Immigrants break into rental house and camp out and police do nothing.

[Perchoutofwater]

Housing protest leads to takeover of duplex.

 

Banner hung out window of duplex reads "Casas para La Raza."

 

You remember La Raza, it was the organization that Obama's Director or Intergovernmental Affairs, Cecilia Muñoz, worked for for 18 years. The same La Raza that Obama's supreme court justice Sonia Sotomayor is a member of.

 

When are we going to get serious and clamp down on illegal immigration? When are we going to start protecting property rights?

 

Obama is mainstream and the Tea Party members are the fringe. Wait, more people think the average TEA partier holds more of their views than Obama!

Edited April 6, 2010 by Perchoutofwater

[wiegie]

I'd feel more sympathy for the property owner if he hadn't evicted an 80 year-old guy who had lived in the home for the past 43 years.

 

But I definitely understand why you are connecting all of this to Obama.

 

Edited to ask: Why do you think the guy at the center of this is an illegal immigrant? Because his name is Jose?

Edited April 6, 2010 by wiegie

[bushwacked]

How much time do you spend each day trying to attribute everything you don't like to Obama?

[Bier Meister]

How much time do you spend each day trying to attribute everything you don't like to Obama?

 

 

all 80 while he's at work (workin' hard).

[Perchoutofwater]

I'd feel more sympathy for the property owner if he hadn't evicted an 80 year-old guy who had lived in the home for the past 43 years.

 

But I definitely understand why you are connecting all of this to Obama.

 

Edited to ask: Why do you think the guy at the center of this is an illegal immigrant? Because his name is Jose?

 

I don't necessarily think the guy is an illegal. I do think we need to take action against illegal immigration. I'd love to have a meaningful conversation about immigration both legal and illegal since 1965, and it's impact on our economy.

 

I also do think that when Obama appoints radicals that belong to La Raza it should be pointed out, and when groups like La Raza do radical and illegal stuff like this people should be reminded just what kind of radical they elected and the kinds of radicals he has appointed.

[Perchoutofwater]

How much time do you spend each day trying to attribute everything you don't like to Obama?

 

 

all 80 while he's at work (workin' hard).

 

More substantive arguments from you two. What a surprise

[bushwacked]

Your hard on for Obama has taken on six degrees of Kevin Bacon like absurdity. When you get outraged about everything and anything, no-one takes you seriously.

Edited April 6, 2010 by bushwacked

[Perchoutofwater]

Your hard on for Obama has taken on six degrees of Kevin Bacon like absurdity. When you get outraged about everything and anything, no-one takes you seriously.

 

Thanks for pointing that out. I sure don't want to make the same mistake you made continually posting about Bush.

[darin3]

Banner hung out window of duplex reads "Casas para La Raza."

 

You remember La Raza, it was the organization that Obama's Director or Intergovernmental Affairs, Cecilia Muñoz, worked for for 18 years. The same La Raza that Obama's supreme court justice Sonia Sotomayor is a member of.

 

Just playing Devil's Advocate here, and didn't read the article, but do you have proof that the sign's direct meaning was to this group? Because "la raza" means "the race (or people)" in Spanish.

 

Wouldn't be a shock to see this as just another Perchatesobamaism.

[WaterMan]

I read the article and didn't see anything about immigrants or Obama. And it seemed like the police didn't want to haul in homeless people to jail. That would be a great use of tax payer money in a State that is struggling.

[JoJoTheWebToedBoy]

I don't necessarily think the guy is an illegal. I do think we need to take action against illegal immigration. I'd love to have a meaningful conversation about immigration both legal and illegal since 1965, and it's impact on our economy.

 

I also do think that when Obama appoints radicals that belong to La Raza it should be pointed out, and when groups like La Raza do radical and illegal stuff like this people should be reminded just what kind of radical they elected and the kinds of radicals he has appointed.

