Illegal Aliens Fleeing Arizona
Good. A little enforcement goes a long way.
The U.S. government estimates 100,000 unauthorized migrants left Arizona after the state passed an employer sanctions law three years ago requiring companies to verify workers’ status using a federal computer system. There are no figures for the number who have left since the new law passed in April.
Some are heading back to Mexico or to neighboring states. Others are staying put and taking their chances.
In a sign of a gathering exodus, Mexican businesses from grocers and butcher shops to diners and beauty salons have shut their doors in recent weeks as their owners and clients leave.
For those who peddle the spin that “we can’t deport all of the illegals” merely have to look at cases like this. We don’t have to physically deport all of them. We merely have to be serious about enforcing our existing laws and they will take their travel expenses upon themselves.
It’s not only “illegals” who are leaving. Many people of hispanic heritage see this as nothing but unbridled racism and have no desire to prove to their idiot cops that they are citizens.
Look at how German immigrants were treated from 1890-1920 in Wisconsin. Anti-immigrant sentiment has nothing to do with concern for legality.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 25, 2010 at 1854 hrs
FL,
Prove it. Even in the story they mention legal residents leaving, but the example they give is of a legal resident married to an illegal immigrant.
Posted by Owen on July 25, 2010 at 1903 hrs
It’s the broken windows argument in spades.
When people see that laws aren’t enforced - they think they can get away with anything. When laws are enforced - the unlawful find another place to haunt.
“Unbridled racism” - yeah, checking on the status of people already being investigated by the police on another matter. Sounds a lot like law enforcement to me.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 25, 2010 at 1945 hrs
unbridled racism
I’m real tired of liberals calling law enforcement racist. The word is loosing it’s meaning.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 25, 2010 at 2015 hrs
This definitely is good news. I own property in Pinal County.
What I heard from friends is that within days after the bill was signed, fewer mojados were seen hanging around gas stations, convenience stores and shopping centers. I wondered if they hitched rides back with the protesters who were bussed in from California.Real racist profiling is: “affirmative” action, racial set asides, “minority” contractors etc.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 25, 2010 at 2059 hrs
Don’t be too hard on Free Lunch, it’s always hard on Liberals when they loose a voter base. Especially when they number in the millions.
Free L, I hope you can hear the violin I’m playing for you.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 25, 2010 at 2219 hrs
Right Scott, all those illegals doing everything to avoid getting caught…except for registering to vote and then voting for Democrats. That’s why the Dems won the last few election cycles…all those damn illegals voting. Idiot.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 25, 2010 at 2226 hrs
It’s all the Canadian illegals here in Wisconsin I’m concerned about.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 25, 2010 at 2230 hrs
As the illegals leave Arizona, the crime rate, the number of people on welfare, food stamps, in low income housing will go down.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 25, 2010 at 2237 hrs
Prove it.
Ballsy request for a guy who’s relying on an anecdote from a wire story as evidence of his correctness.
Employer and individual-based policies are wildly different things, and to assume their equivalence is absurd. Illegal immigrants aren’t the disease. They’re the symptom. The disease is the number of businesses who know they can hire illegal immigrants because the federal government’s historically done a piss-poor job of enforcing basic employment law in this area.
People who are here illegally are overwhelmingly here because they see America as a way to improve their lives. That usually involves a job better than what they can get back home way more than it involves sitting on a couch in Phoenix munching on the $5 combo box they just got at Taco Bell. This perception that some conservatives cling to of a bunch of Mexicans sitting around America treating our country like a Carnival cruise ship is convenient, but absurd.
Conservatives bitch and moan about color-blind policies until they see color as an opportunity to nose around about someone’s immigration status, and then suddenly they’re all for it. Big surprise - partisan extremists are hypocrites. News at 11. Now, if Arizona wants to demand proof of citizenship from EVERY person they stop, that’s a different story. I’d be okay with that. Hope whitey enjoys carrying his passport.
The employers are the issue. Shut down the employers who are breaking the law and the illegals will leave on their own, and we’ll kill two birds with one stone.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on July 25, 2010 at 2244 hrs
WTF? They are now called “unauthorized migrants”? Just when you think they can’t sugarcoat anymore than they already do.
Free Lunch, you decry racism yet call the police “idiot cops”. Is that all police men and women or just a select few that try to enforce the law?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 25, 2010 at 2245 hrs
So I’m an idiot, and the cops are too? I guess that’s similar to you saying something is bad to indicate it’s good? VAPol, you silver tongued flatterer, I hardly compare to our esteemed law enforcement men and women, but I sure do appreciate the thumbs up.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 25, 2010 at 2318 hrs
The economy is also playing a big role in illegals moving. As more and more illegals are being laid off, they are moving back to their home country or moving to other places in the country.
But the fact is that it is true illegals are leaving AZ. There have been many stories than this one. The only problem is many of them are moving to other areas of the country and taking jobs there.
And perhaps recess supervisor will actually know what he is talking about, though that is probably asking to much.Posted by Dan on July 26, 2010 at 0655 hrs
The one disheartening point in the article is that they (illegal Mexicans) are not all going back to Mexico. Many are relocating to other states with lax laws. One of those would of course be Wisconsin under the utter incompetent “leadership” of our disgraceful governor and socialist led legislature. Hopefully under a Walker administration that too can be fixed and we can start driving the illegals from our state as well.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 0709 hrs
“As the illegals leave Arizona, the crime rate, the number of people on welfare, food stamps, in low income housing will go down.”
Eh, we’ll see, but Arizona crime rates were already pretty low, and had been showing a pattern of decreasing crime for quite a while. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), the violent crime rate in Arizona was lower in 2006, 2007, and 2008—the most recent year from which data are available—than any year since 1983. The property crime rate in Arizona was lower in 2006, 2007, and 2008 than any year since 1968. In addition, in Arizona, the violent crime rate dropped from 577.9 per 100,000 population in 1998 to 447 per 100,000 population in 2008; the property crime rate dropped from 5,997 to 4,291 during the same period. During the same decade, Arizona’s undocumented immigrant population grew rapidly. The Arizona Republic reported: “Between January 2000 and January 2008, Arizona’s undocumented population grew 70 percent, according to the DHS [Department of Homeland Security] report. Nationally, it grew 37 percent.” California, New MExico and Texas also have dropping crime rates over the same period of time. All of them compare will with national averages too.
“Illegal immigrants aren’t the disease. They’re the symptom. The disease is the number of businesses who know they can hire illegal immigrants because the federal government’s historically done a piss-poor job of enforcing basic employment law in this area.”
You’re half right. The disease is that there’s such a thing as an illegal immigrant in the first place. Anyone that wants to enter into this contract we call US Citizenship should be free to do so (with some extremely limited exceptions for known criminals and terrorists). The problem is that Big Government Liberals like Owen don’t understand that open boarders is just free trade of services. And free trade is good whether it’s trade of goods or services.
