Redefining Illegality

[Jude]

A lot of clothing that claims to be "made in the USA" is also made offshore in the worst possible working conditions. There are a number of US territories in Asia - most notably the Marianas and Marshall Islands - where clothing is produced under third world conditions and labeled "Made in USA".

Citizenship is a Good Thing.

I didn't know this. I always look for "Made in Canada" for consumer goods, especially clothing. Even if it costs a little extra.

Does this mean I've been wasting my time?

[Maria]

There is not a large immigrant population where I live, and the company I work for starts people at $7 to $8 per hour, depending on whether they have lab experience or not.

We had a terrible time last year getting people who would stay with us. We have only a total of 9 people working here at a time, but I think we went through about 15 people last year, trying to get someone who would stay with us and learn the job. It was NOT easy finding someone who would actually work for what we offered to pay.

We finally got a couple of good people who stayed: a guy on parole, and a high school drop out.... but it was HARD to sort through all the people who said they'd like to work here, but changed their mind after a day or two, or even after a month. It takes about 3 months for someone to learn enough to be really helpful here, and most of the people continued their job search after we hired them.

We've hired immigrants before, legal ones, and they were good employees.... but for some reason last year, we only got American applicants, and it seemed like we were getting the bottom of the barrel: the alcoholics, the day dreamers, the lazy, the stupid, the one's with soap opera lives that always needed a day off to take care of whatever drama had cropped up THIS time.

I tried both newspaper ads and temp agencies. Towards the end of last year, I quit trying to give the temp agency any kind of list of qualifications we wanted and merely asked for someone smart and reliable. That's how we got the guy on parole.

It's hard to find good people for low dollars. Anyone who is willing to work for low wages generally has something significantly wrong with them. It's usually a matter of deciding what faults you are willing to put up with in the employee.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

To give an idea of how widespread Mexican migrant workers in agriculture has become, Beth comes from a small town in Eastern Maine. Other then lobster fishing, one of the main 'industries' there is blueberry farming. Up to about ten years ago, the work of raking the blueberries was done almost exclusively by locals (one memorable summer when Beth and I first got together 20 years ago, I actually helped rake some blueberries, or at least tried to ). Now it is almost exclusively done by Mexicans. I assume (but do not know for sure) that many are illegal immigrants. And this is about as far from the Mexican border as you can get in this country.

Here in Santa Cruz County, the protests have been pretty heavy, particularly in Watsonville, which is mostly Hispanic. There, the primary cash crop is Strawberries, which have been fueld by Mexican migrant workers for a very long time. Indeed, tomorrow is a legal holiday in California - César Chávez Day. Interestingly, according to Wikipedia:

In 1969, Chávez and members of the UFW marched through the Imperial and Coachella Valley to the border of Mexico to protest growers' use of illegal aliens as temporary replacement workers during a strike. Joining him on the march were both a Reverend Ralph Abernathy and a U.S. Senator Walter Mondale. Chávez and the UFW would often report suspected illegal aliens who served as temporary replacement workers as well as who refused to unionize to the INS. [It should be noted that the latter claim is questioned by at least one Wikipedia user]

[nerdanel]

I doubt that the information available to municipalities would be comprehensive enough to be useful to the INS. Illegal immigrants cannot apply for welfare (administered by the state) unless they use a fraudulent social security number and give a valid address (checks are always mailed). The SS numbers are cross-referenced, so this would be a very high-risk strategy - giving both a fraudulent number that is likely to be discovered and a correct address. I would guess that there are elaborate scams out there for getting around this, but if the scam is truly effective then the states truly don't have the info to give to the INS.

Jn, just to clarify:

Until recently, many large municipalities had very fragmented systems for dealing with homeless assistance - e.g. you'd go to one place to get help with substance abuse, you'd go to anther to get counseling, you'd go to a third to get help with shelter or permanent housing, and a fourth for garden-variety medical treatment. End result? Muncipalities who adopted this highly organized strategy could not account for exactly how much money they were pouring into the homeless crisis and why. HUD, ever helpful, stepped in and made certain McKinney-Vento (Homeless Assistance Act) grants contingent upon the establishment of accurate collection of data, which for many jurisdictions has translated into creating a data reporting system.

