Traffic was dreamy today.
Can we try this “Day Without [Illegal] Immigrants” thing again tomorrow?
P.S. I’m even willing to try a “Week Without [Illegal] Immigrants.”
P.P.S. Or a “Month Without [Illegal] Immigrants.”
P.P.P.S. Do I hear a year?
Pronounced "Patter-EE-koh"
E-mail: Just use my moniker Patterico, followed by the @ symbol, followed by gmail.com
Disclaimer: Simpsons avatar may resemble a younger Patterico...
The statements made on this web site reflect the personal opinions of the author. They are not made in any official capacity, and do not represent the opinions of the author's employer.
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
| 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
| 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 |
| 29 | 30 | 31 | ||||
Powered by WordPress.
What about sock puppets going on strike to protest the LA Times’ disciplining of Hiltzik? Do you suppose that we could get along without them?
Dan Collins (aa20a5) — 5/1/2006 @ 6:10 pmWith a stroke of a few pens we can make sure that there aren’t any more illegals.
actus (6234ee) — 5/1/2006 @ 6:37 pmAs I wrote on Xrlq and my blog: “What kind of macho hombre does this kind of maricon un-dia boycott? A real man with cojones would go back to la patria and stay there and really teach these pinche gringos a lesson.”
nk (d5dd10) — 5/1/2006 @ 7:33 pm“With a stroke of a few pens we can make sure that there aren’t any more illegals.”
But how would that reduce traffic levels?
Paul (c169e9) — 5/1/2006 @ 8:05 pmWith a stroke of a few pens we can make sure that there aren’t any more illegals.
Ah, but will that help my morning commute??
Patterico (50c3cd) — 5/1/2006 @ 8:08 pmWow, looks like Paul and I are on the same page here . . .
Patterico (50c3cd) — 5/1/2006 @ 8:09 pmYeah, I noted that, too here. Maybe it would be good to hear from other points around town?
For me: 9:30am, 405 North, west LA, full speed. 6pm 405 south, even emptier, which I’ve never seen, not even on Yom Kippur. 8 miles in, um, less than 8 minutes.
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 5/1/2006 @ 8:10 pmI don’t know. Is it them being here or them being illegal that’s the problem?
actus (6234ee) — 5/1/2006 @ 8:11 pmAlthough, if you normally travel home down Wilshire, I expect it was less joyful.
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 5/1/2006 @ 8:12 pmActus–
You miss the point. The demo was supposed to show what life without the immigrants would be like, and one unintended consequence is that there are some good points to them not being here. It’s a “sense of humor” thing.
Of course, one could solve the traffic issues other ways: raise the driving age to 25, pull licenses for your second ticket in 3 years, etc. We probably won’t do those, and we probably won’t send the Marines into East LA to deport everyone.
But uninntended consequences are often pretty funny…
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 5/1/2006 @ 8:16 pmDon’t even bother responding to actus. If he had any brains, and ever made any decent points worth responding to, it would be different, but he’s an idiot. The funny thing is that, like all lefties, he fancies himself to be quite the intellectual.
CraigC (9fd63a) — 5/1/2006 @ 8:25 pmI still don’t know what this boycott was supposed to accomplish. The reality is for most people it had had no impact. I did notice that some 70,000 LAUSD kids skipped class. How much is that going to cost the district?
Eddie Barrera (def523) — 5/1/2006 @ 9:05 pmPatterico,
Can you estimate the percentage of your office’s work load that deals with problems caused by illegal immigrants?
Maybe we can clear up the freeways and courts at the same time.
Perfect Sense (024110) — 5/1/2006 @ 9:06 pmWork in El Segundo to home in PV in 27 minutes during rush hour. Amazing. No line at the DMV. Anybody notice if the hospital emergency rooms and the public assistance offices were also on the boycott list or is that asking too much?
A week, month or even year without illegal immigrants? Lawns in PV will sure go to hell in a hurry.
Jeff C. (428193) — 5/1/2006 @ 9:08 pmMy drive from 8th and Alameda to San Dimas only consumed thirty-two minutes of my time today, I agree, lets do it again tomorrow!
