Deporting Illegal Aliens: Inherently Wrong? We’re Starting to Treat It That Way . . .
Is catching and deporting illegal aliens an inherently bad thing?
You’d think the answer is obvious: of course not. Yet, when you think about it, that is the question raised by two recent news articles.
First, there has been a verdict in the case of that Arizona rancher who held illegal aliens at gunpoint on his property. As I told you in detail here, his ranch has been vandalized by trespassing illegal aliens for years. He has turned over 10,000 over to ICE. Some of the illegals he detained sued him — and guess what? They won:
A federal jury found Tuesday that a southern Arizona rancher didn’t violate the civil rights of a group of illegal immigrants who said he detained them at gunpoint in 2004.
The eight-member civil jury also found Roger Barnett wasn’t liable on claims of battery and false imprisonment.
But the jury did find him liable on four claims of assault and four claims of infliction of emotional distress and ordered Barnett to pay $77,804 in damages — $60,000 of which were punitive.
Lord. This is where, five years ago, I would have engaged in a verbose tirade. Now, the tirades have been beaten out of me. This is too outrageous for words, and I have none adequate to the occasion.
Second, we have an interesting article on ICE fugitive alien raids forwarded by commenter “Hax Vobiscum.” The complaint, recently discussed on this blog, is that teams devoted to arresting fugitive aliens have been targeting illegals who aren’t fugitive aliens. As I told you in two posts (here and here) about an L.A. Times article on the issue, a recent report didn’t bear out the contention that the teams were actually targeting non-fugitive aliens. Rather, the report suggested that the teams were arresting increasing numbers of fugitive aliens (including those with criminal records) every year, together with even more non-fugitive aliens encountered during the raids.
But the new Washington Post article raises the first real evidence that teams may actually have been targeting illegal aliens who aren’t criminals. Read the whole article and watch the accompanying video, and you’ll see the evidence is far from conclusive. Some agents have one story, and others have a different story. The article centers on an incident that began when ICE agents rolled into a 7-11 parking lot and had illegals running up to offer day labor services — that much is corroborated by the video. Even the focus of the sob story — a fellow stopping for a coffee break while his son was being treated at a nearby hospital — refuses to say whether he is illegal, on the advice of his lawyers.
As regular readers know, I support targeting illegal aliens who have committed crimes other than entering the country illegally. Deporting those illegals should be our top priority. But if you’re an ICE agent and illegals come running up to your car to offer illegal day labor, I don’t think you’re obliged to ignore that. On the contrary, I think you’re obliged to act.
You could pick apart the specifics of the particular scenario and the videotape endlessly, but the bottom line is this: prioritizing the deportation of criminals should be ICE’s top priority. But there is nothing inherently wrong with deporting illegal aliens, regardless of whether they have committed crimes unrelated to their immigration status.
Let’s stop criticizing ICE for doing its job. But let’s continue encouraging ICE to prioritize deporting the criminals first.
if you are here illegally, it is the duty and obligation of every law enforcement official to turn you over to the appropriate authorities so you can either be prosecuted and punished, or deported. Every time, every interaction.
yes, i’ve heard all the excuses about how that just encourages immigrant crime, since the usual suspects prey on them, but if they weren’t here to begin with, that couldn’t possibly happen, now could it?
anything else is a joke. as for a reform, i say we mirror the immigration law of the country the person is coming from. that would sure as hell solve the problem with Mexico.
redc1c4 (9c4f4a) — 2/18/2009 @ 1:26 amYou’re high again, aren’t you… 🙂
Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 2/18/2009 @ 1:38 amWhy would Democrats want to deport their base?
Perfect Sense (0922fa) — 2/18/2009 @ 2:13 amYes the more illegal aliens in the country the higher the census count and since the population distribution of non-citizens is almost a one on one match with areas of Democratic Party domination,
The more seats in the House and Electoral Votes under control of the Democratic Party
Dan Kauffman (c260a1) — 2/18/2009 @ 2:30 amArresting day laborers en masse on suspicion of immigration violations is bad policing and bad in a way that raises damning questions about motives.
Good policing, not to mention common sense, calls for targetting illegal employers, not employees. It’s a matter of efficiency. This why police target drug dealers, not drug users. Cut it off at the source.
Were police to encounter a teenager trying to buy cocaine and could expect the dealer to come along in a few minutes, they would wait for the transaction, and make the bust, then work on finding out where the dealer bought it and try to bust his dealer.
If ICE were in the business of combatting illegal immigration, that is what they too would do, of necessity. Instead of arresting guys looking for day work, they’d wait until the guys looking to hire them pulled up in a truck, then arrest them.
If ICE did that once, maybe twice, that location would cease to exist as a pickup spot for day laborers. However, if ICE simply rounds up the illegal workers, as they did, the illegal hirers will keep coming back and the next, or the next week, the spot will resume activity.
But as we know, ICE doesn’t intend to combat illegal immigration, per se. It intends to deal with the far more acute problem of criminal fugitives who pose an immediate public safety threat. Because that is ICE’s intended task, they don’t bother to target illegal hirers.
That is also why, as Wapo and LAT point out, their roundups of ordinary illegal workers is a waste of taxpayer resources.
What’s worse is that these roundups give ammunition to immigration enforcement critics who contend there is an element of ethnic bigotry involved. Why are largely white illegal hirers totally ignored, while largely Latino illegal workers are arrested and deported, when arresting and punishing hirers is an obviously more efficient, cost-effective way to stanch illegal immigration.
I would add that arresting hirers is also more moral, given that illegal hirers have far more options than illegal workers. Illegal hirers are not motivated by the need to simply eat, they are motivated by the desire to increase their profit at the expense of law-abiding rivals, who have to make higher bids on projects because they have to pay higher wages to legal workers.
It makes moral, legal and law enforcement sense to focus on illegal hiring. The fact that that isn’t happening gives credence to those who say there is an element of ethnic bigotry in the enforcement.
that? Why do we hear about illegal day laborers being arrested en masse, but nnot illegal day hirers?
Hax Vobiscum (edacf7) — 2/18/2009 @ 3:20 amMr Vobiscum asks the appropriate question:
I know that this previously-stated position doesn’t make me terribly popular amongst readers here, but why do we hear complaints about illegal immigration from people who patronize the goods and services provided by illegal immigrants?
Does no one here eat lettuce? If you do, the odds are pretty good that you’ve been indirectly employing an illegal alien. Does no one here live in a house that is less than twenty years old? If you do, the odds are that you are residing under a roof put up by illegals, which is held up by framing built by illegals, covered with sheetrock hung by illegals, and on and on and on. Does everyone here do his own yardwork, or do some people have landscaping services? The odds are that if you hire that help, you’ve hired an illegal or three.
I know that I’ve gotten on my high-horse about this before, but one thing is perfectly clear: the only reason illegal immigrants come to the United States is because we pay them to come here.
The natural-born citizen Dana (3e4784) — 2/18/2009 @ 4:05 amIt’s only going to get worse since the president himself has a relative living here illegally. It was bad enough before but it’s only going to get worse now.
buckblog (2c8b80) — 2/18/2009 @ 4:08 amRacists.
JD (d1c83a) — 2/18/2009 @ 4:47 amI must again denounce you, everyone here and myself as racist.
Acorn also is getting $2 billion. Acorn can only sign so many homeless people onto voter roles, what will they do if you don’t give them illegals to sign up too?
Joe (17aeff) — 2/18/2009 @ 5:04 amOne problem with enforcement by targeting employers is that many illegals have false documents. The employer is supposed to check these but there is a limit to what can be done, especially by small employers. The E-Verify part of the “stimulus bill” was deleted.
The other factor is that employers who do not hire illegals are at a severe disadvantage in competing with those who do. There are no dry wall or landscaping businesses that restrict hiring to legal residents. They all went out of business. Until the law makes it easy to verify documents and enforces that law, we will not have enforcement.
Mike K (2cf494) — 2/18/2009 @ 5:06 amTell you what. Next time I get a speeding ticket, I’ll ask the judge to dismiss because it was the car companies who should have known better than to sell me a car that could somehow violate a law.
If you don’t want to do the time (or face the penalty), then don’t do the crime.
Dr. K (24b8da) — 2/18/2009 @ 5:16 amYeah, they never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever do that. You realize. of course, that this just scratches the surface.
Pablo (99243e) — 2/18/2009 @ 5:17 amYes, and that was done in conference, behind closed doors, on the bill that then had to be passed before anyone could possibly read it, lest the world end or Pelosi miss her flight or some other such unthinkable disaster. .
Pablo (99243e) — 2/18/2009 @ 5:22 am“The only reason illegal immigrants come to the United States is because we pay them to come here.” Thank you, whoever you are for making the point better than I ever could have. I could add that if you eat dinner in a nice resturant anyplace in California it’s very likely that an immigrant prepped your food, cooked it, and washed the dishes. And absent these illegals who would do this work? We’ve conditioned a couple of generations of native born Americans of all races to wait for the gov’t check.
glenn (fcbc78) — 2/18/2009 @ 5:56 amMy grandson is the only one in his kindergarten class that speaks English has a primary language. McDonalds advertisements are mailed to me in Spanish, with tiny English subtitles. The largest heroin bust in the state of California happens a few miles from my how. The gang involved was Mexican, not Mexican-American, but Mexican nationals. Some people want to protect the illegal immigrant criminals from law enforcement while I have to pay the penalty for their crimes. Illegal immigration is the very core of Nancy Pelosi’s “Culture of Corruption”, which tries to ignore the enforcement of some laws while pretending that other things are illegal. In the meantime, my neighborhood which was 90% American just a few decades ago is now 90% Mexican. The fact that this change happened illegally doesn’t matter to the “Culture of Corruption”. Senator Boxer’s opinion is that “we can’t arrest them all”. So, therefore, in her mind, the only option is to ignore enforcement and change my world, for the worse.
We should ignore the hate mongers who say it is racist to enforce the law and just enforce the law. That would end the “Culture of Corruption” in the case of William Jefferson, Charles Rangel, illegal Immigrants and their voter fraud.
tyree (5624c2) — 2/18/2009 @ 6:03 amThese people seem to be pretty upset with Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL)for trying to get ICE to stop doing something they’re not doing.
And why would he do it if ICE isn’t going after employers? That’s pretty odd, isn’t it, Hacks?
Pablo (99243e) — 2/18/2009 @ 6:19 amWhile I get to California pretty often for a midwesterner, I am usually in the middle of a city and don’t drive around and go to Home Depot, etc. A few weeks ago I was in northern Cal and I couldn’t believe the street scene outside the Home Depot in San Rafael. I have never seen anything like it. Mexicans lined up along the whole street, with toolbelts and toolboxes, waiting for contractors to pick them up.
The trade unions should be furious about this, but instead they are trying to get them legalized and unionized to increase their dues base. What a shame. A whole generation or more of American kids are going to miss out on the skilled trades as a career opportunity.
carlitos (8d203b) — 2/18/2009 @ 6:50 amTheir illegal aliens and not american citizens they should nevr have been allowed to file this stupid lawsuit in the first place they all should be deported and their lawyers deorted with them in fact the whole rotten MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENCE FUND should all be deported
Krazy Kagu (d47573) — 2/18/2009 @ 7:14 amIf you’re in the US without prior permission, or came in and did not leave when you were required, you’re a criminal.
Yes, we should target the employers as well. Hell, press criminal charges on employers when they’re found acting in a way that enables identity theft, Social Security fraud, etc. For that matter, go after the property owners who rent to illegals, the banks who cash their checks, Western Union for transferring their money, and everyone else who makes it possible for them to break the law in the first place.
But don’t act as if immigration law isn’t, you know, the law.
Unfortunately, mass immigration from banana republics is a way for the political class to replace the electorate with one more accepting of corruption…
Rob Crawford (04f50f) — 2/18/2009 @ 7:18 amIf we don’t respect our borders then we have no reason to expect anyone else to.
They are here because we don’t care, because citizenship means nothing to us.
Amphipolis (fdbc48) — 2/18/2009 @ 7:39 amAmen to that sentiment. There is no other free nation on this earth that has the porous borders that we currently experience regarding Mexico. Not in Europe, and if you’ve ever tried to get across the Candadian border quickly, think again.
Dmac (49b16c) — 2/18/2009 @ 7:53 amDana has it down. It’s about cheap labor and more tellingly about more competent labor for much less money. Employers absolutely do not want illegal immigrants to go away. Which is why they aren’t going away.
EdWood (c2268a) — 2/18/2009 @ 7:56 amThere is no real “racist” angle except maybe for some pols using dreams of Aztlan to get re-elected (I denounce myself for saying that).
“We’ve conditioned a couple of generations of native born Americans of all races to wait for the gov’t check.”
