But you are asking us to value undocumented workers -- able-bodied (because they work) or disabled (because they can't work and cost the health care system) -- less than American-born disabled. I don't see any logic in such a demand, capitalist or socialist or of any other kind.
Also, if simply the size of a labor pool were the question, there would be no reason to focus on "illegals" -- one more legal immigrant worker expands the overall labor pool by the same magnitude as one more illegal immigrant worker. Rather, "legal" immigrant workers ought to be your bigger enemy, since we are more likely to compete for the sorts of jobs that American-born workers would find more desirable (unlike "illegal" immigrant workers who would usually have to settle for the sorts of jobs -- dirtiest, hardest, or lowest-paid -- at the bottom of American preference).
> More No it had more to do with the idea that MEN support the family and
> therefore
> should have the jobs. That, however, did not apply to disabled men.
I'm sure many men thought that including women in labor markets was undesirable, just for the same reason that you object to immigrant workers. Should disabled men have objected to inclusion of women more strenuously than able-bodied men, since women took the sorts of jobs that disabled men might have?
> "Can make jobs" and will do are two different things. You know that full
> employment isn't a goal in this country.
Well, as long as American workers would rather demand the exclusion of immigrant workers than creation of more jobs and better unemployment, disability, and other benefits, the power elite would feel no heat to make jobs for or offer benefits to those who need or want them.
-- Yoshie <http://montages.blogspot.com/> <http://mrzine.org> <http://monthlyreview.org/>