The small Central America country of Belize is beautiful and changing socially. Immigrants are transforming this traditionally English-speaking nation into a Spanish-speaking mecca.
BELIZE has long been a country of immigrants. British timber-cutters imported African slaves in the 18th century, and in the 1840s Mexican Mayans fled a civil war. More recently, North American sun-seekers and retired British soldiers have discovered its coast. Light- and dark-skinned men stand side by side on the country’s flag.
The latest migration is from elsewhere in Central America. Thousands of Salvadoran refugees arrived in the 1980s. More recently, Guatemalans have come seeking land. Of Belize’s 300,000 people, 15% are foreign-born. Thanks to higher birth rates, mestizos have overtaken creoles (of mixed African ancestry) to become the biggest group, making up half the population.
Belize now has more native speakers of Spanish than of English or its lilting cousin, Belizean Creole. English remains the lingua franca and the only official tongue. But Spanish is gaining ground: many posters for an election on March 7th are in Spanish and Dean Barrow, the (creole) prime minister, reads translations of some speeches. Naturalisation ceremonies are bilingual, and speaking English is not required for citizenship. Schools teach in English, but Spanish lessons are mandatory.
Monday, February 27, 2012
BELIZE: From English to Spanish?
The small Central America country of Belize is beautiful and changing socially. Immigrants are transforming this traditionally English-speaking nation into a Spanish-speaking mecca.
BELIZE has long been a country of immigrants. British timber-cutters imported African slaves in the 18th century, and in the 1840s Mexican Mayans fled a civil war. More recently, North American sun-seekers and retired British soldiers have discovered its coast. Light- and dark-skinned men stand side by side on the country’s flag.
The latest migration is from elsewhere in Central America. Thousands of Salvadoran refugees arrived in the 1980s. More recently, Guatemalans have come seeking land. Of Belize’s 300,000 people, 15% are foreign-born. Thanks to higher birth rates, mestizos have overtaken creoles (of mixed African ancestry) to become the biggest group, making up half the population.
Belize now has more native speakers of Spanish than of English or its lilting cousin, Belizean Creole. English remains the lingua franca and the only official tongue. But Spanish is gaining ground: many posters for an election on March 7th are in Spanish and Dean Barrow, the (creole) prime minister, reads translations of some speeches. Naturalisation ceremonies are bilingual, and speaking English is not required for citizenship. Schools teach in English, but Spanish lessons are mandatory.
BELIZE has long been a country of immigrants. British timber-cutters imported African slaves in the 18th century, and in the 1840s Mexican Mayans fled a civil war. More recently, North American sun-seekers and retired British soldiers have discovered its coast. Light- and dark-skinned men stand side by side on the country’s flag.
The latest migration is from elsewhere in Central America. Thousands of Salvadoran refugees arrived in the 1980s. More recently, Guatemalans have come seeking land. Of Belize’s 300,000 people, 15% are foreign-born. Thanks to higher birth rates, mestizos have overtaken creoles (of mixed African ancestry) to become the biggest group, making up half the population.
Belize now has more native speakers of Spanish than of English or its lilting cousin, Belizean Creole. English remains the lingua franca and the only official tongue. But Spanish is gaining ground: many posters for an election on March 7th are in Spanish and Dean Barrow, the (creole) prime minister, reads translations of some speeches. Naturalisation ceremonies are bilingual, and speaking English is not required for citizenship. Schools teach in English, but Spanish lessons are mandatory.
Friday, February 24, 2012
Md. poised to become 8th state to legalize gay marriage; opponents vow a referendum fight
Gay marriage is all but legalized in Maryland after the legislature gave its final OK Thursday to the law that’s being sent to Gov. Martin O’Malley, who said he expects to sign it sometime this week.
The state Senate voted 25-22 for the law. The vote comes less than a week after the House of Delegates barely passed the measure.
Maryland will become the eighth state to allow gay marriage when O’Malley — who sponsored the bill — signs the legislation. The Democrat made the measure a priority this session after it stalled last year.
“This issue has taken a lot of energy, as well it should, and I’m very proud of the House of Delegates and also the Senate for resolving this issue on the side of human dignity, and I look forward to signing the bill,” O’Malley said in a brief interview after the Senate vote.
Opponents, though, have vowed to bring the measure to referendum in November. They will need to gather at least 55,726 valid signatures of Maryland voters to put it on the ballot and can begin collecting names now that the bill has passed both chambers.