Also, somebody mentioned the broken windows idea, which is spot on. When we make stupid shit illegal, people stop respecting the law. It’s like the drinking age. When we make it illegal for some adults to drink even though we know they’re going to, it just pushes the problem under ground. We should have laws grounded in reality.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 0724 hrs
The law is fine. It is certainly NOT racist.
The idea that illegals would flood out of Arizona as a result of this law is to be expected. If the federal government would follow suit and begin enforcing the laws on the books we would see an exodus of illegals all over the country.
People like FL comparing this to the treatment of legal German immigrants are nuts. This has everything to do with the law, and the soaring cost burden of social services.
If you are not a citizen of this country, you have no basis upon which to depend upon the social safety net put in place for our poor. Think of how much more could be done for OUR poor if we were not taking care of Mexico’s as well…. How much more money could be dedicated to schools if we didn’t have to buy diapers and formula for the children of illegal aliens? How much less would we pay for an emergency room visit if we didn’t have to subsidize the burden placed on hospitals by people who have absolutely NO right to depend on American hospitals.
As for people with the perspective of FL. You are nuts. I harbor absolutely no ill-sentiments or bigotry towards people of hispanic heritage. I employ two legal immigrants from Puerto Rico (although their situation is obviously different b/c of dual citizenship). The point is that I don’t give two rips about the color of their skin or the accent of their speech. I want a reasonable policy that protects our borders and makes it easier for non-criminal workers to come to this country to make a better life for their family. In order to achieve that, we need to begin penalizing the people who want to come here outside of the guidelines WE as The People of The United States of America have set forth. The only way to penalize these wrongs is to use enforcement measures such as the Arizona law to prove to illegal aliens that they have no business being here.
The second step is to secure our southern border.
The third step is to rewrite our immigration laws in this country streamline the process the prospective immigrant must face. There need to be terms and conditions with regard to taxes that should be paid upon entry, education to be undertaken once they are here, and we need to decide whether or not we are going to require some modicum of understanding of the English language.
Why do I put the English thing in there? Well, one of the reasons that we have concentrations of illegals into what are essentially ghettos is that they congregate in areas where people can understand their language. A modicum of English understanding would help these immigrants avoid the necessity of living in what are arguably rough areas, and would provide a much better opportunity for them and their children, because we all know the effect of environment on behavioral development. Grow up among thugs and hoodlums, you are much more likely to be one… Grow up in a quiet suburban neighborhood…. well, you get the picture.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 0734 hrs
Dude, Puerto Ricans ARE AMERICAN CITIZENS.
I know, I said that in the post… If you’d bother to read it.
They are still immigrants to the United States. You see, they were born in a country that is not the United States, then moved here… Making them immigrants. Their legal status is a result of dual citizenship.
Dude.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 0850 hrs
Although I suppose PR citizenship is not really the same as US Citizenship, it’s more of a nationalism thing down there.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 0852 hrs
The second step is to secure our southern border.
How would this be done and how much would it cost?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 0853 hrs
I guess I should be more clear before the “definition nazis” start in.
PR is not a “country” in the traditional sense, although it’s people would argue with you on that. It is a territory of the United States, although it does issue a document of citizenship to people born there.
Just wanted to get that out there, so you understand that I know the legal status of Puerto Rico, and its people…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 0856 hrs
How would this be done and how much would it cost?
It would cost much less than the war in afghanistan cost us last year, much-much less than it is costing this year….
It would be done by building fences, walls, and other structures. In places where that is unreasonable, or where the “environmental impact” could be deemed to be too great, we would need to position border guards.
It might not be a bad idea, considering our predisposition to fighting wars in desert countries, to build military training facilities on the border as well.
It is stupid to not secure our border, even if it requires military stationing for some time.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 0901 hrs
The problem with the new Arizona law is that it legalizes and institutionalizes RACIAL PROFILING. The law is written so that any person stopped for any reason, be it for a traffic stop or for the suspicion of the commission of a crime, must now prove legal status to be in the United States. In the state of Arizona, this will directly impact people of Hispanic heritage in particular, thereby making it RACIST. The problem stems from the requirement that officers may demand proof of legal status from anyone they suspect of being in the United States illegally, thus making the enforcement of the law ARBITRARY. That ?qualifier? will be physical appearance and the ability to speak English.
In addition, the law REQUIRES that police departments enforce this law at the risk of being disciplined or sued. Police Departments across Arizona are just as upset as some private citizens. How will compliance be measured? The concern is that checking someone?s legal status if they are NOT carrying proof is a time consuming and labor intensive process. It will lead to the unnecessary crowding of local jails and will tie up officers from performing their primary duty, which is to protect citizens from crime. A traffic stop could require that not only must an officer check identification of the driver, but possibly every occupant of the vehicle.
Now, if the law had been written to require the check of a person?s legal status that is ARRESTED or held in custody, then that would be an entirely different matter. I?m all for that. A law similar to the new Arizona law was proposed in Prince William County, VA over two years ago and was met with the same protestations and outcries. Eventually, it was modified to apply to just those arrested for crimes and it has still had the desired effect of both reducing crime and the number of illegal immigrants in the county. Either limit the proof of legal status to those arrested or require EVERYONE to provide proof at a police officer?s discretion. See how that flies!This law opens the door for so many potential Civil Rights violations it is staggering. In addition, it supersedes Federal immigration law. Hopefully, this law will be reversed. I live in the United States of AMERICA, not the United States of ARIZONA.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 0904 hrs
Enforcing our current immigration laws vigorously would also provide a deterrent which would go a long way towards securing the border.
I am not an extremist on this subject. I don’t believe we should start raiding neighborhoods or businesses to get people out, but I do not think it is unreasonable to use measures, including the current law, and possibly - yes - racial profiling, to detain and deport those who are caught here illegally (during the commission of another illegal act). I don’t support primary enforcement measures, such as police asking for papers…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 0910 hrs
It would cost much less than the war in afghanistan cost us last year, much-much less than it is costing this year….
And the ROI to the US tax payer (that would included businesses too) would be what??
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 0914 hrs
What, Laker, do you propose as an alternative? Racial Profiling is a fact of life. We don’t all look the same.
It is a common sense law that deals with an incredible problem.
Racial Profiling is not by definition, or by extension, racism.
Main Entry: rac·ism
Pronunciation: \?r?-?si-z?m also -?shi-\
Function: noun
Date: 1933
1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discriminationIt is not racial prejudice, it is using race as a method of identification. The first thing a cop asks you when you are filing a report on an incident on your property is what the race of the suspect is, why? Because it is a method of identification. The Census very clearly asked me what my race was. My birth certificate describes me as caucasian…. Are these all instances of racism?
Racial profiling is a method of identification, and it is a common sense one.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 0917 hrs
I don’t believe we should start raiding neighborhoods or businesses to get people out,
Actually, I believe we should raid more businesses. As RS stated earlier, the primary motivation of illegal immigaration is job opportunities. Prosecute the employers.