Huh? People are pretty good intuitive economists when it comes to how much their labor is worth. Employers love illegals coz low wages here can be saved and turned into a nest egg in Mexico so an illegal worker will take them (I noticed that even they had worked out a minimum wage for themselves tho, in LA in the late 90’s it was about 5$ and hour). If illegals all disappeared wages would go up coz nobody in this country gets to send money back and plan to return to where the basic cost of living is cheaper.
EdWood (c2268a) — 2/18/2009 @ 8:09 amMost of the young people I see these days aren’t waiting for any govt. check. They are directed and out to get their piece of that good old American action. They do want to be PAID tho.
The birthrate in Mexico (not to mention the mortality rate) will decrease the immigration wave in the next decade unless Mexico collapses. The amazing thing to me is the slavish (sorry) loyalty to Democrats of the black voters whose bottom step on the ladder to prosperity is being occupied by illegals. I’m not opposed to all immigrants, I just want them to follow a legal procedure. Much of the problem is the legal immigration process which is broken. Talk to anyone who has experienced the legal immigration situation.
MIke K (2cf494) — 2/18/2009 @ 8:32 amI used to work in human resources and one of my duties was to verify social security numbers for all new hires and randomly check on current employees. The sick thing is that if I came across an illegal immigrant the only thing I could do was either not hire them or if they were already an employee then fire them. I was not allowed to report it due to confindentiality clauses. That was one of the reasons I stopped working for that complany. And there are alot of companies out there that operate like this. They don’t want to get caught and fined for employing an illegal but they don’t want to get involved in reporting them either.
And I think that if infrastructure is so important to pulling us out of this so called economic emergency then we should be employing people to build a great wall of America all along the southern border. How many people could we give jobs to to accomplish this? It would take a while so how long would they be employed on this project? And I can’t imagine an illegal wanting to be employed to build this wall. Wishful thinking I know but a girl can dream can’t she?
spinninginca (b52d48) — 2/18/2009 @ 8:35 amWishing for a wall is a pipe dream, I’m afraid – talk to McCain regarding that little problem.
Dmac (49b16c) — 2/18/2009 @ 8:44 amIt’s interesting that Hax is focused on divided illegal aliens into the same categories as muslims; a tiny minority or radical fringe who commit crimes and a vast majority who merely come here illegally, but who may commit warious additional crimes to hold jobs and obtain government services and benefits, but should otherwise be left in peace.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/18/2009 @ 9:13 amBeware The Radical Fringe! It is everywhere!
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/18/2009 @ 9:14 amI’m sorry but nothing about Hax is interesting to me. Too much trolling.
MIke K (2cf494) — 2/18/2009 @ 9:15 amWhy are you all so damn racist? Denounced, and condemned.
JD (d5a778) — 2/18/2009 @ 9:17 amChuck Schumer is now whining about provisions in the pork bill that restrict recipients of TARP funds from bringing in H1B visas before hiring unemployed people.
Now I’m no fan of the bill, but it tells you that the New York banks that own Schumer are pulling strings that he is saying he’ll try to get that bit of the legislation repealed.
SPQR (72771e) — 2/18/2009 @ 9:18 amIn the matter of “Wetbacks v Barnett”:
Who, specifically, is on the hook for the compensatory and punitive damages?
AD - RtR/OS (dd5f17) — 2/18/2009 @ 9:19 amWhat was the verdict against the Sheriff?
Have they filed a notice of appeal?
AD, I think Dave Hardy was representing them. There is a note on his blog about the trial.
SPQR (72771e) — 2/18/2009 @ 9:21 amThe mere fact that this civil suit was not thrown out is laughable. Laughable in the sense that it should bring people to tears. Hopefully, they will find some way to fund their appeals all the way through the Supreme Court.
JD (d5a778) — 2/18/2009 @ 9:23 amUsing the drug dealer/buy analogy, it is proposed that the seller be arrested, as a deterent to other sellers. Hmmm…
Using the employer of illegals/illegal laborer analogy, who is the seller? Would not the mass arrest of illegal “sellers” be a deterent to others? If the punishment for illegal “selling” was made severe, wouldn’t this get people’s attention?
As for cutting off the problem at it’s “source,” why not pressure the “seller” to reveal the identify of everyone who enabled his crime? In addition to rolling up the Coyotes, how about going after their U.S. citizen/ resident alien friends and relatives who facilitated their violations of immigration law?
belloscm (cf0c5e) — 2/18/2009 @ 9:27 amDeportation the way we do it is not working. We are just giving them a free ride back home. They take a vacation and they hop back over the border again.
We should have a contract with, let’s say, Algeria for extraordinary rendition. We send them there and let them work out the rest of it with the Algerians to get back to Mexico.
nk (e8cae4) — 2/18/2009 @ 9:37 amComment by nk — 2/18/2009 @ 9:37 am
You have a mean streak in you –
AD - RtR/OS (dd5f17) — 2/18/2009 @ 9:40 amand in this case, it is very attractive.
Comment by SPQR — 2/18/2009 @ 9:21 am
AD - RtR/OS (dd5f17) — 2/18/2009 @ 9:52 amThanks for the pointer to “Arms & Law”.
Something is very, very wrong here…there seems to be general agreement here, left and right, with Patterico’s premise and argument. Also, Haxor’s point about illegal employment was not immediately blown out of the water, and instead seems to be received with a measure of (dare I say) acceptance.
I better check the URL.
Pious Agnostic (291f9a) — 2/18/2009 @ 9:58 amHow many Latinos were on the jury?
They can use the courts to create their Aztlan by ruining the gringos one at a time. Like a cancer slowly moving northward. You can even put a white woman or two on the jury and they will go along with the Aztlanians out of fear.
j curtis (7ace19) — 2/18/2009 @ 10:01 amPious – You will not find many (at least around here) that disagree with the concept of pursuing employers of illegals, as it is against the law. Where we would tend to part ways is that the likes of Hacks would not pursue illegals outside of that environment, and have shown that they think that ICE should not pursue illegals directly, and found fault with ICE for arresting illegals discovered in the search for criminal illegals (I know, redundant). I now condemn myself.
JD (d5a778) — 2/18/2009 @ 10:02 amI think that the Patterico Doctrine, as iterated above is the correct one:
The concept of “targeting” is really just a matter of prioritization. The priority should be to go after those who are committing crimes in the US. But if other so-called law-abiding illegals want to step into the net, then they net should be closed and they should be dealt with according to the law.
Pious Agnostic (291f9a) — 2/18/2009 @ 10:15 amFrom the DC Court of Appeals:
This case has nothing to do with illegal immigrants and employment, but it is timely. And it’s nice to see common sense prevail.
Pablo (99243e) — 2/18/2009 @ 10:19 amHolder: US is nation of cowards on racial matters
Does anyone think this will go over any better than that comment during the campaign about a “nation of whiners” ?
Neo (cba5df) — 2/18/2009 @ 10:37 amThese are the “tough conversations” that we all should be having, Neo. Ineveitably these “tough discussions” end with the Leftist calling anyone that disagrees with them racists.
JD (d5a778) — 2/18/2009 @ 10:44 amIf you support targeting certain illegal aliens, let’s say those who commit other crimes, the media will attack you as viciously as they would if you didn’t care about which illegals are pursued. And you will wind up defending yourself for policies you don’t support and actions you never took. The lapdog media sees any action to deport illegals as oppression. And they see those who split illegals into groups that can or cannot be targeted as easy prey. You don’t want to deport all illegals? You must be demonized or converted to an open borders type.
They are all here illegally. It is that simple. If an illegal is found in any manner, deport them. If they return and are caught again, put them to work building the fence. Then deport them. The lapdogs will attack me no more enthusiastically than they will you. To them, your “moderate” position does not differ from my “extreme” one.
Deport them all.
Ken Hahn (70a0fc) — 2/18/2009 @ 10:46 am“…the media will attack you as viciously as they would if you didn’t care about which illegals are pursued…”
Deport the Media (Algerian rendition?)!
AD - RtR/OS (dd5f17) — 2/18/2009 @ 10:51 amRe:#43, from the link:
Is there something wrong with self-segregation on the weekends and in your private life? Is there not some right of free association?
It almost sounds like Holder wants the government to force everyone to have a quota of minority friends in their private lives.
Steverino (69d941) — 2/18/2009 @ 11:06 amThis reminds me of the New York Times editorial page endorsement of the choice of Janet Napolitano to head the Department of Homeland Security, which ran on December 1, 2008.
According to the Times, JNap was a great choice because she is an expert on the problem of illegal immigration. And she demonstrated her expertise by agreeing with the Times that barriers at the border, enforcement efforts at places of employment, and “raids” on illegal immigrant communities were all bad ideas.
Opined the Times:
“Ms. Napolitano is famously skeptical of the border fence, the Bush administration’s 700-mile, multibillion-dollar desert speed bump. The fence was never going to be the zip-lock seal its defenders clamored for, and is hardly worth the expense or environmental damage it has caused.”;
“The federal crackdown on illegal hiring is a similar mishmash of hastily erected rules, including much-criticized systems of checking workers’ names against error-plagued databases. Ms. Napolitano would do well to ensure a slow, judicious rollout of electronic workplace enforcement. . .”; and
“. . .the new administration should abolish the disastrous campaign of raids that have sundered families and spread terror through immigrant communities. . .”
The Times, and JNap, claim to want to enforce our immigration laws, but, one is left to wonder how they intend to do so if the law can’t be enforced at the very place where it is first broken (ie the border), or at the places where illegal immigrants work or live.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/01/opinion/01mon2.html
ruddyturnstone (afd530) — 2/18/2009 @ 11:10 amIf the fence was never built, how did it cause environmental damages?
steverino – I think this is what Michelle was talking about when she said they will not allow us to sit back and not participate. I think AG Holder should lead by example, and only hang out with white people when not at work.
JD (d5a778) — 2/18/2009 @ 11:15 amThere goes your racism, again, JD.
Eric Blair (c8876d) — 2/18/2009 @ 11:23 amYou know, from one Ice Person to another.
Eric Blair (c8876d) — 2/18/2009 @ 11:23 amDammit. I hate it when that happens.
JD (d5a778) — 2/18/2009 @ 11:28 amMike K wrote:
If you hire someone, you must fill out an immigration form I-9, which requires that you examine the work eligibility documents; most employers also make photocopies. But after filling out the I-9, you do not send it to ICE, but are required to maintain it in the employee’s file, in case an immigration official drops by and wants to see it!
The very form that ICE would use most the employer is told not to send to ICE but keep on hand, just in case someone is interested.
The natural-born citizen Dana (3e4784) — 2/18/2009 @ 11:48 amI notice, of course, that for illegal immigrants to have sued Roger Barnett, they had to file legal documents noting that they were illegal! So, why aren’t these people, who have self-identified as illegals, picked up and deported as they walk into the courtroom?
The disappointed Dana (3e4784) — 2/18/2009 @ 11:56 amThat is just soooooooooooooooooooooooooo racist of you, disappointed Dana. They have to stay here to collect their money from the person whose land they were trespassing on and vandalizing.
JD (d5a778) — 2/18/2009 @ 12:00 pmSomehow, I think Holder, “JNap”, MSM, et al have mistaken Hawaii’s “say no to ice” agenda. The former seems to think the latter is talking about those enforcing immigration laws when evidence shows otherwise. /sarc
Any person over 18 who is here illegally should be treated as a felon, in my opinion. Any under-age person who illegally enters the country as a result of his or her parent’s decision has his or her parent to thank for the results, not the people enforcing immigration laws. We have a legal immigration process, a process my sister-in-law spent a year going through. If you want to come here and refuse to use that process, you are a danger to this country.
We already have asylum laws that protect endangered people. If you’re an ‘endangered’ person, you already have a legal method to enter the country, essentially bypassing large portions of immigration law.
As a previous commenter noted, it has always been understood that immigration control is paramount to a stable nation. And we do not currently have any real immigration control.
Build the wall. Build solar energy fields. Electrify the wall with enough strength to knock a bison on its tuccus. Provide a windowless cell block for the illegals to wait the week until transportation can be provided to take them to Santa Gertrudis de Asunción. Dump them on the street there. Rinse, repeat.
And for proof of my heartless attitude, beyond my posts on this site, check out my site where I talk about raising my daughter.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/18/2009 @ 12:06 pmCan I add the Tort-Bar to my #46?
AD - RtR/OS (dd5f17) — 2/18/2009 @ 12:06 pmTo Syria?
You could, AD, but it would be racist.
JD (d5a778) — 2/18/2009 @ 12:16 pm“… to Santa Gertrudis de Asunción…”
Probably too nice of a town.
AD - RtR/OS (dd5f17) — 2/18/2009 @ 12:21 pmIsla Marias might be a better location?
We make a deal with Mexico, they accept the direct flights, or we close the border to all but truck traffic, and that gets inspected – front to back, top to bottom, side to side.
Comment by JD — 2/18/2009 @ 12:16 pm
I denounce myself!