Some churches and clergy members have spoken out against the bill, saying it threatens religious freedoms and violates their tradition of defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
“The enormous public outcry that this legislation has generated — voiced by Marylanders that span political, racial, social and religious backgrounds — demonstrates a clear need to take this issue to a vote of the people,” Maryland Catholic Conference spokeswoman Kathy Dempsey said in a statement. “Every time this issue has been brought to a statewide vote, the people have upheld traditional marriage.”
Leaders at the Human Rights Campaign, a group that joined a coalition of organizations to advocate for the bill, said they expect opponents will gather the required number of signatures.
“There remains a lot of work to do between now and November to make marriage equality a reality in Maryland,” Joe Solmonese, HRC president said in a statement released Thursday. “Along with coalition partners, we look forward to educating and engaging voters about what this bill does: It strengthens all Maryland families and protects religious liberty.”
Senators rejected some amendments to the legislation Thursday. Proponents warned that amending the bill could kill it because gathering enough support for altered legislation in the House would be difficult.
Last year senators passed a similar measure by 25-21, but the bill died in the House after delegates rescinded their initial support citing concerns that it could violate religious liberties of churches and business owners who do not support same-sex unions.
Sen. Allan Kittleman, the only Senate Republican to vote in favor of the legislation, said he is proud of his decision and not concerned about political consequences down the road.
“You don’t worry about politics when you’re dealing with the civil rights issue of your generation,” said Kittleman, R-Howard, the son of the late Sen. Robert Kittleman, who was known for civil rights advocacy.
Christy and Marie Neff, who married in Washington, D.C., where same-sex marriage has been legal since 2010, stood outside the Senate chamber Thursday evening as crowds surrounded O’Malley and other key supporters.
The couple, who lives in Annapolis, has lobbied lawmakers to support the bill in recent years.
“This is our victory and we’re going to savor this because you can only really jump one hurdle at a time,” Christy Neff said. “So we’re going to savor this and then if they bring it to referendum, we’ll match that effort with the same sort of effort we did today.”
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/md-poised-to-become-8th-state-to-legalize-gay-marriage-opponents-vow-a-referendum-fight/2012/02/23/gIQAdD2UWR_print.html]
The state Senate voted 25-22 for the law. The vote comes less than a week after the House of Delegates barely passed the measure.
Maryland will become the eighth state to allow gay marriage when O’Malley — who sponsored the bill — signs the legislation. The Democrat made the measure a priority this session after it stalled last year.
“This issue has taken a lot of energy, as well it should, and I’m very proud of the House of Delegates and also the Senate for resolving this issue on the side of human dignity, and I look forward to signing the bill,” O’Malley said in a brief interview after the Senate vote.
Opponents, though, have vowed to bring the measure to referendum in November. They will need to gather at least 55,726 valid signatures of Maryland voters to put it on the ballot and can begin collecting names now that the bill has passed both chambers.
Some churches and clergy members have spoken out against the bill, saying it threatens religious freedoms and violates their tradition of defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
“The enormous public outcry that this legislation has generated — voiced by Marylanders that span political, racial, social and religious backgrounds — demonstrates a clear need to take this issue to a vote of the people,” Maryland Catholic Conference spokeswoman Kathy Dempsey said in a statement. “Every time this issue has been brought to a statewide vote, the people have upheld traditional marriage.”
Leaders at the Human Rights Campaign, a group that joined a coalition of organizations to advocate for the bill, said they expect opponents will gather the required number of signatures.
“There remains a lot of work to do between now and November to make marriage equality a reality in Maryland,” Joe Solmonese, HRC president said in a statement released Thursday. “Along with coalition partners, we look forward to educating and engaging voters about what this bill does: It strengthens all Maryland families and protects religious liberty.”
Senators rejected some amendments to the legislation Thursday. Proponents warned that amending the bill could kill it because gathering enough support for altered legislation in the House would be difficult.
Last year senators passed a similar measure by 25-21, but the bill died in the House after delegates rescinded their initial support citing concerns that it could violate religious liberties of churches and business owners who do not support same-sex unions.
Sen. Allan Kittleman, the only Senate Republican to vote in favor of the legislation, said he is proud of his decision and not concerned about political consequences down the road.