Sorry, but racial profiling is extreme. My opinion.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 0919 hrs
And the ROI to the US tax payer (that would included businesses too) would be what??
Are you kidding?
The reduced strain on our social services system is enough, but I guess I could go on to describe how that money saved could then be reinvested in schools, roads, whatever else you want to put it in…
How about the reduced cost of healthcare? Those illegal immigrants are using our system, and many of them aren’t paying for the services they recieve… you know, one of the main reasons healthcare is so expensive in this country…. People ducking out on their bills.
In Texas, where the state comptroller estimates illegal immigrants cost hospitals $1.3 billion in 2006, the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston is considering denying cancer care to such immigrants. USA TODAY.
This is only Texas…
How about the cost of drug related crime along the border?
How about the societal cost of the volume of drugs coming over the border?
Shall I go on?Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 0922 hrs
From Wikipedia…
Racial profiling refers to the use of an individual’s race or ethnicity by law enforcement personnel as a key factor in deciding whether to engage in enforcement (e.g. make a traffic stop or arrest). The practice is controversial and widely considered inappropriate and illegal….
Legality
At a Federal level, racial profiling is challenged by the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which guarantees the right to be safe from unreasonable search and seizure without probable cause and the Fourteenth Amendment which requires that all citizens be treated equally under the law.
In his February 27, 2001, address to a Joint Session of Congress, President George W. Bush declared, “Racial Profiling is wrong and we will end it in America. In so doing, we will not hinder the work of our nation’s brave police officers. They protect us every day—often at great risk. But by stopping the abuses of a few, we will add to the public confidence our police officers earn and deserve.” [6]
On February 28, 2002, Attorney General John Ashcroft said “This administration… has been opposed to racial profiling and has done more to indicate its opposition than ever in history. The President said it’s wrong and we’ll end it in America, and I subscribe to that. Using race… as a proxy for potential criminal behavior is unconstitutional, and it undermines law enforcement by undermining the confidence that people can have in law enforcement.”
In June 2003, the Department of Justice issued its Guidance Regarding the Use of Race by Federal Law Enforcement Agencies forbidding racial profiling by federal law enforcement officials.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_profiling
I know, I know. It’s from Wikipedia….
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 0928 hrs
Actually, I believe we should raid more businesses. As RS stated earlier, the primary motivation of illegal immigaration is job opportunities. Prosecute the employers.
Since we have discrimination laws in this country that make it very difficult for employers to actually discover the legal status of their employees due to fear of lawsuit. And due to the fact that many illegals are also engaging in the felony of identity theft in order to appear legal, I think that your position of prosecuting active United States businesses, who generate real revenues, and paychecks for Americans, is extreme.
Sorry, but racial profiling is extreme. My opinion.
No it isn’t. My opinion.You racially profile every day of your life. You see a black person, and your brain reacts to that fact. You store their face in your memory as a black person. You describe people by race, religion, creed, color, and sexual orientation in conversations EVERY day…. How do I know that? Because, I and every one I know does it too. It doesn’t make you or I racist, bigoted, or homophobes, it makes us logically thinking human beings.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 0929 hrs
The main reason undocumented workers are here is for jobs. The work is here and businesses hire them. They are not here for a free lunch. If businesses quit hiring them, the incentive is gone for them to be here. Of course businesses really don’t want the laws to change, that’s why they are challenging the law to the supreme court.
Chamber of Commerce of the United States, et al., Petitioners. v. Criss CandelariaPosted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 0929 hrs
Shall I go on?
Yes please. You still haven’t given an ROI on it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 0931 hrs
Laker, that definition is not accurate.
Racial profiling is not necessarily involved in the primary contact. If a cop sees a latino spraying graffiti on my building he is not going to arrest him because he is latino. He is going to arrest him for graffitiing my building. After the initial contact if the cop uses the fact that the person is latino as a reason to inquire about immigration status, so be it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 0933 hrs
Yes please. You still haven’t given an ROI on it.
You want actual numbers?
I just gave you the 1.3 billion in texas alone, for one year… Thats a hell of a start.
But, I have been pretty clear about my position.
What Pat, do you propose we do about our immigration issues in this country?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 0935 hrs
@ djmamyek - I agree with you WHOLEHEARTEDLY on your third point. We need to make it easier for otherwise law abiding, productive people to become citizens. I’m not sure learning English is directly related to economic success, but is the citizenship test in English? I’m asking because I don’t know…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 0935 hrs
The main reason undocumented workers are here is for jobs. The work is here and businesses hire them. They are not here for a free lunch. If businesses quit hiring them, the incentive is gone for them to be here. Of course businesses really don’t want the laws to change, that’s why they are challenging the law to the supreme court.
Chamber of Commerce of the United States, et al., Petitioners. v. Criss CandelariaThats a nice blanket generalization, Pat, but I am a business owner, and I wish to see the law changed.
Again, what do you think we should do? It is undeniable that illegal aliens are causing severe strain to our social service system, they are causing societal problems, and the resentment of their status is fanning racial flames…
Something needs to be done, what do you propose?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 0938 hrs
You want actual numbers?
I just gave you the 1.3 billion in texas alone, for one year… Thats a hell of a start.
Yes, as a fiscal conservative I would like to know what I’m getting for what I’m spending.
How much does it cost annually for uninsured legal residents?
What Pat, do you propose we do about our immigration issues in this country?
Hold businesses feet to the flame so they aren’t hiring illegals. It’s probably cheaper than building a fence.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 0941 hrs
If the goal is to deter illegal immigration, then why is the prosecution of businesses extreme? It’s the primary reason for the problem. Fish rots from the head.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 0944 hrs
The primary reason illegal immigrants are here is we as citizens are demanding the low cost product their labor supplies.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 0945 hrs
Laker,
Couldn’t tell you about the citizenship test. I had a Pakistani friend in grade school who went through the process, but she moved here when she was very young, and her parents were doctors, who spoke English.
I think that we should still be somewhat selective about who we allow to move here (hell, mexico is), but we need to make it MUCH easier to get into this country with a legal status, and with identification that PROVES your legal status once you are here.For instance.
If you are a 40 year old woman who wishes to go to California to harvest Avocados and go back to mexico in the off season. You should be allowed to enter the country. You should be given a special legal status, and be required to carry a card that identifies you as that person, and clearly describes your status.
If you are an able bodied 23 year old, who wishes to come to the United States to do vagrant drywall work, but you have four prior arrests for drug trafficking, you should not be allowed into the country.If you are a thirty five year old chemistry teacher with a masters degree or equivalent who wishes to come to the United States to work as a chemical engineer for DOW chemical… You should be allowed into the country.
etc.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 0947 hrs
The primary reason illegal immigrants are here is we as citizens are demanding the low cost product their labor supplies.
Exactly. Get rid of the undocumented workers and who the heck is going to pick the crops and gut your chickens? Businesses would have to find other slave labor, and that won’t be easy. I don’t think undocumented Canadians are going to fill the need.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 0951 hrs
Hold businesses feet to the flame so they aren’t hiring illegals. It’s probably cheaper than building a fence.