 

You want to have a conversation...... I live about 70 miles off the Mexican border and I don't care how many troops/Border Patrol, Minutemen, etc... you put out there, you can't stop the flow. You can build walls a mile high, a mile thick, and electrify it. Not going to stop them from coming across.

 

What most people don't understand because they don't live close to the action, is that there is a lot of people dying out in the Desert trying to get into this country, so do you really think we can scare them... Not going to happen. There is only 2 ways to stop this

 

1. Mexico needs to clean itself up and take care of it's own. And lets face it, that is not going to happen. Hell it's practically a failed state. Mexico relys on the income that comes from their citizens working in the US, that's why they don't enforce border security from their side. That's why the last time I drove thru LA (I hate that) I heard PSAs on the radio paid for by the Mexican Government telling mothers how to take care of their children, etc.. . Along with recruitment ads for the Mexican Navy (they have a Navy?). People are willing to risk death for minimum wage. That says everything you need to know about the Mexican Government.

 

 

2. Destroy the incentive, and that's jobs. Put some teeth into the existing employment laws, and then use all that surplus manpower that use to patrol the border to enforce them. If a business is hiring illegals, take away their business license for a year. You start to seriously shutdown businesses and businesses will stop hiring illegals. And once the jobs dry up, then and only then will you see a reduction in illegal immigration. But to make this work our government needs to provide a fast and efficient way to verify citizenship, to be able to screen SSNs, and provide proof that the local business is following the rules. And if someone sneaks thru, then blame the system not the business.

 

I like the 2nd option..... But my guess is it would piss off way to many groups..... Mexican-American groups, Civil-rights groups, more the half of the South and Central American governments, along with the Mexico... It's a large part of their economy, and it would force them to actually do something for there people, and I would imagine it would really piss off business owners....

 

There, rant over..... move along, nothing more to see here.....

[WaterMan]

2. Destroy the incentive, and that's jobs. Put some teeth into the existing employment laws, and then use all that surplus manpower that use to patrol the border to enforce them. If a business is hiring illegals, take away their business license for a year. You start to seriously shutdown businesses and businesses will stop hiring illegals. And once the jobs dry up, then and only then will you see a reduction in illegal immigration. But to make this work our government needs to provide a fast and efficient way to verify citizenship, to be able to screen SSNs, and provide proof that the local business is following the rules. And if someone sneaks thru, then blame the system not the business.

 

I like the 2nd option..... But my guess is it would piss off way to many groups..... Mexican-American groups, Civil-rights groups, more the half of the South and Central American governments, along with the Mexico... It's a large part of their economy, and it would force them to actually do something for there people, and I would imagine it would really piss off business owners....

 

There, rant over..... move along, nothing more to see here.....

 

I'm sure those businesses find ways to get the law off their backs. It would be nice to see some real action against those who hire illegals.

[Ursa Majoris]

our government needs to provide a fast and efficient way to verify citizenship, to be able to screen SSNs,

e-Verify does this but it's up to employers to use it.

[Bier Meister]

More substantive arguments from you two. What a surprise

 

 

i wasn't making an arguement. but you just spinning shotgun.

[Perchoutofwater]

You want to have a conversation...... I live about 70 miles off the Mexican border and I don't care how many troops/Border Patrol, Minutemen, etc... you put out there, you can't stop the flow. You can build walls a mile high, a mile thick, and electrify it. Not going to stop them from coming across.

 

What most people don't understand because they don't live close to the action, is that there is a lot of people dying out in the Desert trying to get into this country, so do you really think we can scare them... Not going to happen. There is only 2 ways to stop this

 

1. Mexico needs to clean itself up and take care of it's own. And lets face it, that is not going to happen. Hell it's practically a failed state. Mexico relys on the income that comes from their citizens working in the US, that's why they don't enforce border security from their side. That's why the last time I drove thru LA (I hate that) I heard PSAs on the radio paid for by the Mexican Government telling mothers how to take care of their children, etc.. . Along with recruitment ads for the Mexican Navy (they have a Navy?). People are willing to risk death for minimum wage. That says everything you need to know about the Mexican Government.

