Sunday, September 26, 2010

Jobs Americans Won't Do?

One of the biggest lies about illegal immigration perpetuated by the left is that they take jobs Americans won't do. Well, here is a site that will help you refute those lies, and all the other myths liberals spread about illegals.
This analysis tests the often-made argument that immigrants only do jobs Americans don’t want. If the argument is correct, there should be occupations comprised entirely or almost entirely of immigrants. But Census Bureau data collected from 2005 to 2007, which allow for very detailed analysis, show that even before the recession there were only a tiny number of majority-immigrant occupations.
  • Maids and housekeepers: 55 percent native-born
  • Taxi drivers and chauffeurs: 58 percent native-born
  • Butchers and meat processors: 63 percent native-born
  • Grounds maintenance workers: 65 percent native-born
  • Construction laborers: 65 percent native-born
  • Porters, bellhops, and concierges: 71 percent native-born
  • Janitors: 75 percent native-born


Vigilis said...

An excellent exposure of longstanding deception, LR! Might there be a bit more to this, however.

One wonders why Iran, has long been able to supply 97% of the world's most expensive spice, saffron ($176/oz), when it grows almost anywhere.

A pound of dry saffron requires 50,000–75,000 flowers from an area about a football field in size.

Picking one pound of delicate saffron threads (3 per flower) requires 20 hours work by someone with small, agile fingers (a delicate touch). Iranian women have harvested saffron for 3,000 years.

Unemployed American females who could do this type of unionized fieldwork have been conditioned to feel society would scorn them for doing "women's work'; they would much rather be in our military, pretending to perform as well as men, than bearing the babies suitable to their age.

Nameless Cynic said...

Well, there's a lot of problems with this analysis.

Since I shared an office with HR for a while during our move, it's important to point out that there are standards in place, enforced by law, regarding the hiring of illegals.

(That, in fact, is why the illegal immigrant problem would decrease drastically if we clamped down, not on the immigrants, but on the businesses who hire them. But that isn't a popular response in GOP circles, is it?)

So, in many cases, in order to get hired, you'd have to have forged ID papers that stand up to at least minimal scrutiny. You know, the type of minimal scrutiny a bored census worker would give it.

So the numbers might be a little flawed.

On top of which, you didn't mention the migrant farm worker at all. Nor, in fact, day laborers.

Now, Vigilis here did mention the farm worker. But that leads to the question, "Are you willing to work bent over in the sun for 8 hours? Is anybody you know?"

Lone Ranger said...

The GOP circles? Last time I looked, this country was run by democrats.

I grew up working on a farm. So, the answer to that would be yes.

Nameless Cynic said...

You would? Good to know. Of course, your wording is interesting - you grew up on a farm. Sounds like you aren't there now...

In the meantime, 80% of Americans live in cities. How many of them do you think have any attention of picking beans for a living?

"Run by Democrats"? You have a very flexible definition of "run by," my friend. We have a president who sincerely wants to be bipartisan, a congress that's majority-Democrat, stalled by a minority party that would rather see the country fall to ruin than admit that their policies were what brought us to the brink of disaster in the first place.

Lone Ranger said...

Nope. I am no longer on a farm. I am also no longer living in a house with no running water and having to carry water in buckets from the windmill a quarter mile up the road. That's called progress.

We have a president who has shut out the Republicans every chance he has gotten. He is probably the LEAST bipartisan president we have ever had.

As for your last statement, whenever you want to know what democrats are up to, just look at what they accuse Republicans of doing.

The democrats squandered their majority in the Senate and if Obama's programs were at all popular, the Republicans wouldn't be able to stop a swinging door. It is not my fault that democrats are incompetent.

Mark said...

I am currently working a job that most Americans won't do. Or, at least they won't admit they are doing. I won't tell anyone what it is because it embarrasses me to have to do this work for a living.

It is legal. If it wasn't, it would pay better.

I blame Obama and the Democrats who regulated American businesses into "bunker mode" with their ridiculous "spend our way out of debt" policies.

Before I was forced to take this self-effacing job, I was working for myself, pulling down more than enough money per week to make a decent living, but Obama and the Democrat's economic policies ran me out of business. I had to find something or starve to death under a bridge somewhere.

And Obama says the recession ended in 2009. So, where are the jobs, Barry?

And that's about all I have to say about that.

Nameless Cynic said...


Oh, absolutely right. It's the eight years of Democratic rule under Clinton that... gave us a budget surplus... which Bush reversed into a deficit...

Damn, that argument is breaking down already, isn't it?

Lone Ranger said...

Presidents do not spend money. Congress spends money. Six of those eight years of Clinton, the Congress was controlled by Republicans. The reason Clinton left office with a surplus is the Republican Congress defeated Hillary Care. They also dragged Clinton kicking and screaming to the table on welfare reform. And they kept him to the center, rather than veering off to the far left.

Congress has been under the control of democrats for four years. Yeah, Bush left a deficit. The worst attack on our soil in our history and two wars tend to do that. Having a democrat Congress also does that. Reagan nearly double tax revenue during his presidency. But for every dollar he took in, the democrat Congress spent $1.71. Yet, liberals STILL blame him for deficit spending even though not a single one of his budgets was even accepted, much less debated and passed.

It is Obama, with a democrat Congress, who has engaged in the biggest spending spree in our history. Fess up now, before Obama took office, how many times did you use the word "trillions" in a conversation, unless you were discussing astronomy? Before the recession, federal spending totaled $24,000 per U.S. household. Obama would hike it to $36,000 per household by 2020 — an inflation-adjusted $12,000-per-household expansion of government. Even the steep tax increases planned for all taxpayers would not finance all of this spending: The president’s budget would add trillions of dollars in new debt.

How are liberals ever going to learn from their mistakes when they never admit making any?