Putting people out of work by potentially bankrupting businesses who form the backbone of this country, during a recession is cheaper than putting people to work building a fence?
Huh.
How much does it cost annually for uninsured legal residents?
A lot. That doesn’t change the fact that illegal aliens pile right on top of that amount. We have a social safety net for our people, and it is being strained by alien migrants…. Pretty simple.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 0951 hrs
Since we have discrimination laws in this country that make it very difficult for employers to actually discover the legal status of their employees due to fear of lawsuit.
100% wrong. PROOF of the ability to legally work in the country is a standard requirement for employment. Either you have it or you don’t. No discrimination involved, unless you don’t require the documentation from EVERY applicant. Yes, forged documents can be a problem, but a background search can be used. Yeah, it costs money, but…? If you want to curb illegal immigration, then that’s the cost to bear.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 0953 hrs
Exactly. Get rid of the undocumented workers and who the heck is going to pick the crops and gut your chickens? Businesses would have to find other slave labor, and that won’t be easy. I don’t think undocumented Canadians are going to fill the need
Ummm….. Documented workers?This is why we need to fix the system, so that we can get these people a legal status and identification.
Chasing after businesses is not going to accomplish that.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 0955 hrs
Putting people out of work by potentially bankrupting businesses who form the backbone of this country, during a recession is cheaper than putting people to work building a fence?
What?? That makes absolutely no sense. Are you sure you read what you wrote?? Are you saying you are for employers hiring undocumented workers so they won’t go bankrupt? I thought you wanted the undocumented workers sent back to where they came from.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 0958 hrs
1
00% wrong. PROOF of the ability to legally work in the country is a standard requirement for employment. Either you have it or you don’t. No discrimination involved, unless you don’t require the documentation from EVERY applicant. Yes, forged documents can be a problem, but a background search can be used. Yeah, it costs money, but…? If you want to curb illegal immigration, then that’s the cost to bear.
Obviously if you know that forged documents are a problem I am not 100% wrong.
Yes, discrimination lawsuits are common, and it is a real fear from employers.
It isn’t even forged documents that are a problem, it is REAL documents, with REAL social security numbers. It can take MONTHS or longer for the IRS to notify you of a bad number….
You are right, there is a cost to bear by employers, but it is not the responsibility of employers to enforce federal laws… There is no argument to be had about that.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 0958 hrs
This is why we need to fix the system, so that we can get these people a legal status and identification.
Yah, a fence will do that.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 0959 hrs
Are you saying you are for employers hiring undocumented workers so they won’t go bankrupt? I thought you wanted the undocumented workers sent back to where they came from.
I am saying it can be VERY difficult for an employer to discover the legal status of an employee, and that a lawsuit for discrimination if a mistake is made can also weigh heavily on the mind of an employer.
I am saying that chasing after employers and destroying their businesses through expensive and messy prosecutions is more costly than oh, I don’t know, say diverting the remaining stimulus dollars to help control our border. It takes contractors and workers to build the fences, guard stations, buildings, infrastructure, etc…. Would this not be stimulative?
I am not, under any circumstances, condoning the hiring of illegal immigrants by United States businesses. I just believe that using the prosecution of businesses as the core strategy to solve our immigration problem is not logical. It is the responsibility of the federal government to protect our borders, not businesses.
We need to change the law, make it easier for these people to get into the country with a legal status, and identification, and we need to stop human trafficking, drug trafficking, and weapon trafficking along our border. Fences, and guards with guns are the best way to do that.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 1005 hrs
I’m not sure learning English is directly related to economic success, but is the citizenship test in English? I’m asking because I don’t know…
@Laker: Yes, the citizenship test is in English, although there are some age-related exceptions that allow some immigrants of an advanced age (over 50) to take the test in their native language. There’s also an English language test that must be passed - same rule applies.
Also, I’ll jump back on the bandwagon I helped start earlier. If we were 10% as serious about prosecuting businesses that knowingly employ illegal aliens as we were about scapegoating illegals for doing the same thing we would do if we were in their shoes, this problem would’ve been 90% dead and buried years ago. But the reality is that neither party is serious about pursuing employers because that means going after business-owning whiteys who write campaign checks and join civic-minded organizations like the Chamber of Commerce that, like someone else mentioned, get pissy anytime anyone dares to go near its members.
We already have a system at the federal level that allows employers to verify social security numbers online. I’m not an employer, but I know many who post here are. Is this system hard to use? Is it onerous? Inaccurate?
If it’s easy to use and an employer is avoiding using it or circumventing the law, I have no problem with one strike and you’re out, and pursing criminal charges against the owner.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on July 26, 2010 at 1006 hrs
but it is not the responsibility of employers to enforce federal laws
No, but why is the US Chamber of Commerce against the requirement for businesses to E-Verify potential employees? They wouldn’t be charged with throwing the individual out of the country. They are only verifying the persons legal status for employment.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 1009 hrs
No, but why is the US Chamber of Commerce against the requirement for businesses to E-Verify potential employees? They wouldn’t be charged with throwing the individual out of the country. They are only verifying the persons legal status for employment.
I don’t disagree with you that there is a business interest in keeping cheap illegal labor readily available, or that the fact that it is so powerful is wrong.
I am saying that making the attack of business the core strategy is misguided. Should businesses be held accountable for illegal activity? Absolutely, but that strategy does NOT fix the root of the problem…. Which is the undeniable fact that our immigration system is broken.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 1012 hrs
Getting a real social security number is easy, RS. SSI itself estimated the number of real #‘s it had issued to illegals to be in the seven figures as of several years ago. There’s no way around that problem.
How do you propose to address the issue of demand for low cost labor?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 1013 hrs
You are right, there is a cost to bear by employers, but it is not the responsibility of employers to enforce federal laws…
But the law is already in place. Soooo, isn’t it the responsibility of the employer to OBEY/COMPLY WITH the law? Employers need not fear discrimination lawsuits if they uniformly follow procedures. It’s only when they start making exceptions that they run afoul of the law.
I was a hiring manager for three years at a company. There was a required documentation checklist. You followed it. You made no exceptions, either about the required docs or the time frame in which to produce them. Period. Relying upon a forged document is not a crime if you keep records and provide the information when requested. The problem is many employers are too lazy/sloppy to keep accurate records. Many discrimination lawsuits gain traction due to poor record keeping and failure to follow established procedures.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 1015 hrs
I am saying that chasing after employers and destroying their businesses through expensive and messy prosecutions is more costly than oh, I don’t know, say diverting the remaining stimulus dollars to help control our border.
So now you’re for the Stimulus.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 1015 hrs
So now you’re for the Stimulus.
Never was, and if you consider yourself ‘fiscally conservative’ you wouldn’t have been either.
That doesn’t change the fact that the bill was passed, or that there are still hundreds of billions of dollars just sitting there.
