-
guest 05/13/2012 11:14:00 AM
Individuals who hire undocumented workers are racist? Bit of a stretch there.
Yes, undocumented workers are underpaid and are not entitled to any employment benefits. They are also typically employed in the most dangerous and undesirable occupations (e.g. meat packing plants). Why do employers hire them? They are a cheap, meek, and replaceable source of labor (pretty sure racism doesn't factor in there...) Do you think that most Americans would choose to perform these types of jobs? I suspect that the agricultural labor shortages in states which have recently enacted rabidly anti-immigrant legislation (e.g. Alabama) provide the answer to that question.
You want your estimated 3 million undocumented workers to leave the country? Say goodbye to cheap food, services, and products made in the U.S. Say goodbye to the economy. Stop scapegoating the victim. We need immigrant labor and always have. Instead of criminalizing and alienating a growing underclass of American society, provide a legal mechanism for them to find employment here. They need jobs (and rights); we need their labor.
Finally, in times of economic recession (e.g. now), we need a mobile labor force. We have effectively prevented circular migration. Undocumented laborers do not return home when jobs dry up. It is simply too risky and too expensive. Look the economic crisis in Ireland. A large percentage the new EU workers that flooded in during the boom years have now left. That is how the labor market is supposed to work.
Everyone is so hung up on the term "illegal alien." Let's not forget that we created that label. We also encouraged so-called unauthorized migration by allowing a relatively open border (until recently) and by denying legal access to the (low skilled) U.S. labor market.
-
Guest 05/13/2012 10:43:00 AM
While we are reminding individuals about the so-called lessons of history, I think it is best that you are reminded of the fact that 'history' is not objective. The history to which you refer is but one interpretation of past events (e.g. American territorial expansion as a divine right by virtue of Anglo-Saxon superiority).
-
StopTheHate 09/15/2011 3:54:00 PM
"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel" - Samuel Johnson
-
06/28/2011 2:16:00 AM
tinyurl.com/3nh9gss
-
david 02/03/2011 5:33:00 PM
someone needs to remind ILLEGALS that they do not have blood cards, they have a country, it is called MEXICO...also, remind them of their own history that they either ignore or deny that there was a war called Mexican-American War in case they don't know their own history... and remind them of Guadelupe Hidalgo Treaty.... perhaps they forgot this one too..
-
david 02/03/2011 5:30:00 PM
This is NOT racist!!! It is simply a matter of fairness to ALL, not fairness to ILLEGALS at the expense of tax-paying US citizens... racism is clearly wrong... ILLEGALS are NOT NATIVE AMERICAN INDIANS who have been wrongly discriminated against, this has been rectified since Clinton Administration...
-
david 02/03/2011 5:24:00 PM
a little truth serum injection, thanks..
-
david 02/03/2011 5:23:00 PM
hallelujah,amen
-
Uhrlanger 01/02/2011 4:34:00 PM
TruthNot is just another pimple faced ASU student trying to please their liberal prof.
-
01/01/2011 7:05:00 PM
Joe: "which do you hate more, hard-working immigrants or government regulations?"
Joe, you know that is a false choice. Not all immigrants are "hard working" and not all government regulations are bad. And 'hate' is a loaded word that has no good place in a rational argument.
Illegal immigration is wrong in both a legal and moral sense. Those who make the conscious choice to violate our laws and enter America illegally also violate the basic human rights of American citizens and legal immigrants who have the right to expect their government to both enforce the borders that define their nation and that the citizens of other nations respect those borders and their rights.
Our government has obviously ignored the wishes of the vast majority of Americans and purposefully allowed (and even encouraged in many cases) illegal immigration in such numbers that it has had severe economic, social, political and cultural impacts on the nation and especially in states like California. We know the politicians are seeking votes from that segment of Hispanics that are single issue voters in this area.
So, as a conservative, I acknowledge, denounce and deplore the impacts and costs that illegal immigration and the government actions and lack of actions that aid and abet illegal immigration have on our nation.
-
01/01/2011 6:49:00 PM
The "undocumented" (to use that term), have diverse reasons for making the choice to violate our laws and customs, some come here to work, some for other reasons. In California which contains about 25% of all undocumented aliens, the jails and prisons have a very high number of persons who share a common trait: They chose to commit crimes and they are not citizens of the United States.
California spent almost a billion dollars ($970M) in 2009-2010 to jail undocumented immigrants. The federal government who should be paying this cost, provided only $97M to CA. So the taxpayers of CA paid $900M to house undocumented criminals in our state.
Bear in mind that those state provided numbers only include those undocumented who are being processed on immigration charges. The judicial system does not verify citizenship so many undocumented commit crimes and go to jail/prison without their status as undocumented being noted or tallied in any official way. So the actual numbers and costs are higher, probably much higher.
Add to the cost and hardship of the undocumented criminal element, the burdens on society caused by those who 'only' broke the law by entering illegally and working illegally. That segment uses public resources (health care, etc.) and those costs in California alone extend into the billions of dollars.
But the real bottom line is this: Those who choose to enter our nation illegally violate the basic human rights of American citizens and legal immigrants who have the fundamental legal and moral right to the sovereignty of their nation and the right to self-determination in deciding on the future of their society, politics and culture. Illegal/undocumented (whatever you choose to call them) violate those rights in addition to adding significant financial burdens.
-
Jewel 12/30/2010 7:31:00 PM
What a liberal article. You're such a hypocrite! Just looking at the author's last name, I'm guessing you're a Jew, and most Jew's are liberals, and most Jew's are anti-white. So of course this article will be racist against the white man. What a pathetic excuse for journalism. Go back to school and learn to not be so bias!
