Dave wrote:
The difference is that the American tourist in Mexico isn't there illegally, is ADDING to the local economy and isn't stealing Mexican jobs. The day laborer is here illegally, is using our social services (but doesn't pay taxes), and is stealing our jobs. And if the day laborer had stayed in Mexico, he would probably be hanging naked, burned, and beheaded from a local bridge, courtesy of (pick a cartel).
This is an interesting "Blame the Victim" comment. Although this nearly 4-year-old story in unavailable for review, the term "day laborer" is being interpreted here as code for "undocumented worker," as apparently no self-respecting US citizen, even one of Latino heritage, would ever be willing to work for cash for someone on an informal basis.
If that is truly the case, I don't see how "illegals" are "stealing our jobs," especially when their employers, presumably US citizens, are hiring them at below market rates, without benefits, worker's comp insurance, or tax withholding obligations, and are profitting more in the process. It seems that US employers are benefitting more by avoiding their financial obligations to both the employee and society by shifting those obligations to state and local governments, while allowing the "illegal" worker to take the blame.
Even an "illegal" day laborer buys taxable products, whose revenues go to the state/county/city, pays rent to a property owner, who presumably pays income taxes on the profit from the rental property, as well as property taxes that support schools and county services.
When the UFW established a nationwide "Take Our Jobs" program last year to encourage members of the public to see what it was like be a migrant farmworker for a day, only 14 members of the public took them up on the offer, one of them being Stephen Colbert. The penalty for being a day laborer, "illegal" or not, should not include the possibility of being beaten up either because of the occupation or the ethnicity of the worker.