I have actually made it very clear to both of our senators and Jim Sensenbrenner that they should be actively pursuing the return of the remaining funds to the treasury.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 1020 hrs
laker via wikipidia:
At a Federal level, racial profiling is challenged by the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which guarantees the right to be safe from unreasonable search and seizure without probable cause and the Fourteenth Amendment which requires that all citizens be treated equally under the law.
Then Whites are being discriminated against through affirmative action, and all of the other programs that favor people of “color”.
Pat:
Get rid of the undocumented workers and who the heck is going to pick the crops and gut your chickens? Businesses would have to find other slave labor
If you’re getting paid to do the labor, and your wages are sufficient to sustain you, labeling it “slave labor” is disingenuous. Get rid of the welfare programs so many have made a way of life and you’ll have the labor needed to do these jobs.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 1021 hrs
Then Whites are being discriminated against through affirmative action, and all of the other programs that favor people of “color”.
Wow, you are STUPID beyond words…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 1025 hrs
Amendment to post 56:
the Fourteenth Amendment which requires that all citizens be treated equally under the law.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 1027 hrs
How so? Please be more specific.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 1029 hrs
It was your post laker, I was just pointing out the inconsistency.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 1039 hrs
From Wikipedia (again):
Racial profiling refers to the use of an individual’s race or ethnicity by law enforcement personnel as a key factor in deciding whether to engage in enforcement (e.g. make a traffic stop or arrest). The practice is controversial and widely considered inappropriate and illegal….
Affirmative action refers to policies that take factors including “race, color, religion, sex or national origin” into consideration in order to benefit an underrepresented group, usually as a means to counter the effects of a history of discrimination. The focus of such policies ranges from employment and education to public contracting and health programs.
The stupidity comment comes from the comparison of law enforcement tactics to employment, education, public contracting and health programs. Apples to oranges. Obviously, even Wikipedia exceeds your intellectual capabilities…But hey, continue to post to yourself.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 1044 hrs
I have actually made it very clear to both of our senators and Jim Sensenbrenner that they should be actively pursuing the return of the remaining funds to the treasury.
I am saying that chasing after employers and destroying their businesses through expensive and messy prosecutions is more costly than oh, I don’t know, say diverting the remaining stimulus dollars to help control our border.
Sounds like you were against it, before you were for it, before you were against it, before you were for it….....................
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 1051 hrs
Sounds like you were against it, before you were for it, before you were against it, before you were for it….....................
What?
If the money is spent, I advocate doing something constructive with it. An investment that will have a tangible ROI, no matter how you try to minimize it.
You have made it very clear that your axe is to be ground on American business. Why? Dunno, that is your problem.
There are billions of dollars just sitting there, waiting to be spent in districts where democrats are at risk this fall. How about, rather than politicizing the largest spending bill in US history, we use the money to address a genuine issue.
That doesn’t change the fact that I have always been against it, I still believe the money should be returned to the treasury.
I would like to have an open and honest discussion about the things that NEED to be done to get this issue under control, it is people like you… you know, closed minded individuals, who are being ideologues on the subject and hampering debate. We get it, you hate business…. Now, that we have that out of the way, what else do you propose to fix the problem? Or are you a one trick pony?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 1100 hrs
But the law is already in place. Soooo, isn’t it the responsibility of the employer to OBEY/COMPLY WITH the law? Employers need not fear discrimination lawsuits if they uniformly follow procedures. It’s only when they start making exceptions that they run afoul of the law.
You are absolutely right.
I’m not saying that we shouldn’t hold employers responsible for their decisions. I am saying that focusing on the businesses cannot be the entire attack.
We need to make serious changes to the law, and we need to stop what is going on at our borders.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 1107 hrs
laker via wiki:
Fourteenth Amendment which requires that all citizens be treated equally under the law.
laker:
Affirmative action refers to policies that take factors including ?race, color, religion, sex or national origin? into consideration in order to benefit an underrepresented group, usually as a means to counter the effects of a history of discrimination. The focus of such policies ranges from employment and education to public contracting and health programs.
Being discriminatory in order to fight discrimination is a moronic policy that only fuels racism. I’d agree that removing color, and considering “only” capability would be an acceptable solution, and would ensure those who work hard to achieve their goals are duly rewarded.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 1107 hrs
And Lewis Powell said as much in Bakke 32 years ago. But there’s also a mountain of legal precedent involving the Fourteenth Amendment and affirmative action. SCOTUS has ruled time and again that race can be considered so long as it is not the sole factor and is not mechanically weighted. To suggest mutual incompatibility is not really a worthwhile contribution to the dialogue since it suggests that we’re supposed to weight your opinion more than what is actually the law. And what’s the point in that?
Posted by Recess Supervisor on July 26, 2010 at 1212 hrs
Recess Supervisor:
And Lewis Powell said as much in Bakke 32 years ago. But there’s also a mountain of legal precedent involving the Fourteenth Amendment and affirmative action. SCOTUS has ruled time and again that race can be considered so long as it is not the sole factor and is not mechanically weighted. To suggest mutual incompatibility is not really a worthwhile contribution to the dialogue since it suggests that we’re supposed to weight your opinion more than what is actually the law. And what’s the point in that?So, in essence the law can not be wrong? Were this the case slavery, Jim Crowe, segregation, and all of the rest would still be lawful. You want to get past race? STOP USING IT TO JUSTIFY DISCRIMINATION, AND FAVORITISM. Each person has their worth, and that should be the determining factor.
And I’m the idiot? Sheesh!!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 1226 hrs
Calm down, buddy. I never called you an idiot. Perhaps someone else did.
I never said the law can’t be wrong. But a lot of courts have taken a lot of different looks at the 14th Amendment vis-a-vis affirmative action over the years, and they’ve all come to essentially the same conclusion.
That’s all I’m saying. I’m not even defending affirmative action - I think it’s largely outlived its worth. I just pointed out that the courts have had a number of opportunities to agree with you and they don’t. You can think whatever you want. But you should probably give us a reason to care about your erudite legal analysis of the 14th Amendment.
Also, just for the record, is that a living, breathing, activist interpretation of the Constitution you’re advocating there? Oh, I do believe it is. Our founders certainly didn’t believe that African-Americans were people, after all…
Posted by Recess Supervisor on July 26, 2010 at 1331 hrs
So, in essence the law can not be wrong?
Scott, that really is not the point in this discussion. Some how I get the feeling that this is not an issue of whether the law is right or wrong as much as you just don’t like the law…??? It’s your perogative to feel that way, but it doesn’t necessarily make it wrong.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 1334 hrs
Recess Supervisor:
I’m not even defending affirmative action - I think it’s largely outlived its worth.
Yes, enough people have been harmed in the effort to equalize the playing field, when the effect has been to penalize some individuals, while rewarding others unjustly.