So, in San Francisco (emphasis added):

The CHANGES system is the homeless management information system for San Francisco. CHANGES stands for Coordinated Homeless Assessment of Needs and Guidance though Effective Services. It is used to centralize the emergency shelter bed reservation process and to track services provided to clients throughout the homeless service delivery system.
All CAAP [County Adult Assistance Program] clients, as well as non-CAAP homeless persons seeking shelter, are currently enrolled in CHANGES. CAAP clients continue to be finger imaged (as they were in another system before CHANGES). Everyone using the shelter must have his or her fingers “read” as part of the reservation and check-in process (having fingers “read” is very different from “imaged”, as the former process does NOT store any data related to the client’s finger image in the system). Persons who are not receiving CAAP benefits, but who are seeking a shelter bed are NOT required to be finger imaged; however, many do volunteer to have their finger imaged because it accelerates the shelter check-in process. Everyone enrolled in the system is photographed and their photo images are stored in CHANGES. [omitted for length] It is important to note that the DHS administered finger image system is a “closed system” and is not compatible with and cannot be accessed by or shared with any other government entities, including law enforcement and the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (formerly the Immigration and Naturalization Service, or INS).

The City also notes, in explaining its need for a centralized system:

Analysis of the Congressional directive and HUD mandate revealed that HUD expects every jurisdiction to collect unduplicated, client level data by September 2004. Unduplicated, client-level data includes age, race, gender, disability status, type of housing, services received, etc. for all homeless persons, not just those in HUD funded programs.

It's not absolutely clear to me how much information they are collecting, or exactly what form the data is in. Moreover, because they just switched to a new (supposedly more comprehensive) system in October 2005 and don't have information on that online, it may be more nuanced than the above implies.

The conspicuous assertion that the information was "not compatible with" law enforcement or the INS caught my eye. Note: CAAP benefits are SF county-level benefits, and you do not have to be eligible for state or federal level benefits to receive them, i.e. to collect information on CAAP recipients is in some cases to collect information on illegal immigrants.

So, it was just a half-formed thought: if major cities began to collect detailed information on their homeless populations receiving aid to comply with McKinney-Vento/HUD requirements - and that information got tabulated neatly in database format...mightn't that be of interest to the feds (who I am sure would find a way to *make* the data compatible with their needs)? And if Congress + HUD could neatly require such tabulation for the homeless, then couldn't they request cities (by conditioning some federal aid on compliance) to collect almost as much information for their housed, low-income populations who are receiving local assistance? In both cases, the collection of data has kosher motivations - to ensure nonduplication of benefits, to enable analysis of expenditures, etc. However, it could additionally be a centralized source of information that might be of use to the INS. Obviously they would not care to search the records of, say...Somerville, Massachusetts. But New York City? San Francisco? Los Angeles? San Diego? Depending on how nicely the information was tabulated, if I was the INS, I'd be interested.

Apologies for responding after the discussion had moved so far ahead.

[Jnyusa]

nerdanel, thanks for that info! I wasn't aware that the shelter systems were becoming so systematized ... though is this only county programs or are private programs included as well?

In any event, for the data to be useful to the INS it would have to include a box that says "citizen?" and I am wondering whether the shelters would really be willing to do that, whether the Senate bill in its final form will require it, and how it would be verified if it were included. Will it be necessary to show a green card to get into a homeless shelter? Actual citizens don't have proof of citizenship other than a birth certificate, and I rather doubt that the homeless are carrying their birth certificates around with them.

Or is this prelude to an i.d. system for all Americans, beyond the driver's license that we rely upon now?

Jn

[Primula Baggins]

I firmly believe that the national i.d. system is coming. Because of immigration and security concerns, soon enough we will all have to be concerned that "our papers are in order" and be prepared to surrender them on demand.