“You don’t worry about politics when you’re dealing with the civil rights issue of your generation,” said Kittleman, R-Howard, the son of the late Sen. Robert Kittleman, who was known for civil rights advocacy.
Christy and Marie Neff, who married in Washington, D.C., where same-sex marriage has been legal since 2010, stood outside the Senate chamber Thursday evening as crowds surrounded O’Malley and other key supporters.
The couple, who lives in Annapolis, has lobbied lawmakers to support the bill in recent years.
“This is our victory and we’re going to savor this because you can only really jump one hurdle at a time,” Christy Neff said. “So we’re going to savor this and then if they bring it to referendum, we’ll match that effort with the same sort of effort we did today.”
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/md-poised-to-become-8th-state-to-legalize-gay-marriage-opponents-vow-a-referendum-fight/2012/02/23/gIQAdD2UWR_print.html]
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
U.S. Manufacturers Say Skilled Jobs Are Available
Wanted: "Skilled" factory workers. Many U.S. manufacturers are now alleging that skilled jobs are available here in America, but there are not enough skilled U.S. workers available to fill them.
These manufacturers argue that, as automation has transformed American factories and changed the skills needed to operate and maintain the new equipment, the laid-off workers are not qualified to handle the new machines and run the new plants.
[The Washing Post, Monday, February 20, 2012, p. AL & A14]
These manufacturers argue that, as automation has transformed American factories and changed the skills needed to operate and maintain the new equipment, the laid-off workers are not qualified to handle the new machines and run the new plants.
[The Washing Post, Monday, February 20, 2012, p. AL & A14]
Friday, February 17, 2012
European Banks
European banks are keeping "for sale" signs off the lawns of their U.S. branches.
Despite deep financial problems that are forcing them to unload assets around the world, most big European banks consider their U.S. retail divisions to be among their most stable operations. That means—at least for now—big banks such as Banco Santander SA, Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC and Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria SA want to hang onto these businesses.
This reflects a big change from just a couple of years ago, when European banks were widely expected to unload their U.S. assets. Only a couple of small deals have happened: Allied Irish Banks PLC sold its 22% stake in M&T Bank Corp. in late 2010 and HSBC Holdings PLC dumped its U.S. credit-card portfolio and some branches.
The resolve to keep the businesses in European hands is disappointing to potential buyers from Canada and Japan seeking to bulk up their U.S. presence. In recent months, BNP Paribas SA of France has fielded informal offers for its U.S. subsidiary, San Francisco-based Bank of the West, from at least two North American banks, according to people familiar with the matter. BNP rejected the offers as too low.
Bank of the West has roughly 650 branches in 19 Western and Midwestern states, and about $62 billion in assets. A spokeswoman said the French bank considers the subsidiary to be "a core asset." BNP also owns First Hawaiian Bank, which has $15.4 billion in assets and 64 branches.
One of the reasons that the U.S. assets are staying put is because they now look to be safer bets than businesses closer to home. Fewer loans are souring and the industry's capital crunch appears to mostly under control for many large U.S. banks.
Further reducing the appeal of a sale: U.S. regulators would likely frown on big domestic banks bulking up through acquisitions. Still, there remains intense interest from Wall Street deal makers. "The whole investment-banking community has been circling these names," said one banker who focuses on financial institutions.
Most of the U.S. assets of European banks are dwarfed by their sprawling parents. Banco Santander's U.S. subsidiary, Sovereign Bank, for instance, represented 6% of Santander's profit in the year ended Dec. 31. Santander wants to hang onto Sovereign, according to people familiar with the bank's strategy. Sovereign has more than $75 billion in assets and more than 700 branches from Maine to Maryland.
RBS, the European bank with the biggest U.S. presence, has no plans to sell its Citizens Financial Group franchise, according to a person close to the British bank. The Providence, R.I., company has $130 billion in assets and more than 1,500 branches in 12 states.
BBVA, with $64 billion in assets and 700 branches in seven states, also is holding fast. "We are as committed as ever to the U.S. market," Manolo Sanchez, chief executive of BBVA Compass, said in an interview.
To be sure, the U.S. banking industry isn't exactly going gangbusters. Low interest rates and a raft of new regulations are draining revenue, and new loan generation is anemic, forcing banks of all sizes to cut costs in an attempt to pump up profits. But compared with Europe, the U.S. banking business isn't so bad.