Edward Padgett (8c8cfd) — 5/1/2006 @ 9:12 pmJust as long as they get their little brown asses back in time to make the Guac (avocado, often combined with citrus juice, onion and other spices) and Margarita mix in time for Cinco de Mayo, I’m down with it all. Know what I’m sayin’?
PC14 (98b75e) — 5/1/2006 @ 9:12 pmTraffic today was dreamy unless you were trying to drive across the Inland Empire on your way to the Ontario Airport. There, the the local construction project brought the road to a screeching halt. It took me half an hour to cross from one end of Colton to the other on I-10.
Luckily i’d misremembered the plane arrival time as the plane departure time, otherwise I might have been in trouble. 🙂
I was both amused and annoyed when KNX was reporting on traffic conditions, though, and listed every single freeway which had good traffic conditions before telling me what was up on I-10.
aphrael (3bacf3) — 5/1/2006 @ 9:17 pmPC14,
Quite a witty sense of humor you have there. Let me guess, 14 is your age? or possibly your IQ?
Jeff C. (428193) — 5/1/2006 @ 9:46 pmOne other thing for the record. My comment regarding lawns not getting mowed was supposed to be a swipe at those who are well-off, yet are happy to benefit from cheap labor supplied by illegals. I’m talking about the business owners that knowingly employ illegal aliens or the pampered folks too cheap (or lazy) to wash their own cars or clean their own houses. I know how hard most Mexican immigrants work, a lot harder than most Anglos for that matter. My issue is having to pay 10 grand a year in property taxes to pay for the required public social services.
Jeff C. (428193) — 5/1/2006 @ 9:59 pmIts got to really scare the right wing to see rally where people are chanting that they want to pay taxes.
actus (6234ee) — 5/1/2006 @ 10:05 pmJeff C, The IQ/age putdown…how quaint.
PC14 (98b75e) — 5/1/2006 @ 10:07 pmI don’t know. Is it them being here or them being illegal that’s the problem?
Maybe I can explain it to you slow. It’s their being here. Which they shouldn’t be — because we set limits on immigration because we don’t want so many people in L.A. or in the country as a whole. Which limits the illegals have ignored — which helps snarl our traffic.
I suspect it would be interesting to see what people would think if we really had a day without illegals. Hospital emergency rooms manageble. Public schools less overcrowded with unqualified students. Freeways clear. But strawberries expensive, and car washes, nannies, and a million other low-level service jobs at market price.
I’d love it. I really wonder how others would react.
Today, they were all downtown or in their homes, and thus off my freeways. And it was heaven. A day without [illegal] immigrants? Give me a lifetime!
Patterico (50c3cd) — 5/1/2006 @ 10:14 pm“Jeff C, The IQ/age putdown…how quaint.”
Yep, about as predictable and original as smearing someone as a racist.
Actus – I think most of us would like to see the underground economy of illegal aliens be brought into the open and taxed. The only real party that really benefits from the way things are now are the employers. But where does it stop? Another amnesty for the next 15 million after that? What about the illegals that come here from the rest of the world such as China and the Middle East? Amnesty for as many that can get here? Wide open borders?
Where does it end?
Jeff C. (428193) — 5/1/2006 @ 10:29 pmJust as long as they get their little brown asses back in time to make the Guac (avocado, often combined with citrus juice, onion and other spices) and Margarita mix in time for Cinco de Mayo, I’m down with it all. Know what I’m sayin’?
Yeah, PC14, we do, loud and clear. Isn’t it great we have this internet where you can be a jerk anonymously?
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 5/1/2006 @ 10:29 pmI’m just wondering why PC14 felt he/she had to include the recipe for guacamole in parentheses. As if a whole bunch of us are sitting around wondering what this exotic dish could be.
JVW (d667c9) — 5/1/2006 @ 10:42 pmPatrick–
But the limits we set are so low that the only sane response is to jump the line. My research tells me it’s about 26,000 a year for any one country, with no regard to whether it’s Mexico or Nepal. It’s like a lifeboat drill where the ship is sinking, but they fill the boats at post office speeds. There comes a point where you say “F*** it.”
