August 13, 2007
Illegal Immigrant Crackdown Looms
Those who oppose a “get tough” approach to the illegal immigrant problem in the U.S. often argue that deporting these people will be counterproductive since they often fill jobs that Americans don’t want but that the nation needs.
Whether that assertion is true may soon be determined by a Bush administration plan to crack down on illegal workers and the employers that hire them. The plan would require employers to fire workers who use fake Social Security numbers. Employers who fail to go along with the program would face fines and possibly criminal prosecution.
“Everyone’s very anxious,” Paul Schlegel, director of public policy for the American Farm Bureau Federation, told The Associated Press. “We’re heading into the busiest time of the year for agriculture, so you’re going to see a lot of worry from farmers and employers about how you deal with this.”
The farm group estimates that roughly half the workers on the nation’s farms are illegals.
“It’s death to American agriculture,” Maureen Torrey, a vegetable and dairy farmer in Elba, N.Y. told USA Today. “I’m going to lose my farm,” she said.
“It’ll just shut us down,” Manuel Cunha, a citrus grower in California’s San Joaquin Valley told the AP. “It’ll just be over if they start coming in here and busting employers. The food chain would fall apart.”
Illegal immigrants often give made-up numbers when applying for jobs, though
honest mistakes such as the misspelling of a name can also cause problems.
Employers say it can take weeks to clear up discrepancies.
Bob Dane, spokesman
for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, is not sympathetic to the
potential plight of Ms. Torrey, Mr. Cunha and others.
“If this causes massive layoffs in agriculture, I guess it’s a sign that we have a massive illegal alien problem in agriculture,” he said. “It’s also a sign that the program is working like it should.”
Bill Hammond, a member of the Republican-friendly Texas Association of Business, said agriculture, hotel and restaurant businesses will be hurt by the planned crackdown. “We are deeply disappointed in the administration’s decision to punish the American economy because Congress has failed to act,” he said.
In the absence of a comprehensive federal law, a number of states have passed legislation to deal with the immigrant issue.
In Colorado, a tough new immigration law has led to a shortage of workers, both legal and illegal, in agriculture, construction, hospitality and other industries.
Particularly worrisome, according to the Pueblo Chieftain, is that the new law has had the unintended consequence of scaring off legal immigrants as well as those in the state illegally.
Jim Miller, director of policy and initiatives for the Colorado Department of Agriculture, said farms are in a bind and looking for help wherever it can be found.
“There isn’t a lot we can do other than bringing attention to the issue with legislators and our congressional delegation, and it’s very frustrating,” he told the Chieftain. “There’s been a concerted effort among farmers to try to bring on high school kids, and going to job service centers in their communities. There’s a lot more reliance on families and neighbors. It’s catch-as-catch-can.”
Bill Hammond, a member of the Republican-friendly Texas Association of Business, said his state’s agricultural, hotel and restaurant industries will all suffer.
“We are deeply disappointed in the administration’s decision to punish the American economy because Congress has failed to act,” said Hammond, whose group is considered a Republican ally.
Discussion Questions: Agriculture industry officials seem certain that the consequences of the Bush administration’s plan to weed out illegal aliens will have a devastating effect on the business. Is the price too high for the American economy and consumers to pay?
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Poll
Our studies show exactly what Ryan is pointing out: this is a complex issue that requires real data and real analysis. Like so many topics these days, however, people form a personal bond with one view or another, and therefore feel personally insulted or vindicated when their position is challenged or affirmed. This leads to simplistic, emotional posturing and solutions.
This has nothing to do with intelligence–even deeply knowledgeable experts suddenly spout the most amazingly uninformed opinions based on amazingly superficial thinking. It almost makes me wonder if it is really all that valuable to process these topics in this way on RetailWire. What do we really learn? And isn’t real learning what these topics desperately need?
I agree with the get tough approach. Business wants illegal immigrants so that they can pay them less and not follow labour laws. If you need the people, have them go through the proper channels to work in the US.
I’m surprised that no one here has noticed or mentioned that the Bush’s phrase “jobs Americans WON’T do” deftly changed a few months ago to “jobs Americans AREN’T doing.”
Maybe that’s because many of the jobs are now being done by illegal immigrants. Construction jobs like framing, bricklaying, concrete work, drywall, roofing, etc. are definitely not jobs in the WON’T do category. But illegal Mexican labor is cheap, and often cash-based. Tough for the non-union trades to compete let alone the union trades.