AD - RtR/OS (dd5f17) — 2/18/2009 @ 12:23 pmhere have been ICE raids against employers of illegal aliens. The Steptoe and Johnston newsletter linked below highlights several. Debbie Schlussel also makes a habit of chronicling them on her site. The employer raids, as seen from the NY Times opinion piece in the comments above, merely heighten the hysteria of the immigration amnesty crowd by creating cries of tearing families apart as a result of the raids, etc., etc., diverting attention from the illegal conduct at the root of the issue.
http://www.steptoe.com/publications-4444.html
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/18/2009 @ 12:29 pmAnd, of course, when those illegals commit serious crimes and are sentenced to hard-time in some state institution, that family-separation is remarked upon how?
Liberal hypocrisy….posturing without shame.
AD - RtR/OS (dd5f17) — 2/18/2009 @ 12:34 pmAD, when someone mentions a Mexican prison, images of Turkish prisons (see Midnight Express) enter my head. I’m not sure I’m that heartless. Just a week in a windowless cinderblock building in the US while awaiting transportation to the south of Mexico is enough to satisfy me.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/18/2009 @ 12:46 pmI wonder if enough people were upset at this verdict that a website might take the opportunity to set up a legal defense fund for Barnett. Might get some attention for the site, as well as send a message that there are many people that are pissed about this violation of his rights. Lots of people paying a little could make quite a difference.
Just sayin.
Apogee (f4320c) — 2/18/2009 @ 12:50 pmAlso, Haxor’s point about illegal employment was not immediately blown out of the water
As others have already stated, the business community bears as much responsibility for the problem as the illegal aliens. It’s a huge one – card Monte game they’ve set up for themselves – the illegals get employment, the businesses don’t have to pay any taxes on earnings, and also don’t have to pay for? TA DA! Medical Insurance. For evidence of the hypocricy on display regarding this issue, check out the big business interestes that were four square in for McCain’s blanket amnesty program. Almost the identical interests converge to beat back every initiative to nationalize our languge to English. Pretty much says it all. I now promptly denounce myself.
Dmac (49b16c) — 2/18/2009 @ 1:14 pmDmac, my sister-in-law has categorically refused to teach me her home language, Czech, stating it is a worthless language to learn. There is no benefit in learning it. She even agrees English is the language of business and anyone who wants to succeed in the world market needs to know English.
And I agree with you. Enter the US, learn the language. Or get out.
I refuse to be self-denouncing so someone else will have to denounce me instead.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/18/2009 @ 1:19 pm# 66. I would denounce you but all I can say in Czech is ‘dob-ree yeed-lo’! … which means good food…
Adriane (6cae82) — 2/18/2009 @ 1:56 pmMy only Czech is “pivo” … but I didn’t find any need for any more in Prague.
SPQR (72771e) — 2/18/2009 @ 1:58 pmIs pivo similar to the Russian word for beer, SPQR?
JD (c6800b) — 2/18/2009 @ 2:09 pmIt’s helpful to divide the immigration issue into moral and practical dimensions for separate considerations.
As a moral issue, people should be free to work where they like. In order to accurately set the price of labor, we need a free market. Given that the economy is global and, most important, capital is borderless, we need a free market in labor.
It is also a basic human right to be free to live where you like and to hire whomever you like.
There is also the question of essential fairness. If I own a screwdriver factory, I am free to shut it down and open another in Guatemala, where my foreman can have the union organizer shot if he gets to uppity about my labor practices, or to China, where there are no union organizers. If I own a contracting business, I can’t do that. If I want to benefit from a free market in labor, I can only break the law and hire someone who isn’t here legally.
It’s the same old story: send thousands of jobs overseas to a factory in China, and we reward you with stock options, a promotion and a profile in a business magazine. Send a few jobs south of the border by hiring a Mexican to hang your dry wall, and we throw you in jail.
But the moral dimension is only part of the picture. Life isn’t fair, no matter how much we may try to make it so. There are the practical barriers to creating a global free market in labor, to match the global free market in capital.
We have no choice but to limit immigration. But we should do so with a recognition of the moral and practical benefits of a free market in labor.
As a practical matter, we may also want to separate out the political dimension.
It’s easy to see why anti-immigrationists are disappointed with the process, in that they have failed to win the support of either major political party.
Republicans are unwilling to support the anti-immigrationist block because they know its a big turn-off for Latino voters, a key constituency for the party’s hope of recovering power.
Anti-immigrationism is a big turn-off to Latino voters because they can smell the bigotry. They can plainly see that the complaining from Lou Dobbs to blogs like this one always focuses on the workers, i.e. them, not the employers, i.e. the white powers that be.
Anti-immigrationists themselves refuse to put the focus on illegal employers, because they know that much of their support is based on anti-Mexican, ethnic-identity sentiments, not on a fundamental desire to solve the problem fairly and efficiently.
If they start targeting the largely white, middle- and upper-middle class business owners who hire illegals, their support will dry up faster than you can say Adam Smith.
The bottom line is that the Republicans are divided by their own contradictions on this issue. As a party of business owners, not workers, they know its political suicide to slam the business class by cutting off cheap labor. As a party of white ethnic identity, they are also driven to target immigration.
As a Democrat, I’ve got to say, watching the opposition destroy itself over this issue is kind of fun.
Hax Vobiscum (edacf7) — 2/18/2009 @ 2:13 pmAs an American, I have to say watching Democrats destroy America is no fun at all.
nk (e8cae4) — 2/18/2009 @ 2:20 pmHacks starts off by “mis-stating” the debate in the very first sentence. This is not a debate over immigration, it is a debate over illegal immigration.
No, it is not. Those decisions are subject to the laws of the country where you choose to do so.
The only anti-immigrationists are the charicatures in your head, Hacks.
Nobody here is anti-immigration, no matter how many times you say it. Nice that it never takes long for your type to pull our the bigot/race card. It is as predictable as it is tiring.
JD (c6800b) — 2/18/2009 @ 2:21 pmThey smell what your lot tells them to smell. The fact that Republicans embrace those who legally immigrate is lost upon your sort, who decry the desire to follow they law as racist and bigoted.
Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 2/18/2009 @ 2:27 pmHow many times do I have to say I have Mexican blood in my veins before people like Hax get it through their thick heads? It really gets my Irish up when he intentionally misstates the obvious to fit his anti-evidence paradigm.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/18/2009 @ 2:29 pmComment by Apogee — 2/18/2009 @ 12:50 pm
You can find details about a Legal Defense Fund for Mr. Barnett at (http://armsandthelaw.com/).
AD - RtR/OS (dd5f17) — 2/18/2009 @ 2:30 pmComment by John Hitchcock — 2/18/2009 @ 12:46 pm
AD - RtR/OS (dd5f17) — 2/18/2009 @ 2:34 pmMexico established many of the island prisons because they didn’t have to build walls. The only way on or off the island is either air or sea transport, and that is highly controlled, and there are no other uses allowed on the island.
“As a Democrat, I’ve got to say, watching the opposition destroy itself over this issue is kind of fun.”
– Hacks Vobiscum
If there’s no real difference between the two parties, it seems kind of silly to call Republicans “the opposition.”
Leviticus (43095b) — 2/18/2009 @ 2:41 pmThis subject and the one below about “… Califonia’s Crap Sandwich” show just how foolish and derelict our so-called leaders have been. We are now paying the price.
Here’s another example. California Lawyer’s August 2008 issue had this article: “LET THEM IN – Three New Books Argue That Open Borders Serve The National Interest” by Thomas Brom, from his monthly column “Full Disclosure”. Those three (3) books are: Let Them In: The Case for Open Borders (2008) by Jason L. Riley, Opening the Floodgates: Why America Needs to Rethink Its Border and Immigration Law (2007) by Kevin R. Johnson and Beyond Citizenship: American Identity After Globalization (2008) by Peter J. Spiro. Here is the link to that article: http://www.callawyer.com/index.cfm?NewIssueDate=08-01-08.
I submitted the below Letter to the Editor, later in August 2008. I was later contacted by California Lawyer confirming that I in fact had written the letter and it was indicated to me that my letter might be published. It was not.
___________________________________________
Letter to the Editor:
Thomas Brom’s “Let Them In, Over Taken By Events – O-B-E,” August, is spin. Spin out of control. First, America already generously Let’s Them In, granting legal resident status and naturalized citizenship every year, to about 2.5 million immigrants. Significantly more than any other nation. Second, Mr. Brom’s “Let Them In” theme reminded me of the callous quip about a woman getting raped: “Hey, why fight it, just sit back, relax and enjoy it.” That theory’s a non-starter, readily proven again by the 1993 rape, then murder, of Jennifer Ertman (14) and Elizabeth Pena (16), by illegal alien gang member Jose Ernesto Medellin (now 33). Texas just executed him. More recent, there’s SF’s triple murder of the Bologna family in June 2008, LA’s murder of Jamiel Shaw, Jr., in March 2008, and Newark’s execution-style murders of three college students in August 2007. (Illustrative, not exhaustive.) All the product of insane sanctuary city policies coddling and harboring convicted criminal illegal aliens. City, state and fed officials all have blood on their hands.
Third, Mr. Brom’s piece referred to three books advocating open borders, published in 2007-8. I call Mr. Brom and raise him: Michelle Malkin’s Invasion (2002), Victor Davis Hanson’s Mexifornia: A State of Becoming (2003) and Pat Buchanan’s State of Emergency (2006). Fourth, what happened to – the Rule of Law? That America is a nation of laws, not men. That no man is above the law, and that’s what separates America from the rest of the world. Let them in? Open borders? Strange arguments coming from a lawyers’ magazine, but guess we’re just living in the world of Superman Bizarro.
Fifth, we have not been O-B-E, but in fact have had decades of deceit, denial, dysfunction and dereliction of duty (maybe by design NAFTA, NAU, SPP), from all three branches of our federal government. Example: Plyler v. Doe, 457 US 202 (1982), a 5/4 Brennan opinion that admitted the fed’s total failure on illegal immigration, flew in the face of Fong Yue Ting (cited in Brom’s piece, but curiously absent from Plyler), opened the floodgates (see fnt. 2 in Plyler dissent, estimating 3-12 million illegal aliens as of 1981), and denied Texas the natural law remedy of self help. Then California’s Prop 187, torpedoed by a single federal judge. Example: the 1986 bi-partisan Simpson-Mizzoli bill that graciously gave amnesty to 3 million+ illegal aliens, and promised American citizens that it would be – a one-time fix. Can you say Shamnesty? Because that was a fraud, fixed nothing and spawned another 12-20 million+ illegals. Example: the recent 5/4 USSC opinions of Boumediene v. Bush and Dada v. Mukasey, foolishly giving more rights and opening further our courts, to terrorist combatants and illegals, thus making even longer ques for Americans to use their own courts. (See “[Fed] Circuit Judges Decry Immigration Case ‘Tsunami’” by Tony Mauro, 8/12/08 Legal Times and “New Nightmare Census Projections Reveal CHAIN MIGRATION Still Choking Our Future” by Roy Beck, 8/14/08 NumbersUSA.) Example: The dereliction of Presidents Carter to G.W. Bush on this issue, most notably their failure to prosecute cheating employers who hire illegals and refuse to use E-Verify.
Separation of powers, the so-called checks & balances? Phooey! The Rule of Law? Phooey! We are trillions in debt, yet the politicos and judges never ask, who or how we will pay for their frolics. We get the shaft from all three branches, plus we get to pay the “check” for the actually not so cheaper labor. The same is true for too many state, county and city governments/officials (sanctuary cities); the media (Mr. Brom’s own “It’s why an editor… may choose to bury a story rather than put it on the front page.”); and, the big corp bandits & pirates (that out-source American jobs, hire the illegals and push for more H-1B visas to in-source more foreign workers). The Dems want more voters; the Repubs (and US Chamber of Commerce) want cheap labor. It can be argued, we are well down the road to anarchy. (See HBO’s “The Second Civil War” (1997).) But the Will of the People has always been clear: STOP IT! Most recently rising up to stop the bogus bi-partisan “comprehensive” shamnesty bill. Yet all ever required was leadership and integrity. To simply apply reason, enforce our existing laws, and follow the advice of Deputy Barney Fife (of Andy of Mayberry): “Nip it. Nip it. Nip it in the bud.” The situation then would have been – the problem that never was.
But that takes courage. Instead, our politicos have chosen to pick the low hanging fruit, and to come up with one scam, scheme and bogus compromise, after another. We must look in the mirror. We must ask: Are we still capable of governing ourselves? Because at present, America has no real Rule of Law – with 12-20 million illegal aliens, it would be foolish to argue otherwise. Fact is, everything has been reduced to politics. Because if baseball used to be America’s pastime, it can be readily argued that today, our pastime now is – lying, cheating, stealing & spin. And it’s everywhere. And it’s destroying our American constitution, country, communities, culture and courts. And it’s killing us.
Open borders – NO! Enforce our laws – YES! Si se puede!