-
Drc 12/30/2010 6:41:00 PM
Economics asisde for one moment. Where do foreign citizens have the right to come into any counrty and make demands and feel entitled? Racism..lets not even get into La Raza and other pro illegal groups who put race over country. Why should we allow groups of people who, unlike immigrants of the past, have no desire to learn English, respect the country's laws or customs yet feel they are entitled to be here?
-
Joe 12/26/2010 11:14:00 PM
>If one looks at the Dream Act as a single entity, it can be made to look somewhat innocent, if one takes the time to look at the entire socialist, liberal agenda, it is very bad overall, and has only shown failures over time, not successes.
Americans aren't lining up for these jobs, even with high unemployment.
You can argue that wages will eventually rise to the point that Americans will, but that cost is passed on to the consumer, and then the only way to compete against imports is to enact tariffs.
As a conservative, which do you hate more, hard-working immigrants or government regulations?
-
12/18/2010 7:37:00 AM
There is a wonderful book titled "What's the Matter with Kansas?" By Robert Frank. A bit before it's time when I read it. It really is a wonderful read.
-
Maxonepercent 12/15/2010 11:24:00 PM
I have some questions. I don't understand the argument that illegal immigrants are not taking American jobs. If illegal immigrants come here for work (a point we can all agree upon), and the United States is suffering major unemployment than how is it that they can find jobs? It seems to me that if millions of Americans citizens are unemployed and illegal immigrants are still finding work than illegal immigrants are by definition "taking American jobs" and contributing to the overall unemployment of more American citizens.
Furthermore, what is the incentive for an employer to hire an illegal immigrant? Especially now when unemployment is so high and there are no shortage of available legal would-be employees. Unless the employer is racist and prefers to hire illegal immigrants, the only other logical reason why an employer would hire an illegal immigrant over a legal citizen has got to be financial. Illegal immigrants work for less and are not eligible for unemployment or even workers compensation, making them less expensive than legal citizens. This means that when an illegal immigrant is hired for a job over an American citizen the employer is paying a lower wage. How can this not be a problem?
Moreover, the problem simply has to be enormous. We all agree that there are at least 13 million illegal immigrants in this country. Presumably those people are here to work, I mean they cannot take welfare (at least not directly). For the sake of argument lets say that only one-fourth of them are employed illegally here in the US, that means that 3 million American jobs are currently occupied by illegal immigrants. Even though this is a very conservative estimate, 3 million is a huge number.
Likewise, there are 14 million unemployed Americans right now, most are unskilled and a disproportionate number of them are minorities, this is the demographic that is most likely to compete with illegal immigrants for jobs. How is it not a problem that millions of American jobs that would normally be filled by these workers are currently being held by illegal immigrants?
-
Maxonepercent 12/15/2010 10:55:00 PM
Anyone that opposes your narrow world view is a racist.
-
KC 12/14/2010 11:12:00 PM
Uhm,
Stringent: Strict; binding strongly; making strict requirements; restrictive; rigid; severe
Harsh: severe; "a harsh penalty"
A harsh law is the same as a stingent law.
ByteRider now argues that when he lied about CA's law being nearly identical to SB 1070, he wasn't trying to make SB 1070 seem less harsh; rather, he was trying to make SB 1070 seem less stringent.
WTF?
Dude, seriously, use a dictionary. You're a clown.
-
Guest 12/14/2010 4:10:00 PM
Joe--
I think you fell off the koolaid wagon, my friend. Your whole first 2 or 3 paragraphs make no sense whatsoever. Perhaps your family should consider an intervention for you?
The AZ bill does NOT "stake out a claim" that they can operate "independent of the fed".
I'm illiterate? Let me use your own message against you, idiot:
"My point was-- AZ's 1070 wasn't (NOTE: WAS NOT) all that stringent...."
For which your response was....
"In what fucked up reversi-world does ByteRiderl ive where harsh and stringent don't basically mean the same thing?"
WTF are you talking about, Joe? You're jumping into this conversation without a clue, thinking you're all that and a bag of sun chips. You just make yourself look like the ass you are.
So let's recap:
1) You're a moron
I'm good.
-
Joe 12/14/2010 1:45:00 PM
While discussion why ByteRider stated other states have nearly identical immigration laws.
Kit Carson wrote:
"Was it not your intent to convey that AZ's law is not so harsh, not the harshest at all, because other laws approximate (ie, are near or virtually the same) as SB1070"
ByteRider responded:
"Actually no ... My point was-- AZ's 1070 wasn't all that stringent. It just got "challenged" because we're so close to the border and probably the #1 or #2 border crossing state."
In what fucked up reversi-world does ByteRider live where harsh and stringent don't basically mean the same thing?
While Kit Carson is right, he misses the other key difference. CA talks about co-operating with federal agencies and thereby recognizes the primacy of the federal government when dealing with immigration. SB 1070 stakes out a claim that the states can act independent of the fed, and in ways counter to the federal policy.
Huge, huge differences between CA and AZ.
To recap:
1) CA deals with arrested people, AZ deals with all people.
2) CA respects the federal government's sole control of the borders, AZ claims it can act contrary to federal law and policy.
3) ByteRider is illiterate.
Are we all good now?
-
12/14/2010 9:04:00 AM
SORRY for posting above.
VDARE is a spinoff of FAIR which is a Tanton group started by Peter Brimlow who is friend of John Tanton.
