Congressman Mark Souder-Poster child for incest

Dear Congressman:

Thank you for the third district immigration survey, that I received in the mail. Below you will find my answers to your survey:

1. Do you believe the U.S.-Mexico border should be fenced? No
2. Do You favor stationing the National Guard on the border? No
3. Do you believe English should be the official language of the United States? No
4.Do you believe New U.S. Citizens should be allowed to retain citizenship in another country? Yes, I bet you don't have any problems with Germany immigrates.
5.Do you support a secure Id with biometic indicter such as fingeprints? Yes
6. Do you favor temporary work permits for illegal immigrants? No cheap exploitation permanently or temporarily is wrong, wrong, Wrong.

You didn't leave room for additional comments, but here's mine anyways, have a nice day.

In 1787, the Northwest Territory banned African-Americans from the growing new territory, which would later become the United States The United States tried again with a provision in its constitution with stopping the importation of Africans into the territories after the 1800. However, businesspersons wanted to continue to use unpaid labor to compound their profits in the new world. It was such a problem that states began to ban unpaid laborers..meaning African-Americans. African-Americans as paid laborers were a threat to raced whites finding work in the northern states. The solution was indentured servants for African-Americans to maximize the wealth of raced whites who coerced African-Americans to enter into contracted free labor.

States began to ban these contracts as illegal, freeing African-Americans to sell their labor in other growing new territories. The dual roles for African-Americans as paid laborers and slave laborers became a problem for southern states. Congress solution was a fugitive slave act in 1850 requiring enslaved African-Americans be chargeds as illegal workers if found in other states. Instead of sending many African-Americans back into slavery, a movement to deport them back to Africa. I would say, this would be similar to the Latino deportation back to Mexico, you think?

By 1863, the dual roles of paid labor and slave labor for African-Americans was addressed with the emancipation proclamation of 1863. Many African-Americans traveled north and other ethnic groups, such as the Chinese began to depress African-Americans earning power. The growth of the Chinese population would soon become a problem for the United States. In 1882, Congress restricted Chinese immigration into the labor market for 10 years. So the pattern for citizenship was established only preferred minorities have the rite of passage to citizenships--Europeans.

Conflicts among raced whites and African-Americans demand for equal pay was played out in labor disputes with unions that excluded or discriminated through a last hired first fired seniority system of protected work for raced whites. Therefore, it should not be too much of a surprise that Latinos are being attacked for taking our jobs. Who is "our" in "our jobs?" African-Americans have no ownerships to "jobs" when working for others. These private companies determine whom they will hire.

In addition, many companies have chosen to hire others more often than to hire African-Americans. Millions of undocumented Latinos were allowed to fill many companies demand for labors with a steady supply of cheap laborers from the "border." At first many of these jobs were low wage jobs that were taken by African-Americans seeking some kind of employment to take care of their families. Latinos were also willing to take a lower wage that would make life easier for their families. African-Americans did not have a country to escape to maximize their earnings and the Latinos won out on these jobs.

With the globalization of cheap labor, the Latinos are no longer needed in the United States. Private companies could outsource their jobs to foreign companies, or hire cheap labor without bringing them into the United States. With the closing of companies, the first hired last fired were now being fired in bulk, but they were raced whites. Raced whites males now had to compete for jobs that were being held not by African-Americans but by Latinos. Raced whites quality of life was more costly than Latinos, costing them families and their homes when they could not maintain an income. Raced whites like African-americans no longer had a native country to go home to, there were stucked in the United States.

These raced whites were mainly males who became angry raced white males. Instead of Congress addressing the lack of jobs or the quota system for African-Americans, its now blaming the Latinos population found in the United States for why raced whites don't have jobs. The militia men quickly rallied to the border to keep the Latinos in Mexico, no need for national guards, you got the raced whites guy policing the borders, if the United States can not prevent Latinos from coming here and taking their jobs. You know them raced guy will burn down a whole city if necessary to claim America has being white only.

Nevertheless, Congress decided to quiet these radicals, by pretending to draft legislature to deport and restrict Latinos from entering the United States. However, businesspersons who contribute dollars to politicians' reelection are whispering we need cheap laborers to maintain our profits. So who do you think will win out the militiamen or the private companies? Five dollars on the private companies...