As for the less desirable jobs like gutting chickens at the NW Arkansas Tyson plant, Americans did those jobs for many years, but they’re now largely filled by immigrants of questionable status. They’re not career positions designed to raise a family of four on, but they provide steady work, experience and some incentive to move up to something better.
Having the benefit of being born in the Salinas Valley I’ve had the dubious pleasure of thinking about this issue for a long, long time. First of all we don’t know what the real economic impact would be because we would first have to understand exactly how many undocumented workers there are to begin with and that would mean employers would have to be (for once) honest about their hiring practices.
Second, most Americans probably wouldn’t pick crops–it’s really hard work. To pay people enough to do the work growers (and the rest of the supply chain) would likely (again we don’t have real numbers, just projections) have to double, triple or better the cost of agricultural goods.
Finally, this has become an issue of politics (nativism and terrorism) rather than one of people, human rights, ethics and economics. There’s a certain measure of hypocrisy here. People seem to be happy to turning a blind eye to low cost labor when it ensures their salads will be cheap and are outraged at the idea of undocumented workers.
The problem will only get worse as President Bush flounders around for a political “win,” Lou Dobbs et. al. scuffle for the populist ratings and the 300-400 people who seem to be running for president are forced to go “on the record” on the immigration issue.
I’d suggest that all of you who feel we should send the agricultural workers back where they came from ponder this complexity over your next Cobb Salad.
The economic costs of a “get tough” policy need to be weighed carefully. Unfortunately, the issue has become so politicized leading to an election year that the White House and Congress failed to find a compromise that could have been worked out two years ago. Right or wrong, we are talking not only about a major part of the workforce in low-paying industries that would otherwise have trouble finding associates during a period of low unemployment. And these workers are consumers too…so the ripple effect on other parts of the economy is very real.
Employers hire the undocumented because their competition hires the undocumented. If no one got away with it, then everyone could hire people legitimately. Many legit workers already take low-wage jobs. There are many dishwashers, farm workers and gardeners who are legit. Would there be disruption if all the undocumented folks went away? Sure. Would it mean the end of lawn care, fast food and agricultural produce? It probably would mean those prices would rise. And it also would mean fewer unemployed citizens. So you might pay an extra 25 cents for lunch, but you’d pay less for unemployment insurance, welfare, and other subsidies for the poor.
The immigration dilemma is basically this: benefits of immigration are diffuse and long-term; costs are concentrated and immediate. Are many industries dependent? Yes. Would a crackdown cause hardship all around? Yes. Is there any “fair” way to do this? No.
Long-term (my specialty, being The Trend Guy), readers may be interested to know that immigration peaked 10 years ago and is declining. The percentage of immigrants that are first generation, in other words, is going down. Growth in the Hispanic population is now driven by second and third generations.
Another important (long-term) point: the Mexican birthrate is declining fast, almost precipitously; most Mexicans are having far fewer children than just a few years ago (current birth rate is just above 2.0, comparable to the US). Smaller Mexican families mean a smaller pool of potential migrants.
Would we be able to weather the initial storm from a crackdown on illegal workers? Yes! Would prices go up on agricultural items, service and hospitality businesses? Yes. Should we pay this? Yes. We need to bring some legal structure to this issue and if we sit and wait for the legislative branch to do it we will never see it! We have a higher minimum wage in place, if that will not attract workers in this country then those wages will rise until most of these jobs get filled. This will cost us more as consumers but may well save us as taxpayers!
Few phrases make my skin crawl as much as the recently coined “jobs Americans won’t do.” And if it rings hard on my ears I can only imagine the impression of arrogance and superiority the phrase must connote to the rest of the world. America has somehow been able to manage getting food crops out of fields, serving up fries, burgers and chicken legs, mowing lawns, and making up hotel beds for generations, now. These have always been entry level positions and often incorporated part-timer teens, “early outs” from the education system, people in-between jobs, as well as new (legal) immigrants and green card holders from a variety of nationalities and backgrounds. Many current solidly middle and upper income earners of a certain age unashamedly describe their first work experiences from these “lowly” professions. It can still be so.
