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

[cre8tiff]

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.

 

Que?

 

I thought I had read Texas has a budget shortfall this year, resulting in deficit. I couldn't find a major newsparper link, but this report on the state legislature mentions it as the top priority...

[Perchoutofwater]

Que?

 

I thought I had read Texas has a budget shortfall this year, resulting in deficit. I couldn't find a major newsparper link, but this report on the state legislature mentions it as the top priority...

 

You are correct, though this year is the first year we've had a budget shortfall in recent history (as long as I"ve been paying attention). Also the "rainy day" fund that Texas has will make up most if not all the shortfall.

 

ETA: I also have a lot more faith in the Texas government reigning in spending than I do with our Federal Government. Most of the shortfall is due to unexpected drop in sales tax revenue. There are programs that can be cut to make up for most of it, and most Texans will support temporarily cutting non-essential programs in order to balance the budget.

Edited April 6, 2010 by Perchoutofwater

[borge007]

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.

Why would you ever try to use logic and facts with Perch???

[Perchoutofwater]

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.

 

The San Francisco Tenants Union and La Raza have worked together on many issues in the past. I don't see associated La Raza to this particularly when you have the sign hanging out the window and the guy that got evicted is Mexican, as beings so much of a stretch. Regardless, the fact that private property has been broken into, and taken siege, coupled with the fact that the police are unwilling to uphold the law is quite disturbing whether The La Raza organization that Obama has mined appointees from is the La Raza on the banner or not. It is a sad commentary of how we no longer uphold the rule of law when it isn't politically expedient to do so.

 

Why would you ever try to use logic and facts with Perch???

 

Thank you for yet another substantive post. You contribute so much here, it is always a pleasure to see you in a thread.

[borge007]

The San Francisco Tenants Union and La Raza have worked together on many issues in the past. I don't see associated La Raza to this particularly when you have the sign hanging out the window and the guy that got evicted is Mexican, as beings so much of a stretch. Regardless, the fact that private property has been broken into, and taken siege, coupled with the fact that the police are unwilling to uphold the law is quite disturbing whether The La Raza organization that Obama has mined appointees from is the La Raza on the banner or not. It is a sad commentary of how we no longer uphold the rule of law when it isn't politically expedient to do so.

 

 

 

Thank you for yet another substantive post. You contribute so much here, it is always a pleasure to see you in a thread.

Thank you

[bushwacked]

Wow, so Perch's attempt to try to make this about Obama is even more desperately stupid than originally thought.

[Ursa Majoris]

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.

Is every burglary a failing of the government? Clearly not, so why is every case of an employer taking on an illegal immigrant when they have the means to avoid doing so a failure of the government?

[SEC=UGA]

I think the problem here is that this has occurred in San Francisco. Try some poopy like this in The NW suburbs of Atlanta and each one of those mf'ers would have been dragged out of that house and thrown into a paddy wagon for their trip to the county lock up.

 

And, can someone give ome insight into why exactly these people feel it is the proper role of government to confiscate private property that is not distressed and upon which no taxes are owed... The people that have taken over this house are freaking lunatics. SF is genuinely one of the most when I wore my first dressed up cities in the country.

[Perchoutofwater]

Is every burglary a failing of the government? Clearly not, so why is every case of an employer taking on an illegal immigrant when they have the means to avoid doing so a failure of the government?

 

Because frankly most employers aren't scared of the government taking action against them. If the government did more to enforce the laws and increased the fines (possibly include jail time) fear would be a deterrent. Right now there isn't any fear so there isn't any real deterrent for those that are unscrupulous.

[Delicious_bass]

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.....

Agreed

 

Take away the main reason they're coming here and they'll stop themselves. Period.

[Ursa Majoris]

Because frankly most employers aren't scared of the government taking action against them. If the government did more to enforce the laws and increased the fines (possibly include jail time) fear would be a deterrent. Right now there isn't any fear so there isn't any real deterrent for those that are unscrupulous.

But the same argument applies to burglary or any other crime - if the burglar's fear of detection is limited or low, then there is a high likelihood of getting away with it. That doesn't reflect on the police or the burgled householder, it is still a crime of the burglar. Therefore the blame for illegal immigration must rest with unscrupulous employers however much you want to hang it round Obama's neck (and, remember, we already know that enforcement has been stepped up considerably under this administration).

 

Bottom line - if no-one employed illegal immigrants, there would be virtually no illegal immigration. It is a simple question of supply and demand. No demand, no supply.

[WaterMan]

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.

 

I was talking about California the whole time.