[Ethel]

Ethel: The most interesting thing in it is two staunch Republicans explaining that they employ illegal aliens (with false documents) because they cannot find anyone else to do the work. I think we discount that testimony at our peril.

Well, I'm going to discount that testimony and not worry about the peril.

Er, yes. I did not mean to strike fear into your heart, but rather to point out that this is a fairly widely held point of view, and that the opinions of such people are likely to influence the ultimate outcome of any immigration solution. That's all.

I bet those staunch Republicans worship the free market. I bet they want government to keep its nose out of their business. I bet they line up behind Bush I and Bush II in getting rid of environmental law and OSHA law, and in support of union busting.

No doubt. But like the rest of us, their opinions shade off into different territory when it comes to their own economic interests. They find that their illegal workers with false identities do a good job for less than they would have to pay native born Americans, therefore they see nothing wrong with the practice. They do not seem themselves as being part of the illegal immigration problem at all.

Here's what' supposed to happen in a free market. If you can't get people to do that job at the wage you are offering, you offer a higher wage (or better benefits) until people are willing to do that job.

Oops! Can't get anyone to buy your product at the higher prices this will require? Boo-hoo. You're supposed to go out of business. The economy does not want you. Not under the agreed-upon terms of our social contract.

Agreed, but in a globalized economy that will ususally mean your business will be lost to foreign competitors.

Republicans support a free market right up to the point where it requires their own extinction. Free markets routinely require the extinction of unwanted product. Demand changes. Live with it.

They're happy to give this advice to the people who lost their retirement savings in the Enron scandal or the IP bubble, or had their bank account drained by insider loans. Oops! Stock market adjustment. Too bad. It's a free market and you lose.

They're not so happy to take that advice themselves. If illegal immigrant labor is the only way to keep a business running, then that business should not exist. Not in a free market.

In my experience, Republicans - and a lot of Democrats too - support free markets for everyone's industry but their own. Their own industry, for very good reasons which they would be happy to explain to you at length, needs special protections, or tax benefits, or subsidies or whatever, in order to survive. But apart from that, they totally favor free trade.

A lot of clothing that claims to be "made in the USA" is also made offshore in the worst possible working conditions. There are a number of US territories in Asia - most notably the Marianas and Marshall Islands - where clothing is produced under third world conditions and labeled "Made in USA".

Citizenship is a Good Thing.

I didn't know this. I always look for "Made in Canada" for consumer goods, especially clothing. Even if it costs a little extra.

Does this mean I've been wasting my time?

As far as I know Canada does not have foreign possessions where Chinese workers can be forced to labor in near slavery so their work can be sold under the "Made in Canada" label as is the case with the Marianas and Marshall Islands. But a quick Google on "Canada sweatshop" demonstrates that Canada is by no means innocent of the practice of abusing garment workers.


In response to Cerin's earlier question about how illegal immigrants obtain social security numbers and so forth, I happened upon an eerily pertinent article just today. Short answer: identity theft. But the linked piece is well worth a read: http://redtape.msnbc.com/2006/03/hidden_cost_of_.html


I thank nerdanel for the most interesting update on information gathering practices in San Francisco.

I firmly believe that the national i.d. system is coming. Because of immigration and security concerns, soon enough we will all have to be concerned that "our papers are in order" and be prepared to surrender them on demand.

I agree with this... and I'm not even sure it is a bad thing. I'm a great admirer of liberty, but it does seem to me in a modern economy where identity theft and illegal immigration are huge problems, a reliable way to identify people across state boundaries might not be such a bad thing. In the dark days after 9/11, I was working for Intel and flying often, and the airport experience was hideous. It sometimes took every bit of 3 hours to get through security. After a few months of this I was ready to submit to retinal scans or DNA testing or anything that would allow me to spend less time in airports.

Surely we cannot expect employers to verify that their employees are in the country legally if there is in fact no reliable way to verify this. (As, today, there is not.)