The system is broken, it has been broken for many years, and it’s time to fix it. Or do you rally think we’re going to send in 100,000 troops to clear out the illegals? Failing that, we need to create an enforceable system which has some contact with reality.
Mexicans are going to immigrate in large numbers, at least until there is some kind of change in Mexico — we should insist on that as well as part of the deal. In particular, we should insist the Mexicans allow unfettered American investment in Mexico, the abolition of cartels and monopolies, and other reforms to create wealth within their own country.
But expecting people to starve to death just across the border waiting for their turn to come up when the line is over 100 years long is just nuts. It’s untenable, and we’ve had 20 years (and more) of this untenable policy and now we’re reaping what we sowed.
What we should be asking is not why the dog peed on the hydrant, but why we’re standing between the hydrant and the dog.
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 5/1/2006 @ 10:49 pmKevin, PaulC14 is not anonymous, he has a distinctive character and recognition factor, he’s a 14.
We think you and JeffC need to be more observant of the tongue and the cheek.
Cookla14, Fran14 and Ollie14 (98b75e) — 5/1/2006 @ 10:51 pmIts got to really scare the right wing to see rally where people are chanting that they want to pay taxes.
Wrong. We don’t want to pay the social welfare for those who shouldn’t be here by law. And as you will soon see, there will be more than just us “wingnuts” coming to that position.
The backlash has already started.
Paul (c169e9) — 5/1/2006 @ 11:54 pmMexicans are going to immigrate in large numbers, at least until there is some kind of change in Mexico — we should insist on that as well as part of the deal. In particular, we should insist the Mexicans allow unfettered American investment in Mexico, the abolition of cartels and monopolies, and other reforms to create wealth within their own country.
Oh, how right you are, Kevin.
Paul (c169e9) — 5/1/2006 @ 11:57 pmI am with Scrappleface here: Let’s do a day without Miranda rights, a month without habeas, and a year without bail.
Federal Dog (49ba76) — 5/2/2006 @ 2:05 amA day without illegals was WONDERFUL! I can’t wait till they decide to try a month without illegals! Or a year!
I had a numbnut I work with try to tell me we were “all illegals.” I told him no, I had a birth certificate to prove it. Then he told me my parents were illegals and I said no, my mother was naturalized and had the papers to prove it and yes, I AM a 1st generation American. Then he tried to tell me the Europeans were illegals & I tried explaining to him that you can’t be illegal where there are no countries or immigration laws and the Indians didn’t have either, and that, besides, since everyone came from somewhere else, wouldn’t even the Indians, Aztecs, Mayas, etc. be illegal immigrants under this theory? He shut up after that. 🙂
sharon (fecb65) — 5/2/2006 @ 3:33 amI hope they had a nice day off yesterday. I also hope that ICE was taking pictures. Enough of this foolishness. Let’s just start with the bad actors and deport our way back to Sovereignty.
paul from Fl (464e99) — 5/2/2006 @ 4:13 amThe illegals who are here today are going to stay here. In terms of deportation, there’s no there there. Many illegals left a village in Chiapas or a barrio of Mexico City 5, 10, or 20 years ago–what are they going “back” to? Will the Press fail to play up the human suffering that a serious deportation policy would entail? Is the American public stone-hearted enough to have their bureaucrats, cops, and prosecuters enforce such a policy?
I’m asking about a practical matter, not about the rights and wrongs of illegal immigration.
First, build a wall from San Diego to Brownsville.
Whatever “solution” our soft-headed legislators come up with for today’s illegals is going to serve as a tremendous incentive for the prospective illegal immigrants of tomorrow to venga al Norte. “Whatever the Gringos say, if I can make the trip and get a job, I’ll be in in ten or twenty (2006 – 1986 = 20) years.”
Heartless though it sounds, the first order of business is to make it much harder for the tens of millions of wannabe illegals to get here and settle here.