John Tanton helped Peter Brimlow secure funds to launch VDARE by Pioneer Fund board member and the son of the notorious pro-Nazi eugenicist John Trevor Sr who has also made generous donations to FAIR.
quote: Most remarkable of all, however, was the Feb. 13, 1997, gathering organized by Tanton at the New York Racquet and Tennis Club. Three years after FAIR had stopped taking Pioneer Fund money, Tanton brought FAIR board members Henry Buhl, Sharon Barnes and Alan Weeden β along with Peter Brimelow, future founder of the VDARE.com hate site β to a meeting with Pioneer Fund President Harry Weyher. The meeting, held expressly to discuss fundraising efforts to benefit FAIR, was memorialized in a Feb. 17, 1997, memo that Tanton wrote for his "FAIR Fund-Raising File." A year later, on Jan. 5, 1998, Tanton wrote to John Trevor, a Pioneer Fund board member and the son of the notorious pro-Nazi eugenicist John Trevor Sr., to thank him for his personal "handsome contribution" to FAIR.
http://www.splcenter.org/publications/the-nativist-lobby-three-faces-of-intolerance/john-tanton-and-the-nativist-movement
-
12/14/2010 8:59:00 AM
VDARE is a spinoff of FAIR, started by Peter Brimlow who is friend of John Tanton.
John Tanton helped Peter Brimlow secure funds to launch VDARE by Pioneer Fund board member and the son of the notorious pro-Nazi eugenicist John Trevor Sr who has also made generous donations to FAIR.
quote: Most remarkable of all, however, was the Feb. 13, 1997, gathering organized by Tanton at the New York Racquet and Tennis Club. Three years after FAIR had stopped taking Pioneer Fund money, Tanton brought FAIR board members Henry Buhl, Sharon Barnes and Alan Weeden β along with Peter Brimelow, future founder of the VDARE.com hate site β to a meeting with Pioneer Fund President Harry Weyher. The meeting, held expressly to discuss fundraising efforts to benefit FAIR, was memorialized in a Feb. 17, 1997, memo that Tanton wrote for his "FAIR Fund-Raising File." A year later, on Jan. 5, 1998, Tanton wrote to John Trevor, a Pioneer Fund board member and the son of the notorious pro-Nazi eugenicist John Trevor Sr., to thank him for his personal "handsome contribution" to FAIR.
http://www.splcenter.org/publications/the-nativist-lobby-three-faces-of-intolerance/john-tanton-and-the-nativist-movement
-
Joe 12/13/2010 10:41:00 AM
As others have said, thank you for posting this. You have destroyed your credibility.
I especially like the bizarre "(ref: see poll results)," is that what qualifies as supporting your argument - can I play too?
Nazis are fascists - (ref: see poll results)
Fascists are in the right-wing - (ref: see poll results)
ROTFLMAO
Seriously, I commend you for understanding that racism is a negative, but to try to force that into the "left" because you are "right" is just child-like. Racism is not a political position and can be found anywhere.
It is more often on the right-wing because the right-wing promotes nationalism and believes in the extreme market system wherein there must be absolute winners and losers. Competition for scarce resources leads to insider/ outsider thinking, which often manifests itself into racism.
The far-left supports communism, which believes all are equal. It's hard to support all are equal when you are a racist.
BR, seriously, you write and think like a child. Just because a thousand FOX viewers regurgitate false claims onto the Internet, does not make something true. Think for yourself.
How absolutely pathetic is it to claim that NAZIs are wrongly associated with the right-wing because of a myth put forward by academicians. Those statements are just cover for what the originator really wanted to say: by academicians he meant Jews.
It's all the academicians fault, right? "Those Jew bastards," is what they want to say, but can not.
BR - do you really want to be one the side supporting this thinly veiled hate?
-
Joe 12/13/2010 10:21:00 AM
> I subjectively label Nazis as left-wing, as do many scholars... but not all.
Wow - talk about your disingenuous statements!
You make it sound like there is genuine debate around this issue. There is not.
Fascism is an aspect of the right-wing. The Nazi party may have included the words socialist and "workers party" but it acted as a fascist organization. It was supported by the right-wing conservatives within Germany, specifically the judiciary.
You are a conclusion in search of a rationale.
-
Moonchild 12/13/2010 4:58:00 AM
Accident... didnt mean to "like" you comment... i dont like
-
Tim Martin 12/13/2010 4:51:00 AM
ByteRider has provided perhaps the dumbest statement in this thread when he writes:
"If you research "Why are Nazis considered ring-wing?" you'll learn that the consideration is based on a misunderstanding [by the left in this country] of right wing vs left wing European style and right wing vs left wing American style."
There is no prime meridien in politics where you're West (left) of something until you go so far you become East (right) of it.
This is the imaginary work of the fevered minds of the right-wing who can't stand that NAZI's are in the far-right.
It's just another example of how the wingnuts will twist logic and fact to somehow find a way to blame everything on the Liberals (since they can no longer blames the Jews.)
Even wikipedia gets this one right.
No legitimate scholar places the Nazis in the left, it's pure imagination by ByteRider. His biggest hang-up is that he latches onto the wording of the party name and not the actions of the party. Allign the policies and actions to the spectrum and you get Nazi's on the right - AS EVERY LEGITIMATE SCHOLAR KNOWS!
ByteRider likes calling himself right-wing, but doesn't like being associated with the consequences of right-wing politics. I don't blame him, but just as the left can not run from communism, the right-wing can not run from the Nazis.
-
Kit Carson 12/13/2010 2:36:00 AM
Sorry the US Constitution offends you. Feel free to leave.
-
Joe 12/13/2010 2:34:00 AM
vdare is a hate group. Sometimes it is your friends that define you, other times it is your enemies.
When the hate groups hate you, you know you're on the right side of the issue.
-
TruthOut 12/12/2010 9:24:00 PM
You're beating a dead horse. ByteRider never engages in argument. He might, from time-to-time, repeat something he has read on the Internet, but mostly he just tosses about insults.