Yet I suspect there's something wrong with my thinking here. It seems such a huge step, and feels a bit totalitarian. I don't want to have to prove that my papers are in order! Tell me how I've gone off the rails, you clever people.

[Primula Baggins]

I understand that there are beginning to be voluntary systems where people submit to background checks and are issued an ID card that lets them get through airports faster. What I'm concerned about is a mandatory system, in combination with the technology that's now available. The card would probably have a magnetic strip on it. So imagine if we had to swipe our cards to get onto mass transit or board transportation—or pass through a toll booth. It seems simple—but what "they" would have, if they wanted it, is a complete record of everyone's movements. In the United States, it has historically been nobody's business where law-abiding people choose to go or why.

That's only one worrisome application. And there is technology that doesn't require "swiping" a card—all you have to do is carry it past a reader, which could be concealed.

[Jnyusa]

Ethel, yes, I agree with everything you say. I only wanted to point out that the economic arguments in favor of illegal immigration are specious. Business owners ( both Reps and Dems, as you say) nevertheless make them, and back them with plenty of campaign contributions, and politicians will no doubt build them into the final form of this bill.

It just would be refreshing to hear someone admit, for a change: I want the law to give me an advantage over everyone else. That is, after all, what drives most people's position in these matters.

Jn

[Lurker]

I've been busy lately and playing catch up with the threads.

I just skimmed through some of the posts with regards to immigration laws. Well, here in Canada, it's more difficult to become an illegal immigrant, I think. It's not so easy to get a SIN, Social Insurance Number, even if you are a "landed immigrant" it takes about 3 months just to get the number. You can't apply for health card unless you've landed here for three months with a SIN. I had a client complained that a rude goverment employee told her daughter that you just got "off the boat" today and you want to get a SIN right away, it ain't gonna happen.

I'm not saying our immigration system is not fool proof but I guess it's way better than the US. To be able to be a legal immigrant here in Canada, you should have both the money and the education. Before to be able to get a "landed immigrant status" you go through the points system. It is based on your educational background, age, work experience, money from back home and five points are added if you have a relative here. You should have money because you have to pay a "right of landing fee" and show the consul that you have enough money to feed you or your family for at least six months. You can't recieve social assistance (welfare) for two years or it's a case to case basis for example, you're going through a divorce or you were abandoned by your husband during your stay as a landed immigrant in Canada or there is proof that you've looked for a job and still can't find one even as a dishwasher. There is a new system now based on your years of education so it's much more difficult to get a landed immigrant status. You have to have a grad degree or a PHD if you are coming from the third world and don't forget, the money as well.

I don't know where Vision got the idea that "illegal immigrants" get welfare, since they can't, getting a social insurance number is difficult enough. I have a client who was tracked down by the goverment after three months for accepting welfare when she in fact, is a landed immigrant, in your landing papers it states that you are not going to be a burden to this country, therefore you have enough money. There is an actual chart which states how much you should have for say a single person, a family of four etc... to live in Canada.

Illegal immigrants don't get free health care here, unlike in the US. Guest workers and those accepted as caregivers have to pay the doctor expenses while awaiting renewal of their visas while they are in this country. I know that for a fact. They can't go to school as well.

Caregivers here have a two year working permit, during that two years, they can not work for another employer nor they can't work part time elsewhere. There are a lot of cases which involves caregivers working part time for extra money and gets caught, they immediately get deported, even if their employers knew they work part-time and said it's okay. If the employer is abusive, died or simply could not pay them anymore, they have to re-apply again for a new employer while they are in the country (a year to get a new employer). They have to go through the process of passing an interview/exam (which is taken at an embassy outside of Canada either in Detroit or Buffalo), take the medical exam and pay the processing fee out of their own pocket while looking for a new employer. No free lunch here in Canada. It takes them two years to become a landed immigrant, but the time the caregiver was discharged from her former employer and looking for a new one is not counted in the two years. Say you work for 6 months at the first employer, got discharged, the next 6 months wherein you are looking for a new employer is not counted as your "stay" in Canada. It starts over again once you get a new employer. Some caregivers takes about 4 years until they get landed immigrant status. Caregivers get a SIN and a temporary health card that is renewed every year, but once you get discharged, your health card is invalid, you pay for your own medical expenses. You can't go to university while you are a caregiver nor you can apply for other jobs.

