Georgia can treat, but not cure, immigration issues

There are a number of natural tensions for Republican lawmakers in Georgia as they try to curb illegal immigration. Here are two of the stronger ones, and ways legislators might think about them while considering various immigration bills:

1. The tension between federal responsibility and state problems.

The states — particularly those, like Georgia, that are not on the border — can do only so much to stanch illegal immigration. But they bear the lion’s share of the costs, from education to health care to law enforcement.

Add those facts to the usual political dynamics of courting a growing group of voters while trying to please — or at least not alienate — a base of support, and Washington’s inaction on immigration is easily explained. (Incidentally, this is one topic Congress might handle differently if U.S. senators were still appointed by, and answered to, state legislatures as they did before the 17th Amendment.)

Last year’s election campaign featured a lot of pledges to pass a law mirroring the one enacted in Arizona last year. Now-Gov. Nathan Deal and his Democratic opponent, Roy Barnes, both said they’d support such a measure. But today, one gets the distinct impression that Deal would prefer to sit on the issue until 2012.

The Obama administration promptly sued to overturn the Arizona law, and inviting a new lawsuit against Georgia would do precious little to bolster Arizona’s case. It would, however, likely consume precious state funds — and accomplish little if, as in Arizona, a judge were to put key parts of the law on hold while a lawsuit proceeded.

Better to let the courts settle the issue in Arizona and focus efforts here on ensuring that Georgia tax dollars don’t provide public benefits to illegal immigrants beyond what federal law requires (for example, k-12 education for their children).

2. The tension between businesses and activists.

A number of Georgia industries, from agriculture to textiles, have relied for years on immigrant labor, whether all of those immigrants were legal or not. So, it’s logical to think businesses could help identify illegal immigrants.

At the same time, the governor cautions against placing an “undue burden” on industry in asking it to make up for the federal government’s failings by verifying workers’ legality.

It’s hard to see how the state could enforce such a law without spending a great deal of resources to police employers. But what it could do is make the penalties for failure to maintain a legal workforce so great that companies wouldn’t want to risk being caught.

For example, the state could take away all tax credits, exemptions and deductions for any business found to have any illegal workers. This penalty might prove harsher than the ones now under consideration, particularly for big companies. And it would avoid the clumsy and arbitrary delineation between a misdemeanor harboring of illegals (seven or fewer) and a felony (eight or more).

However, a company found to have illegal workers would not be liable if it had used the federal E-Verify system to check those workers’ backgrounds.

A company would risk a harsher penalty if it knowingly hired illegals, or if it chose not to use E-Verify and its workers were found to be here illegally.

But any business confident in the legality of its workforce could choose to avoid the cost and hassle of using E-Verify.

In the meantime, it’s wise to create stiffer penalties for people with fake or forged immigration papers, as envisioned in Georgia’s HB 87. I’m told by businesspeople who use E-Verify that the system is not reliable at spotting such documents.

There are no perfect resolutions of these and other tensions. But there also are defective ones, born of frustration at symptoms that Georgia can treat — but cannot cure.

– By Kyle Wingfield

Find me on Facebook or follow me on Twitter

Or tweet this blog post:

54 comments Add your comment


March 2nd, 2011
7:44 pm

There is a distinct difference between “immigrant labor” that is authorized throught the guest-worker program and “illegal alien labor”. These employers know the difference but resent being accountable in any way. Yes, we want businesses who use illegal alien labor to FAIL. We want to reward businesses that follow our laws. Yes, we can cure the illegal immigration problem if our elected officials had the political will to do the right thing for American citizens instead of listening to these unscrupulous employers who have used illegal labor in competitiion with legitimate businesses. Shame on them. They will use any excuse to avoid enforcement so they can make a quick buck.

on patroll

March 2nd, 2011
7:58 pm

–the state could take away all tax credits, exemptions and deductions for any business found to have any illegal workers–

they can’t even pass a bill that makes e-verify mandatory. What makes you think they would risk losing whole companies vs workers in the state by passing what you just suggest? Republicans can’t be pro-business and anti-illegal alien at the same time obviously so why keep trying?