He never has an intelligent rebuttal, never comes back with support for his lunacy.
-
TruthOut 12/12/2010 9:18:00 PM
Keep posting your lunacy. What delusional world do you live in where you think you have mastered some truth that evades the entire universe of political scientist.
Let me guess, the thousands of books claiming NAZIs are right-wing are just examples of liberal elitism.
You're a joke.
-
TruthOut 12/12/2010 9:10:00 PM
Aww, isn't this precious. ByteRider wades in late to throw some insults around, predictably unable to articulate fact-based argument or intelligent conversation.
-
TruthOut 12/12/2010 9:06:00 PM
Too funny - you simply pull out every insult you can think of, including an attack on ASU, but fail to provide a single example of where any of your complaints exist.
The truth is that the article is heavy with facts, heavy with statistics, heavy with verifiable research.
Sad the same can't be said for what you write - "nailed it didn't I."
-
Kit Carson 12/12/2010 10:59:00 AM
Of course it's a mocking stance. You refuse to engage in intelligent discussion. You can't come late and complain that people are mocking you.
Don't like being mocked - don't act like a tool, or more specifically, an illiterate tool.
-
Kit Carson 12/12/2010 10:57:00 AM
Linking to a short entry on a wing-nut blog is not exactly persuasive. That page is just another moron repeating the stupidity that you have been repeating, with neither of you paying any attention to the truth of the matter.
CA deals with ARRESTED people.
SB1070 deals with ALL people.
If one state has a law that allows the state to put to death CONVICTED people, and another state has a law that allows it to put to the death ALL people, are those two laws essentially the same?
Of course not.
That you don't understand that critical distinction, despite all the time you've put into this issue reveals you incompetent to participate in the discussion.
-
Enough 12/12/2010 10:51:00 AM
BR claims: "The majority of these law breakers are stealing people's identities, as well. "
GOT PROOF, BITCH!
LOL - you are exactly who the article writes about. You repeat crap you hear with no regard to its truthfulness.
CA deals with ARRESTED people, SB1070 deals with ALL people. That's the issue, dipshit. They are nowhere near as harsh. Also, nothing in CA code addresses the totality of SB1070.
AZ has a law, it's just been enjoined. Even you must be smart enough to get that.
You claimed "nearly identical" and now having been shown a fool are trying to run from that declaration.
GO AWAY YOU FUCKING MORON TROLL!
-
Kit Carson 12/12/2010 10:44:00 AM
Dude, all I've done is reveal you as a fraud.
If that makes you think you have a small peepee, that's your issue. Leave me out of your psych issues, just discuss the politics. Capice?
-
Kit Carson 12/12/2010 10:42:00 AM
At least I understand GroupThink, and have actually read the book. What's your excuse? LOL
-
Kit Carson 12/12/2010 10:41:00 AM
Dude, you can't complain about intelligent conversation when you refuse to engage in it. Read your posts - insults and dodging mixed with bizzarre lapses in reading comprehension.
Seriously, your posts in this little section reveal as a bat-shit crazy tool. Sorry.
-
Uhrlanger 12/11/2010 3:13:00 AM
I just finished reading this article and well...it's juvenille. Yes, the disgust for conservates is drippingly obvious and appropriately befitting the readership of New Times. Yes, the liberalism reaks. Yes, the logic is weak and full of emotion. I just don't find the author believable. It seems like a undergrad paper written to impress a liberal professor. Let me guess...the author is an undergrad at ASU???? Nailed it didn't I?
-
Steven 12/10/2010 11:29:00 AM
Wow. The shills and useful idiots over at V-Dare must've been REALLY scared of this woman.
-
bwahaha 12/10/2010 6:36:00 AM
This guy rips Sterling apart:
Latest Tirade by βWhite Woman in the Barrioβ
http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2010/12/10/latest-tirade-by-white-woman-in-the-barrio/
-
Guest 12/09/2010 9:53:00 PM
That's a mocking stance, to repeat the same thing over and over "BR is one hot mess of {fill in the blank}", and shows your level of intelligence.
Essentially, you've sunk to mocking someone instead of debating them.
I think the term for that is... you lose.
-
Guest 12/09/2010 9:50:00 PM
Don't worry MD, Kit is full of piss and vinegar-- not to mention half truths, distortions, and bullshit.
-
Guest 12/09/2010 9:47:00 PM
Sure. That was clever.
Are there any adults out there I can have an intelligent conversation with? Too bad PNT attracts all these moronic little kids.
-
Guest 12/09/2010 9:46:00 PM
I know the koolaid must be getting old, Tim & Kit.
http://www.dakotavoice.com/2010/05/california-immigration-law-similar-to-arizona-law-demonized-in-calif/
-
Guest 12/09/2010 9:43:00 PM
Dude, you're beyond help. "My peepee is bigger than yours". That's the mental level you've been stooping to for the past few days.
-
Guest 12/09/2010 9:40:00 PM
"Hot mess of paranoid".
I suppose that was as clever as you could get. That's okay, your left wing provided free education is to blame, not you.
-
Guest 12/09/2010 9:37:00 PM
I can toss a ka-zillion references up here, but all you'd do is whine that they were somehow not of your liking.
If you research "Why are Nazis considered ring-wing?" you'll learn that the consideration is based on a misunderstanding [by the left in this country] of right wing vs left wing European style and right wing vs left wing American style.
Common sense will tell you that socialism are far left wing. It'll also tell you that fascism is far right wing. Right? We on agreement here? Because if we're not, you definitely need to get to a koolaid detox center.