I’d argue for “stronger employer sanctions” as well–if the determination of the Bush Administration to outdo Clinton in ignoring the laws already on the books didn’t make it a waste of electrons to do so.
AMac (b6037f) — 5/2/2006 @ 5:59 amCheck out the LA Times front page? To the pro-illegal MSM, there was no other news yesterday. That march was not a protest, it was an announcement that the takeover is complete. Truly, we have a weak, corrupt, and disfunctional Federal government, if they choose to spend $10 billion a month in Iraq, and ignore the invading army in our own streets.
Jack (b8f405) — 5/2/2006 @ 7:06 amKevin,
You are so right. I would vote for amnesty when Mexico grants us amnesty: the right to vote in Mexican elections and have dual citizenship, the right to own property and businesses, to earn money, to gain privileged minority status in jobs and education, and free health care. Think of what entrepeneurial Americans could do with that country! Not to mention defeating the socialists there and here. I think Bush is missing out on a good compromise here–somebody tell him!
My day without illegals: two coffee shops on campus. The Mexicans at one took the day off and were immediately replaced with more Mexicians who were a bit slow causing a little line. (Get it, marchers? You are marching for your slave labor replacements!) So I walk across campus and get a steaming espresso from the smiling African American manage–which I will do out of loyalty to the people who stayed on the job from now on.
Patricia (2cc180) — 5/2/2006 @ 8:15 amAMac, I agree with you 100% including your opinion that the Bush Administration is unwilling to enforce our immigration laws. GWB is a free trade proponent (thank you Harvard Business School) who supports open borders for economic reasons. As he views it, an added plus is that the open borders position is politically expedient – it offers hope to millions of illegal Hispanic immigrants and makes it possible for the GOP to cling to the belief that immigrants might vote Republican. So I think GWB views this as a two-fer.
Sadly, this is another in a long line of instances demonstrating how tone-deaf GWB is on domestic issues.
DRJ (3c8cd6) — 5/2/2006 @ 8:46 amThere is no way that 12 million (estimate) illegals can be deported. The only way we are going to solve this problem is a) close off the border and b) make it too costly for employers to hire illegals.
I suggest a fine of $10,000 for each employee found working without documentation plus an additional amount dollar for dollar of all wages paid to that employee. Those fines should be returned to the state or local governments to compensate for the burden that illegals put on them.
Time will take care of the rest of the problem. When illegals can no longer find work, they will simply return home. It might take a few years, but the problem would be solved.
RLS (0516f0) — 5/2/2006 @ 8:51 amIts got to really scare the right wing to see rally where people are chanting that they want to pay taxes.
They were chanting that they PAY taxes, so they deserve citizenship. Not that the want to pay taxes.
But thanks for the fine example of leftist sleight of hand. Hopefully you can come up with a few more to keep us entertained today.
TakeFive (2bf7bd) — 5/2/2006 @ 8:59 amTakeFive–
I don’t know what that other commenter’s politics are, but immigration is not a left-right issue. There’s lots of labor unions on the anti- side and lots of free-marketers on the pro- side.
Now, you may say that there is a difference between illegal and legal immigration, but the sad fact is that current law makes legal immigration from large countries statistically impossible.
When you outlaw immigration, all immigrants will be outlaws.
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 5/2/2006 @ 9:35 amA day without mexican food and my good cholesterol level went up while the bad cholesterol went down.
Now to pay my insurance bill with the ever popular “uninsured motorist premium” attached.
Bueno?
vet66 (71415b) — 5/2/2006 @ 10:24 amI don’t know what that other commenter’s politics are, but immigration is not a left-right issue.
I think if you asked what is considered the traditional “Right” in this country, most people would cite the Republican base. Now, I work in a republican congressional district and live in a democratic one, and I see clearly see the difference in attitude over this issue.
Likewise, the difference between the management and factory floor follows similar divisions. If you need any clearer example, look at the recent vote in favor of the boycott by the California legislature. Right along party lines. Not a left-right issue you say?