Constitution lovers? Not so much.

March 2nd, 2011
8:12 pm

I’m under the impression that Kyle Wingfield isn’t a fan of the Seventeenth Amendment. Maybe I misunderstood him, but a bunch of Tea Partiers are seeking to repeal this Amendment. They love the Constitution…except for the parts they hate.

This Amendment was passed to end bribery and at least mitigate the possibility of creating another House of Lords, a place exclusively for the well-to-do. To get an idea, Google Senator William A. Clark from Montana. He, among others, paid for his seat. America essentially had a bunch of Rod Blagojevich’s in their state legislatures. They were appointing the highest bidders. Voters got so fed up they amended the Constitution. No easy task.

Arguments for eliminating the Seventeenth Amendment from the professional right camouflage their real intent to expand the capacity of greed and corruption for any who are willing, and more importantly, able.

Illegals Pay Taxes

March 2nd, 2011
8:23 pm

Maybe it’s just an oversight, but anybody who complains about illegal workers and their families using government services are operating, or seem to be operating, under the false impression that they don’t pay taxes. They do.

Illegals pay state and local sales taxes, property taxes either directly or indirectly via rent, vehicle taxes and fees, and most have taxes withheld from the paychecks including social security and medicare taxes, programs that they’re not eligible to benefit from.

Pivoting a little bit, Wingfield suggested that the state make the penalties for failure to maintain a legal workforce so great that companies wouldn’t want to risk being caught. He wrote, “For example, the state could take away all tax credits, exemptions and deductions for any business found to have any illegal workers.”

Hear, hear! As long as the demand exists, there will be illegal workers. Full stop. Go after illegal employers.


March 2nd, 2011
9:32 pm

See Senior,How much for your daughter? I give you one cow and a chicken.

Thulsa Doom

March 2nd, 2011
10:10 pm

Illegals pay taxes,

Sorry but I disagree with you on that. I’ve known several people that have told me that at all the poultry and carpet factories its well known that when illegals use false or stolen soc sec cards they are claiming crazy #s of dependents and allowances like 10 or 16- in effect they’ve figured out how to avoid paying taxes on their earnings- especially since the soc sec #s they use are either stolen or fictitious.

I see both sides of the immigration debate but the one thing that is certain is that they are taking out vastly more than what they pay in in the way of health care at ER rooms, the cost of educating their kids which I do favor, the costs and burden on the criminal justice system, the cost and burden on our social services system.

There are grocery stores around town near illegal neighborhoods where you can go in and basically be the only person not paying for their food with food stamps. The mentality of people around the world is that if we’re stupid enough to just give away all this stuff then they are going to take it.

Legal immigrants will tell you all about it with disgust. They see it more than you and I and what makes them mad as hell is that on top of doing things the right way they are just shocked by what suckers we are in getting taken advantage of like this. And I’m not just talking about illegal Mexicans.

There are people from all over the world who come and live with their kids for a brief time, get on medicaid, and go home. If they need a major procedure they simply come back to the U.S. for the procedure and claim they’ve lived here all along.

And in our farm subsidy programs their are Arab oil sheiks who own corporate farms who farm our govt. Its ridiculous how we get scewed and let it happen.

We are indeed the biggest suckers on this earth. But if you try and do what the Swedes do which is to make absolute certain people coming over there have travel and health insurance to avoid costs to their national health care system then you’re going to catch hell for being racist, xenophobic, anti children, anti immigrant, anti poor, etc. And that’s why we let it happen- political correctness run amok.

Tommy Maddox

March 2nd, 2011
10:36 pm

Nail the employers; remove birthright status; remove social services. They will relocate.


March 2nd, 2011
11:07 pm


Do you oppose the 17th amendment? Do you think people should not be able to elect their senators (and other representatives) directly? This seems very out of character.