Also, just for the record, is that a living, breathing, activist interpretation of the Constitution you’re advocating there? Oh, I do believe it is. Our founders certainly didn’t believe that African-Americans were people, after all…
To err is indeed human, and as we’ve become “enlightened” to injustices, we’ve amended our constitution accordingly,.........But when it comes to the crux of the document, and it’s intent on our society, no, it should stand on it’s merit, as written.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 1348 hrs
For those who peddle the spin that “we can’t deport all of the illegals” merely have to look at cases like this. We don’t have to physically deport all of them. We merely have to be serious about enforcing our existing laws and they will take their travel expenses upon themselves.
Owen is dead on. To add to the speed of the exodus, eliminate any type of governmental support payments. No ID, no driver’s license, no school, no college tuition, not even a low interest home loan.
There is no need to seek out illegal immigrants, simply detain and deport them at any point of contact with law enforcement or other governmental activity. Use the law enforcement resources to really hammer on employers who hire illegals. Make the fine stiff, and enforce it zealously.
When the jobs and bennies all dry up, so will the majority of the problem.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 1400 hrs
laker:
Scott, that really is not the point in this discussion. Some how I get the feeling that this is not an issue of whether the law is right or wrong as much as you just don’t like the law…??? It’s your perogative to feel that way, but it doesn’t necessarily make it wrong.
Any law that discriminates, and penalizes lawful citizens of this country unjustly should be considered as “wrong” by every citizen of conscience. Laws against invasion by individuals seeking only to prosper without contributing to the nation’s welfare are for the benefit of all legal citizen, regardless of race creed , or any other consideration. We can not continue to nanny the down trodden of our neighbors without sacrificing our ability to care for our own.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 1428 hrs
They come for the food stamps, housing and free health care.
40 per cent of all Food stamps goes to illegals.
There is no verification of legal status to get food stamps and they know it.
We are the only country in the world to give citizenship to the baby born here from illegals. No other country in the world does that.
Now the baby and mother gets food stamps, housing and free health care.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 1442 hrs
Our founders certainly didn?t believe that African-Americans were people, after all?
Care to back that up? Only 12 of the 55 were involved with slaves, while two of those were actually antislavery enough to free their slaves and establish the Pennsylvania Anti Slavery Society. There were many fierce opponents of slavery like Hamilton, Jay, Madison, Swift, etc.
And who can forget what Washington said when he signed the law preventing slavery in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa?
?I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it [slavery].?
-George WashingtonThou doest paint with too broad a brush and with too much of the liberal Kool-aid in thine system.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 1510 hrs
When the jobs and bennies all dry up, so will the majority of the problem.
Except that there is a genuine need for the cheap labor. Which is why I keep saying that we need to make it easier for these people to get into this country legally. We need to create a system that streamlines the process of getting in. These people also need to be issued identification.
Your point also does nothing to address the very serious smuggling activity that goes on at the border, independent of job availability. There are drugs and guns coming into this country in staggering quantities from Mexico… We need to secure our border.
As I keep saying, cracking down on employers can be part of the strategy, I am open to that, but it cannot be THE strategy.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 1517 hrs
Except that there is a genuine need for the cheap labor. Which is why I keep saying that we need to make it easier for these people to get into this country legally. We need to create a system that streamlines the process of getting in. These people also need to be issued identification.
We should be more open in our immigration policy so that we can create an underclass of cheap laborers? You must be kidding? I suspect that without access to illegal labor, many of the jobs that rely on will improve the pay enough to hire legal residents… or even innovate the jobs so that legal labor can be used more effectively. Market forces will make sure those jobs are filled… I rather doubt that farms will simply close rather than pay minimum wage.
Your point also does nothing to address the very serious smuggling activity that goes on at the border,
My point regarded illegal immigrants and the reason they stay here. Border security is a whole different ball of wax… though I suspect that stemming the flow of immigrants would free up the border patrol, allowing it to better apply it’s resources to other problem areas.
Also, I included the crack down on employers as part of a ... shall we call it “economic scorched earth” strategy. No jobs, no bennies, no reason to come here.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 1532 hrs
We get it, you hate business
No, I love business. I hate business men who say they want reform but don’t want to be part of it. Plain and simple, the number one reason undocumented aliens come here is for work. Like I said, stop hiring them and they lost a big reason for being here as an undocumented worker. If businesses need the labor I’m sure they can come up with a way to help immigrants get the documentation they need to work here. I guarantee a fence won’t stop a person needing a job from coming here.
http://www.trilulilu.ro/00070707000/90f692938d068d
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 1553 hrs
We should be more open in our immigration policy so that we can create an underclass of cheap laborers?
You mean what we have right now?
There is absolutely no reason that we shouldn’t seek to make it possible for these illegal alien workers to be legal migrant labor. At least if the system were in place, we would be able to identify these people and have some idea of how many are actually here…
I suspect that without access to illegal labor, many of the jobs that rely on will improve the pay enough to hire legal residents… or even innovate the jobs so that legal labor can be used more effectively. Market forces will make sure those jobs are filled… I rather doubt that farms will simply close rather than pay minimum wage.
I know farmers who hire illegals. They pay them minimum wage. To get your average “ex-factory worker rotting on unemployment” to take that job, which involves real work, farmers would have to pay impossible wages.
The point is that the illegals will do the work for minimum wage… None of the clowns who sit on unemployment rather than working at Home Depot for $11.00/hr are going to do farm work for $7.25/hr. I suspect, ASOL, that you have encountered the guys that I am talking about in your day to day as well.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 1555 hrs
Right now, if you are a foreign national legally in this country, you must carry your Green Card with you at all times and display it on demand by a law enforcement officer. That IS the law. So, when Mark Steyn, a Canadian living in Vermont and who has a very thick Brotish accent, travels he has a Green Card and has been asked several times to show proof of legal residency. Is that racial profiling? Why should Mexican nationals be exempt from that requirement?
Also, I’m sick of Mexico treating us as their welfare program. The country has natural resources out the wazoo and apparently a population that wants to work. The problem, IMHO, is that their government is so corrupt that no real economic development can take place. Perhaps if they knew that they could no longer rely on the USA as a safety valve against their people revolting because of a lack of jobs and because of a decrepit standard of living,they might do something about actually developing a al industrial base.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 1620 hrs
We should be more open in our immigration policy so that we can create an underclass of cheap laborers?
You mean what we have right now?Yes. It’s an abominable situation.
My solution would be to toughen up the laws on extended unemployment… insist that people take available jobs and supplement that if needed… at least until the unemployment runs out. These endless extensions are actually making things worse. Put em to work. If I lost my job, I’d be the night watchman or drive deliveries if I had to. The illegals can go home, and the professionally unemployed can get to work.
If the farmer needs to offer $9.50 to get workers, then so be it. That is how a free market works, but you have to eliminate the illegal labor to let the market work.
I understand the idea of worker permits, but I tend to believe that those are not needed until we have our own excess baggage put to work. When WE run out of workers, then we can import them.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 1621 hrs
Also, I’m sick of Mexico treating us as their welfare program.