Caregivers are the only workers here in Canada that are qualified for immigrant status. Farm workers and other guest workers are sent back home every six months, until planting season starts again here in Ontario. That is why I'm still researching the plight of the Portuguese construction workers who say they pay taxes legally here in Canada, who got deported, when getting a SIN is very difficult. You can't get a SIN here by opening a bank acct. like in the US.

Refugee status is a case to case basis, right now there is a backlog. It takes about four years not until your case is heard. The problem with this is, it depends on which country is in the "media radar" right now. If your country is not a "hot item" anymore, well, you can kiss your visa goodbye.

With regards to the Nafta on foriegn workers, I think only those in the medical profession, accountants, athletes, actors/actress, journalists, social workers and teachers who are qualified to apply. That is difficult as well, even with an offer of employment, it's takes a long time. My wife's friend who is a chemistry teacher, has an offer of employment from a public school in NYC, it took her a year and a half. In fact, the principal advised her to work right away and wait for her visa in the US. I advised her not to do what the principal had told her, cause she doesn't have papers to prove it yet (she's considered illegal, since she doesn't even have a working visa just a paper that says she's been accepted), even the US embassy here told her to wait, but she knows a few of her fellow teachers who went down there before their papers got approved, which took a year and a half. This is the public school board, mind you!

My stand on this issue, I am not in favor of an amnesty. First of all, how would you know these undocumented aliens are law abiding citizens. People who has gone through the system waited years to get in the US and yet you guys are giving a free pass to illegals. I don't care if it's for humanitarian reasons. Here, it's hard to get a visa for humanitarian reasons, you have to really prove it.

Here in Canada, we just deported a lot of Portuguese construction workers who've been staying here for 7 years and up. No remorse. If you don't go back home at a specified date, you are going to be arrested.

[Lurker]

Does immigration from Canada cause a problem?

Tosh,
You'll be surprised how many people would like to immigrate in the US (legally and illegaly) from Canada. It's easier for "illegal immigrants" from Canada to immigrate in the US since the US-Canadian border is not as restrictive as the US-Mexican border. I've heard stories of people seeking refugee status here in Canada and were denied and were able to enter the US and now working in the "service" industries. Most people, esp. those from third world countries still think America as the land of opportunity.

[anthriel]

I can't believe I didn't see this topic before! I am glad to read all ya'lls thoughts on this, as I knew I would be.

'Cause I'm really scratching my head over this one.



We had 120K people march here in Phoenix, apparently unhappy with something to do with immigration laws. These people were very well-mannered, very well-organized, and there were NO conflicts with the police; NONE. I was totally impressed by the... well, calibre of these people. They are quite peaceably making their point apparent to the greater population of the place where they live and work, and trying to catch the eye of the government. Very American, really. Mob rules!

The only problem I had is... I don't understand their point.

Did all 120K people marching TRY to enter the country legally, and found the system flawed? Was the process unfair to Mexicans, specifically? Were there too may roadblocks to their legal attempt at immigration, and so they were FORCED, by American legal problems, to tiptoe across the border?

I would suspect not.

There was one young lady who was fired up (there were many people spotlighted in speeches, but so many spoke only Spanish, so I was unable to understand the points they were trying to make) and she kept saying "We worked hard to be here! We belong here!"



They would belong here if they were legal immigrants. Yes, our country was founded on immigration, and if we are reacting with racism to this one group, that is wrong.

However, I don't think that is the genesis behind much of the protest. I think that most of these people feel like they should be allowed to pass back and forth across the border with complete impunity, and any attempts to toughen up laws against it... or, heaven forbid, just enforce the laws we actually have... are racist and unfair.