___________________________________
“Let Them In” and those three (3) books were foolish before the economy tanked. Now it’s time to put foolish things away, sober up and get serious about putting America and Americans – first. GLZ.
Gary L. Zerman (43725e) — 2/18/2009 @ 2:52 pmLeviticus – Teh Narrative says that anyone that does not share the Hacks view is a bigot/racist. Keep up.
JD (c6800b) — 2/18/2009 @ 2:52 pmHack’s only interest in the immigration issue is how it can politically hinder a party.
That tells us how much concern for the national wellbeing can be found in his comments.
SPQR (72771e) — 2/18/2009 @ 3:00 pmEnter the US, learn the language. Or get out.
Every generation of immigrants (save for the last two) have had to learn the language; it’s the same for most of Europe as well. A common language helps speed assimilation, and encourages later generations to succeed compared to their earlier ancestors. When those opposed talk of xenophobia, what they’re really after is the goal of a complete multi – nation state in perpetuity. But the end result is ever – increasing generations of children destined to live their lives in poverty. Why this simple dynamic is never confronted by the anti – English advocates is obvious. You need to look no further than our own little Banana Republic of Miami, where the native language commonly spoken is Spanish, but the business language is English – with predictable results.
Dmac (49b16c) — 2/18/2009 @ 3:29 pmThere’s nothing racist or bigoted about trying to control your border effectively.
But targeting employees, rather than employers, gives the appearance of ethnic bigotry, since the workers are almost all Latino and employers Anglo/European.
Likewise the comments of bloggers here who focus their ire on workers instead of the people who hire them.
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/18/2009 @ 3:39 pmDid a federal jury really just decide that it costs $77,000 not to shoot trespassers on sight? Please tell me I missed something.
blah (225eb6) — 2/18/2009 @ 3:42 pmTargeting illegal alien employees, who are mainly Mexicans, gives the appearance of ethnic bigotry to people who ignore the illegal status of illegal aliens. What is news in that accusation, Hax?
Of course, I don’t expect you to speak with any semblance of integrity since you haven’t yet in your time here.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/18/2009 @ 3:44 pmSimply repeating iot does not make it so, Hacks.
JD (adecf2) — 2/18/2009 @ 3:44 pmLikewise the comments of bloggers here who focus their ire on workers instead of the people who hire them.
The majority here actually agreed with your first sentiment, you ignoramus. Do you actually require Sylvan remedial comprehension classes to even understand that?
As a party of white ethnic identity, they are also driven to target immigration.
Blah, blah, blah…zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. You’re the champion spewer of verbal and mental diarrhea. You’re done here.
Dmac (49b16c) — 2/18/2009 @ 3:45 pmDmac, logorrhea, learn it, recognize it, point it out every time someone (Hax) exhibits it. 😉
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/18/2009 @ 3:48 pmJD, John, Dmac: Like Pavlov’s dog, you guys chime in with ad hominem. I guess we all contribute what we can.
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/18/2009 @ 4:03 pmHacks – You asserted things that were not even remotely based in reality. I poinÞed that out. We get it. You like to call people bigots and racists. Does that make you feel like a bigger person?
JD (adecf2) — 2/18/2009 @ 4:10 pmJD, have you got a better explanation for why the Republicans are divided on the issue?
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/18/2009 @ 4:14 pmI’m a racist because I support legal immigration but I oppose illegal immigration. I hate Mexicans because my background has Mexican heritage. I hate non-whites because my background has American Indian heritage. If I were around when the Irish were getting off the boats while we were telling them we don’t want Irish around, I would’ve been getting off the boats to be told to go away.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/18/2009 @ 4:17 pmHmmmm… Notice the common thread here. It’s all about baiting people. JD or.Dmac, you can deliver the punch line to this joke of a commenter.
Eric Blair (5700a4) — 2/18/2009 @ 4:19 pmJohn: do you support expanding legal immigration? One simple, certain way to reduce illegal immigration is to make it easier to legally immigrate.
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/18/2009 @ 4:20 pmfor why the Republicans are divided on the issue?
Gee, I don’t know – how about that they’re actually individuals who think for themselves, and also listen to their local constituents? Please define what democracy means to you, Hacky. This should be quite informative (not).
Like Pavlov’s dog, you guys chime in with ad hominem.
Ahhh, the sweet sound of projection – works every time.
Dmac (49b16c) — 2/18/2009 @ 4:20 pmEric: thanks for joining the show! I knew I could rely on you.
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/18/2009 @ 4:21 pmAnd John, I ain’t writing about you!
Eric Blair (5700a4) — 2/18/2009 @ 4:21 pmyou guys chime in with ad hominem
But targeting employees, rather than employers, gives the appearance of ethnic bigotry,
Nothing ad hominem about that statement at all – nope.
you can deliver the punch line to this joke of a commenter.
You can’t joke about a self – parody, Eric.
Dmac (49b16c) — 2/18/2009 @ 4:24 pmI knew I could rely on you.
And the Troll again apparently misses the meaning of P – R – O – J – E – C – T – I – O – N. I’m thinking a sophomore in High School, or maybe a GED recipient.
Dmac (49b16c) — 2/18/2009 @ 4:26 pmHax, you remain the Pepe LaPeau of this blog, hopping from thread to thread with debate club snark. Epic fail!
Eric Blair (5700a4) — 2/18/2009 @ 4:27 pmOne simple, certain way to reduce illegal immigration is to make it easier to legally immigrate.
Wow – why didn’t we think of that solution? Brilliant!
Dmac (49b16c) — 2/18/2009 @ 4:28 pmIn the next 50 years, the United States will cease to be a white-dominated country. That is the hidden agenda behind this influx of illegal immigrants. You keep pouring water in the milk and soon the milk will taste like water. Or should I say, become as tasteless as water. What is the American culture? Does it exist? What is our chosen language? Who are we? If we can’t define who we are, others will. (Am I being racist?)
Emperor7 (1b037c) — 2/18/2009 @ 4:29 pmPerformance art. Hacks, you are beyond parody.
JD (adecf2) — 2/18/2009 @ 4:34 pmThanks JD, feel free to focus on my comments any time. It’s the thought that counts.
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/18/2009 @ 4:37 pmhttp://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/02/09/napolitano-recession-deepens-illegal-immigration-mexico-declines/
is the only feel good story about the recession
#101
voiceofreason2 (47018f) — 2/18/2009 @ 4:38 pmI think the decrease has more to do with declining birth rates among whites than overwhelming numbers of illegals. The more tolerant society we live in has also seen many inter-racial unions which blur the lines further. Even then the percentage of whites stands to be in the high 40 percent of the total population.
I don’t think it is something to fear. And yes, English should be the primary language in schools, etc. Second languages need to be at the expense of those who wish to speak it.
Comment by Emperor7 — 2/18/2009 @ 4:29 pm
Racist!
AD - RtR/OS (dd5f17) — 2/18/2009 @ 4:39 pmComment by Hax Vobiscum — 2/18/2009 @ 4:37 pm
If it is the thought that counts, why do your comments display a complete lack of same?
AD - RtR/OS (dd5f17) — 2/18/2009 @ 4:42 pmHacks – I will be happy to, when you actually answer the direct questions posed to you, and quit arguing against positions not held, and arguments not advanced. Until then, you have proven that you have no interest in anything remotely approaching a good faith discussion.
JD (adecf2) — 2/18/2009 @ 4:50 pmEven though I know better than give an honest answer to a dishonest troll, I will.
Do I support relaxing the regulations involved in immigration law? No.
Do I support maximum enforcement of current immigration law? Yes.
I am not a relativist. Relativists are also rationalizers. Both are anathemas to successful societies.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/18/2009 @ 4:52 pmComment by voiceofreason2 — 2/18/2009 @ 4:38 pm
Emperor7 (1b037c) — 2/18/2009 @ 5:11 pmThis is why abortion is such a sin. We need those unborn children! How do you compete against a culture that encourages people to have as many children as the Octomom? This is one way Islam as a way of life is multiplying against us. One man is allowed to have as many wives as he wishes. And each wife can have up to four kids for him. Multiply that by the number of wives. We need to change our way of life and encourage more pro-creation. Just like China placed a ban on having more than one child, we need a reverse ban that compels us to have not less than 7 kids per family! (And I am not kidding.) And yes, English language should be the primary language in schools etc. I support that. Learn the language or leave the country!
I don’t agree with the forced child bearing aspects of your idea.
voiceofreason2 (47018f) — 2/18/2009 @ 5:19 pmJohn: you said you support legal immigration, but then you imply you don’t. Which is it?
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/18/2009 @ 5:23 pmThat is an outright lie.
And you proved my point.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/18/2009 @ 5:29 pmComment by voiceofreason2 — 2/18/2009 @ 5:19 pm
Emperor7 (1b037c) — 2/18/2009 @ 5:32 pmOkay. That was a joke. 🙂
“I support legal immigration”
Comment by John Hitchcock — 2/18/2009 @ 4:17 pm
“Do I support relaxing the regulations involved in immigration law? No.”
Comment by John Hitchcock — 2/18/2009 @ 4:52 pm
I’m unclear where you stand, John.
Are you for, or against, increasing legal immigration?
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/18/2009 @ 5:40 pmComment by AD – RtR/OS — 2/18/2009 @ 4:39 pm
Emperor7 (1b037c) — 2/18/2009 @ 5:42 pmThanks AD. You are so kind. 🙂
Hax, you have already attempted to distort what I said. I am not going to provide you more fodder for distortion of this issue. You are clearly not interested in truth but in distorting truth to find ways to argue.
Plain and simple, if you are here illegally, you need to wait in a cell until transportation is provided to get you back where you belong. If you are here legally, you need to obey all the laws.
Your “woulda shoulda coulda” attempts at distorting and derailing are worthless to any reasoned discussion.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/18/2009 @ 5:48 pmThose concepts are not mutally exclusive, Hacks.
JD (adecf2) — 2/18/2009 @ 5:48 pmHacks = verbal diarrhea. And it is just so.
Dmac (49b16c) — 2/18/2009 @ 5:54 pmJohn, I’m still unclear on whether you support or oppose increasing legal immigration. Some of your rhetoric suggests you oppose increasing immigration, but you also directly say that you support legal immigration.
Might be easy for you to clarify; or maybe you find it difficult?
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/18/2009 @ 5:57 pmOr maybe you are just hopping about like Pepe.
You are an expert baiter, after all, Hax.
Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/18/2009 @ 5:58 pmThose 2 concepts are not mutually exclusive, Hacks. But, since you do not enter this discussion in good faith, there is really no point in trying to go any further than that with you.
How fucking difficult is it to simply show a modicum of intellectual honesty?
JD (adecf2) — 2/18/2009 @ 6:01 pmA master baiter, if you will, huh Eric?
JD (adecf2) — 2/18/2009 @ 6:03 pm“…suggests you oppose increasing immigration, but you also directly say that you support legal immigration.”
Nothing contradictory there, just a simple statement of position:
AD - RtR/OS (dd5f17) — 2/18/2009 @ 6:06 pmPro Legal Immigration at current levels.
How hard is that to understand?
EB, a MUD I recently played had classifications for their levels.
Amateur
Novice
Initiate
Apprentice
Journeyman
Expert
Master
Champion
Grand Master
I disagree with your suggestion that Hax is an Expert Baiter. I think he is a Master Baiter.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/18/2009 @ 6:07 pmWell, I would not necessary agree or disagree with you, JD, but like Voltaire, I would defend unto death your right to express that opinion.
I’m just tired on this character’s continual attempts to goad people. He really is like Pepe LaPew (spelling now corrected), bouncing from thread to thread picking fights.
Honestly, the guy should just approach Patterico about writing a whole article. Except that takes (insert Maynard G. Krebs line here) work! But who knows? Patterico says the guy has been paid to write, so maybe he would be willing to use some of that great skill for something other than Argument Room style contradiction and attempts to bait other posters.
Stranger things have happened!
Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/18/2009 @ 6:09 pmOops, I forgot Veteran between Jman and Expert
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/18/2009 @ 6:10 pm“Grand master” has more majesty, John. Don’t you think?
(Insert Dmac joke about hand lotion here).
Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/18/2009 @ 6:11 pmAD – RtR/OS, are you John, or just speaking on his behalf?
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/18/2009 @ 6:14 pmYou whiners give your game away. If you knew it was bait, you wouldn’t be swallowing hook, line and sinker every time, then admitting it, or would you?
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/18/2009 @ 6:17 pmI suppose with Grand Master, you’d be more skilled at hand-to-hand and tactics. Maybe he’s a Grand Master Baiter, but I’m not quite ready to say he’s as good as a champ quite yet.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/18/2009 @ 6:18 pmHey, Hax: can you speak like Charles Boyer? Sing like Maurice Chevalier?
You need to start being serious, instead of just playing Debate Team Captain from high school. Until then, I hope that everyone just makes fun of your nonsense.