Across Europe, capital-strapped banks are selling vast pieces of their operations. Last month, for example, RBS agreed to sell its aircraft-leasing unit to a group led by Japan's Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group Inc. for roughly $7 billion.
Santander has filled a €15 billion ($19.6 billion) capital hole, partly by selling all or pieces of businesses in Colombia, Brazil and Chile. It also bulked up its capital late last year by selling 35% of its U.S. auto-financing business to private-equity firms.
Executives say they remain committed to Sovereign, which recently opened the door to potential acquisitions by converting to a bank holding company from a savings bank. Although unlikely to give up control of Sovereign, Santander could seek to combine it with another institution. That is what it tried two years ago when it held talks with M&T Bank of Buffalo. Those discussions ultimately failed.
A spokesman for Boston-based Sovereign declined to comment.
At BBVA, top executives concede that they dove into the U.S. retail-banking business at the worst possible time. It bought Compass Bancshares in early 2007 for $9.5 billion, just before the crisis hit. The business's diminished value last month prompted BBVA to take a roughly $1.3 billion write-down.
Despite that setback, BBVA executives consider the U.S. to be one of its two main growth areas, along with Turkey. The company is hunting for acquisitions in the southern U.S., according to a person familiar with the matter.
Bank investors and analysts also have speculated about the future of Citizens, acquired by RBS in 1988. The British government owns 83% of RBS which announced steep cuts in its investment bank last month. People familiar with the situation said that Citizens is considered to be a stabilizing factor for RBS because it mostly operates in areas that weren't devastated by the housing bust.
[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204062704577221202467348784.html]
Despite deep financial problems that are forcing them to unload assets around the world, most big European banks consider their U.S. retail divisions to be among their most stable operations. That means—at least for now—big banks such as Banco Santander SA, Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC and Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria SA want to hang onto these businesses.
This reflects a big change from just a couple of years ago, when European banks were widely expected to unload their U.S. assets. Only a couple of small deals have happened: Allied Irish Banks PLC sold its 22% stake in M&T Bank Corp. in late 2010 and HSBC Holdings PLC dumped its U.S. credit-card portfolio and some branches.
The resolve to keep the businesses in European hands is disappointing to potential buyers from Canada and Japan seeking to bulk up their U.S. presence. In recent months, BNP Paribas SA of France has fielded informal offers for its U.S. subsidiary, San Francisco-based Bank of the West, from at least two North American banks, according to people familiar with the matter. BNP rejected the offers as too low.
Bank of the West has roughly 650 branches in 19 Western and Midwestern states, and about $62 billion in assets. A spokeswoman said the French bank considers the subsidiary to be "a core asset." BNP also owns First Hawaiian Bank, which has $15.4 billion in assets and 64 branches.
One of the reasons that the U.S. assets are staying put is because they now look to be safer bets than businesses closer to home. Fewer loans are souring and the industry's capital crunch appears to mostly under control for many large U.S. banks.
Further reducing the appeal of a sale: U.S. regulators would likely frown on big domestic banks bulking up through acquisitions. Still, there remains intense interest from Wall Street deal makers. "The whole investment-banking community has been circling these names," said one banker who focuses on financial institutions.
Most of the U.S. assets of European banks are dwarfed by their sprawling parents. Banco Santander's U.S. subsidiary, Sovereign Bank, for instance, represented 6% of Santander's profit in the year ended Dec. 31. Santander wants to hang onto Sovereign, according to people familiar with the bank's strategy. Sovereign has more than $75 billion in assets and more than 700 branches from Maine to Maryland.
RBS, the European bank with the biggest U.S. presence, has no plans to sell its Citizens Financial Group franchise, according to a person close to the British bank. The Providence, R.I., company has $130 billion in assets and more than 1,500 branches in 12 states.
BBVA, with $64 billion in assets and 700 branches in seven states, also is holding fast. "We are as committed as ever to the U.S. market," Manolo Sanchez, chief executive of BBVA Compass, said in an interview.
To be sure, the U.S. banking industry isn't exactly going gangbusters. Low interest rates and a raft of new regulations are draining revenue, and new loan generation is anemic, forcing banks of all sizes to cut costs in an attempt to pump up profits. But compared with Europe, the U.S. banking business isn't so bad.
Across Europe, capital-strapped banks are selling vast pieces of their operations. Last month, for example, RBS agreed to sell its aircraft-leasing unit to a group led by Japan's Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group Inc. for roughly $7 billion.
