Wednesday, September 06, 2006

It's no longer MILLER TIME!

In a true case of "Beer Can Politics" the folks at the Miller Brewing company are doing bed spins in trying to explain their giving $30,000 to organizers and planners of the marches this past weekend in support of illegal immigrants in the United States. Michelle Maliken has the full story:

"The Chicago Tribune reported that Miller had paid more than $30,000 for "a planning convention, materials and newspaper ads" connected to this weekend's "Immigrant Workers Justice Walk." Not so, Miller spokesman Peter J. Marino said.
"The money supported a recent convention on immigration issues in Chicago, which provided attendees with information on how to become legally naturalized citizens of the U.S.," he said.

Yes, it all depends on what the meaning of "finance" is. See, they didn't "finance" the march. They just helped pay for the planners to plan it, advertise it, and publicize it. And, oh yeah, they handed out information on how to get citizenship."

Mathew Romero, Romero said he wasn't worried that some opponents of illegal immigration would be upset at the company's support of "the free movement of people, labor, goods and services."

What Romero and Miller are saying that they support the breaking of U.S. immigration laws and their donation of $30,000 to groups who advocate for illegal immigrants is ok for them. In effect they support those who break our immigration laws. Americans should be outraged at the irresponsibility of this corporation and you can let them know at the following email addresses:

You can also sign a boycott petition here.

And here is a list of Miller products you should not buy if you are outraged by this act of corporate irresponsibility:

Sharp's non-alcohol brew
Red Dog
Henry Weinhard's
Olde English
Magnum Malt Liquor
Mickey's Malt Liquor
Milwaukee's Best
Peroni Nastro Azzurro
Pilsner Urquell
Sheaf Stout
High Gravity

And while we are at it now might be good time to be reminded about some other corporations working against the enforcement of our immigration laws here in the United States!


Anonymous said...

Lucio: Immigration mandates on border lack federal backing

Sen. Eddie Lucio, Jr.

AUSTIN - Historically, border states, especially Texas, have borne exorbitant costs from the federal mandate to provide health care to undocumented immigrants and the U.S. Supreme Court ruling requiring public education for their children.

The business community feels that proper immigration reform can be a financial boost to the Border regions and even the entire country. As a businessman and public servant, I understand the need for a strong labor pool. I have always championed economic development and the expansion of job opportunities.

As a person from a humble background who considers compassion one of mankind’s noblest attributes, I understand the hunger and poverty that compels immigrants to illegally cross the Rio Grande. But I believe that the call to reform this issue should be addressed as both immigration and reimbursement reform.

While some in Washington are attempting to address this controversial issue holistically, the majority regrettably think the answer lies solely in security reinforcement along the Border, proposing a wall, sending National Guard troops and increasing the budget to hire more Border Patrol agents. This is only addressing one part of the problem.

Currently, Border counties battling additional crime from increased immigration are receiving grants. Gov. Rick Perry recently said he plans to ask the 2007 Legislature for $100 million for border security to provide additional resources that include more officers and equipment. This is all good and well. However, our hospitals and public schools continue to be drained of their money, all without federal backing. This issue necessitates a more comprehensive approach.

So amidst a national anti-immigrant sentiment fueled by fears of open Borders that let terrorists in and divert our jobs to undocumented residents, we find ourselves embroiled in controversy and straining a decades-long relationship with our number one trade partner.

Immigration reform is the topic of many meetings in both the private and public sectors. The McAllen Hispanic Chamber of Commerce position is that “the immigration issue, both legal and illegal, continues to be one that has tremendous economic, social and demographic impact on our region in deep South Texas, our state of Texas, our nation and the international community.”

The now-deceased U.S. Congresswoman Barbara Jordan said in 1997, “There are no quick fixes to our immigration problems; there are no inexpensive solutions. For too long we have neglected immigration as a public policy issue and now must pay for the consequences.”

If handled properly, immigration can be beneficial to our Border communities and our country. Time Magazine’s April 10, 2006 article “What It Means for Your Wallet” mentioned that “…some 80% of what undocumented workers earn in the U.S. stays in the country.” The article further stated, “By taking the least desirable jobs…they have kept some industries competitive that would have gone to Mexico and China.” However, any economic gains are grossly offset when a state or county assumes the costs associated with schooling and health care.

The same article contends that because there are no hard-core figures, economists at the Rand Corp. found wide variances in analyses of the costs to taxpayers of providing services to immigrants, ranging from a “surplus” of $1,400 per immigrant to a “deficit” of $1,600.

The article does assert that public schools bear the brunt when educating children of undocumented immigrants, especially because of their need for English-as-a-second-language classes, while hospitals write off the cost of medical services for these patients.

President George Bush has said that it is inconceivable to deport the estimated 11 million people living here illegally. Also, the proposals on securing our Borders still contain flaws, since they fail to address the matter comprehensively. Meanwhile, as we listen to congressional debates on how to stem the tide of immigrants and whether to offer them amnesty or deportation, we hear no mention of federal compensation.

As Americans, we want to remain humane and we want to see every child receive an education, whether documented or not; however, the federal government should stop refusing to pay its fair share.

Luis Figueroa, legislative staff attorney with the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), told the State Senate Committee on Transportation and Homeland Security at its July 26, 2006 hearing, “Although not commonly understood, many undocumented workers pay federal and state taxes, contributing to Social Security, Medicaid, and unemployment insurance, through payroll deductions.”

If undocumented residents are paying into the system, the lack of acknowledgement by Washington becomes even more glaring. As Border Texans, we should all call on our federal government to examine reimbursement in its pursuit of immigration reform.

Eddie Lucio, Jr., is the state senator for District 27 in South Texas. A Democrat, Lucio hails from Brownsville. He chairs the Senate Committee on International Relations and Trade.

BCP said...

Lucio tries to justify using giving MORE Federal money to border states to cover the problem the the illegals are causing in those locations. The problem is not more money, The problem is the failure of the Federal Government to enforce our current laws.
He also sites the legislative staff attorney with the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund also trying to justify more taxpayer money because some illegals also pay into Social Security etc... I agree some do. But they get their Social Security numbers using Identy Theft and fraud! Yhose are felonies. But Lucio and the pro illegal immigrant lobby does not mention this. And of course it does not matter to the illegals themselves because they have already broken our immigration laws.
He also quotes the late Representative Barabra Jordan who also said:
"Credibility in immigration policy can be summed up in one sentence:
Those who should get in, get in; those who should be kept out, are kept out; and those who should not be here will be required to leave."
To which I agree completely!