March 3rd, 2011
12:34 am

Kyle – For the first time I agree with you… It will snow in Atlanta this June :)

The ONLY way to solve this issue is AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL. ONLY CONGRESS can effectively resolve this issue once and for all. Sadly, whenever there is an attempt to resolve the issue, the tea party types start yelling “amnesty, amnesty.” Clinton tried it. Republicans killed the bill. GW Bush, Kennedy, and McCain proposed a sensible solution in 2007. Once again, the usual suspects came out of their caves and started yelling, “amnesty, amnesty” and the bill was killed..

What Brewer, Deal, and many other conservatives have proposed or are proposing for state-level solution is “POISON” at best. To label these laws a “TREAT” is generous at best.

What happens when you detain thousands and thousands of people but the feds don’t come to pick them up?.. OR they pick them up but are released? What happens when the flood of lawsuits start coming in against this law, and an already cash-strapped state has to spend millions fighting lawsuits and appeals?

When businesses determine they are being pressured by such laws, they simply WILL RELOCATE TO “BUSINESS-FRIENDLIER” states… And guess whose tax-base shrinks, and unemployment numbers go up?

Until governors who are really serious about solving this issue put pressure on CONGRESS to solve the issue at the national level, we will be chasing tails, which you cons love to do a thousand times for the cameras!


L Dodd

March 3rd, 2011
2:56 am

When Republicans prove they are serious about enacting and enforcing civil and criminal penalties for EMPLOYERS that hire those here illegally, then but only then can we believe they are actually interested in more than making $ and political points on the issues of immigration, jobs, terrorism.


March 3rd, 2011
6:30 am

Thulsa Doom – Illegals may claim 10 or 12 dependents, but that does not get them out of paying Social Security taxes. And if the IRS can’t catch them when they either don’t file or fraudulently file their taxes, then that is a tax enforcement issue, not an immigration issue. Same for the argument that most immigrants are paid under the table. That is a tax enforcement issue. Do you remember last year when BP had the oil spill and was offering to pay fishermen for their lost income? A lot of those AMERICAN fishermen could not document their income because they were paid under the table. I hope the IRS was investigating tose deadbeats who have not been paying their taxes.

I would like to see sane reform of immigration laws. Amnesty? Heck, america has been giving amnesty for 20 years by not enforcing their laws. Why the change now? If we do it properly, we can screen out the criminals, get immigrants who want to and will learn English, support our businesses and our economy, and keep the employees who will pick onions for minimum wage.


March 3rd, 2011
7:27 am

Take away cheaper labor and company CEO’s will declare an unfriendly environment and move their operations overseas.

Ragnar Danneskjöld

March 3rd, 2011
8:12 am

Good morning all. I am persuaded that “illegals” pay their own way, and that their contribution to the aggregate productivity and income of our state exceeds any burden they place on the state. If our aggregate expenses in managing those “burdens” are too high, then cut those programs.


March 3rd, 2011
8:25 am

A number of Georgia industries, from agriculture to textiles, have relied for years on immigrant labor, whether all of those immigrants were legal or not. So, it’s logical to think businesses could help identify illegal immigrants

You ignored the obvious point, Kyle: these businesses DO NOT WANT anyone to tell them they can’t have the cheapest possible labor, and they will buy politicians to make sure that their supply of cheap labor is not interrupted.

These industries have traditionally used the cheapest possible labor because that’s a large portion of their unit costs. In the 1800’s, the cheapest possible labor were slaves (essentially free labor). In the first part of the 1900’s, it was immigrants (illegal ones weren’t invented yet, and they were woefully underpaid). After immigration laws were put in place, it was illegal immigrants. Educated Americans DO NOT WANT THESE JOBS, because the pay is low and the work is very hard. So either the industry relocates to a place with cheap labor or cheap labor will flow to it.

Either we support agribusiness in this state and let them have the cheapest possible labor… or we watch the business move to a place where they can get cheap labor, making South/Central Georgia more impoverished. Local politicians won’t let whole industries disappear, so they’ll talk out of both sides of their mouth and do nothing to change the status quo.