Patterico thinks you have value. His opinion impresses many people, including me. So knock off the nonsense, why don’t you?
Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/18/2009 @ 6:18 pmWell, I wouldn’t use the word “..swallow…” if I were you.
Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/18/2009 @ 6:19 pmHacks – Had you actually read John’s comments, you would know that his statements do not contradict each other. You would also know that he stated he has no intention of engaging you due to your methods of bad-faith discussion.
JD (adecf2) — 2/18/2009 @ 6:20 pmSorry to stick a pin in that size 18-7/8 head of yours, but it really needed a bit of a deflation. Reality bytes, don’t it?
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/18/2009 @ 6:23 pmEric, if you want to win debates, try harder. The first tip: steer clear of ad hominem. It only emphasizes that you’re fresh out of evidence and logic.
And if you really believe my comments are sub-par, you’ll just ignore them. But we both know you can’t…
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/18/2009 @ 6:23 pmThe funniest part about this Hacks mendoucheity is that it is practically being a perfect example of why I call people racists. It cannot imagine someone having a different opinion that its received wisdom, without being a close friend of Sen. Byrd (KKK-WV).
JD (adecf2) — 2/18/2009 @ 6:26 pmEric,
Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 2/18/2009 @ 6:28 pmThere you go again, making an ad trollinem statement by pointing out Hax’s history of bad-faith debating tricks.
Like lots of MUDders I have experienced over the years, Hax has the maturity level of a prepubescent silver-spoon boy and the bravado of a geek sitting in front of a computer in his bedroom in his parents’ house.
“Did your momma buy you a ‘puter’ for Christmas?”
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/18/2009 @ 6:29 pmA little fuzzy there, JD. Are you saying you all other people racist because of me, or you call me racist because my opinion is different from yours?
You sound pretty confused.
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/18/2009 @ 6:31 pmAs soon as this character actually starts discussing in good faith instead of playing Chess Club Dweeb, why, people might discussing in good faith right back.
But Hax, your history rather speaks for itself.
Again, you have Patterico in your corner. Write a long, well researched post on some topic and see if he will post it.
Until then, go groom your ocelot.
Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/18/2009 @ 6:32 pmNot that there is anything wrong with that, to quote Jerry Seinfeld.
Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/18/2009 @ 6:33 pmAnd,
I suppose I do owe Patterico an apology.
I let you all draw me into an off-thread insult-fest.
Apologies, Pat.
Sorry JD, et. al., but I’ll have to ignore you from here on, unless you actually comment on the subject at hand.
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/18/2009 @ 6:34 pmComment by Hax Vobiscum — 2/18/2009 @ 6:34 pm
A pig that crawls out of the mud is still muddy.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/18/2009 @ 6:38 pmOnly if it is halal approved, John.
Probably through genetic engineering.
Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/18/2009 @ 6:41 pmThat is precious. Hacks is blaming us for its mendoucheity.
Racists
JD (adecf2) — 2/18/2009 @ 6:44 pm“Twee” comes to mind, JD.
Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/18/2009 @ 6:45 pmMaybe an alt site is in order.. something along the lines of Haxifications and his merry detractors…
voiceofreason2 (47018f) — 2/18/2009 @ 6:49 pmThat is the phoenetic spelling of my Better Half’s name, Eric.
JD (adecf2) — 2/18/2009 @ 6:51 pmSee, this is why Leviticus is a worthy interlocutor while Hax is well, a hack. Leviticus is, quite simply, not full of shit. He can actually recognize and respond to logical connections head on, and not dance around them. And he’s probably half your age, Hacks.
Pablo (99243e) — 2/18/2009 @ 6:51 pmAnd I notice that Hacks has ignored my #12 and # 15, just as he has ignored Patterico here. Hax is useful as a punching bag, but if you’re looking for an actual discussion, you’re wasting your time with him.
Pablo (99243e) — 2/18/2009 @ 7:05 pmand
You are a drooling moron, Hax.
John supports legal immigration, and does not think that existant immigration laws should be relaxed.
Do you really think those are mutually exclusive? Are you actually that damned stupid?
Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 2/18/2009 @ 7:28 pmUntil then, go groom your ocelot.
His name is Whiskers – and you know the old saying about pets and their owners. In this case, they both happen to be enormous pussies.
If you knew it was bait, you wouldn’t be swallowing
Methinks you definitely like to swallow – no question. Now go back to watching Sense and Sensibility, you farking ponce.
Dmac (49b16c) — 2/18/2009 @ 7:31 pm“Twee” comes to mind, JD.
Yes, but Fop is more accurate. The jury would also have accepted Bloody Git.
Dmac (49b16c) — 2/18/2009 @ 7:33 pm“Schmeg Head” and “Gimboid” also would have been acceptable…
Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 2/18/2009 @ 7:45 pmJD #149: no disrespect intended toward your Life Partner and Light of Your Life. I’m still trying to figure out the name, however. No big deal.
“Ponce”? Dmac, you always make me laugh. Scott Jacobs, I have not heard those expressions, but they sound good, too.
What was the business in “Stripes” about “Francis”?
Anyway, maybe the fellow will quit baiting people and actually try to discuss things.
Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/18/2009 @ 8:21 pmEric – She is Vietnamese, and her name is spelled Thuy. Twee is the easiest way for non-native speakers to pronounce it.
I would add poofter to the above list of names that made me chuckle.
JD (e53eae) — 2/18/2009 @ 8:29 pmThanks for the clarification, JD. Where I used to teach, I had quite a number of Vietnamese students. The conundrum for me, JD, was how to pronounce the last name “Nguyen.”
One student with that name insisted it was pronounced “When.”
Another flatly stated it was “New-gun.”
I had no idea.
And I haven’t even started on the unusual first names many parents have given their children in recent years….
Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/18/2009 @ 8:33 pmHeh, back in the mid ’80s, I did a “field experience” gig at a Canton, OH grade school for my Math Ed major. My teacher explained to me several of his students were named after the drink of choice of the parents. And yes, they were alcohol-related.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/18/2009 @ 8:42 pm________________________________________
But the jury did find him liable on four claims of assault and four claims of infliction of emotional distress
I bet most (if not all) those jurors, R. Allen Stanford, Bernard Madoff and the it’s-racist-to-deport-illegal-aliens crowd have one thing in common: a tendency to vote Democrat and a preference for soft-headed, who-gives-a-damn liberalism. Or the mindset that dominates a forever-corrupt, forever-dysfunctional society like Mexico.
________________________________________
Mark (411533) — 2/18/2009 @ 8:44 pmEric – Since Nguyen is also her last name, now hyphenated, I share your conundrum. Noo-yen, Win, you name it … Nguyen is the Vietnamese version of our Smith. Problem is that there are so many variations of pronunciation that it makes it tough to get a consistent pronunciation. Nwin is as close as I can tell you. But, I could teach you all sorts of fun Vietnamese words – Butt and fart sound remarkably alike, tits, and other such words that only serve to get me in trouble at family events.
JD (e53eae) — 2/18/2009 @ 8:47 pmThen you have never seen the British sci-fi comedy series Red Dwarf, and as a lesser person in my eyes for it. 🙂
Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 2/18/2009 @ 8:50 pmOkay, JD, I’m ever so curious. When I was at Camp Lejeune, I was told a phrase to say to Vietnamese nationals. I was assured there was nothing improper about it, but I never found out what it meant (if it actually meant anything). Maybe you can help me find out what I said to a Vietnamese national woman way back when.
Phonetically, as best I can type it:
Dong shinnilly poy-you.
Anything?
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/18/2009 @ 8:55 pmI’m wounded, Scott. No, I haven’t seen “Red Dwarf,” though I am by no means a mundane. I will wear my dunce cap, stand in the corner, and buy it (or a season or two) from Amazon. Best I can do.
A recent find of British SF: “Jekyll”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jekyll_(TV_series)
It’s very interesting. And I also liked this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primeval
Okay, I’m donning the cap now.
Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/18/2009 @ 8:59 pmJD, my dentist when I lived in LA was a Vietnamese woman raised in Louisiana. Her mother assisted her. It was surreal to have her talking to me in a full on Cajun accent, and then converse with her mother in Vietnamese.
That is multiculturalism.
Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/18/2009 @ 9:03 pmJohn – I texted Better Half, but I have never heard anything like that, especially the middle word. There is a lot of French influence, so it may have a French derivation. Inflection is pretty important, but she is good at translating, especially from my Venglish, as she calls it.
JD (e53eae) — 2/18/2009 @ 9:04 pmEric – You ought to hear me try to translate for her parents. Pure comedy. It is easier in person, which makes our phone conversations hysterical. I agree to all sorts of things just because I say yes rather than asking them to repeat themselves, again. We do better when I try Vietnamese than when they speak English.
JD (e53eae) — 2/18/2009 @ 9:12 pmHax, one could argue that the premises of your comments and arguments are flawed from the start. Patterico refers back to an LA Times article which, no matter how many times you repeat the point, does not cement the case that ICE is deliberately targeting “non-criminal” illegal aliens. The Washington Post story on the subject is more ambiguous. Your typical commenting style of assertion without evidence leaves me wanting.
Comment 1:”Arresting day laborers en masse on suspicion of immigration violations is bad policing and bad in a way that raises damning questions about motives…..
Why do we hear about illegal day laborers being arrested en masse, but nnot illegal day hirers?”
Hax, you haven’t regaled the crowd here with you special expertise in police matters so you qualifications to make that type of judgement are highly suspect. I provided a link higher up in the thread which showed that girers were inteed subject to targeting. Arresting a parking lot full of illegal immigrant day laborers “en masse” seems like a much more efficient policing method than seeking out a diverse group of hirers dispersed around a geographic area. It’s surprising you would see it differently and read adverse moral motives into the activity. Either you are for enforcing the laws or you are not and you claim that you are. You are just quibbling about the method because it offends your delicate sensibilities, not the substance of the activity. Get over it.
Comment 71 – Hax’s Utopian Society
“It’s helpful to divide the immigration issue into moral and practical dimensions for separate considerations.”
“As a moral issue, people should be free to work where they like.”
“It is also a basic human right to be free to live where you like and to hire whomever you like.”
Hax – Why don’t we just skip over the hippy dippy kumbaya crap and stick to facts if you are able. You acknowledge that the U.S. as a sovreign nation has a right to control who enters its territory. Starting there, we have laws on our books governing these matters which have suffered from uneven enforcement over time. Your statements about the right to work and live and work are just a lot of happy bullshit in the face of reality. The left was very fond of asking during the Bush Administration if the U.S. was a country of laws. I say we are and the left’s and the amnesty shills’ hysteria over the immigration betrays their hypocrisy on that subject, including yours. Your characterizations of how businesses work also make humorous reading. It seems clear you have never had senior profit/loss responsibility in any kind of sizeable enterprise before.
Comment 91: “JD, have you got a better explanation for why the Republicans are divided on the issue?”
Public opinion was four square against the amnesty bill floated in Congress in 2007. Democrats in the House were not listening to their constituents. I’m surprised you failed to mention this. Do you also for some reason believe that all business owners are Republicans or are against border enforcement? Do you actually have any evidence to support you assertions about Republican divisions?
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/18/2009 @ 9:18 pmJekyll was brilliant, but Primeval bores/enrages me, depending on my mood upon it starting.
It’s like
Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 2/18/2009 @ 9:21 pmCSI: CardiffTorchwood, only without the Doctor Who tie-in…Anti-immigrationism is a big turn-off to Latino voters because they can smell the bigotry. They can plainly see that the complaining from Lou Dobbs to blogs like this one always focuses on the workers, i.e. them, not the employers, i.e. the white powers that be.
I’m going to assume you’re not accusing me of bigotry and simply point out that in the typical day laborer scenario, it would be pretty tough to prove someone intended to hire illegals. You, Hax, seem to assume that ICE can just up and arrest anyone who agrees to employ people who run up to a car in a 7-11. That kinda reveals how little you’ve thought through how you’d go about proving guilt.
By contrast, if a day laborer runs up to an ICE agent offering his services, and an ICE agent asks him if he’s illegal and he admits it, boom. Probable cause to detain. Then, assuming you can consult a database and verify he’s illegal, it’s child’s play to mount a prosecution.
In any event, this blog does not focus on the workers, as you’d know if you had been reading it for any length of time. It focuses on deporting the criminals. There is, of course, always going to be some chowderhead who says even that is a racist approach. (Presumably you wouldn’t be one of these chowderheads.) But you can’t live your life running away from sensible policies because some idiot might call you a racist.
I don’t mean to assume the mantle of courage with that last sentence, by the way. Only Eric Holder has the right to claim courage on racial matters, with his fearless call for other people to talk about race.