[Perchoutofwater]

But the same argument applies to burglary or any other crime - if the burglar's fear of detection is limited or low, then there is a high likelihood of getting away with it. That doesn't reflect on the police or the burgled householder, it is still a crime of the burglar. Therefore the blame for illegal immigration must rest with unscrupulous employers however much you want to hang it round Obama's neck (and, remember, we already know that enforcement has been stepped up considerably under this administration).

 

Bottom line - if no-one employed illegal immigrants, there would be virtually no illegal immigration. It is a simple question of supply and demand. No demand, no supply.

 

First off, I'm not trying to hang it around Obama's neck. I'm hanging it on LBJ's neck primarily, but also on Reagan (though in fairness tougher border security was supposed to by part of that deal, though subsequent administrations didn't allow that to materialize), Clinton, GWB. So far Obama is the least to blame. I wasn't blaming what happened in SF on Obama only pointing out how Obama seems to surround himself with radicals.

 

Second, I'm not saying business aren't to blame. I agree with you they are. There will always be illegal immigration, but if you make the penalties high enough and you enforce the laws it will deter a great deal of it, just like burglary is deterred by stiffer penalties and the fear that I have a shotgun on the other side of that door. The businesses and the government share equally in the blame as far as I'm concerned as either one could effectively put a stop to it if they so choose, they just are not choosing to do so. The businesses are not because they can make more money, and the government is not because they want the Hispanic vote. The law abiding businessmen and the tax payer are left holding the bag. I've admitted businesses fault in this, and would like to see the government intervene (remember that pesky document actually charges government with the responsibility for protecting our borders). Can you not admit the government is just as much to blame?

 

ETA: Bottom Line - if the government did what it was supposed to do, and didn't provide all the damned social programs not listed in the Constitution, illegal immigration would be a fraction of what it is today. But thanks to the government turning a blind eye to businesses, not enforcing law, and providing all kinds of social programs to illegals and their children the illegals keep coming and coming and coming. Yes some businesses are to blame, but the majority play by the rules and do what is right. It is high time the government start playing by the rules and enforcing them.

Edited April 6, 2010 by Perchoutofwater

[WaterMan]

I'm pretty sure the Government doesn't hire illegals.

[SayItAintSoJoe]

First off, I'm not trying to hang it around Obama's neck. I'm hanging it on LBJ's neck primarily, but also on Reagan (though in fairness tougher border security was supposed to by part of that deal, though subsequent administrations didn't allow that to materialize), Clinton, GWB. So far Obama is the least to blame. I wasn't blaming what happened in SF on Obama only pointing out how Obama seems to surround himself with radicals.

 

Second, I'm not saying business aren't to blame. I agree with you they are. There will always be illegal immigration, but if you make the penalties high enough and you enforce the laws it will deter a great deal of it, just like burglary is deterred by stiffer penalties and the fear that I have a shotgun on the other side of that door. The businesses and the government share equally in the blame as far as I'm concerned as either one could effectively put a stop to it if they so choose, they just are not choosing to do so. The businesses are not because they can make more money, and the government is not because they want the Hispanic vote. The law abiding businessmen and the tax payer are left holding the bag. I've admitted businesses fault in this, and would like to see the government intervene (remember that pesky document actually charges government with the responsibility for protecting our borders). Can you not admit the government is just as much to blame?

 

ETA: Bottom Line - if the government did what it was supposed to do, and didn't provide all the damned social programs not listed in the Constitution, illegal immigration would be a fraction of what it is today. But thanks to the government turning a blind eye to businesses, not enforcing law, and providing all kinds of social programs to illegals and their children the illegals keep coming and coming and coming. Yes some businesses are to blame, but the majority play by the rules and do what is right. It is high time the government start playing by the rules and enforcing them.

 

When you say "government" are you referring to the feds or local? I don't think the federal gov't has the resources to enforce that level of scrutiny on every business in America. They may be able to crack down on some larger companies like Walmart but I doubt if Jim’s Lawn Service has to worry about being busted by the feds when he hires some illegals for a few months each summer.

 

I think you would need to have cooperation from local governments but how do you make a bunch of local governments agree to adhere to the same policies for handling the issue? I mean just from what I’ve read here it seems that the local governments in the NW suburbs of Atlanta are hardly on the same page as the one in SF.

Edited April 6, 2010 by SayItAintSoJoe

[Perchoutofwater]

When you say "government" are you referring to the feds or local? I don't think the federal gov't has the resources to enforce that level of scrutiny on every business in America. They may be able to crack down on some larger companies like Walmart but I doubt if Jim’s Lawn Service has to worry about being busted by the feds when he hires some illegals for a few months each summer.