A national attitude adjustment about what constitutes “worthy” work, realistic immigration policies that produce and encourage legal workers (and taxpayers), and policies and pay which make it more feasible to work than to collect welfare are all pieces of the puzzle. In such a highly charged political environment these complex changes will not be effected overnight, and there will be some economic disruption, but the effort must be made.
I have to agree with Liatt and others–I doubt there are many jobs Americans “won’t do.” There may be jobs Americans won’t do for the wages offered. As others have said, some things would cost more money if employers were forced to raise wages high enough to fill their jobs. And I’m not nearly enough of an economist to tell you what impact that would have on the country.
I enjoy the lower prices on food, landscaping and other services as much as anyone but I am also very unhappy at having to help pay for the “free” services that we are providing to illegals. I am not against immigrants, just the free ride that we are giving so many of them. If they would take the same path that the many immigrants that our country was built upon, I would be the first to help roll out the red carpet to them. And I have a very big problem with them not learning and speaking English too. There is not a good long-term track record for countries that try to support two languages.
If the reason illegal immigrants come here is for an opportunity to earn money for a better life, will they come if they can not find jobs? Probably not. What happens to the jobs that are unfilled because illegal immigrants have been let go? Who will fill them? For what price?
Certainly the issues are difficult and will have an impact on the economy. If the initial assumption is correct, that people come here for economic reasons, then a economic solution is reasonable. The impact on the economy is likely to be higher prices because higher wages have to be paid–shouldn’t we pay people fairly for jobs that are not being exported?
I agree with Peter on this. The industries will weather the storm and we will have to pay more for the services. I believe that with the unions in such an uproar over undocumented labor, maybe they should also be held accountable for the rank and file immigration status. It seems the unions role in the American work place has changed. They used to try to protect the job market from companies hiring low income workers. But now it seems that is OK, as long as you are a member of the union. There are a lot more jobs being effected other than agricultural industries, landscaping, and domestic cleaning.
Race’s point about “needing real learning” is well-taken. But this issue, like so many others (including the financial markets) has two sides in today’s world. There is the fact-based, trend driven side that measures fundamental value and there is the emotion-based, news driven side that measures public sentiment.
In the case of illegal immigrants, the country is engaged in a monumental effort to “have it both ways.” We love the productivity of the current system, and many employers love the profitability of it. On the other hand, we rail against the social costs we are paying for “people who don’t pay taxes and don’t speak English.” Like his tactics or hate them, but what Bush is doing will force the country to make a choice.
My biggest question is this–on the off-chance that we actually stick with this plan and follow through on eradicating undocumented labor, how will we know that the theoretical reduction in social costs is achieved? Will anyone really know if the price increase in agriculture and hospitality we will surely receive is offset by decreased social costs? Someone please go to work on that one (and for goodness sake don’t leave it to the GAO!)
The short answer is: immigration enforcement causes discomfort in the short term but provides huge benefits in the long term.
Any change in a status quo causes short term disruptions, and this is no exception. Employers will scramble to replace the cheap labor they have become addicted to, and there will be withdrawal pains. But the idea that we “can’t get along without” illegal immigrants is nonsensical. The free market can adapt to any supply and any demand.
In the long term, our society will benefit enormously. Workers’ standards of living will go up, especially at the low, unskilled end of the scale, where relief is needed most. Overcrowding, crime, and strain on social services will go down. And the threat of bilingualism, i.e. of a society deeply divided along cultural/language lines, which has plagued Canada for decades, will be averted.
Also, by enforcing immigration laws, the government will stop rewarding employers who don’t play by the rules. Right now, there is huge competitive pressure on honest employers to join the unscrupulous ones who hire illegals. Drying up the supply of illegal alien labor will level the playing field. There will be still money to be made in any field of endeavor–including agriculture, landscaping, restaurants, etc.–by those who produce a good product efficiently and know how to market it. But the “opportunity” to profit from cheap illegal alien labor and dump the resulting social costs on society at large will be curtailed. In other words, the free market will once again reward genuinely enterprising and productive, rather than criminal, behavior.
Unfortunately we have allowed the illegal alien situation to develop to the point we find ourselves in today. We are now between the proverbial rock and a hard place. The illegal workforce is placing a huge burden on the middle class by increasing pressure on states, municipalities, and other social services to accommodate it. These entities provide services to huge numbers of people that do not share in the payment for those services and infrastructures.