I just don't understand this. I always thought, I guess, that protests were, basically, to protest something a government was doing WRONG. What exactly is it that our government is doing wrong, here?

Teremia: as I understand it, billions and billions of dollars come into Social Security from people using fake numbers who will therefore never collect Social Security themselves.

I think that the fact that these people have taxes and FICA withheld from their wages without ever receiving the benefits is one of the best arguments for cracking down on illegal immigration. It's just one more way that these people are exploited for the sake of US profits.

Jn, I don't understand this quote from you. My understanding is that the illegal immigrants are using valid social security numbers in an attempt to appear legal, to get jobs. This is their decision, then, to pay into this program where they will never receive the distributions later? How is this them "being exploited for the sake of US profits"?

[Erunáme]

Anthy - I believe what originally angered people was the suggestion that illegal immigration be made a felony, but then it seems like the protest became exactly what you describe:

I think that most of these people feel like they should be allowed to pass back and forth across the border with complete impunity, and any attempts to toughen up laws against it... or, heaven forbid, just enforce the laws we actually have... are racist and unfair.

My dad sent me something interesting. I really angered me until the very end. I wonder if all this is true. It's Rush Limbaugh so who knows. If it is true, I find it quite ironic.

http://www.geocities.com/eruname_tinuvi ... 6_Rush.wmv

I don't know how many downloads this will take as it's a free geocities site. Apologies if it's not available, but I don't have anywhere else to host it.

[axordil]

A couple of things, not taking any one of the several sides, but perhaps adding some perspective:

1) There were more illegal immigrants in the 19th century and early 20th than many people think. I have looked at four families connected to me through marriage who had ancestors that came over from Central or Eastern Europe (where quotas tended to be low and capricious). All four had at least one incidence of forged papers, changed names, or other illegalities. It's a small sample size, but one suspects it was far from uncommon.

2) About half of all immigrants to the US during that peak immigration people went home. They either gave up or made enough money here to live better there.

3) Applying a purely political solution to a problem that is political, social AND economic doesn't work. You have to fix the underlying economic and social issues at both ends, the supply and the demand end, not just pass another law and build another fence. Laws, cops, and the US military can't keep drugs out of the country for the exact same reason. Build a wall and people will use boats, or tunnels, or planes.

[Jnyusa]

Jn, I don't understand this quote from you. My understanding is that the illegal immigrants are using valid social security numbers in an attempt to appear legal, to get jobs. This is their decision, then, to pay into this program where they will never receive the distributions later? How is this them "being exploited for the sake of US profits"?

Yes, it's also their decision to work without health insurance or other labor law protections. The fact that is their least-worst choice does not make it any less an exploitation.

If the choices of the choiceless were the only consideration, we wouldn't have any labor or OSHA or environmental laws at all. It has been our social decision, thank God, that we will not allow people to be harmed by producing for our economy if we can avoid it. That should be our decision in this case also, imo.

Just by the way, that should be our decision for the behavior of US domiciled companies wherever they operate in the world. I don't think people realize just how much each of us, personally, is harmed by the ability of companies to trot over to Malaysia (for example) and hire teenage girls for $.50 a day, or the extent to which pure malevolent greed is behind this rather than any kind of philosophical free market consideration for just profits.

Jn

[anthriel]

Exploit, according to Dictionary.com, is defined as "be made use of selfishly or unethically". I think this is where you and are having difficulty understanding each other, Jn; I feel like the act of "exploiting" someone is a very active choice.

If the person hiring a person asks for a social security number, and is provided one, that would certainly imply that the person they are hiring is a legal resident. I suppose there could be more stringent checking of the social security numbers, and people with false papers could be selectively not hired. Would this practice be seen as not exploitive, then, or would it be seen as descriminatory and perhaps racist? It certainly would seem to be passive "exploitation", if it were exploitive at all, since all the manipulation of the truth is done by the prospective worker.

It has been our social decision, thank God, that we will not allow people to be harmed by producing for our economy if we can avoid it. That should be our decision in this case also, imo.

