Hehe, I actually live in North Dakota, grew up in Minnesota as well.
Until the Welfare was reformed a few years back so that you only got so many
years of benefits, these migrant "workers" were nothing more then people who
came up here and applied for Welfare benefits, fuel assistance, food stamps,
and so forth without ever holding a job. The countryside around my house
is filled with field after field of beets, and it was more common to see the
actual farmers out working the fields then the migrant "workers". Things
have started to change some since Clinton reformed welfare, but still a long
way to go up here. Migrant "workers" aren't the victims really.
>Just a thought...the state with the smallest population has the
most effective MediCare coverage in the USA...North Dakota and that state also
employs many migrant workers during harvest season so idea about 'illegal'
workers does not apply just to FL 'orange pickers'. At least in the Upper
Midwest local folks tend to kick in and help the people helping them with the
hard work of producing food for the rest of us have a bit of decent housing,
clothes on their backs, education for their children and letting them them know
that their hard work is appreciated!
>
> >From a message by mirkath about Re: OT Military:
> > At 05:20 PM 1/14/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>
> >How do they cost?
> >They are in the US to make an honest buck
> >They get 0 medical, 0 goverment benefits (yea lets talk
>
>
>Your ignorance of reality is showing.... ask people from
California about
>the 0 medical and 0 government benefits. Also when was the last
time you
>were in a hospital? Have you seen the little notice about not
refusing
>emergency medical service even if a person can not pay for it?
Or if you
>are in Louisiana, the services provided by the Mercy hospital
system which
>is heavily subsidized by the state. Any way you cut it, those
services
>drive up costs for those of us that do pay, either for medical
services out
>of pocket, or insurances premiums, or for taxpayers in general.
>
>I am making no stand as to whether it is good or bad that they
are here,
>just that your broad brush generalization is in error.
>
>
>
>Mark