Nazis = Socialism + Fascism. (ref: every book ever written on the subject of nazis, irrefutable.. except by Kit, who refutes the sky is blue)
In the late 1930's, the Nazis kicked out most of the socialists (shot them, actually, which is a damn good thing .... :-) The fascist remaining far-right party turned into a dictatorship (Mein Fuhrer). Dictatorships are almost always considered to be left-wing (see literary writings on Rome). Nazi's outlawed the practice of religion [hardly a far right practice when the far right are nothing but a bunch of religious nuts, no?] They also enslaved Jews [enslavement is common to the far-left... ref: see American Civil War and Abraham Lincoln].
Is there an ABSOLUTE when labeling something left or right? No. There isn't. It can become obfuscated such that a subjective labeling is the only answer. I subjectively label Nazis as left-wing, as do many scholars... but not all.
-
Joe 12/09/2010 7:45:00 PM
Wow - ByteRider is dumb. It was proven that california's law and sb1070 are worlds apart, and byterider just keeps claiming that they are "nearly identical."
fucking pathetic.
-
JRoberts 12/09/2010 7:40:00 PM
And what science is that - the one that declares brown people less than whites? Seriously, what science do you want to claim?
-
Mike 12/09/2010 1:54:00 PM
Ad hominem and conjecture trumps science every time, in the NEW TIMES.
-
Laughing Girl 12/09/2010 10:15:00 AM
> Oh that's really intelligent, did your 8 year old brother help you type out that response
When your reply can be used as its own response, you are a complete fail.
ROTFLMAO
-
Kit Carson 12/08/2010 5:50:00 PM
Yes, you have it right. As the thinking world knows, the Nazi's and the KKK are on the right. BR is either a fool or a troll. I think the former.
He persists in these wacky claims to the delight of those who mock him - he destroys his credibility faster and better than any opponent ever could.
-
Kit Carson 12/08/2010 5:47:00 PM
BR is one hot mess of illiteracy.
-
Kit Carson 12/08/2010 5:46:00 PM
BR is one hot mess of self-loathing. HAHA
-
Kit Carson 12/08/2010 5:45:00 PM
BR is one hot mess of paranoid.
-
Kit Carson 12/08/2010 5:44:00 PM
BR is one hot mess of crazy. ROTFLMAO
-
Kit Carson 12/08/2010 5:42:00 PM
>nonsensical laws
That would be the US Constitution. Take your anti-American crap elsewhere.
-
Steven 12/08/2010 5:25:00 PM
Yeah, and in fact, if an immigrant who hasn't become a citizen does commit a serious crime, then yeah, they can be deported. But most of the Mexicans and others who come here, are just trying to make a better life for themselves. That's all.
-
Steven 12/08/2010 5:23:00 PM
To be honest and quite frank, I don't like 'illegal' immigration AT ALL.............but why unfairly criminalize them?
Thankfully, you and I are amongst the people who know the real truth.
-
Steven 12/08/2010 5:20:00 PM
Yep, so true. In fact, the same thing often happened to Irishmen and Italians who came here about 100 years ago.
-
Steven 12/08/2010 5:19:00 PM
Holy s**t, look at all the comments. Anyway, I've had it with all the scapegoating.
As for Sam Francis? It's too bad that he died a natural death about 5 years ago, because he was one of those people that frankly deserved to be put in front of a firing squad and SHOT.......if there was any truth to Dante's Inferno, he'd be in one of the lower circles of hell. >=(
-
Dalgast 12/08/2010 4:47:00 PM
I just had to comment. "June 5th" Ah, correct me if I'm wrong but isn't today December 8th. And you have this as one of your NEWS stories. What, Ancient News. So, what did the author use to write this that it would take, what, almost a half a year to get it printed. You folks using the ol' Monk and Scrib method. I think it's more of you just stiring up you La Raza Buddies and hoping they will have a demonstration. I guess your working on next Junes Headlines now right.
-
TrueModerate 12/08/2010 4:13:00 AM
Thanks for repeating so many falsehoods that you prove the point of the article.
Illegal aliens do not have a fast-path to anything, yet you write they do. Why did you lie?
Where are all these scholarships for illegals? Where is all the welfare for illegals? You do realize that illegals actually pay more in tax than legals, because they largely don't file returns, and as such don't get refunds, right? That's actually an argument in support of giving papers to those who do the work regular citizens won't do: we can monitor the underground economy.
For that matter: where in this thread has there been any discussion against enforcing intelligent, fair laws. You're no moderate. You come in here full of shit, spinning old lies, and stereotyping the opinion of those opposed to SB 1070 without bothering to ask where people stand on those issues.
Your whole post is bullshit.
-
TimMartin 12/08/2010 12:18:00 AM
You truly haven't read Groupthink have you? It's about decision making and the dangers of group cohesion. There isn't even a group here (as that term is defined in psychology) and no one here is making a decision.
In opposite to group think, all comments are welcome and critical thinking is praised. That you feel unwelcome is because you don't offer much in the way of critical thinking. You use words and phrases you don't understand, refuse to read plain language consistent with normal conventions and rarely offer anything more than naked assertions.
Truly, you should be embarrassed by the groupthink comment. Had you responded with "just kiddingt," then it likely would have slipped away. That you doubled-down is just crazy.
-
TimMartin 12/08/2010 12:12:00 AM
One deals with arrested people. The other deals with people with whom the police have contact.
That's all you need to know. Whether CA treats arrested people the same as you desire to treat all people is immaterial.
One is good police work, the other is "papers please."
-
TimMartin 12/08/2010 12:08:00 AM
Yup, ALL people the police come into contact with are to be scrutinized, and any officer who fails to do so with the vigor demanded by the far-right can be sued in civil court.