I would certainly thank God for this as well, Jn. But if a prospective employee is going to great lengths to be hired, by illegally entering a country and then illegally using a social security number in order to appear legal, then it is difficult for me to wholly blame the employer of "exploitation" by hiring them. The employer pays into social security for that employee as well, don't they? There is much money directed incorrectly because of the illegal immigrant's choice to use someone else's social security number.

The employee has certainly exercised many choices, and made many decisions, in applying for that job; no one is suggesting these people are captured from their homeland and made to work as slave labor. They are quite clearly choosing their path. It may be the best choice in a series of poor ones, and that strikes me as very, very sad.

But to accuse someone of being "exploitive" who hires this person, this illegal resident who has done his best to appear legal, rings false to me.

IMO, of course.

[Sassafras]

Excellent post, Anth.

[Jnyusa]

Anth: I am sure that there are some employers who make an effort to hire legal labor, but there are also employers who assist illegals in obtaining false SS numbers.

In any event, I was not talking about placing blame solely upon individual employers. If they believe that the worker is legal, then they are granting them the protection of all other labor laws as well, in terms of health benefits (for full timers), overtime beyond 40 hours and on national holidays, etc. and they are (probably) in compliance with OSHA and environmental regulation.

But the worker is still exploited by the situation - a situation where he is paying for benefits he will not receive (and so is the employer, btw).

It would be very easy to rectify this situation on behalf of employers who want to do the right thing. When a false SS number is filed, the employee is notified that their SS is incorrect. They have no interest in correcting it, of course. But why not notify the employer? This simplest of all steps has not been taken, which tells me that no one really wants the situation to change.

Perhaps you do not like the word exploitation? Or perhaps it is important to distinguish who is doing the active exploiting. In the latter case I would say that it is all of us to some extent.

Jn

[anthriel]

Perhaps you do not like the word exploitation?

Well, as I mentioned before, that is probably our sticking point in this discussion. I believe that you and I may have different understandings of this word, and I feel that using it in this situation, with the understanding that I have of its meaning, is unfair. IMO.

And I do NOT feel like I am somehow exploiting the illegal immigrants who come here. I am willing to admit that I somehow, indirectly, benefit from their difficult lives; I am unhappy about that fact. In fact, when McDonald's, along with a few other employers, experienced difficulties the day that the illegal immigrants stayed home, I decided to not support McDonald's anymore. If they are hiring illegal labor, then they should not be; I will do whatever tiny part available to me to voice my disapproval of their actions by boycotting their products.

I also feel that I am affected adversely by the fact that these people are here; there is no doubt that these people DO end up relying on the U.S. and state governments for some monetary assistances. Their children are being educated at state expense, and their health needs are being attended to in the ER's across the country, since they have no access to less expensive doctor's office care. I work for a hospital which writes off ENORMOUS debt each year for people who come into the ER with no documentation and no health insurance.

There are negative and positive effects to my life, and yours, because of the practice of people who have no hope of employment in their own country illegally crossing into ours, in an effort to improve their lives. I do not fault them for this; I am certain that were I in their shoes, I might chose the same path.

They are, as a group, very peaceful and hard-working, and their story strikes me firmly as the Story of America. They are, collectively, willing to work hard, and to take great risks, to improve their lives and the lives of their children, and they are seeking a place where they achieve that dream. I want that opportunity for them; I will support legislation that would seem to foster that scenario.

But I am not choosing for them to be here, and to be collectively accused of "exploiting" them chafes, just a bit.

[Túrin Turambar]

A lot of clothing that claims to be "made in the USA" is also made offshore in the worst possible working conditions. There are a number of US territories in Asia - most notably the Marianas and Marshall Islands - where clothing is produced under third world conditions and labeled "Made in USA".

Citizenship is a Good Thing.

I didn't know this. I always look for "Made in Canada" for consumer goods, especially clothing. Even if it costs a little extra.

Does this mean I've been wasting my time?

Does Canada have any external territories?