I applaud the Signal for its courageous report today in the face of overwhelming public support for Bob Kellar and his remarks:
His feet blistered as he crept closer to the U.S.-Mexico border. He passed dozens of holes covered with rocks – the unmarked graves of others who had died along the way.
“What if that is my fate?” Lopez said he had asked himself. “What if that happens to me?”
The American Dream kept him going – the idea that he could earn more than four times what he made in Mexico.
Lopez, 39, is an illegal immigrant.
He’s been caught and deported once, and has made the brutal trek across the border three times with hopes of giving his children a chance to have the education and shot at the American Dream he never did.
A wise journalist once told me that a newspaper’s job is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. And that’s what Jonathan Randles’ great reporting does today. Men like Lopez scratch out a meager living doing the chores that comfortable Santa Claritans don’t want to do. We know because we finally bothered to talk to one of them.
Good newspaper reporting also puts you, the reader, in the shoes of the person being reported on. We can see that Lopez’ decision to live and work here is rational, from an economic standpoint. He earns $250-$500 a week doing the work we ask of him, much more than he would earn in Mexico. His motivation isn’t different from the millions of western, southern and and eastern European immigrants who came here over the last two centuries.
And with Randles’ reporting, we can see a way forward. You don’t like that men like Lopez live in the shadows among us? Then support legislation that closes the borders and penalizes him but gives him a way forward out of the underground economy that Americans are only to happy to exploit. It’s the only way.
Loading ...
Dose the cost of living here negate any “profit” (for lack of a better word) he is gaining here?
I just recieved this from a LEGAL hispanic friend. It says it all…
JOE LEGAL vs. JOSE ILLEGAL
You have two families: “Joe Legal” and “Jose Illegal”.
Both families have two parents, two children, and live in California
Joe Legal works in construction, has a Social Security Number and makes
$25.00 per hour with taxes deducted.
Jose Illegal also works in construction, has NO Social Security Number,
and gets paid $15.00 cash “under the table”.
Ready? Now pay attention…
Joe Legal: $25.00 per hour x 40 hours = $1000.00 per week, or $52,000.00
per year. Now take 30% away for state and federal tax; Joe Legal now has
$31,231.00.
Jose Illegal: $15.00 per hour x 40 hours = $600.00 per week, or
$31,200.00 per year. Jose Illegal pays no taxes. Jose Illegal now has
$31,200.00.
Joe Legal pays medical and dental insurance with limited coverage for
his family at $600.00 per month, or $7,200.00 per year. Joe Legal now
has $24,031.00.
Jose Illegal has full medical and dental coverage through the state and
local clinics at a cost of $0.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has
$31,200.00.
Joe Legal makes too much money and is not eligible for food stamps or
welfare. Joe Legal pays $500.00 per month for food, or $6,000.00 per
year. Joe Legal now has $18,031.00.
Jose Illegal has no documented income and is eligible for food stamps
and welfare. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.
Joe Legal pays rent of $1,200.00 per month, or $14,400.00 per year. Joe
Legal now has $9,631.00.
Jose Illegal receives a $500.00 per month federal rent subsidy. Jose
Illegal pays out that $500.00 per month, or $6,000.00 per year. Jose
Illegal still has $ 31,200..00.
Joe Legal pays $200.00 per month, or $2,400.00 for insurance. Joe Legal
now has $7,231.00.
Jose Illegal says, “We don’t need no stinkin’ insurance!” and still has
$31,200.00.
Joe Legal has to make his $7,231.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline,
etc.
Jose Illegal has to make his $31,200.00 stretch to pay utilities,
gasoline, and what he sends out of the country every month.
Joe Legal now works overtime on Saturdays or gets a part time job after
work.
Jose Illegal has nights and weekends off to enjoy with his family.
Joe Legal’s and Jose Illegal’s children both attend the same school. Joe
Legal pays for his children’s lunches while Jose Illegal’s children get
a government sponsored lunch. Jose Illegal’s children have an after
school ESL program. Joe Legal’s children go home.
Joe Legal and Jose Illegal both enjoy the same police and fire services,
but Joe paid for them and Jose did not pay.
Do you get it, now?
This story may be interesting on an emotional level, but it’s not “news.” It’s just an anectode.
Randles decided to interview a very hard-working, sympathetic illegal immigrant and let readers think that all illegal immigrants are just like Lopez. If Randles had played it the other way–interviewing an illegal immigrant drug-dealer awaiting deportation–it would have been an equally invalid portrayal of what illegal immigration looks like in Claifornia.
Basically, I think it’s ridiculous to let one person’s story speak for a whole segment of the population. And since the word “courageous” has been used for this piece, I would argue that truly courageous journalism requires a critical eye and skepticism–it’s about more than unquestioningly repeating the story of some guy on the street.
No doubt Nickeldime, how did he not see that?
The solution is always go after Joe Illegal instead of going after illegal hiring company inc.
I agree with IHeartSCV there are hard working illegals but that doesn’t mean that there impact doesn’t make life for guys like my dad harder. Construction wages in San Diego are almost a full $10 cheaper then LA because of the illegal Immigrants and work visa guys.
The hardworking Illegal Immigrants kept lots of money out of hard working legal families pocket…
Those who employ illegal workers are the ones who should be hit up for the extra money we’re spending on education, medical care, social services and legal/prison costs.
I Heart: It’s courageous in that the vast majority of the SCV and the Signal’s readership probably don’t want to read this and the Signal printed it anyway in the interests of journalism.