Santander has filled a €15 billion ($19.6 billion) capital hole, partly by selling all or pieces of businesses in Colombia, Brazil and Chile. It also bulked up its capital late last year by selling 35% of its U.S. auto-financing business to private-equity firms.
Executives say they remain committed to Sovereign, which recently opened the door to potential acquisitions by converting to a bank holding company from a savings bank. Although unlikely to give up control of Sovereign, Santander could seek to combine it with another institution. That is what it tried two years ago when it held talks with M&T Bank of Buffalo. Those discussions ultimately failed.
A spokesman for Boston-based Sovereign declined to comment.
At BBVA, top executives concede that they dove into the U.S. retail-banking business at the worst possible time. It bought Compass Bancshares in early 2007 for $9.5 billion, just before the crisis hit. The business's diminished value last month prompted BBVA to take a roughly $1.3 billion write-down.
Despite that setback, BBVA executives consider the U.S. to be one of its two main growth areas, along with Turkey. The company is hunting for acquisitions in the southern U.S., according to a person familiar with the matter.
Bank investors and analysts also have speculated about the future of Citizens, acquired by RBS in 1988. The British government owns 83% of RBS which announced steep cuts in its investment bank last month. People familiar with the situation said that Citizens is considered to be a stabilizing factor for RBS because it mostly operates in areas that weren't devastated by the housing bust.
[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204062704577221202467348784.html]
Monday, February 13, 2012
Friday, February 10, 2012
CLIENT UPDATE: Actress Demi Moore seeks help from Dr. Deepak Chopra
It is now confirmed that actress icon Demi Moore is currently under the spiritual guidance of one of our clients, spiritual guru and self-help icon Dr. Deepak Chopra.
Ms. Moore and Dr. Chopra have a long and positive history of association. She has frequently referred to Dr. Chopra's book, "The Seven Spiritual Laws of Success" as her "bible". Ms. Moore has also served on the board of directors of Dr. Chopra's healing center, among other connections.
Ms. Moore and Dr. Chopra have a long and positive history of association. She has frequently referred to Dr. Chopra's book, "The Seven Spiritual Laws of Success" as her "bible". Ms. Moore has also served on the board of directors of Dr. Chopra's healing center, among other connections.
FORECLOSURE UPDATE: 5 U.S. Banks Settle Government Lawsuit for $25 Billion
Five (5) U.S. bank accused, charged, and sued for abusive mortgage practices have agreed to a $25 billion settlement with the Federal Government. It is anticipated that the $25 billion settlement will be used to help approximately one million mortgage borrowers, at least a little, for fault foreclosures and their mishandling of requests for loan modifications.
The accused banks who have settled are: (1) Bank of America Corporation, (2) Wells Fargo & Company, (3) JP Morgan Chase & Company, (4) Citigroup, Inc., and (5) Ally Financial, Inc.
Relief from the settlement will be wide, but certainly not deep. Roughly 750,000 mortgage borrowers who lose their homes to foreclosure between 2008 and 2011 may get about a $2,000 cash payment each.
The accused banks who have settled are: (1) Bank of America Corporation, (2) Wells Fargo & Company, (3) JP Morgan Chase & Company, (4) Citigroup, Inc., and (5) Ally Financial, Inc.
Relief from the settlement will be wide, but certainly not deep. Roughly 750,000 mortgage borrowers who lose their homes to foreclosure between 2008 and 2011 may get about a $2,000 cash payment each.
Monday, February 6, 2012
Alabama Immigration Law: Update!
Alabama's immigration law is proving too strict and too costly
ALABAMA’S immigration law, boasted Micky Hammon, an Alabama legislator and one of its co-authors, “attacks every aspect of an illegal immigrant’s life. They will not stay in Alabama…This bill is designed to make it difficult for them to live here so they will deport themselves.” It is not, however, designed to introduce visiting executives from Mercedes-Benz, which employs thousands at its factory in the state, to the pleasures of Alabama’s jails. But that is what happened to Detlev Hager, who was caught in November driving in Tuscaloosa with only German ID on him.
Alabama’s immigration law is the nation’s toughest. It requires police to check the immigration status of anyone they detain, stop or arrest and have a “reasonable suspicion” of being in the country illegally. It bars illegal immigrants from working, soliciting work, attending public universities or entering into “a business transaction” with the state. It invalidates any contract to which an illegal immigrant was party. It prohibits people from renting apartments to illegal immigrants, taking them in their cars or giving them shelter, and it requires officials in state schools to determine whether pupils are legal or illegal.