JF McNamara

March 3rd, 2011
8:50 am


You’re pretty smart, but you ignored the elephant in the room. Using e-verify isn’t an unnecessary burden. The real issue is that Republicans don’t actually want to do anything against immigration because businesses want the cheap labor.

Whatever Republicans do (if anything) will be nothing more than symbolic and unenforced. They just want to look like they care. For them, its probably best if they pass something like Arizona then it can be ruled unconstitutional and they can do more Washington bashing.


March 3rd, 2011
8:53 am

If our country’s leaders actually cared about enforcing laws, they would immediately start rounding up all ILLEGAL aliens and deport them. The countries they came from would pay for this or else, their foreign aid would be cut off. You say this is too harsh? Do you really want to live in a country where obeying the laws is optional? Can’t you see that any society that drifts into optional obedience of the laws will soon cease to exist? Or do you just not care.


March 3rd, 2011
9:00 am

“Undue burden” is a crock. The fact is, there’s plenty on the books for how to properly hire migrant workers. The fact is that the mush-mouth “consitients” of the ag community simply don’t want to relinquish control of the plantation. They are a law unto themselves.

We don’t need more laws. We need to enforce existing laws. It’s the same issue of slavery – farmers can’t do without free (or in this case, cheap) labor, and they have no desire to work with anybody who wants to get “uppity” and tell them how to run their plantation. The rich city folk will pay the education costs, the medical expenses of the undocumented worker while farmers spit their tobacco juice before they either walk into the office of the bank to deposit their profits or the office of the Ag dept. to get their subsidies.

It’s not an immigration problem. It’s a redneck problem.

PR in GA

March 3rd, 2011
9:06 am

What’s so hard about using E-Verify? I know!!!! GA is to lazy, to cheap and slow to get w/the program… If, Ga wont round up these illegals I’m quite sure soon Americans will and the jobs will open up!!! I’ll work at a poultry plant and any other plant if its going to pay me a livable wage … Plus at all those plants(when the illegals leave) everyone will speak ENGLISH!!!!! GA has to listening to their people and less on cheap labor.. Start putting pressure on big brother and watch GA come out on top!!!

Not Blind

March 3rd, 2011
9:15 am

Anybody that thinks illegal aliens are a benefit to their nation [ any nation ] is a fool. Here is what they have done in the USA.

They are straining our courts, jails and prisons to the breaking point. Criminals that should be behind bars are set free because we don’t have room or money to incarcerate all that deserve it. More crime is the result. LOCAL tax dollars diverted.

Hospitals. This might be the one area where most Americans are aware of the abuses by illegal aliens. The result is many millions of LOCAL tax dollars diverted from other pressing needs and given to the local hospitals. Multiply this by the number of municipalities across the country that host large illegal alien populations and the sum of tax monies lost has to be staggering.

Whole catagories of American craftsmen have been forced out of their field by the influx of illegal aliens. You can bet that these displaced Americans haven’t found this change of career to come with a higher paycheck. The sad thing is that the federal government has done this to American workers repeatedly in the past. Wiping out jobs for Americans so that foreign nationals can have their standard of living raised. LOCAL tax dollars lost by lost wages.

Increased murder, organized crime and general mayhem. Illegal aliens have figured prominently in the news lately. These horrific murders are going to cost the taxpayers millions of dollars to prosecute. If you think these are isolated cases you should go back and read my first sentence. More LOCAL tax dollars gone.

Remittances. Suck billions out of the US economy and send it out of the country. Keep that up and the economy will fail. Oh jeez, it’s already happened.

There are large numbers of very smart people constantly seeking ways to circumvent
any attempts we make to identify illegal aliens. E-Verify will be beaten [ if not already ] by the illegal alien’s and their allies.

The illegal alien advocates cry that the solution can only come from the federal government but the truth is that it’s the LOCAL taxpayer and local government that is being robbed. Relying on some far removed entity to protect your personal interests rarely ever works out to your advantage. Enacting LOCAL laws will be the only way to effectively put the brakes on this situation.


