believe it is the 2nd time.</p>
<h1>363. I wonder how many NG are of Hspanic origin and may not have the proper credentials? Arnold has thought it through.</h1>
<p>OPTIMISTICDAD:</p>
<p>Ditto</p>
<p>Meanwhile, we are short a couple of thousand cherry workers in eastern Washington in the next three weeks. Last year, some 30% of the crop didn’t get off the trees. So if you know of some undocumented workers needing high-paying work, please send them our way. (And I can promise you that, not only will they find work, but that they will pay into your Social Security, Medicare, Workers’ Comp, and will have tax withheld.)</p>
<p>You got cherries? Our neighbors with 30 acres of cherries sold out to another neighbor who is putting in 360 new McHomes. But not to worry, I have another friend that has 100 acres of cherries. But there are no plums or prunes. I can find pickers for my 1 acre of Asian Pears, nobody wants them. Sigh.</p>
<p>I personally don’t (only 3 cherry trees, and a peach.) But in the Yakima/Mattawa/Wenatchee area, growers are very, very nervous. Cherry growers are the riverboat gamblers of fruit growers. Usually one good year and four poor ones and they do fine. But miss a good year for lack of workers, and they are out! In picking season (and once pesticide spraying is long gone), cherries require 6, maybe 7, workers per acre (apples only one), and the picking time may be as little as 4 days. Backbreaking labor. White folks won’t do it. But it pays very well.</p>
<p>100 acres of cherries? think 700 workers.</p>
<p>Some of you might enjoy the life story of a good friend of mine - Tomas Villanueva, who has just announced he is running for the state senate against a 10-year Republican incumbent. I worked with him for years on farmworker housing issues.</p>
<p>depts.washington.edu/pcls/ufw/Tomas%20Villanueva.pdf</p>
<p>Mini
If I understand your post, capitalism is not a viable system in Eastern Washington. In a free market economy there is a price at which a worker will agree to work. Assuming your post is serious, the problem is not the lack of availability of workers, but the unwillingness of growers to pay what is required to attract workers. Remember, many workers put their lives in harms way to work as contract workers in Iraq. Others have worked in Saudi Arabia for years. An appropriate response might be that the price of cherries would rise such that the grower is unwilling to pick and potentially lose money. The growers solutions are government welfare; allow workers in who will work for a wage below what Americans will work for, or pay us not to grow cherries. It is not enough to state the employer will pay SS, M/C etc.<br>
If I need asbestos workers, it will not be easy to find them. To state that I will pay ss, w/h and m/c doesn’t mean a thing. I need to pay a wage consistent with the difficulty of recruiting workers to a dangerous job. Your solution would be to hire foreign workers. In my opinion, there are college students who would work in the fields for $20/hour and benefits, for portions of the harvest season. School is over w/i the
next two weeks, for many students. The public is subsidising the grower, by paying to educate the foreign worker’s children, provide medical care and even welfare. Maybe the solution is to pay enough to attract American workers and pay more for East Washington cherries.</p>
<p>There are 20,000 unemployed white folks in eastern Washington, some high school dropouts, some graduates. In addition, there are thousands of college students off for the summer. The jobs averages out to around $15/hour, and are there for the taking.</p>
<p>You are correct. Capitalism is not a viable system in Eastern Washington. Since the growers will lose money 4 out of every 5 years or so, the risk of raising wages further is too great, and they would just as soon leave the cherries to rot. With apples, and increasingly with cherries, the migrant workforce is settling out, buying homes, raising families, but still doing the bulk of the picking. Some have even bought apple farms (but not cherries - too risky.) This in turn has sparked white employment. The Wenatchee Valley Medical Center now has 1,100 employees, 90% of them white. Take the undocumented workers and their families out of the equation, and the Medical Center goes bankrupt. But the medical care problem is not caused by the fact that the workers are undocumented, but that workers (documented or undocumented, citizens or not) don’t have health insurance.</p>
<p>Capitalism is alive and well with apples, though. The Chinese are exporting apples to Japan and southeast Asia, the price of apples is going down, and growers are getting out as fast as they can. But remember that the result of market forces ruling the situation means that white-owned medical centers, supermarkets, gas stations, stores of all kinds will go belly-up, and with them create even greater unemployment among white workers.</p>
<p>“To state that I will pay ss, w/h and m/c doesn’t mean a thing.” This doesn’t benefit migrant workers in the least, but sure does subsidize my mother, thank you.</p>
<p>When do the Rainier cherries arrive??</p>
<p>Usually around June 10-15, give or take. So far, weather is holding. (For the record, I only eat Oregon cherries, because of the much better housing conditions afforded workers. Hey, that’s what the market is all about, right?)</p>