 

 

2. Destroy the incentive, and that's jobs. Put some teeth into the existing employment laws, and then use all that surplus manpower that use to patrol the border to enforce them. If a business is hiring illegals, take away their business license for a year. You start to seriously shutdown businesses and businesses will stop hiring illegals. And once the jobs dry up, then and only then will you see a reduction in illegal immigration. But to make this work our government needs to provide a fast and efficient way to verify citizenship, to be able to screen SSNs, and provide proof that the local business is following the rules. And if someone sneaks thru, then blame the system not the business.

 

I like the 2nd option..... But my guess is it would piss off way to many groups..... Mexican-American groups, Civil-rights groups, more the half of the South and Central American governments, along with the Mexico... It's a large part of their economy, and it would force them to actually do something for there people, and I would imagine it would really piss off business owners....

 

There, rant over..... move along, nothing more to see here.....

 

I agree with you to a large extent. I think it would be nice if we beefed up border patrol, but until we start enforcing our laws any efforts for border control are doomed. We need to repeal the Hart-Celler Act. A bill signed by a statist president (who also signed a health care reform bill that costs far more than he told us). LBJ said:

 

This bill that we will sign today is not a revolutionary bill. It does not affect the lives of millions. It will not reshape the structure of our daily lives, or really add importantly to either our wealth or power

 

After the Hart-Celler Act the average immigrant was poorer, less educated, and less skilled. The act caused illegal immigration to skyrocket. This was made that much worse by the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act which granted amnesty to 3 million illegal aliens. This was supposed to be conditioned on additional border security and immigration enforcement which was forgotten by later administrations.

 

Cesar Chavez vehemently opposed illegal immigration in the 1960s because it made it more difficult to unionize farm workers. Chavez even marched in protests against farmers along the border using illegal aliens.

 

If you do not think that illegal immigration and the current poor immigration policies today are bad, the US Census Bureau released a report in March 2007 that stated:

 

The nation's immigrant population (legal and illegal) reached a record 37.9 million in 2007. Immigrants accounted for 1 in 8 U.S. residents, the highest level in eighty years. In 1970 it was 1 in 21; in 1980 it was 1 in 16; and in 1990 it was 1 in 13. Overall, nearly one in three immigrants is an illegal alien. Half of Mexican and Central American immigrants and one-third of South American immigrants are illegal. Of adult immigrants 31percent have not completed high school, compared to 8 percent of natives. Since 2000 immigration increased the number of workers without a high school diploma by 14 percent, and all other workers by 3 percent. The proportion of immigrant headed households using at least one major welfare program is 33 percent, compared to 19 percent for native households. The poverty rate for immigrants and their US born children (under 18) is 17 percent, nearly 50 percent higher than the rate for natives and their children. 34 percent of immigrants lack health insurance, compared to 13 percent of natives. Immigrants and their US born children account for 71 percent of the increase in the uninsured since 1989. Immigration accounts for virtually all of the nation increase in public school enrollment over the last two decades.

 

Link

 

Washington Post columnist Robert J Samuelson analyzed the 2006 Census Bureau's 2006 report on poverty and household income. He found that from 1990 to 2006, the number of poor Hispanics increased 3.2 million, from 6 million to 9.2 million. Meanwhile the number of non-Hispanic whites in poverty fell from 16.6 million (poverty rate of 8.8%) in 1990 to 16 million (8.2%) in 2006. Among blacks, there was a decline from 9.8 million in 1990 (poverty rate of 31.9 percent) to 9 million (24.3 percent) in 2006. Samuelson stated "Only an act of willful denial can separate immigration and poverty."