Patterico (cc3b34) — 2/18/2009 @ 9:35 pmAlso, Eric…
Red Dwarf (seasons 1-8) are available for instant watch on Netflix…
Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 2/18/2009 @ 9:36 pmI really don’t have the slightest comprehension of legal decisions which justify the claims of illegal immigrants over law-abiding American citizens, or any other American citizen. By the nature of being “illegal”, why do you have any rights at all? I am not aware of any other country in the world which would justify such an outrage. If anyone does, please let me know. I will regard them with comtempt.
Please note: I am not opposed to LEGAL immigration at all…and I currently live overseas in Singapore (legally). It also welcomes legal immigration, but has no tolerance whatsoever for illegal immigrants, people who aid them or syndicates which traffic them.
Mark Turner (0fb56b) — 2/18/2009 @ 9:42 pmHax – The Bush-Kennedy Amnesty Bill was defeated in the U.S. Senate on June 28, 2007 by a vote of 53-46. Twelve Republicans voted yea, while 15 Democrats voted nay. What picture does that paint for you? Are both parties divided or only one?
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/18/2009 @ 9:58 pm“Only Eric Holder has the right to claim courage on racial matters, with his fearless call for other people to talk about race.”
Patterico – Self-proclaimed courage is a special sooper important kind of courage. The rest of us are just sniveling cowards.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/18/2009 @ 10:06 pm“ in the typical day laborer scenario, it would be pretty tough to prove someone intended to hire illegals.”
Yes. It’s also pretty tough to make a case against most drug dealers as they go to great links to conceal, while its relative easy to nail a kid who’s smoking a joint in the park.
Do you seriously doubt, Patterico, that the better way to stop illegal immigration is to come down hard on employers?
Granted, it would add a burden on them to have to prove citizenship, but that could easily be dealt with through tax breaks and or subsidies to offset the cost.
A lot of businesses spend pretty big on drug testing because they don’t want the workers comp liability of addicts. If the penalties for employing illegal workers were stiff enough, you can be sure they’d take measures to minimize it.
I’m not calling any individual here a racist. My view is that all humans are instinctively racist, to an extent. I know I certainly am a racist by some measures.
The differences among us tend to be how well we deal with that instinct: whether we effectively channel it in a postive way and limit it, or feed it with resentment and insecurity.
As a political question, however, anti-immigrationists could capture the moral high ground and the votes that go with it by focusing much more on illegal employers.
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/18/2009 @ 11:07 pmComment by Hax Vobiscum — 2/18/2009 @ 11:07 pm
It will be a lot easier just to enforce whatever laws are on the books.
AD - RtR/OS (dd5f17) — 2/18/2009 @ 11:17 pmThen, no-one can accuse the government of discrimination.
Hacks seems to forget that Simpson-Mazolli Bill was passed by a Dem controlled Congress with significant employer sanctions that were promptly ingnored, and not funded, in the interim.
AD - RtR/OS (dd5f17) — 2/18/2009 @ 11:22 pmIn fact IIRC the Congress specifically said, more than once, that no funds could be used for the enforcement provisions of S-M. This lack of enforcement carried the day during the years of both Dem and GOP control of Congress – don’t want to piss-off any campaign contributors (employers) now, do we?
“A lot of businesses spend pretty big on drug testing because they don’t want the workers comp liability of addicts.”
D’oh! So that’s why they do it?
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/18/2009 @ 11:34 pm“As a political question, however, anti-immigrationists could capture the moral high ground and the votes that go with it by focusing much more on illegal employers.”
Hax – I’m not sure how many people call themselves anti-immigrationist. It seems a fairly pejorative term. I’m curious if you have actually seen people self-label that way. Plenty of people are pro-border enforcement, in favor of law and order, and against illegal immigration. Your phraseology is just not describing any mainstream positions with which I am familiar.
Given that many commenters above already outlined issues dealing with fake IDs, restrictions on reporting, database limitations, and changes contained in the stimulus bill which you ignored, what type of effort do you think would be required to get meaningful results from targeting employers? What would that do to campaign contributions to both parties? Would you ignore improving effective border enforcement?
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/18/2009 @ 11:46 pmSome liberals actually believe that “law and order” advocates want Democratic style “one law for me and another for thee” kind of enforcement. They really, really believe that. It’s not true, as far as I have ever had personal experience, and two of my sons are police officers. We just want the law enforced. Against tax cheats, illegal immigrant employers, illegal immigrants and the drug pushers. All of them, without discrimination or special favors.
And we would like our schools and emergency rooms back, also.
tyree (5624c2) — 2/19/2009 @ 12:04 am“what type of effort do you think would be required to get meaningful results from targeting employers?”
Politically, all you’d have to do is say it:
We don’t believe in targetting illegal employees because its inefficient and unfair. Illegal employees are bending the law in a struggle to survive — simply to put food on their families’ tables. Illegal employers are bending the law to expand their profitability at the expense of law abiding rivals.
There is no intrinsic dishonor in crossing the border illegally when your only intention is to work and obey every law you can. There is dishonor in hiring illegal laborers in order to undercut law abiding rivals.
A party that takes that approach will win the approach and respect of Latinos and other ethnic minorities, as it will be clear that ethnicity isn’t the issue: illegal employment is.
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/19/2009 @ 12:34 am“Would you ignore improving effective border enforcement?”
I would definitely de-emphasize immigration law enforcement in favor of securing the border against drug smuggling and entry by terrorists.
In many cases, these goals need not conflict, and wherever they do not, I’m 100 percent in favor of enforcing immigration law.
But it is essential to make sure that every possible resource is directed against ensuring drugs aren’t smuggled in, and, in order to achieve that, it’s essential to ensure the cooperation of illegal workers, who are often in position to know where the drugs are and who the dealers are, but highly unlikely to divulge that if they know it means getting deported.
Again, the common sense approach is to target illegal employers. That is tearing the weed out by the root. Targeting workers is like cutting off a few leaves — they just grow right back.
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/19/2009 @ 12:48 amThe illegals themselves are also part of the problem, not just the employers. Even if they are otherwise law abiding, they can wind up being a drain on our resources when they require services such as hospitalization that they can’t pay for; even more of a problem when they are involved in criminal activity. They should not be allowed to remain in the country illegally — unless they are awaiting some sort of amnesty ruling. Immigration laws and procedures exist in the US, what’s the issue with enforcing them?
Mark Turner (65a7f1) — 2/19/2009 @ 12:54 am“what’s the issue with enforcing them?”
The issue is that failing to focus enforcement on employers is inefficient and undermines political support by creating the appearance of a double standard: OK to hire illegally, but not OK to work illegally.
The net impact of illegally immigration is debatable: There are definitely pluses and minuses and different studies come to different conclusions on the net outcome.
The debate is over the most effective way to enforce the law, given the inevitable limits on law enforcement resources.
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/19/2009 @ 1:02 am“Illegal employers are bending the law to expand their profitability at the expense of law abiding rivals.”
Hax – This is where I have trouble buying your thesis. In certain business sure, contracting and agricultural businesses where workers may get paid in cash perhaps. In other businesses, where there are actual payrolls and records and employers do face sanctions, I’d like to see some actual proof of your thesis. It’s not like after those raids on the meatpacking plants in the midwest the jobs weren’t immediately refilled with other applicants. You’re still not addressing the issue of ID ftaud and verification.
If your thesis is in fact true, why the hell does the Democrat party and it’s die hard union base support an open border policy, which can only depress union wages and employment. Apart from increasing its potential voter base, that’s always been a mystery to me.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/19/2009 @ 1:03 am““Would you ignore improving effective border enforcement?”
I would definitely de-emphasize immigration law enforcement in favor of securing the border against drug smuggling and entry by terrorists.
In many cases, these goals need not conflict, and wherever they do not, I’m 100 percent in favor of enforcing immigration law.”
Hax – I have know idea what this gobbledegook means even after you attempted to explain it.
Drugs = Bad
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/19/2009 @ 1:07 amTerror = Bad
Illegal People = Good
#165
voiceofreason2 (47018f) — 2/19/2009 @ 1:22 amEric,
the first time I saw Kristi Yamaguchi do an interview and her valley girl accent came pouring out I had the same kind of reaction.
I live in Louisiana and have met several locals who are second generation Vietnamese and it definitely makes one do a double take.
It is fun watching the kids at parties when they are little run back and forth – one minute they are chattering away in english and the next they are coming back through speaking their parent’s first language.
“The debate is over the most effective way to enforce the law, given the inevitable limits on law enforcement resources.”
It sounds like resources limitations are the ultimate problem — so where is the shortfall? Federal? State-level?
One of the bizarre aspects of the US immigration system is that there is no exit immigration tracking and the system for tracking/following up on individuals already in the country appears inadequate for the volume. The basic physical security of our borders – especially our southern one – seems woefully inadequate in terms of staffing, physical deterrants, use of information technology, and overall screening procedures. It seems that if there was political will where there needed to be in enforcing existing laws (for illegals themselves, anyone who helps/employs them) and building effective physical border barriers, there would also be adequate funding to do it effectively. We just got a trillion dollar “stimulus” package passed through congress – which has a lot of questionable funding in it regarding economic impact — the immigration issue surely isn’t a source money problem, it sounds fundamentally like a funding issue.
Mark Turner (7eb965) — 2/19/2009 @ 2:11 am“where there are actual payrolls and records and employers do face sanctions, I’d like to see some actual proof of your thesis.”
I take your point, Daley.
I meant employers who deliberately hire illegal workers. If it’s an accident, the employer is going to be paying market wages anyway and is hiring illegals only because legals aren’t available or because they are given fake documents.
Hax Vobiscum (edacf7) — 2/19/2009 @ 2:24 am[…] Why is deporting illegal aliens such a foreign concept to our government? Why are politicians such cowards to address the issue in fear of being called a racist? One would say that rancher Roger Barnett should sue the federal government for having his civil rights violated in that they have failed to protect him as a citizen from enemies domestic and abroad. Share This […]
JUSTICE SERVED? Federal Jury Finds AZ Rancher Roger Barnett Did not Violate Illegal Immigrants’ Rights … However, Did Find Liable on Claims of Assault $77,804 in Damages | Scared Monkeys (1b1833) — 2/19/2009 @ 4:49 amIt’s a good way. It is not the only, nor the only acceptable way.
E-Verify is a great, accurate tool. And yet it was just eliminated from an $800 billion spending bill. If you’re going to lean on employers, it only makes sense to make it as easy as possible for them to comply with the law.
But we do focus enforcement on employers. And while we’re at it, employment isn’t the only attraction. Public benefits also attract. So we should also target those who provide public funds to illegal immigrants, no? Why focus solely on those who trade funds for labor?
It is intrinsically dishonorable to commit identity theft, just so you can work?
Pablo (99243e) — 2/19/2009 @ 5:44 amSo it’s okay to break the law, as long as it’s just against illegals? Perhaps you would’ve informed the jury of the “illegal alien exception”?
Xanthippas (ddef4c) — 2/19/2009 @ 5:48 amApparently, it is OK to break the law. Profitable too, to the tune of $77K.
You realize that this is a civil case, and not a criminal one, right Xanthippas?
Pablo (99243e) — 2/19/2009 @ 6:04 am“But as we know, ICE doesn’t intend to combat illegal immigration, per se. It intends to deal with the far more acute problem of criminal fugitives who pose an immediate public safety threat. Because that is ICE’s intended task, they don’t bother to target illegal hirers.”
Actually, it’s more likely that ICE doesn’t target employers BECAUSE THEY’D HAVE TO PROVE THE EMPLOYER KNEW THE EMPLOYEES WERE HERE ILLEGALLY. There have been problems doing that even with raids because employers can always claim that they believed the documents the illegal aliens showed them were genuine AND that it is against the law for them to look too closely into the employee’s background because that’s basis for a discrimination suit. Hence, the need for programs such as mandatory use of eVerify and SS no match letters.
Ali (d53d4c) — 2/19/2009 @ 1:21 pm“So it’s okay to break the law, as long as it’s just against illegals? Perhaps you would’ve informed the jury of the “illegal alien exception”?
Comment by Xanthippas — 2/19/2009 @ 5:48 am”
So, it’s OK for illegal aliens to break the law, but not for a rancher who’s defending himself and his property?!
Ali (d53d4c) — 2/19/2009 @ 1:23 pmWow, a lot of comments here since I last looked. It’s pretty hard to follow.
– Latinos smell the racism from Republicans because they think illegal immigrants are … illegal.
– Targeting employers would be the best way to reduce illegal immigration and also not be perceived as mean.
– The Democrats eliminated e-verify from the stimulus bill without debate, so employers can’t check Social Security numbers.
– We continue to defend illegal alien identity thieves’ civil rights by making detailed background checks into their status de facto discrimination.
So, we eliminate the tools to help business comply with the law, then we target businesses who break the law. Makes sense, if what we want to do is penalize business unfairly in the midst of an economic downturn.
carlitos (6128f3) — 2/19/2009 @ 1:49 pmThe many state initiatives to make it more difficult to conduct business as an illegal have actually resulted in “self-deportation” of significant numbers of illegal aliens.