 

I think you would need to have cooperation from local governments but how do you make a bunch of local governments agree to adhere to the same policies for handling the issue? I mean just from what I’ve read here it seems that the local governments in the NW suburbs of Atlanta are hardly on the same page as the one in SF.

 

I think federal, state, and local officials should work together. Cops at every traffic stop could check citizenship pretty easily. Problem is we need to actually deport people. I know of several cases where cops have been told by INS not to turn over illegals, crap like that needs to stop. We also need to hit businesses with real fines. Look unemployment is very high right now, we could decrease unemployment by hiring more federal enforcement officers. The money we would save on health care and social programs for illegals would more than pay for doubling the size of immigration enforcement. Then you take into consideration the fines on businesses and the federal government would probably make money on the deal, we'd have less unemployment, and it would make border states more solvent.

 

Hell if OSHA can inspect 5 of my job sites in a year, then INS can be funded to inspect most businesses at least once a year.

 

We also have to repeal the 1965 immigration reforms to get rid of anchor babies and crap like that.

Edited April 6, 2010 by Perchoutofwater

[Duchess Jack]

First off, I'm not trying to hang it around Obama's neck. I'm hanging it on LBJ's neck primarily, but also on Reagan (though in fairness tougher border security was supposed to by part of that deal, though subsequent administrations didn't allow that to materialize), Clinton, GWB. So far Obama is the least to blame. I wasn't blaming what happened in SF on Obama only pointing out how Obama seems to surround himself with radicals.

so, what you are saying is that you didn't post this as a platform to try to paint Obama in a bad light?

[bpwallace49]

I think federal, state, and local officials should work together. Cops at every traffic stop could check citizenship pretty easily. Problem is we need to actually deport people. I know of several cases where cops have been told by INS not to turn over illegals, crap like that needs to stop. We also need to hit businesses with real fines. Look unemployment is very high right now, we could decrease unemployment by hiring more federal enforcement officers. The money we would save on health care and social programs for illegals would more than pay for doubling the size of immigration enforcement. Then you take into consideration the fines on businesses and the federal government would probably make money on the deal, we'd have less unemployment, and it would make border states more solvent.

 

Hell if OSHA can inspect 5 of my job sites in a year, then INS can be funded to inspect most businesses at least once a year.

 

We also have to repeal the 1965 immigration reforms to get rid of anchor babies and crap like that.

 

Perch . . if the utopia gubmnet of Texas inposed much higher fines of businesses that hired illegals or passed a state law requiring backround checks for all employees, wouldnt that make you happy?

 

If it does, then why dont you campaign for these LOCAL changes? Eliminate the incentive to hire illegals . . and then they wont stay in Texas? They will follow their jobs . . . . elsewhere.

 

I find it incredibly amusing that you rail against the federal gubmnet at every opportunity for being too powerful, but somehow want black helicopters tracking illegals across the desert and stepping up deportations. You want less gubmnet, but at the same time you want them to have the means to deport hundres of thousands of people forcibly.

 

Local state gubmnets need to step up to the plate and do something as well . . . Texas knows it is in its best interests to do nothing . . so they continue to do nothing.

[Perchoutofwater]

so, what you are saying is that you didn't post this as a platform to try to paint Obama in a bad light?

 

The immigration issue our nation faces and the associated costs are more important than painting anyone in a particular light. I did mention Obama's appointment of two people associated with the radical group La Raza because I think it is important, but that is definitely a secondary issue to the much larger issue of illegal immigration and the legal immigration of unskilled workers.

[Perchoutofwater]

Perch . . if the utopia gubmnet of Texas inposed much higher fines of businesses that hired illegals or passed a state law requiring backround checks for all employees, wouldnt that make you happy?

 

If it does, then why dont you campaign for these LOCAL changes? Eliminate the incentive to hire illegals . . and then they wont stay in Texas? They will follow their jobs . . . . elsewhere.

 

I find it incredibly amusing that you rail against the federal gubmnet at every opportunity for being too powerful, but somehow want black helicopters tracking illegals across the desert and stepping up deportations. You want less gubmnet, but at the same time you want them to have the means to deport hundres of thousands of people forcibly.

 

Local state gubmnets need to step up to the plate and do something as well . . . Texas knows it is in its best interests to do nothing . . so they continue to do nothing.

 

First of, I've worked with my state representative on this issue. He has a very strong stance against illegal immigration. There is only so much state governments can do, because this is a federal issue.