Absolutely, but when I made that point earlier it was demanded of me that I provide numbers, and was asked what the burden on the system is of American Citizens…. As if it matters.
Just realize who you are arguing against. Many leftists believe that Mexican citizens are just as entitled to the healthcare/foodstamps/W.I.C./Badgercare/Qest/Drivers licenses/welfare/public education as any American Citizen.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 1626 hrs
“If a farmer has to offer $9.50 to get workers, then so be it…”
No, actually, that’s not how a free market works. We the consumers have set a price for the farmer’s product that said farmer needs to meet. The farmer either meets that price or does not produce the product. The price of his product is not determined by his costs, but by the market.
The effect of eliminating some low cost labor is to cut economic activity, which in turn will eliminate jobs for some high cost labor. We need a certain amount of low cost labor.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 1631 hrs
I understand the idea of worker permits, but I tend to believe that those are not needed until we have our own excess baggage put to work. When WE run out of workers, then we can import them.
PERFECTLY reasonable.
If the farmer needs to offer $9.50 to get workers, then so be it. That is how a free market works, but you have to eliminate the illegal labor to let the market work.
I have little sympathy for the farmers, and you’ll not hear me argue against the market, but you also then have to be willing to accept the corresponding increase in food prices, and what that means to the bottom line of the social services we already provide…
Also, you have to realize that the aliens are part of the market, and likely always will be. It is absolutely politically untenable to suggest that we are going to get every last illegal alien out of this country.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 1632 hrs
djmamayek, the answer is simple: If the economics of Mexico are so great, then why are 12 million of their people int his country working and sending money home to Mexico? If Mexico weren’t reating us like we were their welfare program, then they would have a program to keep their people home and see to their social needs. The fact that they don’t shows that they are relying on us to do it for them.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 1645 hrs
djmamayek, the answer is simple: If the economics of Mexico are so great, then why are 12 million of their people int his country working and sending money home to Mexico?
I don’t recall making the argument that the economics of Mexico are great. I wonder if one can even refer to Mexico as “Second World”.
If Mexico weren’t reating us like we were their welfare program, then they would have a program to keep their people home and see to their social needs. The fact that they don’t shows that they are relying on us to do it for them.
Yes, and if the West didn’t rely on us for their safety, we wouldn’t be in Afghanistan or Iraq….
The reality is that Mexico does rely on us to provide subsistence living for their people, and Europe does rely on us to be their protectors.
The funny parallel is how unabashedly hostile both Europe and Mexico are with regards to their position, and how it relates to what they depend on us for.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 1650 hrs
Maybe the argument could be made that we would be better off spending the hundreds of billions that Iraq and Afghanistan are costing us on economic development projects in Mexico?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 1655 hrs
@nerdbert: My apologies. Allow me to restate.
Our founders weren’t so concerned about the humanity of African-Americans that they got the whole human or property thing right the first time, you know, when they actually wrote the Constitution. Because all those guys you mentioned - yeah, they rolled over.
But hey, a couple of them freed their own slaves. Token gesture, but nice nevertheless.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on July 26, 2010 at 1703 hrs
USA accepts close to one million legal aliens a year. We are discussing illegal aliens.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 1735 hrs
They come for the food stamps, housing and free health care.
40 per cent of all Food stamps goes to illegals.
There is no verification of legal status to get food stamps and they know it.We are the only country in the world to give citizenship to the baby born here from illegals. No other country in the world does that.
Now the baby and mother gets food stamps, housing and free health care.USA accepts close to one million legal aliens a year. We are discussing illegal aliens.
You talk a lot of shit without facts to back it up, TROLL!!! Come back when you have either facts or a point of discussion…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 1749 hrs
djmamayek, my comments weren’t directed at you but at the people whom you said were going to say that I should provide proof.
The problem of the illegal aliens really stems from, IMHO, the fact that we haven’t let Mexico grow up. Mexico stands alone as a 3rd World country in North America. There has been little or no economic growth in that country regardless of the fact that she sits upon abundant natural resources. We are told over and over how industrious and hard-working the Mexicans here illegally are. Think of what they could do if they had work in Mexico! The Mexico that you see today is the same Mexico that you saw in 1950. She is poor, corrupt, and ridden with crime. She is like the 35 year-old male who lives at home with mom and dad and expects them to take care of him the same way that they took care of him when he was 10. He won’t start a career and has no interest in getting married and living on his own. So we, USA, must provide all sorts of care and protection for Mexico right up to taking in their people when they can’t take care of them on their own. As I said, we are the social welfare net for Mexico. Why should it bother establishing one on its own? Mexico has failed to launch! Nothing could have provided better proof than President Calderone’s address to the US Congress where he all but stated that we had a moral imperitive to provide for his people. Excuse me, the moral imperitive is YOURS Mr. Calderone. Grow up! The only time that Calderone seems to worry about his people is when Arizona declares that they are going to wean Mexico from the teat.
With all of the government corruption and crime in Mexico perhaps the best thing that could happen would be a revolt by the people who were no longer able to run to the USA to get the money to send home. Perhaps the new Mexico would discover that all of the petroleum, silver, copper, gold, lead, zinc, natural gas can be put to use making things that the world wants to buy. Now, that’s too much like work. They are, Calderone feels, better off sleeping late, having mom do the laundry, driving dad’s car, and complaining about getting a raw deal when the folks tell them it is time to get
a job.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 1809 hrs
87.@nerdbert: My apologies. Allow me to restate.
Our founders weren’t so concerned about the humanity of African-Americans that they got the whole human or property thing right the first time, you know, when they actually wrote the Constitution. Because all those guys you mentioned - yeah, they rolled over. But hey, a couple of them freed their own slaves. Token gesture, but nice nevertheless.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on July 26, 2010 at 1703 hrs“I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it [slavery].”
-George WashingtonPosted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 2018 hrs
To get your average “ex-factory worker rotting on unemployment” to take that job, which involves real work, farmers would have to pay impossible wages.
The point is that the illegals will do the work for minimum wage… None of the clowns who sit on unemployment rather than working at Home Depot for $11.00/hr are going to do farm work for $7.25/hr.
The way to get legal residents (either citizens or legal permanent residents) to take the low paying jobs, is turn the unemployment benefit back to 26 weeks, not 99 (or is it more now, they extend it so fast one can;t keep up)
In addition to getting people off the dole, it would reduce the payroll loading needed to pay the taxes that in turn go to the social safety net programs, which in turn would free up capital to better pay said employees. It is a vicious circle that no one wants to have to be the first to bite the bullet to start to improve, but if we don’t do it now, it will be worse later.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 2048 hrs
“I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it [slavery].” -George Washington
Nice sentiment. Too bad Washington wouldn’t put his money where his mouth was. Dude couldn’t be bothered to free his slaves until after his wife died. But thank you for further proving my point that when it came to slavery, our founders were all talk. To them, the freedom of the black man was a political bargaining chip and nothing more.