SPQR (72771e) — 2/19/2009 @ 1:51 pmcarlitos – It is freakin’ brilliant, isn’t it?
JD (03563c) — 2/19/2009 @ 1:53 pmCarlitos – Hax has been deliberately ignoring the comments about the difficulty of verifying identity on the thread. He has been pretending that nobody noticed. The circularity of his recommended course of action is great – I want us to do what we cannot do at the present time and what the Democrat majority is unlikely to permit us to do any time in the forseeable future. He also seems to think that illegal immigrants only participate in the cash economy and not in jobs requiring the presentment of ID, opening of bank accounts, etc.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/19/2009 @ 2:13 pmAli writes: “ICE doesn’t target employers BECAUSE THEY’D HAVE TO PROVE THE EMPLOYER KNEW THE EMPLOYEES WERE HERE ILLEGALLY.”
Well, some here say they do target employers. Seems clear to me they don’t target them enough, both in practice and as a matter of public policy and publicity.
Ali’s comment reflects exactly the “aroma” of bigotry I talked about earlier. When it comes to arresting dirt-poor undocumented workers whose only crime is seeking a better way of life, the response is: tough beans, you broke the law, you suffer the consequences.
But when it comes to arresting middle-class or even wealthy employers and business owners, suddenly we’re getting into technical excuses and, even, EMPATHY.
Prosecuting criminals is tough, as is running a small or mid-size business. But so is picking lettuce all day. If there’s no excuses for not deporting illegal workers, there should be no excuses for not aggressively prosecuting illegal employers, especially when it’s so obvious that getting rid of illegal employers is tearing the weed out by the roots — more efficient, more thorough and more fair.
I don’t even recall the mediocre media using the term “illegal employers.” We hear and read “illegal aliens” or “illegal immigrants” or simply ”illegals” all the time in reference to workers, but the label is rarely, if ever, applied to employers.
I actually have some empathy for illegal employers. I’ve known a few of them. And, really, who doesn’t know someone who’s hired an undocumented worker, at some point, to do something?
As it happens, all the business owners I know well who employ illegally are right-wing Republicans. I’m not saying that to suggest that there is a pattern of hypocrisy, but to give at least one anecdote on the political problem the Republicans have on the issue.
Bush and McCain aren’t against absolute immigration law enforcement because they’re empathetic with illegal workers, it’s because they know many of their supporteres are illegal employers. And that’s what stinks to Latinos.
And what smells even worse is the prospect that even the most strident anti-illegal immigrationists are unwilling to target employers and de-emphasize illegal workers because they realize that much of their political support comes from anti-Latino resentment.
Hax Vobiscum (edacf7) — 2/19/2009 @ 2:14 pmwhose only crime is seeking a better way of life
That is an outright lie.
And what smells even worse is the prospect that even the most strident anti-illegal immigrationists are unwilling to target employers and de-emphasize illegal workers because they realize that much of their political support comes from anti-Latino resentment.
That is an outright lie.
Begone, troll.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/19/2009 @ 2:43 pmAssume much, Hacks? Your entire argument is premised on there being an anti-Latino sentiment amongst Republicans, based on their desire to have our existing laws enforced. But, pulling shit out of your ass is your S.O.P.
JD (03563c) — 2/19/2009 @ 2:47 pmKind of like how the Dems removed E-verify from the stimulus bill?
I like how Hacks likes to attribute motives to people. It is cute.
JD (03563c) — 2/19/2009 @ 2:51 pmEspecially since he ignores the support it would COST the Dems if they dared crack down on illegals in general.
Dems don’t oppose Voter ID laws for nothin’, ya know…
Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 2/19/2009 @ 2:55 pmLike I said, I have anti-latino resentment because I can trace my heritage (family tree) to mexicans.
Hax talks out his butt because his mouth knows better.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/19/2009 @ 2:57 pm“Bush and McCain aren’t against absolute immigration law enforcement because they’re empathetic with illegal workers, it’s because they know many of their supporteres are illegal employers.”
Hax – Source please. If it’s an ass pull, please say so.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/19/2009 @ 3:02 pmAgain, folks. It is just arguing with the charicatures in its head.
JD (03563c) — 2/19/2009 @ 3:03 pmHax – Do you work in the not for profit sector?
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/19/2009 @ 3:04 pmJohn writes: “Like I said, I have anti-latino resentment.”
I leave a dank, fungus-ridden shoe on the floor and John can’t help but slip it on. Hilarious…
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/19/2009 @ 3:20 pmDaley: It’s an analytical observation. Sourcing would be meaningless. It’s telling, though, that you can’t tell the difference between statements of fact and analytical observations. That explains a lot about your politics.
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/19/2009 @ 3:22 pmHacks – John is prejudiced against himself? You really are a fuckin’ retard.
JD (03563c) — 2/19/2009 @ 3:22 pmWell I don’t. What kind of circles do you run in, dude? I do have experience in working at a business that hired illegal aliens who provided documents which were probably false. And with a boss who expressed frustration that there was no way to check out the fake Social Security cards. But for you, that reality is a “technical excuse” as you noted in your post. No need for you to operate in reality, just please continue to enlighten us as to how things should be in your own world. While you are there, let’s pretend that MALDEF and others wouldn’t sue employers if they started demanding better papers from their workers, above and beyond what the law demands.
By the way, Obama is president now, and McCain is a mere minority senator. As pointed out to you ad nauseum, the new Democratic-led Congress’ first course of action was to eliminate E-Verify. Why do you suppose this is?
As long as your are continuing the obtuseness, feel free to add your wisdom at the palestinian TV topic. You have too much fact-free posting over there to just let it sit dormant.
carlitos (6128f3) — 2/19/2009 @ 3:23 pmPlease let us know next time you make one of these. So far, it looks like your definition of “analytical observation” is pulling shit out of your ass.
JD (03563c) — 2/19/2009 @ 3:24 pmThis is hilarious, Hack even accuses friends of relaxed immigration laws as being racist … cause that’s the meta narrative.
SPQR (72771e) — 2/19/2009 @ 3:29 pmcarlitos – You called it, I believe, spectacularly obtuse, which I have to say is really not fair to actually obtuse people. This one is intentionally dishonest.
JD (03563c) — 2/19/2009 @ 3:30 pmAs it happens, you are full of shit. But straight-Dem-voting pizzeria owners have the same problems getting SS#’s verified, so in addition to being a lie, your point is irrelevant.
carlitos (6128f3) — 2/19/2009 @ 3:30 pmActually, any analysis would require data points, otherwise it is mere speculation.
You’re actually getting dumber. It’s cute.
Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 2/19/2009 @ 3:36 pmAlso, it is exceedingly telling, Hax, that you prefer non-factual speculation and inference to… You know… Facts.
Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 2/19/2009 @ 3:37 pmData or no data, how “Bush and McCain supporters” have anything to do with what ICE does for the next 8 years is beyond me.
carlitos (6128f3) — 2/19/2009 @ 3:38 pmHax posted (trollish statements)
Whatever, troll, you are the fool here. You make outlandish, unfounded, and undocumented assertions of supposed facts on a post-by-post basis. When you are called on your trollery, you duck and dodge, refusing to answer. I, personally, have no idea why Patterico values your input above that of other trolls since you have no input of value above any other troll.
You suggested part of the reasons people like me reject illegal immigration is due to a hatred for latinos. I blew a hole in that suggestion large enough to drive a fleet of semis through. You decided to attack me personally because I blew a hole in your whole premise.
You have nothing to offer, other than contrariness and ad hominem attacks. Contrary to well-meaning left-leaning and liberal-minded folks, you are here specifically to be contrary and to anger people. You are worth less than a three-dollar-bill.
I said very specifically you lied on two very specific points you tried to make. Prove you didn’t lie. I double-dog dare you. Otherwise, shut your lying cake hole.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/19/2009 @ 3:46 pmHax – When you make “analytical observations” and try to pass them off as facts, unfortunately it says more about you and your agenda than it does about me. It seems you are all about making “analytical observations” in the course of your comments, which is why when pressed, you are unable to back up most of your statements.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/19/2009 @ 5:42 pmYou know, folks:
Ranks right up there with:
It’s particularly funny because the guy has asked other people to source their statements!
As the fellow himself states, it is a “game” he intends to “win.”
Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/19/2009 @ 5:51 pm““analytical observations” and try to pass them off as facts”
Read my comment again, Daley. I did the opposite. I pointed to the contrast between analytical observations and facts. Not surprised you have trouble sorting out the difference, though.
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/19/2009 @ 5:51 pmThere is nothing analytical or observant about what you produce here, Hacks. I hope your editors are paid well.
JD (03563c) — 2/19/2009 @ 5:55 pm001: Make partisan statement.
Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/19/2009 @ 5:55 pm002: Wait for response
003: Upon challenge, attack sources.
004: Make more extremist statements
005: Claim that sourcing is not necessary
006: Insult other posters
007: Ignore responses to original posts
008: Claim to be sober, thoughtful poster
009: Move to new thread.
019: GOTO 001
Thanks JD. They are!
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/19/2009 @ 5:57 pmEric: why can’t you ignore me?
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/19/2009 @ 5:57 pmActually, your goal is to be sufficiently offensive and bizarre and contradictory that folks finally give up.
Like your claims that there is no evidence of substantial spousal abuse among Muslims.
You claimed at least twice that there was no data to support that…when there were several responses to you that included sourcing.
But then, sources are not necessary for you, I know.
This is because it is a game to you, nothing more.
Troof to Powder!
Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/19/2009 @ 5:59 pmHey, Hax? Why don’t you go away?
Oh, that’s right: it’s a game.
I do think that making claims that Muslims don’t have a problem, world wide, with spousal abuse indeed requires a response. It’s shameful that you would write such nonsense….for a game.
Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/19/2009 @ 6:01 pmHax, why can’t you enter ANY debate honestly?
You are a dishonest lying dissembler who only wants to cause trouble and derail and raise blood pressures instead of doing or saying anything honest.
You have been weighed and measured and found wanting.
And, oh yeah, I intend to heckle you frequently without adding anything to the topic at hand, especially since you never add anything to the topic at hand.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/19/2009 @ 6:03 pm“no evidence of substantial spousal abuse among Muslims.”
I never made such a claim.
I said there is no data linking Muslims to domestic violence.
It’s not surprising that you don’t understand the difference. That explains a lot about your views.
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/19/2009 @ 6:05 pmKey word, John (with a hat tip to Dmac): ocelot.
Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/19/2009 @ 6:05 pmThanks John! We all contribute what we can.
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/19/2009 @ 6:06 pmOkay folks:
Spousal abuse is not included within the overall definition of domestic violence.
Nor did this character bother To. Read. The. Links. Provided.
It’s a game, see? And one about a deadly serious topic, literally.
He even includes an insult.
I have been looking for a good definition for the word poltroon. I found one.
Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/19/2009 @ 6:08 pmEB, are you suggesting Hax and his ocelot are part of that donkey show in Baja Cali?
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/19/2009 @ 6:08 pm“Spousal abuse is not included within the overall definition of domestic violence.”
where are you getting that, Eric?
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/19/2009 @ 6:13 pmA mendoucheous twatwaffle, if there ever was one. Point and laugh, people, point and laugh.
JD (03563c) — 2/19/2009 @ 6:15 pmThanks JD. I knew I could count on you for a shout out and sexual orifice reference. I do wonder, though, is it too much Web porn for you, or too little?
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/19/2009 @ 6:17 pmI said Hax in high school once. I got suspended for a week for using obscene language.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/19/2009 @ 6:18 pmI think that is an insult to donkeys, John.
But more seriously, tell me again what this character brings to the discussion?
Oh, for people who think that this sort of thing is a “game,” here is a place to start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_domestic_violence
Games are fun for some people, but this topic is deadly serious, again. If anyone is going to use the “it says something about you” style argument, I think that making a game out of this says something about this other person.
Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/19/2009 @ 6:19 pmIt is sad that this one gets paid to write. It is obviously intelligent, just not very socialized, and aggressively dishonest. Not a good combination.
JD (03563c) — 2/19/2009 @ 6:19 pmJD, playing word games regarding this topic says it all. Period.
Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/19/2009 @ 6:28 pmhelpful link, Eric.
from the wiki:
“There is still, among Islamic scholars, a debate about whether there are occasions on which a man beating a woman is appropriate.”
I take it, Eric, you side with the scholars who say there are such occasions. Or do you side with those who say there aren’t?
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/19/2009 @ 6:31 pmSee, now that is just aggressively dishonest, Hacks.
JD (03563c) — 2/19/2009 @ 6:34 pmWhy is there even a debate about this?
JD (03563c) — 2/19/2009 @ 6:35 pmWhat’s your view, JD?
Do you side with the Islamic scholars who say the religion opposes wife-beating, or those who say it supports it?
