Is it true that fruits and vegetables are illegal in America?

That is false. One of the most common arguments regarding illegals is that they "work jobs that Americans won't do." With 9% unemployment, we have Americans too good to perform certain honorable trades like roofing?

Of course, the people who believe this rubbish have good reason. After all, none of the people with whom they hung out with at Berkeley were interested in roofing. The people who staff the NPR fund drive are not looking for jobs as meat cutters.

Nobody at Whole Foods seems to want to be a garment worker. Isn't it obvious that Americans don't want the jobs that these kindly pilgrims have come here to work? If these people lived near me, they'd know the sheetrock finishers, the carpenters, and other manual laborers who have found their livelihood challenged by immigrants.

Of course, that argument is not a motivation for condoning illegal immigration; it's just a rationale, an excuse. Even if no legal worker wanted to put roofs on houses, does that mean we ought to throw open the borders? There are many things that I do not want to do in my life, but necessity forces me to do them.

Perhaps we could find some nice Sudanese people to stand in line at the DMV for us. Many of the illegal immigrant apologists simultaneously argue for the extension of unemployment benefits. Do these people not realize that the illegal immigrants, most of whom are not generating any money for the unemployment benefit fund, are at the same time generating the need for benefits?

Let's say we could magically oust a million illegals, replacing them with a million unemployed legal workers. Even at minimum wage, those million legals would generate nearly a billion dollars in unemployment taxes, while saving perhaps $15 billion in benefits. Plus, these people would be paying FICA taxes and would presumably not be sending big chunks of money out of the country to be spent there.

Something tells me that this would be more stimulative than most of what Washington has tried in the past two years. Another apparent motivation of the amnesty crowd is fairness. In their minds, American citizens have no right to say who can and cannot live, work, and die in this country.

I notice that these same people have no problem determining who can and cannot live in whatever home they own or rent. Many of this crowd live in exclusive areas where the impact of illegal immigration is very slight. Their fairness argument, then, seems to only extend so far.

Others are motivated by the notion that America has been built by immigrants. While this is true, it's hardly relevant. The nation has also been built by war, slavery, and environmental excess, but nobody wants to perpetuate those things.

Then there's the family compassion motivation, recently foregrounded in the DREAM Act. While it's nice that somebody is thinking about the children, the people who wring their hands over families being "ripped apart" by deportation seem to miss an obvious fact. When illegal dad is deported but native-born Junior is allowed to stay, the compassion crowd insists that Dad must be allowed to remain the U.S. But can Junior not return home with Dad?

These motivations for immigration leniency are embraced mostly by the left. Not surprisingly, they do not endure much close scrutiny. There are, however, motivations that make a measure of sense, even if we find them distasteful.

There is a political motivation involved for some. In the minds of some Democrats, a few million legalized illegals will be a few million Democrat voters. This is a motivation that, while loathsome, I can understand.

The problem is that it just doesn't work. As new voters are minted out of the ranks of the illegals, old labor-oriented voters are pushed away. O_O.

One of the big talking points that pro-immigration groups make is that our food prices would be much higher if the US did not tolerate the flow of illegal immigrants into the country to work in agriculture. They argue that no American would do the work the illegal immigrants do for the wages they make. It is a myth." "An average household currently spends about $370 per year on fruits and vegetables.

If curtailing illegal alien agricultural labor caused tighter labor conditions and a 40 percent increase in wages, the increased cost to the American family would be $9 a year, or about 2.5 cents per day. Yet for the farm laborer, the change would mean an increase in earnings from $17,600 to $24,640 per 2000-hour work year. That increase would move the worker from beneath the federal poverty line to above it.

In fact, the salary would be higher than the median salary paid by Walmart. The cost of labor is a very small component of food. Consumers who pay $1 for a pound of apples, or $1 for a head of lettuce, are giving 16 to 19 cents to the farmer and 5 to 6 cents to the farm worker.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.