A snowball effect could occur from overtaxing of legal residents of this country, infrastructure could begin to fail, hospitals, education facilities, and other social services will be stretched beyond capacity as revenue streams do not keep pace with usage. Houses today are being lost to excessive property tax, additional gas taxes are being considered to pay for what current gas taxes should cover. The current foreclosure rates should not fall on the mortgage industry’s shoulders entirely. Property taxes have increased 300% in some cases and defiantly provided some catalyst for the foreclosure rate as government tries to keep pace with the new inhabitants by increasing these taxes.
Now on the side of the rock, or is it the hard place? I’m not quite sure…the reality is that the illegal aliens are here in large numbers. A total reversal at this point could be as devastating to the U.S. economy as if illegal immigration continues slower retail sales excreta. Businesses could fold if they have relied on illegal aliens for employment needs to a large degree. There could be many other financial obstacles that would be just as devastating to the economy as deportation of these illegal immigrants.
The influx of illegal aliens has to be stopped. Rome fell in the same way, and we need to learn from history. What is the best way out of our current dilemma? New Orleans can be used as a good example, first repair the levy and then clean up the mess. Stop the flow of new illegal immigrants and build a placement system that includes the current population into the taxation revenue stream, however small, and build from that. The illegal aliens that are currently in our country need to be identified and put through some processes that help them become a healthy part of this nation. If that is not their goal then they should not reside here because the burden is just as great on ether side of the scale for all involved.
More Discussions
Has Same-Day Delivery Become an Expectation Across Retail?
Are expectations around retail delivery speed in flux?OpenAI Names the Infrastructure Standard for Agentic Commerce
Will OpenAI or Google (or another entity) set the gold standard for agentic commerce?Is Five Below Poised For Even Greater Growth?
Five Below is hitting serious growth numbers. Can this trend continue?
Our studies show exactly what Ryan is pointing out: this is a complex issue that requires real data and real analysis. Like so many topics these days, however, people form a personal bond with one view or another, and therefore feel personally insulted or vindicated when their position is challenged or affirmed. This leads to simplistic, emotional posturing and solutions.
This has nothing to do with intelligence–even deeply knowledgeable experts suddenly spout the most amazingly uninformed opinions based on amazingly superficial thinking. It almost makes me wonder if it is really all that valuable to process these topics in this way on RetailWire. What do we really learn? And isn’t real learning what these topics desperately need?
I agree with the get tough approach. Business wants illegal immigrants so that they can pay them less and not follow labour laws. If you need the people, have them go through the proper channels to work in the US.
I’m surprised that no one here has noticed or mentioned that the Bush’s phrase “jobs Americans WON’T do” deftly changed a few months ago to “jobs Americans AREN’T doing.”
Maybe that’s because many of the jobs are now being done by illegal immigrants. Construction jobs like framing, bricklaying, concrete work, drywall, roofing, etc. are definitely not jobs in the WON’T do category. But illegal Mexican labor is cheap, and often cash-based. Tough for the non-union trades to compete let alone the union trades.
As for the less desirable jobs like gutting chickens at the NW Arkansas Tyson plant, Americans did those jobs for many years, but they’re now largely filled by immigrants of questionable status. They’re not career positions designed to raise a family of four on, but they provide steady work, experience and some incentive to move up to something better.
Having the benefit of being born in the Salinas Valley I’ve had the dubious pleasure of thinking about this issue for a long, long time. First of all we don’t know what the real economic impact would be because we would first have to understand exactly how many undocumented workers there are to begin with and that would mean employers would have to be (for once) honest about their hiring practices.
Second, most Americans probably wouldn’t pick crops–it’s really hard work. To pay people enough to do the work growers (and the rest of the supply chain) would likely (again we don’t have real numbers, just projections) have to double, triple or better the cost of agricultural goods.
Finally, this has become an issue of politics (nativism and terrorism) rather than one of people, human rights, ethics and economics. There’s a certain measure of hypocrisy here. People seem to be happy to turning a blind eye to low cost labor when it ensures their salads will be cheap and are outraged at the idea of undocumented workers.
The problem will only get worse as President Bush flounders around for a political “win,” Lou Dobbs et. al. scuffle for the populist ratings and the 300-400 people who seem to be running for president are forced to go “on the record” on the immigration issue.
