Malignant Liberal Idiocy

Cross-post from Conservative Common Man:

The typical “woe is business” sob story drips with even more typical liberal hypocrisy. Business is the enemy and is always taking advantage of poor unsuspecting, ignorant people… that is except when we can use the plight of business to further our open border agenda! The fact that the NY Times has such a ridiculous whine fest on behalf of business in today’s spewing, is rendered even more idiotic by the fact that the next president is guaranteed to coddle illegal aliens. Their side of the issue has already won the presidency, but apparently that isn’t enough.

When a liberal rag has an agenda, no level is too low to sell it. In fact, the first example of the poor business given in the offending article “Employers Fight Tough Measures On Immigration,” details the plight of a business that didn’t have to hire illegal aliens… but the point is they might have to someday!

Mike Gilsdorf, the owner of a 37-year-old landscaping nursery in Littleton, Colo., saw the need for action by businesses last winter when he advertised with the Labor Department, as he does every year, for 40 seasonal workers at market-rate wages to plant, prune and carry his shrubs in the summer heat. Only one local worker responded to the notice, he said, and then did not show up for the job.

Mr. Gilsdorf was able to fill his labor force with legal immigrants from Mexico through a federal guest worker program. But that program has a tight annual cap, and Mr. Gilsdorf realized that he might not be so lucky next year. His business could fail, he said, and then even his American workers would lose their jobs.

“We’re not hiring illegals, we’re not paying under the table,” Mr. Gilsdorf said. “But if we don’t get in under the cap and nobody is answering our ads, we don’t have employees.” His group, Colorado Employers for Immigration Reform, is pressing Congress for a much larger and more flexible guest worker program.

I am too ignorant to see how the wages Mr. Gilsdorf pays are “market-rate” if he can’t find legal workers to employ at those wages. Oops, I keep forgetting the fact that he can find legal workers to employ! I would suggest that as soon as he can’t find legal workers to employ at his “market-rate” then it is no longer “market-rate.” Are we to assume that there is full employment in his part of Colorado? If not, how can “market-rate” wages not attract employees?

More