 

Currently 20% of students in public education are Hispanic, by 2050 they will be the majority. The government's lack of law enforcement as well as politically correct education initiatives are putting a real strain on schools as well as states which provide the majority of the funding for schools. The mass immigration (both legal and illegal) discourages the use of English and encourages the formation of cultural islands within cities. There are not 55 million people that speak a language other than English at home. 16 million Spanish speaking residents can not adequately speak English.

 

A 2008 Manhattan Institute study "Measuring Immigrant Assimilation in the United States" found that the current level of immigrant assimilation is at an all time low. It found of all ethnic groups Mexicans were the least assimilated and the slowest to assimilate. It also found that Mexicans are more likely than other ethnic immigrant groups to be teen mothers and incarcerated. Mexican adolescents are imprisoned at rates approximately 80 percent greater than immigrant adolescents generally.

 

We are lax in enforcing laws on employers, on deporting illegals. Some states are giving illegals drivers licenses, and giving illegals what amounts to in-state tuition. We now have sanctuary cities. We have a member of La Raza on the Supreme Court. If you don't know about La Raza do some reading on what their mission is. We need to do something quickly to address both legal and illegal immigration. We need to protect our borders and prosecute business that break the law and deport illegals. We need to repeal the Hart-Celler Act. If we had the balls to do this, it would immediately start to lower unemployment. It would relieve a great deal of stress on public schools and health care facilities. It would greatly reduce the amount of welfare future generations are taxed for. No, it is not a silver bullet for all the problems we face today, but it would go a good way to setting us on the right track. Unfortunately I think we are going to go in the other direction with the upcoming immigration reforms.

Edited April 6, 2010 by Perchoutofwater

[Perchoutofwater]

e-Verify does this but it's up to employers to use it.

 

Employers that don't use it should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

[Scooby's Hubby]

I read the article and didn't see anything about immigrants or Obama. And it seemed like the police didn't want to haul in homeless people to jail. That would be a great use of tax payer money in a State that is struggling.

Our state (TX) has a multi-billion dollar surplus (no struggle)....We are not hurting for money and we do not even have a state personal income tax, just a flat sales tax. You must have our state confused with Calli where they really do nothing for illegal immigration except pay for it.

[SayItAintSoJoe]

Just playing Devil's Advocate here, and didn't read the article, but do you have proof that the sign's direct meaning was to this group? Because "la raza" means "the race (or people)" in Spanish.

 

Wouldn't be a shock to see this as just another Perchatesobamaism.

 

Mexicans having been using the term "la raza" to refer to themselves long before the organization ever existed. I don't think there is a connection here.

[Perchoutofwater]

Please don't get me wrong. I don't have anything against Mexicans, it is just that Mexicans are by far the largest group of immigrants, as they are projected to make up 23.7% of immigrants this year. By comparison the next largest immigrant pool will be from China and they will only make up 4.7% of immigrants this year. Some of the best skilled workers I know are from Mexico. They work very hard, they make a good living, they pay taxes, and in most cases the skilled workers have at least to some extent assimilated. I do have a major problem with illegal immigration. I also have a problem saturating our labor markets with unskilled laborers whether it be through legal or illegal immigration. We need to go back to restricting immigration like we did prior to 1965. Until such time as unemployment is negligible and social programs are solvent we should only allow skilled workers to immigrate regardless of their nationality.

Edited April 6, 2010 by Perchoutofwater

[i_am_the_swammi]

Please don't get me wrong. I don't have anything against Mexicans. Some of the best skilled workers I know are from Mexico. They work very hard, they make a good living, they pay taxes, and in most cases the skilled workers have at least to some extent assimilated. I do have a major problem with illegal immigration. I also have a problem saturating our labor markets with unskilled laborers whether it be through legal or illegal immigration. We need to go back to restricting immigration like we did prior to 1965. Until such time as unemployment is negligible and social programs are solvent we should only allow skilled workers to immigrate regardless of their nationality.