Huge difference between the CA law and SB 1070. Thanks, BR, for pointing that out. Good to know that you've come around.
-
Frank 12/07/2010 11:37:00 PM
Now Moderate dude,
Did you feel the same way before the housing and construction bubble burst and employment of under educated upper low class and lower middle class (The skilled labor class) was at a much higher level?
Your opinion is certainly a valid one btw
"My opinion on how to deal with the matter? More government regulation of corporations. Part of the problem in terms of unemployment is that many companies either give jobs to illegal immigrants, or else outsource to cut costs. If corporations were forced to stop cutting so many corners, and to adopt stricter hiring practices, then illegal immigrants wouldn't be able to get jobs, and therefore would not have nearly as much of an incentive to come here."
In my opinion,
Now the problem is not with Corporations so much as with medium to large companies that are struggling to make ends meet in an economy where they are finding it hard to get short term loans to float operating capital for their 30/60/90 day invoice times.
It is that environment where employers are going to be looking for ways to make their money go further.
Corporations normally have access to larger supplies of funds so the way they cut corners tend not to be in manpower (remember that fast food chains do not count as corporations in this instance, they are small individual franchisees for the most part) but in their process and material.
Manufacturing (no matter the size if mass producing a product) will of course go to the lowest cost point that is available. Manufacturers that brand themselves as quality or craftsmanship will be less likely to do this as it would be perceived by the buying public as being a inferior quality no matter what the TRUE level of quality was.
There are already laws in place that severely penalize employers for not complying with validating a workers eligibility.
Why does the local law enforcement NOT go after these violators of the law and generate cash flow for the local municipalities and not go after transient workers who generate no money for the municipalities abut do generate payouts to the privatized jails and prisons.
Because the state of the US economy the number of undocumented workers crossing the boarder going south has increased to record numbers ever since the last bubbles blew apart.
The free trade agreements were a bad idea when Bush 1 proposed them, they were a bad idea when Clinton signed them and they were a bad idea when Bush 2 extended them. It legally allowed US manufacturers to blow away union contracts and start the landslide downfall of the under educated Skilled worker here in America.
As for your last point, I am not going to say that absolutely NO undocumented people fake/forge/lie they way on to the the benefit train but I will argue that they do not OUT number the US citizens that are on the benefit train.
Even if a undocumented worker does get a job they still contribute to the economy with the things they buy and the taxes they pay on those goods and services.
-
Kit Carson 12/07/2010 10:05:00 PM
Dude, can't you do something other than make naked assertions?
>> "As far as your assertion to USC Sec 1325, you are about as wrong as a first year law student could be, in fact, even more."
Why - give us an argument. Was I wrong when I noted the code only applied to ARRESTED persons? What part of Sec. 1325 did I get wrong?
-
Kit Carson 12/07/2010 10:02:00 PM
Dude, you are one hot mess of fail.
This is an open forum. All are welcome. There is no leader to protect. There are no decisions to make. The nature of the debate reveals no illusion of uniformity.
You are one hot mess of stupid, but I love, absolutely love, that you don't retreat from your craziness.
-
Kit Carson 12/07/2010 9:56:00 PM
BR - you just don't know what you are talking about. As a matter of law, AZ has a law. That law is temporarily enjoined from being enforced. It is still the law. Capice?
Now that you've given us the names of two states, how about supporting your naked assertions with some fact and argument. Prove to us that OK and SC are more stringent that SB1070.
We're waiting - this should be entertaining. (chomp popcorn.)
-
moderate dude 12/07/2010 9:28:00 PM
Also, considering the children of illegal immigrants that are born here really is irrelevant since by our nonsensical laws they are citizens. When they grow up, they do contribute and do pay taxes. Basically I'm trying to not be lumped in the exact same camp with ByteRyder or whatever that person's name was.
-
moderate dude 12/07/2010 9:24:00 PM
Already been said in some sense, but "law abiding illegals" is an oxymoron. If you are here illegally, you should be deported to your country of citizenship, no ifs ands or buts. Here are a couple of questions that I'd like to pose to people who think us "anti illegal immigration" people are irrational.
1) Why is it that immigrants who come to this country legally and go through all of the (admittedly unnecessary) red tape to stay here on visas and what not have to pay "out of state fees" for college, whereas illegal immigrants pay IN STATE fees when they aren't even from this country, let alone the state?
2) Why is it that we should grant amnesty to illegal immigrants and let them stay here when, once again, the government is very quick to make sure that legal immigrants that are here on visas either have their visa renewed on time or are out of our country.
3) Why should it be so difficult for an immigrant from another country to obtain citizenship/legal permanent resident status, but illegal immigrants get their hands held all the way through the citizenship process.
No matter how you look at it, you hyper-liberal types are just as insane as the hyper-conservatives that you seem to despise so much. If you are here illegally, you are not abiding by the law, and should be dealt with as such.
My opinion on how to deal with the matter? More government regulation of corporations. Part of the problem in terms of unemployment is that many companies either give jobs to illegal immigrants, or else outsource to cut costs. If corporations were forced to stop cutting so many corners, and to adopt stricter hiring practices, then illegal immigrants wouldn't be able to get jobs, and therefore would not have nearly as much of an incentive to come here.
It's bullshit that illegal immigrants get so many government benefits (e.g. scholarships, welfare) without contributing to the system by paying taxes, the way everyone else does.
-
Frank 12/07/2010 8:09:00 PM
http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/difference-between-communism-and-nazism/
Far right as far as I can tell
Please site resources where I can see where you are getting far left from .
Frank.