Take a look at the comments on the Signal’s website:
”
If I wanted to read sob stories about Illegal Immigrants I would pick up the LA Times. Please contact Managing Editor Lila Littlejohn at 661-259-1234 or email her at
llittlejohn@the-signal.com and tell her that the Signal is not representing the interest of the residents of Santa Clarita and you will cancel your subscription if they continue to print bull **** stories like this one.”
“Basically, I think it’s ridiculous to let one person’s story speak for a whole segment of the population”
Whatever, we do that all the time. Till this point the only time the Signal talked about an individual illegal alien was when he/she was associated with a crime.
I’d add that if you’d like the Signal to engage in controversial stories rather than ignore them, if you’d like The Signal to write about people who don’t usually get written about, if you’d like The Signal to be a real newspaper rather than a poor one, then email littlejohn@the-signal.com and thank them for reporting like this.
I see what Jeff is saying, the signal has typically only reported feel good stories or reported “undesirable”s in a negative light. It isn’t the job of the Signal to filter the news or point of views for us. People should be able to read a story and make their own decision.
People only want to hear what they want to here.
Comment I left ———–>
Wow with all the talk about free speech in recent days you would think people would be applauding the Signal for reporting both sides of this hot button topic. Apparently the signal must tell people only what they want to hear.
It is possible to both feel bad that hard working illegals are in a tough situation and at the same time say they still need to be deported, because their presence makes it harder on hard working legal americans trying to make a living. Or better yet go after the people that hire these Illegal immigrants in the first place.
This newest article in the Signal on illegal immigration simply confirms what I keep saying. Illegal immigration is unfair to everyone including the illegals themselves.
I however am not sympathetic to this man. He chose to enter illegally so the fact he crossed the desert etc was his own choice. No one forced him to do it. Once in the USA he had anchor kids which Medical (the taxpayers), no doubt paid to bring into this world. He says he does not collect welfare but I would bet his kids are on free breakfast and lunch at the equally free school they attend. More than likely the entire family has free Medical, which pays for medical services. They may be living in taxpayer subsidized housing and so on. Maybe he does not get an actual check but he is getting plenty of free stuff provided by the taxpayers through his US born kids.
He also has already been deported at least once by his own admission but obviously does not care that he continues to break the law by entering without the proper permission. If he suffered deprivation, it was his choice to go this route. He could have legally applied and not been at the mercy of traffickers and coyotes. Many others are still waiting their turn in line to enter legally. This man has taken “cuts” and bypassed all of those who are respecting the law and doing it the right way and he is reaping some benefits or he would not keep coming back.
If no one gave him work, and he had no freebies paid for by the taxpayers he would return with his children to his country of origin and not reenter the USA again illegally. Anchor children are but one of the problems the Federal Government must deal with. I propose that at least one parent must be in the USA legally for at least 5 years previous to the child’s birth in order for that child to qualify for legal status. Some government benefit programs already have a 5-year “look back” provision in order to receive benefits. One such program I believe is senior convalescent/nursing home care paid for by taxpayers. To qualify for taxpayer paid care, income and asserts going back five years are reviewed to determine eligibility for benefits.
This man’s example is exactly why we must secure our borders so that no one can enter without legal entry documents no matter where they are coming from, deport those who have broken the law, and require that they all go through the proper screening and meet all requirements for legal entry before being allowed to enter the USA. Everyone, but the coyotes and greedy employers, would benefit when each person enters this country legally or not at all.
This is just what this thread needs 50 paragraphs of Bertha’s speculations.
I just giddy with anticipation.
The problem with the Jose Illegal versus Jose Legal story is this. Even with a $500 per month housing subsidy, there are not $500 a month apartments available in SoCal. There are not even apartments to share with others where a person would only pay $500 per month. The other problem is that if Jose Illegal received food stamps, he would need a child under 18 to do so, but let’s assume he did, food stamps would not cover the full costs of food expenses. Believe me I grew up in a neighborhood full of people on public assistance. But keep trying. And by the way to your immigrant friend. I am the child of legal immigrants myself and know it ain’t that easy to come here. If it was, people wouldn’t sneak through the desert or hop on a boats made from styrofoam to float here.
Now can someone go interview the CEO, President, Manager, Foreman and Homeowners etc., who hire the Jose Illegals vs. Joe Legal. Still very one sided.
Better yet, someone go interview the CEO’s of American Business and Corporations who took their companies out of th U.S.
Pingback: SCVTalk.com » Blog Archive » Activity Without Accomplishment: Illegal Immigration as a City Council Issue
“Jose Illegal” pays property and sales taxes, among other things.
@OccassionalPoster: Its not designed to “be easy” – but it should still happen LEGALLY.
I hear the same excuses over and over for illegals.
Bottom line, illegal immigration is ILLEGAL.
This debate has no opportunity until the left and progressives understand and acknowledge that simple fact. They look beyond it and try to pull at the heart strings of America because the illegal person has children here, or what ever.
Still bottomline, illegal immigration is still illegal and its a pity THEY put THEMSELVES and THEIR FAMILY in that situation.
If I sold drugs from my house (also illegal) and was arrested, by all accounts of those that want amnesty and other forgiving mean to illegal immigrants, then I should be let go because of my poor children and ‘other factors’ of hardship of those around me?
NO, I broke the law and should be held accountable.
Why are we giving NON US CITIZENS more rights then our LEGAL US CITIZENS?