March 3rd, 2011
9:17 am

On the Internet at 8.58 – your post is way to long. Next time please give us a hint at the website and we can look it up.

on patroll March 2nd, 2011 7:58 pm
“Republicans can’t be pro-business and anti-illegal alien at the same time obviously so why keep trying?”

And that is the real point isn’t it? Add Democrats to the mix also.

There will be no resolution to the “illegal immigrant” situation until Republicans and Democrats sit down and work out a compromise on the issue. Both will then need to agree to something that will alienate their respective bases. So far they are not willing to do that. So we keep muddling through and pretending with such bills as the Arizona and Georgia bills.

In the meantime business is kinda happy with the current situation.


March 3rd, 2011
9:33 am

For you business owners – is e-Verify that hard to use? Even though it’s not 100% perfect, I have to imagine it’s better than nothing and at least can be improved upon…


March 3rd, 2011
9:33 am


March 3rd, 2011
9:00 am
(spitting tobacco juice on the floor next to the foot of Jethro) Did you say something about rednecks boy?

Kyle Wingfield

March 3rd, 2011
9:48 am

On the Internet @ 8:58: jconservative is right: Cutting and pasting long tracts of text is against the rules for this blog (see right-hand rail). Please provide links. (And, yes, a post with multiple links will get caught in the spam filter, but I’ll fish it out as soon as I see it in there.)

Kyle Wingfield

March 3rd, 2011
9:55 am

JF and others: I thought I was addressing the “elephant in the room” when I referred to the tension between businesses and activists.

native and others, re: the 17th Amendment: There’s no doubt that the 17th Amendment righted some wrongs. But it also removed a crucial part of the Constitution’s system of checks and balances: that of state legislatures on the Congress. A Congress without a chamber that answers to state legislatures is free to take powers away from the states and heap unfunded mandates on them — and we’ve seen Congress do plenty of both since the 17th Amendment was ratified.

I haven’t made up my mind as to whether I fall squarely into the “repeal the 17th” crowd, and I’m fully aware that doing so would not be popular at all. But neither do I think we can ignore that a carefully constructed and balanced system of government doesn’t work as well when you remove one of its key planks.


March 3rd, 2011
10:06 am

Hey folks, it has become patently obvious, that the politicians (Republicans and Democrats alike) want to keep the immigration issue as a wedge issue, just like abortion, Supreme Court nominees, energy, transportation, deficits, health care, etc. They need the populace to be divided so they (the politicians) can keep their jobs. So there will be no substantive reform of immigration because the politicos get too much mileage out of the ensuing chaos. Remember politicians don’t solve problems they just let them fester.

Grob Hahn

March 3rd, 2011
10:08 am

You lost me with the insinuation that this problem can’t be “cured”. Of course it can. What it will take is laws already on the books being enforced. It might also help if people like you would stop calling it “Illegal Immigration”. Immigration is a respected tradition in America that has been raped and pillaged by illegal aliens who don’t give a crap about our nation, our people or our laws. Do any of them live in YOUR neighborhood?


March 3rd, 2011
10:17 am

Last one out of Mehico, turn off the lights!


March 3rd, 2011
10:24 am

Congrats Jethro. The blog made it to 16 posts before you played the race card.


March 3rd, 2011
10:27 am

Heck. Even said there wasn’t an immigration problem to boot.


March 3rd, 2011
10:36 am

Kyle; Every citizen should be concerned about illegal aliens. Because they are illegal they steal jobs, education, health benefits, and financial assistance from the citizen. The government should make it easy for a citizen to verify an illegal. Anarchy is the attitude of today. “Who cares?” Because a nail was lost; a shoe was lost. Because a shoe was lost; a horse was lost. Because a horse was lost; a rider was lost. Because a rider was lost; a kingdom was lost. Incrementally our nation is being lost and our own children or grandchildren will be the one’s who eventually suffer.


March 3rd, 2011
10:40 am

Race card? I said nothing about race. I railed against an economic system – illegal immigration – in which a few take advantage of many. An illegal immigrant could be Polish, Russian – Caucasian. I said something about slavery – another economic system – not about race. You think a black man can’t be a farmer that takes advantage of agricultural subsidies and hires illegal immigrants? It’s not about race, dude.