-
Frank 12/07/2010 7:59:00 PM
ByteRider,
Can you site the federal statutes that states what criminal laws non documented immigrants break?
I am able to locate the civil sections but not the criminal ones.
Just a other question for you.
If you violate a civil statute when you are driving do you consider yourself a criminal?
Does your family or neighbors consider you a criminal?
Thanks for reading
Frank
-
Guest 12/07/2010 5:34:00 PM
I'm black, moron. Nice try. Happily, I can honestly say I've never had hand cuffs on me, nor have I ever been in a jail cell [outside of touring Alcatraz].
If Arpaio bothers you, you must have more things to worry about than most. How's the criminal record looking, LG? haha
-
Guest 12/07/2010 5:32:00 PM
And I stand by my original statement.
You need to understand not just the word, but the connotation of the word. Go look up "connotation", that might help you get a start on your next msg.
-
Guest 12/07/2010 5:27:00 PM
I point out your spin, you come back claiming a typo, then you have the nerve to inject further? Pathetic. Seriously, absolutely pathetic. Any more excuses? The list must be growing.
-
Guest 12/07/2010 5:25:00 PM
Run away from it? Sounds like you folks here were grasping at it like it was the only thing you could hold on to. That's referred to as spinning someone's words, a lefty play book specialty.Care to give me a site that doesn't backtrack to MOVEON?As far as your assertion to USC Sec 1325, you are about as wrong as a first year law student could be, in fact, even more.
-
Guest 12/07/2010 5:20:00 PM
Here's your 8 list:
1. Illusion of invulnerability βCreates excessive optimism that encourages taking extreme risks.
2. Collective rationalization β Members discount warnings and do not reconsider their assumptions.
3. Belief in inherent morality β Members believe in the rightness of their cause and therefore ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions.
4. Stereotyped views of out-groups β Negative views of βenemyβ make effective responses to conflict seem unnecessary.
5. Direct pressure on dissenters β Members are under pressure not to express arguments against any of the groupβs views.
6. Self-censorship β Doubts and deviations from the perceived group consensus are not expressed.
7. Illusion of unanimity β The majority view and judgments are assumed to be unanimous.
8. Self-appointed βmindguardsβ β Members protect the group and the leader from information that is problematic or contradictory to the groupβs cohesiveness, view, and/or decisions.
Save for #1, I think most apply to the majority of PNT responders here. Turdout definitely fits #8 to a tee. Gawd forbid someone comes along with a different point of view.
Care to try again, Tim?
-
Guest 12/07/2010 5:18:00 PM
All sides? If I didn't know any better, I'd say you, kit, and a few others were actually one and the same person. Don't be a twit, especially like you were over on the other blog.
-
Guest 12/07/2010 5:16:00 PM
Meh.
-
12/07/2010 4:35:00 PM
??? http://soozone.com ???
Wholesale all kinds of world brand shoes,jeans,t-shirts,bikini,beach
pants,handbags,wallets,sunglasses,belt,caps,watches etc..
-
12/07/2010 4:29:00 PM
Wholesale all kinds of world brand shoes,jeans,t-shirts,bikini,beach
pants,handbags,wallets,sunglasses,belt,caps,watches etc..
β β
β΄
γγγοΌοΌοΌοΌββοΌ..οΌββ β β
β΅ β¦./
γγγβ₯ββ
β
βββ
β
βββ
β
β
β
β
ββββ€
γγγοΌβ₯ββββββββββββββββ€
γο½ο½ο½ο½β₯ββββββββββββββ€ο½ο½ο½ο½
??? http://soozone.com ???
-
Guest 12/07/2010 3:58:00 PM
Actually, no.
Arizona and California are not the only states with illegal alien laws. Did you know that Kit? Besides, CA's law is JUST has stringent as AZ's 1070.
Since AZ no longer has a law, guess who has the most stringent law in the US? Unlike Turdout's bolstering that it is AZ [we don't have a law, duh], it's actually [hold on to your hat] OKLAHOMA and SOUTH CAROLINA.
Those two have MORE strict anti-illegal immigration laws than AZ or CA.
My point was-- AZ's 1070 wasn't all that stringent. It just got "challenged" because we're so close to the border and probably the #1 or #2 border crossing state.
-
Guest 12/07/2010 3:50:00 PM
Arizona's 1070 only investigates upon legal contact between police and citizens, and then only when the police suspect you might be illegal. Seriously, lay off the koolaid.
-
TruthOut 12/07/2010 1:58:00 PM
BR's an idiot. He uses terms he doesn't understand while mindlessly repeating claims he can not support.
It's an absolute joke to try mention GroupThink in an active discussion wherein all sides are represented.
What a tool!
-
TruthOut 12/07/2010 1:55:00 PM
My apologies. The word "not" was ommitted. You claim the Nazi's and the KKK are not in the right-wing, against all evidence to the contrary.
Please do continue to make that moron's argument - it just makes you a larger laughingstock and reminds us all how you can't be trusted to tell the truth.
Now, how about addressing the substantive issues in my response?
-
TruthOut 12/07/2010 1:52:00 PM
Again, for the sake of the literate, 8 USCS Sec. 1325 provides for a criminal penalty and a civil penalty, and it is a specific intent crime. It is rarely prosecuted because it has such a high standard. This is why the civil penalty was attached, so as to provide an easier burden for the state.
The number of undocumented aliens in America that actually violate this law is pretty small, due to the specific intent requirement. As such, ByteRider's claim are pure nonesense.
I'd like to see support for his claim that "most illegals spend 3 to 90 days in jail." After all, he's the guy who previously whined that no one knowns how many "illegals" exist.