As enacted, however, the law has not turned out quite as its backers planned. In September a federal judge struck down four provisions, including the prohibition on illegal immigrants working, the section forbidding citizens from concealing, harbouring or transporting them, and the part that makes hiring or retaining an illegal immigrant actionable. In October an appellate court blocked the law’s directive requiring schools to determine their pupils’ immigration status, as well as the section making it a crime for illegal immigrants not to have proper identification. And in December a district judge struck down the section forbidding illegal immigrants from doing business with the state.
The law’s authors shrewdly included a severability clause, ensuring that if a court strikes down or prohibits one part of the law, the rest remains in effect. So it has, and Mr Hammon’s fond hope—that illegal immigrants will leave—seems to have come true. Anecdotal reports suggest that thousands of Latinos, legal as well as illegal, have left Alabama. Farmers complain of rotting crops and building companies of rising costs, both because there are too few workers. Samuel Addy, an economist at the University of Alabama, estimates the law’s total cost—taking into account productivity declines, increased enforcement cost, and declines in aggregate consumer spending and tax revenue since so many workers have left—in the billions.
Then there are the less quantifiable costs. They may be there illegally, but undocumented immigrants are still people; a Human Rights Watch report tells of families fleeing in darkness, of crime victims too scared to go to the police, of workers being cheated out of wages. And then there are innocents like Mr Hager, who was kept in custody until a colleague could produce his passport and driving licence. Foreign companies have flocked to Alabama in recent years; they employ over 54,000 Alabamans. How many more will want to come if their employees risk being treated like Mr Hager, or worse?
[http://www.economist.com/node/21543541]
ALABAMA’S immigration law, boasted Micky Hammon, an Alabama legislator and one of its co-authors, “attacks every aspect of an illegal immigrant’s life. They will not stay in Alabama…This bill is designed to make it difficult for them to live here so they will deport themselves.” It is not, however, designed to introduce visiting executives from Mercedes-Benz, which employs thousands at its factory in the state, to the pleasures of Alabama’s jails. But that is what happened to Detlev Hager, who was caught in November driving in Tuscaloosa with only German ID on him.
Alabama’s immigration law is the nation’s toughest. It requires police to check the immigration status of anyone they detain, stop or arrest and have a “reasonable suspicion” of being in the country illegally. It bars illegal immigrants from working, soliciting work, attending public universities or entering into “a business transaction” with the state. It invalidates any contract to which an illegal immigrant was party. It prohibits people from renting apartments to illegal immigrants, taking them in their cars or giving them shelter, and it requires officials in state schools to determine whether pupils are legal or illegal.
As enacted, however, the law has not turned out quite as its backers planned. In September a federal judge struck down four provisions, including the prohibition on illegal immigrants working, the section forbidding citizens from concealing, harbouring or transporting them, and the part that makes hiring or retaining an illegal immigrant actionable. In October an appellate court blocked the law’s directive requiring schools to determine their pupils’ immigration status, as well as the section making it a crime for illegal immigrants not to have proper identification. And in December a district judge struck down the section forbidding illegal immigrants from doing business with the state.
The law’s authors shrewdly included a severability clause, ensuring that if a court strikes down or prohibits one part of the law, the rest remains in effect. So it has, and Mr Hammon’s fond hope—that illegal immigrants will leave—seems to have come true. Anecdotal reports suggest that thousands of Latinos, legal as well as illegal, have left Alabama. Farmers complain of rotting crops and building companies of rising costs, both because there are too few workers. Samuel Addy, an economist at the University of Alabama, estimates the law’s total cost—taking into account productivity declines, increased enforcement cost, and declines in aggregate consumer spending and tax revenue since so many workers have left—in the billions.
Then there are the less quantifiable costs. They may be there illegally, but undocumented immigrants are still people; a Human Rights Watch report tells of families fleeing in darkness, of crime victims too scared to go to the police, of workers being cheated out of wages. And then there are innocents like Mr Hager, who was kept in custody until a colleague could produce his passport and driving licence. Foreign companies have flocked to Alabama in recent years; they employ over 54,000 Alabamans. How many more will want to come if their employees risk being treated like Mr Hager, or worse?
[http://www.economist.com/node/21543541]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)