 

Yeah, dem pre-1965 days were da bomb. I used to be able to get me some great seats on buses, and never have to wait in line for the bathroom.

 

You do realize that our country was founded by immigrants, right?

[Perchoutofwater]

Yeah, dem pre-1965 days were da bomb. I used to be able to get me some great seats on buses, and never have to wait in line for the bathroom.

 

You do realize that our country was founded by immigrants, right?

 

From an immigration standpoint and the strain that illegals put on our social services, yes, the pre 1965 days were da bomb. We've made a lot of changes in the last 50 years some good, and some bad. Our changes in immigration policy have definitely been bad, and had a significant negative impact on our economy. If you would like to refute that, I'd love to see you do it.

 

Yes our country was founded by immigrants. Some of the first national laws we had limited immigration. Specifically they tried to balance immigration so that there wasn't too large of an influx of one nationality which would upset the culture of the country, and so that they could assimilate. The last time we had immigration in the numbers we do today was in the 1920's. Then it was balanced, but and most were skilled workers, but even then that mass influx of immigrants took its toll on the economy, particularly when there were down turns.

 

I'm all for legal immigration that allows an influx of skilled workers in a time of low unemployment. I am against unregulated immigration of unskilled workers at a time of high unemployment and national indebtedness due to ever expanding social programs that are used disproportionately by said immigrants.

[Ursa Majoris]

From an immigration standpoint and the strain that illegals put on our social services, yes, the pre 1965 days were da bomb. We've made a lot of changes in the last 50 years some good, and some bad. Our changes in immigration policy have definitely been bad, and had a significant negative impact on our economy. If you would like to refute that, I'd love to see you do it.

 

Yes our country was founded by immigrants. Some of the first national laws we had limited immigration. Specifically they tried to balance immigration so that there wasn't too large of an influx of one nationality which would upset the culture of the country, and so that they could assimilate. The last time we had immigration in the numbers we do today was in the 1920's. Then it was balanced, but and most were skilled workers, but even then that mass influx of immigrants took its toll on the economy, particularly when there were down turns.

 

I'm all for legal immigration that allows an influx of skilled workers in a time of low unemployment. I am against unregulated immigration of unskilled workers at a time of high unemployment and national indebtedness due to ever expanding social programs that are used disproportionately by said immigrants.

Your implication is that it is the government that is at fault with illegal immigration and, up to a point, you have a case. Note: Enforcement under Obama is higher than it was under GWB. The real fault in this lies with the demand side of the equation - the employers. Without them, this problem flat out withers and dies. You're closer to the epicenter than me but my few trips to Austin showed me that the demand remains high - crowds of Mexicans hanging out at various spots around the city waiting for the van to collect that day's quota of casual labor.

 

Until the employer penalties become ferocious enough to dissuade them, you're pissin' in the wind.

[Perchoutofwater]

Your implication is that it is the government that is at fault with illegal immigration and, up to a point, you have a case. Note: Enforcement under Obama is higher than it was under GWB. The real fault in this lies with the demand side of the equation - the employers. Without them, this problem flat out withers and dies. You're closer to the epicenter than me but my few trips to Austin showed me that the demand remains high - crowds of Mexicans hanging out at various spots around the city waiting for the van to collect that day's quota of casual labor.

 

Until the employer penalties become ferocious enough to dissuade them, you're pissin' in the wind.

 

You will get no argument from me on that, but at the same time, this is a failing of the government. It is the government that is failing and has failed to enforce immigration laws (laws like I've said that have been made much weaker since 1965). If the government would get serious about enforcement of these laws, both punishing employers and putting illegals on the next C130 to Mexico City, we would be much better off. Employers are to blame, but so is a government that turns a blind eye to what they are doing.

[WaterMan]

Your implication is that it is the government that is at fault with illegal immigration and, up to a point, you have a case. Note: Enforcement under Obama is higher than it was under GWB. The real fault in this lies with the demand side of the equation - the employers. Without them, this problem flat out withers and dies. You're closer to the epicenter than me but my few trips to Austin showed me that the demand remains high - crowds of Mexicans hanging out at various spots around the city waiting for the van to collect that day's quota of casual labor.