It would also be good to show where that time in jail is due to a conviction, and not a detention. If that distinction escapes anyone, then you aren't ready for this discussion.
-
TimMartin 12/07/2010 4:09:00 AM
Yea, you're just demonstrating that when it comes to reading comprehension and civics you get a big, fat FAIL!
CA deals with ARRESTED people. SB1070 deals with ALL people.
No one complains about investigating ARRESTED people. The civil-minded world is aghast by the "papers-please" police-state that comes with SB1070.
Quoting the complete section simply demonstrates you didn't read the first subsection ... or that you didn't understand it.
Do tell, which was it?
-
TimMartin 12/07/2010 3:59:00 AM
No, actually, this is not "what we call 'group-think' in the psychology world, and if you had ever studied Janis' work you would understand why. You would do run down on the eight symptoms and find that you stall on pretty much all of them. Common thinking is not group-think. Most everyone thinks 2+2=4 ...
You must learn not to just repeat words and phrases that you think make you sound smart. When you misuse them, you just seem evermore the fool.
-
LaughingGirl 12/07/2010 1:29:00 AM
ROTFLMAO
You big dummy. You cite the law, but you didn't read it. Hint: this is a specific intent law, and it deals with the act, and state of mind, at entry.
LOL!
-
Kit Carson 12/07/2010 1:22:00 AM
1) An enjoined law is still a law, especially one under a TRO. This is a 1L concept.
2) You wrote "nearly identical." If you want to run away from that statement, good on ya - it's the smart thing to do.
3) CA deals with ARRESTED people, SB1070 deals with all people with whom the police have contact - and that's just one narrow issue within a massive bill. Prior to SB1070, AZ also cooperated with Homeland Security and checked immigration status. No one really complained. I am amazed you don't understand that.
4) Ignoring your improper citation form, 8 USC Sec. 1325, you fail to understand that Title 8 is not a general criminal law title. It is "ALIENS AND NATIONALITY" and where it means to make something a felony, it does. Where it means to provide for a civil remedy, it does. You are forgiven your ignorance, as this is a 2L concept, and you are still wrestling with 1L material.
When you write "the majority of these lawbreakers," I am going to read that a continuation of your misunderstanding of US law and that you are referencing all undocumented aliens. - GOT PROOF? Care to give us a cite that won't be backtracked to FAIR?
Hint: just because you are repeating a lie told to you by another, who was told it by FAIR, does not excuse you for being wrong.
-
Kit Carson 12/07/2010 1:10:00 AM
Thank you for this post, sincerely, you have destroyed your credibility in ways that could never have done.
-
Kit Carson 12/07/2010 1:07:00 AM
I'd love you to repeat some law and some statistics - and to give sources. You cite wacky, wing-nut claims and then run and hide behind insults.
You aren't helping your case any ...
-
Kit Carson 12/07/2010 1:05:00 AM
ByteRider wrote:"Several states, including California, have SB 1070-like laws on their books that are nearly IDENTICAL to SB 1070"
Kit Carson wrote: "No law is virtually identical to Arizona's."
BR whined in response: "He says I stated that 1070 is IDENTICAL to CA's law, which I did not state at all."
"At all," really? You used "nearly" and I used "virtually" and you feel misrepresented. Was it not your intent to convey that AZ's law is not so harsh, not the harshest at all, because other laws approximate (ie, are near or virtually the same) as SB1070?
If not, then you need to reconsider what you write, because that is what you communicated.
However, I am pleased to see you and I are on agreement: AZ's law is unique from any other in the Union and may certainly be considered the harshest.
Fair enough?
-
Kit Carson 12/06/2010 11:06:00 PM
ByteRider wrote: " Several states, including California, have SB 1070-like laws on their books that are nearly IDENTICAL to SB 1070."
He the wrote: "He says I stated that 1070 is IDENTICAL to CA's law, which I did not state at all."
And then he posts a law that deals only with ARRESTED people and tries to claim that it is similar to AZ law that mandates investigation of ALL people.
Through it all, BR wonders: why don't people take me seriously?
BR: if you don't understand the key differances between CA's law and AZ's law, even on this one minute issue where they remotely relate, then there is no hope for explaining to you why CA's law and AZ's law are completely differant on all the other areas SB1070 touches.
The fact that CA deals only with arrested people destroys any similarity it might have with SB1070. Don't you get it? The hubbub is about profiling, about "papers please" police states where ordinary people going about their lives can now to be ordered to prove their right to reside in the country.
If that point escapes you, as it seems to me, then you don't belong in this discussion.
When you make a claim, and the lie about having made that claim, no one is going to take you seriously.
-
Kit Carson 12/06/2010 10:58:00 PM
My argument makes absolute sense, and is a strong rebuttal to your claim. Specifically, you claim that when examining the cost of illegal immigration it is fine to measure the cost to the state of social services consumed by US citizens who are children of undocumented aliens, and that there is no need to examine the benefit those citizens make to the state over their lifetime. That is your point.
My counter argument is that your examination is shortsighted. If you only look at the shortterm cost, and not the longterm gain, you fail to reach an intelligent understanding of what illegal immigration costs America.
Your way skews data to make the problem larger than it is, mine frames the issue in such a way that long-term decisions can be made.
As a matter of policy, it is always better to do what is in your long-term good. As a matter of politics, it is always better to what is in your short-term good.
I am putting country ahead of party.
-
Guest 12/06/2010 8:41:00 PM
Oh that's really intelligent, did your 8 year old brother help you type out that response?
-
Guest 12/06/2010 8:38:00 PM
I never said KKK was right wingers. How stupid can you get? Seriously, how stupid? Oh.. I know.. wait for your reply and I'll find out.