But I will grant you that while it may be a divisive issue for the constituents, it sure as hell doesn’t seem to be for our elected officials. I expect a sell-out from the Democrats, but the Republican roll-over on this issue is appalling and will not be forgotten come election day. I don’t hear similar sentiments being expressed by the Left.
I’ll tell you, over here on the Right, we’re pissed. I sense a growing attitude of “why can’t I choose the laws I care to obey”. That just does wonders for the morale of society.
I can’t wait for a crafty defense attorney to prevail with the argument that because the government doesn’t really enforce a law (in fact ignores it), and the accused worked really hard at his illegal business, and turned over some of the take to the government, that he is not guilty. In fact, he should be rewarded in some fashion. It might take something that perverse to begin to turn things around.
TakeFive (2bf7bd) — 5/2/2006 @ 12:26 pmHow about a country………
Ed (dfd255) — 5/2/2006 @ 1:47 pmKevin Murphy said:
The limits are one issue. The required paperwork is another. My husbank is a legal immigrant, who qualified for his green card because we were engaged. That wasn’t enough, however, he also had to have a sponsor who would agree to repay costs to the government if he went on public assistance within his first three years in the US.
I didn’t have enough assets to qualify as a sponsor, so I asked my parents. My father refused to be his sponsor, explaining somewhat unromantically that if my husband were to be injured in an accident and left a vegetable, that my father would be liable for hundreds of thousands of dollars for his care.
My mother was more willing to take a risk, so she signed it. But it was very clear to me and is now that she was literally putting everything on the line for both me and my husband.
I do not have any sympathy for people who enter the country illegally. Those who enter legally assume a great deal of responsibility, and no one who refuses the responsibility should be allowed the benefits of residency.
It’s completely idiotic for these people to demand citizenship, by the way. My husband has still not become a citizen, even though both the US and his home country allow dual citizenship. He will not because in order to gain this dual citizenship, he would have to “forswear all allegience to foreign princes and potentates” which to him means that he would no longer fully be a citizen of his home country. He is willing to tolerate the lower status of permanent resident rather than tell a lie by agreeing to the required terms.
Doesn’t sound to me like most of these illegal aliens are planning to “forswear all allegience to foreign princes and potentates”, not the way they wave their Mexican flags around. Maybe no one has explained the actual process to them?
It’s not all welfare and free beer.
Teri (4e5088) — 5/2/2006 @ 3:00 pmSome thoughts:
1) As I may have mentioned here before, if we cut off the flow of illegal immigrants, we cut off the flow of ‘dollars home’ FROM illegal immigrants, and Mexico collapses. Maybe we want Mexico to collapse. Maybe Mexico SHOULD collapse, but if it does we have even MORE anarchy and disruption on our southern border, and we need to keep this firmly in mind, no matter what we do.
2) At least half the problem is that the Government of Mexico is a running sore, and has been for at least sixty years, arguably since Spain sent the first Spanish governor. Can we do something about this? SHOULD we do something about this?
3) Historically speaking, the fastest way to get people in a Democracy to devote the time and effort necessary to revise or repeal Laws that are both ill-judged and unenforced is to start enforcing them, HARD. A good case in point is the pattern of reform of ‘dry’ laws in the deep south after WWII; most went unenforced, or partially enforced, giving rise to vast amounts of corruption. In the post-war era a new generation of young men entered politics, and got many of the ‘dry’ laws repealed by the simple expedient of actually seeing them enforced until the public bucked.
C. S. P. Schofield (e198c7) — 5/2/2006 @ 3:20 pmHow about forever? They are just showing the public that all of ut who want them gone are correct. Things were smoother, quieter, safer.
Craig C (35a2ab) — 5/2/2006 @ 4:14 pmTeri–
As I understand what you argue, the law sucks, but as long as it sucks it should suck equally. How about the option of fixing it?
As far as the argument the state makes about costs of social services, my solution would be “immigrants don’t get any means-tested programs.” If they aren’t available to all residents equally, they aren’t available at all to immigrants. Don’t like that, don’t come. The issue isn’t the immigration policy, it’s the welfare policy.