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/19/2009 @ 6:37 pmHax, why don’t you shut your cake hole? You are not here to debate in any manner remotely resembling honesty. If you were to vanish from this site, your dishonesty would not be missed.
Unlike Leviticus and that “a” name I can never remember, you have no intention of ever typing an honest paragraph. Just go away.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/19/2009 @ 6:37 pmI side with the side of the civilized world that no longer debates whether or not it is appropriate, Hacks. Apparently, you think it can be justified to beat your spouse. Nice.
JD (03563c) — 2/19/2009 @ 6:39 pmHax is here only to distract from the thread topic.
Apogee (f4320c) — 2/19/2009 @ 6:41 pmHacks never did answer about how those tiny majorities of Hamas and Hezbollah got elected to run governments.
And it appears that it has graduated from its juvenile taunts of racism to not having the stones to make an accusation, but pulling a bullshit troll act insinuating that someone approves of spousal beating – which flies in the face of everything we know about that person.
Point and laugh. Mock and scorn. That is all this mendoucheous little asshat deserves.
JD (03563c) — 2/19/2009 @ 6:45 pmI posted this at the end of the Palestinean thread in response to such insidiousness. And I mentioned it a few days ago – as long as everyone takes the bait, Hax wins. Knock it off.
Hax, your refusal to admit the place Islam plays in the heinous treatment toward women is utterly offensive and that you see no difference from it’s view and influence in the treatment of women than that of Christianity or any other religion, is unspeakable.
Too bad such an obviously intelligent person can’t get beyond baiting and obfuscating and dishonesty.
I’m done here.
Dana (137151) — 2/19/2009 @ 6:46 pmApparently, you’re not done, Dana. Funny that you’d step right into that.
Meanwhile, what do you make of the Islamic clerics, as cited in Wiki, who say Islam plays no place in the heinous treatment of women?
Are they wrong too? Should they shut up too?
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/19/2009 @ 6:57 pmNo, they should speak out more. You, on the other hand …
JD (03563c) — 2/19/2009 @ 6:58 pmHacks, your #231 and #236 show your basic lack of integrity pretty well.
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/19/2009 @ 7:00 pmHax, what do you think of everyone who have called you what you are, namely a liar?
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/19/2009 @ 7:00 pmJohn, I’m happy to let their comments speak for themselves.
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/19/2009 @ 7:08 pmTruth is pretty tough to refute, huh?
JD (03563c) — 2/19/2009 @ 7:12 pmHax, so you admit you’re a liar? Glad we got that cleared up.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/19/2009 @ 7:12 pmFrom Eric’s link:
Ibn Kathir in concluding his exegesis exhorts men to not beat their wives, quoting a hadith from Muhammad: “Do not hit God’s servants” (here referring to women). The narration continues, stating that some while after the edict, “Umar complained to the Messenger of God that many women turned against their husbands. Muhammad gave his permission that the men could hit their wives in cases of rebelliousness. The women then turned to the wives of the Prophet and complained about their husbands. The Prophet said: ‘Many women have turned to my family complaining about their husbands. Verily, these men are not among the best of you.”[22]
According to Ahmad Shafaat, an Islamic scholar, “If the husband beats a wife without respecting the limits set down by the Qur’an and Hadith, then she can take him to court and if ruled in favor has the right to apply the law of retaliation and beat the husband as he beat her.”
Mazna Hussain, an attorney for abused women, has said that “[m]any batterers manipulate Islamic law or use its perceived authority to control their wives.”[
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/19/2009 @ 7:16 pmSo you are defending the degree to which a wife can be beaten? And you are defending a religious text that gives a thumbs up to wive beating?
JD (03563c) — 2/19/2009 @ 7:22 pmAhh, so Hax believes wife-beating is acceptable within limitations. And Hax uses as a reference an attorney of middle-east descent who suggests there are some batterers who don’t manipulate the law; thereby, tacitly approving of some wife-beating.
Glad we got that out in the open.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/19/2009 @ 7:22 pmJohn – This performance art trolling is spiralling downwards right now. Defending wife beating is just stellar.
JD (03563c) — 2/19/2009 @ 7:37 pm“Bush and McCain aren’t against absolute immigration law enforcement because they’re empathetic with illegal workers, it’s because they know many of their supporteres are illegal employers.”
Hax – The above looks more like mind reading or wishful thinking, or perhaps a sheer wild ass guess (Technically a SWAG) than what any rational person might term an “analytical observation.” Would you mind steering me to the comment where you explained how to tell the difference between what you term your analytical observations, which are otherwise unsupported by evidence presented, and facts, which are also usually presented by you devoid of links or sourcing. Could you also explain how that is informative of my politics rather than your regarding your acceptance of the conventional community-based reality’s wisdom regarding the illegal immigrant population in this country?
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/19/2009 @ 7:42 pmDaley,
“Bush and McCain aren’t against absolute immigration law enforcement because they’re empathetic with illegal workers, it’s because they know many of their supporteres are illegal employers.”
Code for Republicans are selfish but we Democrats don’t hire illegal workers for personal gain and also avoid paying taxes …. errrr wait, there might be a problem……
Obama über alles!!!!! (48dd5e) — 2/19/2009 @ 7:47 pm… also don’t avoid ….
Obama über alles!!!!! (48dd5e) — 2/19/2009 @ 7:48 pmHax, you are an asshole. Those poor muslim women aren’t being beaten by scholars’ opinions or internet point-scoring liars like you. They are being beaten – in real life, not Hax’ theory of possibilities – by their husbands, to whom most of them have been betrothed since their early teens. Fuck you and your “illegal-immigrant-employing-right-wing-Republican-business-owner” friends. Seriously, just fuck you.
carlitos (6128f3) — 2/19/2009 @ 8:07 pmNo, it’s a figment of your imagination pulled directly out of your ass, which is the case with all but a tiny minority of your “facts”, Hacks.
Pablo (99243e) — 2/19/2009 @ 8:17 pmDaley: what’s your explanation for why Bush and McCain are against absolute immigration enforcement?
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/19/2009 @ 8:23 pmHax – What does absolute immigration enforcement mean? I have never heard the term. Explain your question.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/19/2009 @ 8:31 pmYes, they are. In fact, you’ve just quoted the Hadith that proves them wrong.
No. the odds are long, but they might spark an Islamic reformation. Wouldn’t that be nice?
Pablo (99243e) — 2/19/2009 @ 8:33 pmDana,
You need to learn a little history, a little economics, and a little sociology to understand why your supposed challenge to those of us opposed to illegal immigration (or in my case, to large scale immigration of any sort) are not as clever as you think.
History. Up until the early and mid 80s, a lot of the jobs that supposedly require illegal (framing houses, say) were done by native born Americans. The developers of Southern California, in fact, broke the Carpenters union partly through the use of illegals. This happened shortly after the first amnesty , an amnesty which involved massive fraud.
Sociology. Unlike many American businesses and managers, Mexicans have no compunction about hiring their own. So even if an anglo kid wanted an entry level job in construction labor, for example, he would be unlikely to get it. It would go to somebody’s cousin from Oaxaca. Its all about ethnic solidarity. Whites, American whites, have none. Mexicans have plenty.
Economics. There is something called a collective action problem. We might all be better off in some situation, but no one is willing to be the first mover. Individually, sure, we might save a few pennies on the Denny’s grand slam, but we pay more in taxes, crowding, traffic etc. Now, no one of us avoiding eating out will make a dent in restaurant’s demand for cheap labor. It takes coordinated action. Thats why we have government, to enforce laws that make things better for all of us. That’s what ICE is supposed to be doing.
horace (547ced) — 2/19/2009 @ 8:45 pmUmmm…
you realize that Dana is NOT pro illegal immigration, right?
You meant Hax, right?
Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 2/19/2009 @ 8:53 pmSorry if I misinterpreted Dana’s position; the ‘we employ them’ remark sounds pretty pro illegal to me.
Actually Hax makes sense on part, we should be going after employers. I don’t know why that precludes going after the aliens themselves.
horace (547ced) — 2/20/2009 @ 1:40 am“They might spark an Islamic reformation.”
Excellent point Pablo.
If it’s possible to reform Islam, why not support that, rather than insisting that bin Laden’s version of Islam is the only correct one?
You say “might spark” as if these efforts are not underway in virtually every corner of the world, but indeed they are.
I recommend conservative scholar Bernard Lewis’s “Crisis of Islam” for an interesting, impressive look at this conflict. I don’t agree with many of Lewis’ conclusions about America’s role in the world, but his analytical observations on Islam are very well substantiated and he’s smart enough to have been an adviser to both Reagan, Clinton and both Bushes (I believe. Not sure about Bush II.)
Which side are you on, Pablo?
Are you, like bin Laden, still insisting that the Koran demands gangster behavior?
Or are you with the reformers who insist every bit as vehemently that it doesn’t?
Hax Vobiscum (edacf7) — 2/20/2009 @ 2:20 amHorace: targeting employers precludes going after employees because resources are finite.
As Pat himself has reported on this blog, the State of California is now left with little choice but to let 10s of thousands of prisoners go early.
The cost of arresting, incarcerating and deporting illegal workers is massive and in an era of dramatic fiscal scarcity a very good candidate for redirecting toward illegal employers.
Again: punish the employer and you tear the weed out by its root. Punish the worker and you trim off a few leaves that grow back in no time.
Hax Vobiscum (edacf7) — 2/20/2009 @ 2:23 amAnd:
On E-Verify.
I have to admit I haven’t followed the legislation closely enough to know why it was voted down and, forgive me, but I don’t trust the analysis that says it’s because Democrats want illegal workers to vote for them.
On it’s face, I’d assume E-verify is an essential tool and well should have been passed by the Democrats. If they voted down under pressure on civil rights issues, they should not have. (Unless there is something about how it works that’s excessively discriminatory.)
But I certainly agree that employers need better tools to efficiently check workers.
I’m ideologically opposed to a national identity card, but I’d be willing to compromise, because not having one is proving to costly in an age of globalized capital and non-globalized labor.
Kind of telling that no one in my vociferous anti-fan club here even bothered to ask whether I was for or against E-Verify. They just jumped right to the conclusion that allowed them an easy criticism. So predictable…
Hax Vobiscum (edacf7) — 2/20/2009 @ 2:28 amWho’s done that? I’ve only pointed out that there are plenty of people who believe it is, and that the sacred books and clerical teachings provide a lot of support for that notion. I don’t think there is a “correct” version of Islam, but I know that others who believe in it think there is.
The Koran does demand some awful behavior. That’s why Islam is going to be so tough to reform. The reformers have an uphill climb in convincing the traditionalists. I wish them great success, but I won’t be holding my breath.
But let me ask you, if Islam is all rainbows and bunnies as you’ve professed it to be for all but a tiny minority, why would it need reformation?
Pablo (99243e) — 2/20/2009 @ 4:56 amAs for e-verify, it wasn’t voted down. It was axed in the conference committee, behind closed doors and among Democrats only, as Republicans weren’t invited to the conference. That way, no one has their fingerprints on the deed. So, all we can do about the reasons is speculate because there was intentionally no transparency in the elimination of e-verify. All we know for sure is that the Democrats cut it out of the stimulus. And that everyone then needed to vote for it in the ensuing 24 hours.
Pablo (99243e) — 2/20/2009 @ 5:02 am#
#
#
#
Indeed. Predictable.
carlitos (6128f3) — 2/20/2009 @ 5:32 amSince I can’t believe no one has gone here yet:
When did you stop beating your wife, Hax?
carlitos (6128f3) — 2/20/2009 @ 6:08 amFalse dilemma. Targeting employers means that there are less resources to target workers, but that doesn’t mean there would be zero resources.
Steverino (69d941) — 2/20/2009 @ 7:01 amCarlitos, there is a basic unfounded assumption there.
But yes, the guy is just an annoying contrarian, demonstrably dishonest in his “debating.” As he himself put it: it’s about “winning.”
Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/20/2009 @ 7:22 amEveryone who is here from the discovery of this this country should leave. Come on, we all know you we do not belong here. You know who you are. It is a matter of sematics, but if you were not here to start with you are illegally here. Start filling the boats. It’s a long way back to Europe. Get out of here. Bye-Bye.
Rufino Villarreal (588e8b) — 3/2/2009 @ 2:54 pmAnd, all those who trekked over the Bering Straits must leave too.
AD - RtR/OS (3120b9) — 3/2/2009 @ 2:56 pmthey’re illegal stupid!
jvilla (cab15c) — 3/17/2009 @ 1:05 amwhether they are criminals or just plain illegal aliens they should all be deported, starting with the pregant women. whats the reason they are all using a fraudulant social security
One of our readers recommended this blog post:…
Deporting those illegals should be our top priority. But if you’re an ICE agent and illegals come running up to your car to offer illegal day labor, I don’t think you’re obliged to ignore that. On the contrary, I think you’re obliged to act . …….
Viliam (d838c7) — 3/5/2010 @ 3:47 pm