 

Second, the federal government is Constitutionally required to protect our borders, the state of Texas is not. Also if the Federal government is going to require hospitals and schools to ,which are state funded, to supply services to everyone, then it needs to make sure that everyone is legal. If you want to repeal Medicaid, Obamacare, and get rid of the Department of Education and refund all the taxes Texans pay for these programs, then you might have a point, but as long as the federal government is requiring state spending on everyone, then the federal government needs to do what it is Constitutionally bound to do. You know in today's age, the federal government has far exceeded it's Constitutional mandate in so many areas, and tax the crap out of us to do so. Is it too much to ask that the federal government do one of the few things it is actually required bey the Constituion to do?

[WaterMan]

Local state gubmnets need to step up to the plate and do something as well . . . Texas knows it is in its best interests to do nothing . . so they continue to do nothing.

 

Their best interests are that they can't spend the money to do anything.

[bpwallace49]

First of, I've worked with my state representative on this issue. He has a very strong stance against illegal immigration. There is only so much state governments can do, because this is a federal issue.

 

Perch that is just flat out incorrect, and I am disappointed in you.

 

The STATE or even your local town can impose fines and require certain stipulation of businesses. For example, in order to get a liquor license, I have to prove that all managers and staff have taken a responsible beverage course. If I fail to do so, or have people working that are not during an inspection, then my business will lose their liquor license and have to pay a very hefty fine.If Texas decided to mandate that all businesses provide legal documentation for all workers with backround checks or face HUGE fines for hiring illegals, they could easily do so. The fact is they CHOOSE to not do so. It is a cop out to ignore that fact and just rail against the gubmnet.

 

Bottom line is that if states really cared about this issue, they could take steps to eliminate the DEMAND for illegal immigrants and raise the risk to hiring illegals. By not doing so and just waiting for the feds to mobilize the army and national guard to seal all the borders is lunacy. Eliminate the demand, then you can start to eliminate the problem.

 

But that wouldnt be politically popular in Texas (or any other state). . . so I can see why states havent done anything about it . . . .

Edited April 6, 2010 by bpwallace49

[SEC=UGA]

A BIG part of the problem are the laws in reagrd to citizneship allowing any one who is born on US soil to be automatically endowed w. US citizenship. Once the child has that it is entitled to all right s and priveledges associate with citizenship... or the free money and benefits allowed to children who are citizens.

[Ursa Majoris]

Problem is we need to actually deport people.

387,000 actual deportations in Obama's first year. 32,000 in jail awaiting deportation any given day. Not too shabby.

[Perchoutofwater]

Perch that is just flat out incorrect, and I am disappointed in you.

 

The STATE or even your local town can impose fines and require certain stipulation of businesses. For example, in order to get a liquor license, I have to prove that all managers and staff have taken a responsible beverage course. If I fail to do so, or have people working that are not during an inspection, then my business will lose their liquor license and have to pay a very hefty fine.If Texas decided to mandate that all businesses provide legal documentation for all workers with backround checks or face HUGE fines for hiring illegals, they could easily do so. The fact is they CHOOSE to not do so. It is a cop out to ignore that fact and just rail against the gubmnet.

 

Bottom line is that if states really cared about this issue, they could take steps to eliminate the DEMAND for illegal immigrants and raise the risk to hiring illegals. By not doing so and just waiting for the feds to mobilize the army and national guard to seal all the borders is lunacy. Eliminate the demand, then you can start to eliminate the problem.

 

But that wouldnt be politically popular in Texas (or any other state). . . so I can see why states havent done anything about it . . . .

 

I said they can only do so much. States can not deport. States can not refuse to educate or provide medical services.

 

Yes they can start tightening down on businesses, and Texas has. All public contracts require the contractor / vendor to provide background checks on all employees that will work on that contract. Part of the background check does check immigration status. This is somewhat of a pilot program that will eventually be extended to all business. My state representative and my state senator were both supporters of this state legislation.

 

The state is dragging it's feet somewhat because it actually expects the federal government to do it's job. All business are supposed to turn in I9 forms to the federal government. I have talked to my representative about making businesses copy the state with these forms. I know that not only do we require I9s on all of our employees, but we require our trade contractors to supply I9's on all their employees that will be working on our sites. So in a way some businesses are starting to trying keep the others clean too. Sure the state could do more, and they are taking steps in that direction, but that doesn't relieve the federal government of it's responsibility. You say you find it interesting how I can rail against big government programs but want the government to get involved with this. I find it interesting how you and other liberals on this board can defend big government programs with no Constitutional basis, yet really don't care if the federal government does it's constitutional responsibility, but rather shirk it off on the states and businesses.