I will point out that the ONLY reason your fiance is eligible for a green card is that you are engaged. He is given special privilege denied to most of his countrymen. A random person from a large country, with no such ties, who wants to immigrate has to wait until all people with ties go first. Since the Mexican quota is so low, this never happens. There is no line for them to stand in, let alone jump.
What would you do if there was no way for him to enter the US legally? Think about that before you condemn those who cross over under the current law.
With or without a sponsor, with or without a salable skill, you cannot legally immigrate from Mexico unless you marry or are blood relation to a legal US resident.
Earlier people were talking about this being the same a breaking the 55-MPH limit. It isn’t. It’s more like what would you do if the limit was 3 MPH? The current law is that unreasonable.
Kevin Murphy (805c5b) — 5/2/2006 @ 5:14 pmIn a reasonable world, one without the ACLU to object to anything but open borders, we should have Ellis Island stations where people are checked for criminal history, illness, etc., and then let in, in much greater numbers than legal today. Alas, as I said, with the left in full battle mode, it would be hung up forever in red tape.
We do need some increase in population to keep the economy humming. I would prefer that the pols cut taxes and spending instead of pumping up the property tax revenue stream by flooding the market with people, but what are the chance of that happening without a huge collapse beforehand?
Patricia (2cc180) — 5/2/2006 @ 7:09 pmI didn’t notice any of the marchers boycotting the subsidized bus service to get downtown?
Pat Patterson (5b3946) — 5/2/2006 @ 7:37 pmHere’s a thought: The only way to change the economic/political conditions in Mexico is REGIME CHANGE! But, we’re a little busy right now. So, we start deporting Mexicans here illegally: single males between the ages of 16 and 40, or those un-accompanied. As they cross the border we provide them each with an AK-47 (I bet we have a very large supply available) and 500-rounds of ammo. After Mexico, we can start deporting Venezuelans and Bolivians – those two countries are in a race to the economic bottom and will both need some drastic reworking in about 6-12 months.
Another Drew (f0b1e0) — 5/2/2006 @ 8:52 pmKevin #46 wrote:
A random person from a large country, with no such ties, who wants to immigrate has to wait until all people with ties go first. Since the Mexican quota is so low, this never happens. There is no line for them to stand in, let alone jump…The current law is that unreasonable.
I think I understand you correctly: that, since many random people from a large countries believe that they have a right to immigrate to the US, that our laws are unreasonable.
But what if the laws of a country ought to be enacted to serve the interests of the citizens of that country? What if the feelings of entitlement that many foreigners have are simply feelings?
Hundreds of millions of foreigners have quite understandable desires to move to the US. Satisfying these people’s wishes is hardly a wise priority for US immigration policy.
AMac (0097e1) — 5/2/2006 @ 9:22 pmYeah, I saw that light traffic joke on a few other right wing blogs.
matt (c61841) — 5/3/2006 @ 4:26 amKevin, I don’t think that anything I said could be construed as “the law sucks.” I wrote several paragraphs showing that legal immigrants are required to show that someone is willing to take financial responsibility for them, and that it is a real financial commitment, not to be taken lightly. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask that people entering the country are going to add to the country’s resources rather than subtract from them.
My point was that people who think you can just wave a pen and give everyone citizenship are not thinking it through, and especially that people seem to be confused about the difference between citizenship and residency.
This is a critically serious economic issue. When people say that illegal immigrants take jobs that “Americans won’t do” what they really mean is that illegal immigrants are taking jobs that employers aren’t willing to pay market wages for. Every illegal immigrant who enters America and takes a job puts at least two people on public assistance: him or herself, because there is no way that someone making wages that are unacceptable to an American can afford their own healthcare, so it is just a matter of time before that illegal worker receives public health assistance. The second person who is on public assistance is the American who is displaced from that job.
So all those rich people’s nannies are being subsidized by taxpayers. Would you rather pay for public assistance for two people, or pay twice as much for grapes and lettuce? Me, I’d rather pay more for produce.
Teri (4e5088) — 5/3/2006 @ 3:07 pm