JF McNamara

March 3rd, 2011
10:48 am

I acknowledge that you did mention it, but you could have dedicated this entire post debating if the Republicans actually want to solve the problem. It’s a wedge issue that they can use against Democrats and it will infuriate their base if they actually crack down. Not the dummy part of the base either, but the part of the base that actually writes the checks to them.

Status quo seems to be the most beneficial situation for them.


March 3rd, 2011
10:48 am

As a private employer I can tell you E-verify is in NO way an undue burden. I did have to go through a screening process to prove I was a legitimate business and sign privacy forms, etc….. The whole setup may have cost me a postage stamp. There’s even an 800 # for employers with no computers. When I do run across documents and E-verify not matching, the employee is in no way terminated. I simply tell them to please go to their nearest SSA office to straighten it out. Funny, not one has ever come back.

get out much?

March 3rd, 2011
10:49 am

During the 1950’s the Eisenhower Administration cracked down on illegal immigration (Operation Wetback), so it can be done. One of the reasons they relaxed enforcement was to help break the United Farm Workers union in the 60’s.

Kyle Wingfield

March 3rd, 2011
10:58 am

JF: Sure, I could have spent an entire post discussing that — or, for that matter, whether Democrats want to do anything about it. Maybe next time.

Kyle Wingfield

March 3rd, 2011
10:59 am

I do, however, think there’s a difference between state-level Republicans (and possibly Democrats) and national-level pols on this issue.

Republicans Cutting Border Security

March 3rd, 2011
11:05 am

You heard me right folks. The guys who insist that we should “secure the borders first” have just passed a budget that cuts spending for border security. Their budget provides, for example, fewer border agents than Obama’s budget.

You have to dig pretty deep to find it in the corporate media sites, and you’re unlikely to have heard about it on tv or radio, but it’s true:

Despite their cries to the contrary, the Republican Party seeks to expand illegal immigration for the same reason they seek to destroy institutions that would grow the middle class, roll back minimum wages, and shred workplace, food, and consumer safety regulations…to benefit their corporate masters.

Anybody who votes for Republicans because they believe the GOP is sincere about reducing illegal immigration is a sucker.

JF McNamara

March 3rd, 2011
11:12 am

Setting aside where you stand on the issue, because I’m in between. I don’t care that they are here, but I do care about paying for them. This was my point.

I don’t think that anyone actually wants to do anything about it, but Democrats admit as much by offering their amnesty plans and path to citizenship. Their position appears to be consistent.

Republicans are yelling loudly, but I question whether its anything more than rhetoric due to the issues listed above. That’s the difference between the two.

Reagan understood the folly which is why he just sold out for business (like always) and gave amnesty. It seems like that the Republican position would be consistent with what Reagan did. Give the amnesty but this time enforce the border diligently. No?

Hillbilly Deluxe

March 3rd, 2011
11:58 am

Republicans see illegal immigrants as cheap labor and Democrats see them as potential future votes. Nothing will be done to change anything. If the heat gets to be too much, the politicians might pass some minor thing, which will promptly be ignored when the heat dies down, just like our current laws are ignored.


March 3rd, 2011
12:10 pm

I Know You Are But What Am I

March 3rd, 2011
12:44 pm

Can we start with baby steps, perhaps? Like passing a law that makes English the official language of the State? And denying health care or educational benefits to those unable to produce a valid American passport or visa?

The rest of the laws are basically in place. We simply need to ENFORCE them.

Penny Lane

March 3rd, 2011
1:00 pm

I have been checked by e-verify at all three of my last jobs. Each time, it took less than ten minutes. Really not a burden.


March 3rd, 2011
1:00 pm

Kyle, you miss the most important point. Many in not most of the businesses that are habitual employers of illegals FACILIATE their ability to fly under the radar. They won’t help identify them quite the contrary they will seek to hide them. If the INS cracks down their first call will be to their Republican Congressperson to insist that the “overreaching government” STOP NOW. In fact if you will do a bit of research you will find that is exactly what happened during the last crackdown and if I am not mistaken Raw Deal was one of the complainants.