I’d suggest that all of you who feel we should send the agricultural workers back where they came from ponder this complexity over your next Cobb Salad.
The economic costs of a “get tough” policy need to be weighed carefully. Unfortunately, the issue has become so politicized leading to an election year that the White House and Congress failed to find a compromise that could have been worked out two years ago. Right or wrong, we are talking not only about a major part of the workforce in low-paying industries that would otherwise have trouble finding associates during a period of low unemployment. And these workers are consumers too…so the ripple effect on other parts of the economy is very real.
Employers hire the undocumented because their competition hires the undocumented. If no one got away with it, then everyone could hire people legitimately. Many legit workers already take low-wage jobs. There are many dishwashers, farm workers and gardeners who are legit. Would there be disruption if all the undocumented folks went away? Sure. Would it mean the end of lawn care, fast food and agricultural produce? It probably would mean those prices would rise. And it also would mean fewer unemployed citizens. So you might pay an extra 25 cents for lunch, but you’d pay less for unemployment insurance, welfare, and other subsidies for the poor.
The immigration dilemma is basically this: benefits of immigration are diffuse and long-term; costs are concentrated and immediate. Are many industries dependent? Yes. Would a crackdown cause hardship all around? Yes. Is there any “fair” way to do this? No.
Long-term (my specialty, being The Trend Guy), readers may be interested to know that immigration peaked 10 years ago and is declining. The percentage of immigrants that are first generation, in other words, is going down. Growth in the Hispanic population is now driven by second and third generations.
Another important (long-term) point: the Mexican birthrate is declining fast, almost precipitously; most Mexicans are having far fewer children than just a few years ago (current birth rate is just above 2.0, comparable to the US). Smaller Mexican families mean a smaller pool of potential migrants.
Would we be able to weather the initial storm from a crackdown on illegal workers? Yes! Would prices go up on agricultural items, service and hospitality businesses? Yes. Should we pay this? Yes. We need to bring some legal structure to this issue and if we sit and wait for the legislative branch to do it we will never see it! We have a higher minimum wage in place, if that will not attract workers in this country then those wages will rise until most of these jobs get filled. This will cost us more as consumers but may well save us as taxpayers!
Few phrases make my skin crawl as much as the recently coined “jobs Americans won’t do.” And if it rings hard on my ears I can only imagine the impression of arrogance and superiority the phrase must connote to the rest of the world. America has somehow been able to manage getting food crops out of fields, serving up fries, burgers and chicken legs, mowing lawns, and making up hotel beds for generations, now. These have always been entry level positions and often incorporated part-timer teens, “early outs” from the education system, people in-between jobs, as well as new (legal) immigrants and green card holders from a variety of nationalities and backgrounds. Many current solidly middle and upper income earners of a certain age unashamedly describe their first work experiences from these “lowly” professions. It can still be so.
A national attitude adjustment about what constitutes “worthy” work, realistic immigration policies that produce and encourage legal workers (and taxpayers), and policies and pay which make it more feasible to work than to collect welfare are all pieces of the puzzle. In such a highly charged political environment these complex changes will not be effected overnight, and there will be some economic disruption, but the effort must be made.
I have to agree with Liatt and others–I doubt there are many jobs Americans “won’t do.” There may be jobs Americans won’t do for the wages offered. As others have said, some things would cost more money if employers were forced to raise wages high enough to fill their jobs. And I’m not nearly enough of an economist to tell you what impact that would have on the country.
I enjoy the lower prices on food, landscaping and other services as much as anyone but I am also very unhappy at having to help pay for the “free” services that we are providing to illegals. I am not against immigrants, just the free ride that we are giving so many of them. If they would take the same path that the many immigrants that our country was built upon, I would be the first to help roll out the red carpet to them. And I have a very big problem with them not learning and speaking English too. There is not a good long-term track record for countries that try to support two languages.
If the reason illegal immigrants come here is for an opportunity to earn money for a better life, will they come if they can not find jobs? Probably not. What happens to the jobs that are unfilled because illegal immigrants have been let go? Who will fill them? For what price?
Certainly the issues are difficult and will have an impact on the economy. If the initial assumption is correct, that people come here for economic reasons, then a economic solution is reasonable. The impact on the economy is likely to be higher prices because higher wages have to be paid–shouldn’t we pay people fairly for jobs that are not being exported?