 

Until the employer penalties become ferocious enough to dissuade them, you're pissin' in the wind.

 

It's not only Texan employers. I see the same type of group waiting for a bus or a big truck all the way in SC. It's a nationwide problem where companies are looking for anyway possible to save money.

[Perchoutofwater]

Here is a quick interesting read for Swammi. Yes I realize this is an older article, and the immigration bill he was talking about is not the one currently being talked about, but he Sowell as usual makes good points.

 

Thomas Sowell

May 23, 2007 12:00 A.M.

Myth Monopoly

Misleading amnesty advocacy.

 

Every aspect of the current immigration bill, and of the arguments made for it, has “fraud” written all over it.

 

 

The first, and perhaps biggest, fraud is the argument that illegal aliens are “doing jobs Americans won’t do.” There are no such jobs.

 

Even in the sector of the economy in which illegal immigrants have the highest representation — agriculture — they are just 24 percent of the workers. Where did the other 76 percent come from, if these are jobs that Americans won’t do?

 

The argument that illegal agricultural workers are “making a contribution to the economy” is likewise misleading.

 

For well over half a century, this country has had chronic agricultural surpluses which have cost the taxpayers billions of dollars a year to buy, store, and try to get rid of on the world market at money-losing prices.

 

If there were fewer agricultural workers and smaller agricultural surpluses, the taxpayers would save money.

 

What about illegal immigrants working outside of agriculture? They are a great bargain for their employers, because they are usually hard-working people who accept low pay and don’t cause any trouble on the job.

 

But they are no bargain for the taxpayers who cover their medical bills, the education of their children, and the costs of imprisoning those who commit a disproportionate share of crime.

 

Analogies with immigrants who came to this country in the 19th century and early 20th century are hollow, and those who make such analogies must know how different the situation is today.

 

People who crossed an ocean to get here, many generations ago, usually came here to become Americans. There were organized efforts within their communities, as well as in the larger society around them, to help them assimilate.

 

Today, there are activists working in just the opposite direction, to keep foreigners foreign, to demand that society adjust to them by making everything accessible to them in their own language, minimizing their need to learn English.

 

As activists are working hard to keep alive a foreign subculture in so-called “bilingual” and other programs, they are also feeding the young especially with a steady diet of historic grievances about things that happened before the immigrants got here — and before they were born.

 

These Balkanization efforts are joined by other Americans as part of the “multicultural” ideology that pervades the education system, the media, and politics.

 

The ease with which people can move back and forth between the United States and Mexico — as contrasted with those who made a one-way trip across the Atlantic in earlier times — reduces still further the likelihood that these new immigrants will assimilate and become an integral part of the American society as readily as many earlier immigrants did.

 

Claims that the new immigration bill will have “tough” requirements, including learning English, have little credibility in view of the way existing laws are not being enforced.

 

What does “learning English” mean? I can say arrivederci and buongiorno but does that mean that I speak Italian?

 

Does anyone expect a serious effort to require a real knowledge of English from a government that captures people trying to enter the country illegally and then turns them loose inside the United States with instructions to report back to court — which of course they are not about to do?

 

Another fraudulent argument for the new immigration bill is that it would facilitate the “unification of families.” People can unify their families by going back home to them. Otherwise every illegal immigrant accepted can mean a dozen relatives to follow.

 

“What can we do with the 12 million people already here illegally?” is the question asked by amnesty supporters. We can stop them from becoming 40 million or 50 million, the way 3 million illegals became 12 million after the previous amnesty.

 

The most fundamental question of all has not been asked: Who should decide how many people, with what qualifications and prospects, are to be admitted into this country? Is that decision supposed to be made by anyone in Mexico who wants to come here?