March 3rd, 2011
1:10 pm

This seems to be an issues, and it is one, but personally I am totally against this law, for many reasons.

One, if GA decides to makes the law, many people that work here (construction) wide will leave, and GA wont have workers to do their jobs, and that will be a loss of money.

Two, Illegals also pay taxes, most people think they don’t but thaey actually do.

Third,, medical treatment and education can not be taken away from ANYONE!!. for me it is just unethical, and unfair.

My point here is this, I am in favor on that law somewhat, if they are trying to get rid of illegals, fine do it, but GA SHOULD DEPORT all those illegals that have been having issues with the law, those that have commited serious law infractions, felonies, etc. and also the ones that do steal someone else’s identity, like working for a company pretending to be someone else, and also deport all those that do not take the beneft to be high school graduates and just dropped out, and make the school boards losse money.

To all those illegal imigrants that are here in GA that do their taxes, that do not owe anything to the law, or their government, GA should still allow those people to work becasue they only reason those honest people are here is because tehy want to be able to support their families, and if GA decides to pass the law, they wont be able to to that anymore.

So if GA decides to pass HB 87 and actually get imigrants out of GA they should take the ones that actually affect the state, and that deserved to be kicked out, NOT those people that again, they are only here to support their families, but those that again owe some felony or infractions to the GA laws

Dr. Stan--(The Black One)

March 3rd, 2011
1:32 pm

Dr. Stan--(The Black One)

March 3rd, 2011
1:32 pm

March 3, 2011

Dear Dr. Stan, The Black One,

Thank you for your recent action against forced unionism.

With your support, National Right to Work will stand strong against Big Labor’s advances and defend worker freedom.

You, along with millions of others, are all that stand in the way of Big Labor forcing countless workers into their grasp.

Thank you again for your support.

I know I can count on you.


that's goofy

March 3rd, 2011
1:33 pm

guess it depends on where people come from. Republicans and Democrats have been welcoming Cubans to Florida since Carter let them in.

Before people can argue they were escaping an oppressive regime – Haitians are sent back.

Constitution lovers? Not so much.

March 3rd, 2011
1:56 pm

I have a hard buying into arguments made for repealing the 17th Amendment suggesting that Congress would be less likely to take powers away from the states. The Civil War was fought before the 17th Amendment was passed, and I’m fairly certain that it had something to do with Congress taking powers away from the states (to allow it’s citizens to keep slaves). In fact, disagreements about Congress reaching into state jurisdiction existed long before the 17th Amendment.

I also find the argument disingenuous because so many making it are simultaneously advocating for Congress to take powers away from the states on the issues of gay rights, privacy, abortion, gun laws, regulation, and others. This lack of consistency leads me to believe that, again, professional repeal advocates are primarily interested in giving more power to the already powerful.


March 3rd, 2011
2:00 pm

According to a 2010 cost study by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), the estimated annual total of the costs related to illegal immigration that taxpayers must bear on the federal, state and local levels in $113 BILLION. Of that, $84 BILLION at state and local levels. This breaks down to approximately $1,000 per tax-paying American household. An average 27 percent of this dollar figure has to do with the administration of justice, while 16 percent are public assistance expenditures. Twenty-one percent go to medical care and an estimated seven percent support education.


March 3rd, 2011
2:05 pm

Judge Vinson in Fla. just ruled again on the health care bill. The Justice Dept. had gone back to him to “clarify” his original opinion that the entire law was void. He wrote, “While I believe that my order was as clear & unambiguous as it could be, it is possible that the defendants may have perhaps been confused or misunderstood its import.” “It was not expected that they would effectively ignore the order & declaratory judgment for two and one-half weeks, continue to implement the Act, & only then file a belated motion to ‘clarify.’”

That’s not all. He gave the O adm. seven days to appeal his ruling.