Guys like Washington talked about slavery the same way Obama talks about taxes. Would really like to help you out but… it’s just not a good time right now. Ask again later.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on July 27, 2010 at 0649 hrs
RS, that’s a pretty simplistic take on an issue that had any number of variables. It wasn’t a matter of a planter being opposed to slavery so, king’s X, he frees his slaves. BY NO MEANS AM I DEFENDING SLAVERY. But I am saying that there were a myriad of reason why a planter would be opposed to slavery but unable to just free them. Before you condemn Washington, or R.E. Lee, or any other slaveholder who was opposed to slavery, for not manumitting them you need to have a pretty in depth knowledge of the law of the times, the economics of the times, and the social contract of the times.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 27, 2010 at 0758 hrs
Guys like Washington talked about slavery the same way Obama talks about taxes. Would really like to help you out but… it’s just not a good time right now. Ask again later.
It was illegal to free slaves in Virginia. The penalties were VERY harsh.
I guess that is still just an excuse, but it is at least a reasonable one.
I always enjoy these arguments, because people on your side are so single minded about it. Totally unwilling to accept the fact that the condition of slavery did not have the same stigma it does today. It was a societal norm. There is also a tendency for the closed minded to disregard the fact that Washington treated his slaves VERY well, having many of them trained in skilled trades, giving them extensive meal breaks during the day, giving them the day off on Sunday, and many holidays. He allowed the slaves to sell their garden surplus at market, and keep the money. There are even records that suggest Washington would provide compensation to the slaves if it were necessary for them to work on Sunday.
Does any of that make up for the fact that slavery was an abomination, and is a blemish on this country’s history that will never heal? Good God, No….
By the time he was President, Washington was of the belief that slavery should have been banned in the constitution, but he didn’t lead the charge for emancipation because he understood exactly what that fight would do to the newly born country… Look at what happened nearly a century later, when far, far, far more Americans believed in emancipation.
Anyway, the issue with illegals is in no way related to slavery. Illegal Alien workers are not slaves, and to suggest that they are is to truly minimize exactly what slavery meant.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 27, 2010 at 0821 hrs
No, actually, that’s not how a free market works. We the consumers have set a price for the farmer’s product that said farmer needs to meet. The farmer either meets that price or does not produce the product. The price of his product is not determined by his costs, but by the market.
Huh? Consumers set the price for a product? Next time I go to buy a Harley, I’ll have to notify the salesman of my price setting powers. Perhaps I’m misunderstanding what you wrote… ?
Supply and demand set the price. If the supply of food drops, prices will increase… no matter what the consumer wishes to set the price at…. at least in a free market. If the government sticks it’s big nose in, that’s when trouble starts.
If a farmer can’t figure out how to attract workers that are legal, and harvest his crop at a competitive price, he will disappear and another, more innovative farmer will take his place. There is always going to be a high demand for food. Innovation and improved worker efficiency will be the order of the day if we dry up the pool of illegal workers. It’s possible that a price increase may occur, but that would drop again as producers compete for the market.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 27, 2010 at 0822 hrs
By the time he was President, Washington was of the belief that slavery should have been banned in the constitution, but he didn’t lead the charge for emancipation because he understood exactly what that fight would do to the newly born country
In the development of the constitution, business leaders, who basically defined what would be allowed in the constitution, wanted slavery in order to protect their economic interests. It’s the same way today. Business leaders don’t really want real immigration reform because it would hurt their economic interests. The running of this country has always been dictated by the big business oligarchy.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 27, 2010 at 0859 hrs
Our founders weren’t so concerned about the humanity of African-Americans that they got the whole human or property thing right the first time, you know, when they actually wrote the Constitution. Because all those guys you mentioned - yeah, they rolled over.
Our founders were primarily concerned at getting a country going. And the only way to get all the states in line was to kick the can down the road.
And Pat, business leaders like Hamilton disliked slavery vehemently, but viewed the survival of the US as of primary importance. The miserable failure of the Articles of Confederation left the future of the US in serious doubt and many folks viewed even the enhanced federal powers of the Constitution as not enough. Hamilton favored a far more muscular Federal government similar to what we have now, and for expressing that view he was diminished politically. But it wasn’t possible to get additional Federal powers because of the experience of colonization and because the Southern states feared interference and dominance by the Northern states.
As to social context, remember that st the time the dominant view was that slavery was on its way out, even in the Southern states, the main question being when and how it would be eliminated. It took quite a while for the Southern states to allow even the smallest challenges to slavery, like allowing slaves to be freed.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 27, 2010 at 0924 hrs
Yes, ASonOfLiberty, consumers set the price.
“If supply drops price will increase…” 1. Only if consumers are willing to pay a higher price. and 2. Supply is determined by demand in a market. That demand is expressed by the price consumers are willing to pay.
If a farmer stops producing because of high labor, a more innovative farmer will likely not take his place. Instead his production will be replaced by foreign production utilizing the low cost labor, as has been done throughout numerous industries.
Note that if you choose to accept a price increase in products as a cost of limiting the availability of low cost labor, you also choose the consequences, namely reduced economic output and higher long term unemployment rates for both low cost and higher cost labor.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 27, 2010 at 1148 hrs
snopes.com: Just One State - Cost of Illegals in Los Angeles
May 5, 2006 ... 29% of inmates in federal prisons are illegal aliens. ... the dominant force in California prisons, on complex drug-disMar 27, 2006 ... Of those, 108000 were in California. Some estimates show illegals now make up half of California’s prison population,Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 27, 2010 at 1259 hrs
How Many illegals have criminal records and warrants in Mexico before they illegally crossed our border!!?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 27, 2010 at 1304 hrs
@ “Jim” - Dude, where are you getting your “stats” from??? The website you referenced does not reflect your stated numbers. One of the numbers is “close”, but the others are not even mentioned.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/taxes.asp
You cite a 5/5/06 article from snopes.com, yet it doesn’t seem to back up your claims. Please stop pulling numbers out of your ass to support your feeble point of view. Idiot….
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 27, 2010 at 1342 hrs
In June 2010, undocumented immigrants represented 14.8 percent of Arizona state prisoners, but accounted for only 7 percent of the state’s overall population according to the Department of Homeland Security.
July 22, 2010 4:12 PM
UndocumUndocumented Immigrants Increasingly Filling Arizona Prisons
Posted by Laura Strickler CBS NewsPosted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 27, 2010 at 1508 hrs
Jim, provide a link. Otherwise, you’re just posting BULLSHIT!!!
Then, once you provide a credible link, maybe then you can make a point…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 27, 2010 at 1534 hrs
Here you go Laker, I will help Jim out for you:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20011391-10391695.html
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 27, 2010 at 1556 hrs
Total Entries: 19656
Total Comments: 129831
Most Recent Entry: 02/11/2012 09:52 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 02/11/2012 04:55 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 99
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 02/12/2012 01:14 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).