I agree with Peter on this. The industries will weather the storm and we will have to pay more for the services. I believe that with the unions in such an uproar over undocumented labor, maybe they should also be held accountable for the rank and file immigration status. It seems the unions role in the American work place has changed. They used to try to protect the job market from companies hiring low income workers. But now it seems that is OK, as long as you are a member of the union. There are a lot more jobs being effected other than agricultural industries, landscaping, and domestic cleaning.
Race’s point about “needing real learning” is well-taken. But this issue, like so many others (including the financial markets) has two sides in today’s world. There is the fact-based, trend driven side that measures fundamental value and there is the emotion-based, news driven side that measures public sentiment.
In the case of illegal immigrants, the country is engaged in a monumental effort to “have it both ways.” We love the productivity of the current system, and many employers love the profitability of it. On the other hand, we rail against the social costs we are paying for “people who don’t pay taxes and don’t speak English.” Like his tactics or hate them, but what Bush is doing will force the country to make a choice.
My biggest question is this–on the off-chance that we actually stick with this plan and follow through on eradicating undocumented labor, how will we know that the theoretical reduction in social costs is achieved? Will anyone really know if the price increase in agriculture and hospitality we will surely receive is offset by decreased social costs? Someone please go to work on that one (and for goodness sake don’t leave it to the GAO!)
The short answer is: immigration enforcement causes discomfort in the short term but provides huge benefits in the long term.
Any change in a status quo causes short term disruptions, and this is no exception. Employers will scramble to replace the cheap labor they have become addicted to, and there will be withdrawal pains. But the idea that we “can’t get along without” illegal immigrants is nonsensical. The free market can adapt to any supply and any demand.
In the long term, our society will benefit enormously. Workers’ standards of living will go up, especially at the low, unskilled end of the scale, where relief is needed most. Overcrowding, crime, and strain on social services will go down. And the threat of bilingualism, i.e. of a society deeply divided along cultural/language lines, which has plagued Canada for decades, will be averted.
Also, by enforcing immigration laws, the government will stop rewarding employers who don’t play by the rules. Right now, there is huge competitive pressure on honest employers to join the unscrupulous ones who hire illegals. Drying up the supply of illegal alien labor will level the playing field. There will be still money to be made in any field of endeavor–including agriculture, landscaping, restaurants, etc.–by those who produce a good product efficiently and know how to market it. But the “opportunity” to profit from cheap illegal alien labor and dump the resulting social costs on society at large will be curtailed. In other words, the free market will once again reward genuinely enterprising and productive, rather than criminal, behavior.
Unfortunately we have allowed the illegal alien situation to develop to the point we find ourselves in today. We are now between the proverbial rock and a hard place. The illegal workforce is placing a huge burden on the middle class by increasing pressure on states, municipalities, and other social services to accommodate it. These entities provide services to huge numbers of people that do not share in the payment for those services and infrastructures.
A snowball effect could occur from overtaxing of legal residents of this country, infrastructure could begin to fail, hospitals, education facilities, and other social services will be stretched beyond capacity as revenue streams do not keep pace with usage. Houses today are being lost to excessive property tax, additional gas taxes are being considered to pay for what current gas taxes should cover. The current foreclosure rates should not fall on the mortgage industry’s shoulders entirely. Property taxes have increased 300% in some cases and defiantly provided some catalyst for the foreclosure rate as government tries to keep pace with the new inhabitants by increasing these taxes.
Now on the side of the rock, or is it the hard place? I’m not quite sure…the reality is that the illegal aliens are here in large numbers. A total reversal at this point could be as devastating to the U.S. economy as if illegal immigration continues slower retail sales excreta. Businesses could fold if they have relied on illegal aliens for employment needs to a large degree. There could be many other financial obstacles that would be just as devastating to the economy as deportation of these illegal immigrants.
The influx of illegal aliens has to be stopped. Rome fell in the same way, and we need to learn from history. What is the best way out of our current dilemma? New Orleans can be used as a good example, first repair the levy and then clean up the mess. Stop the flow of new illegal immigrants and build a placement system that includes the current population into the taxation revenue stream, however small, and build from that. The illegal aliens that are currently in our country need to be identified and put through some processes that help them become a healthy part of this nation. If that is not their goal then they should not reside here because the burden is just as great on ether side of the scale for all involved.