redrumjuice Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Wait--are you implying that if there are no jobs for illegal aliens, they stop coming to this country? If that is what she is implying, she is flat out, 100% WRONG. Over the past two years, as U.S. unemployment remained near double-digit levels and the economy shed jobs in the wake of the financial crisis, over a million foreign-born arrivals to America found work, many illegally. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE70J37P20110120 Here come the excuses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Making it uncomfortable for the businesses that give them jobs so that they STOP giving them jobs is different than arresting and turning over to the feds. Dont even bother with the federal red tape, just start enacting local ordinances that have extremely punitive fines for hiring illegals? That is allll local perch. It isnt arresting or deportaing, it is doing what you can on a local level (which I thought you are all about??) to eliminate one of the reasons they come to the US. Jobs. I'm all for local and state ordinances that make harder for someone to be here illegally which is why I support huge punitive fines to employers as well as turning them over to the feds, and the AZ law. Illegal is illegal and regardless of local, state, or federal, governments should not turn a blind eye to illegal behavior. I'd love to see more state and local government do more. The problem is as soon as they do you have the AZ fiasco all over again, which is why I think the opposition against it is just ridiculous. Just like I would like for the local, state, and federal governments go after employers, I'd like the federal government to start doing what it is constitutionally mandated to do, rather than all the crap that they have no real constitutional authority to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billay Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 If that is what she is implying, she is flat out, 100% WRONG. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE70J37P20110120 Here come the excuses. Between 2000 and 2005, an average of 850,000 people a year entered the United States without authorization, according to the report released Wednesday. As the economy plunged into recession between 2007 and 2009, that number fell to 300,000. The sharp drop-off has contributed to an 8 percent decrease in the estimated number of illegal immigrants living in the United States, from a peak of 12 million in 2007 to 11.1 million in 2009, the report said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 So Billay, what you are saying is Obama really hasn't done anymore than Shrub did, which isn't much at all, the reason he can claim lower illegal immigration is because of the crappy economy, not because of his policies. I'll agree with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billay Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 So Billay, what you are saying is Obama really hasn't done anymore than Shrub did, which isn't much at all, the reason he can claim lower illegal immigration is because of the crappy economy, not because of his policies. I'll agree with that. All I was saying was that I thought it was interesting that illegal immigration is so much more of a political issue now than it was when illegal immigration was actually a serious problem. Considering what an important issue it is for conservatives, why now, speaks volumes. And FWIW, I do believe the present administration is doing more than the previous one, though undoubtedly, the economy has played a major roll in the reduction of illegals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
untateve Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 In an effort to curtail illegals many cities have tried to enact ordinances that restrict the number of unrelated persons that may live together in a dwelling, often these ordinances are overturned as being unconstitutional. Would the same thing happen with local ordinances aimed at fining people for hiring illegal immigrants? Also, Arizona tried to pass an ordinance that would require police to inquire about an individuals immigration status. How is this different than a company being required to check the same thing, wouldn't this also be profiling and unconstitutional? Wait...you're saying that requiring an employer to secure proof of citizenship for all of his/her employees is profiling and unconstitutional? Don't we require proof of citizenship for all people to obtain a passport? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 (edited) All I was saying was that I thought it was interesting that illegal immigration is so much more of a political issue now than it was when illegal immigration was actually a serious problem. Considering what an important issue it is for conservatives, why now, speaks volumes. And FWIW, I do believe the present administration is doing more than the previous one, though undoubtedly, the economy has played a major roll in the reduction of illegals. Billay, I've been complaining about this for as long as I've been on the boards. I was very critical of Shrub and the way he handled it as well. For me it isn't political in the since that one side or the other is doing a better job, neither one of them is doing worth a damn. So, please don't come in here and try to say this partisan. As I've said earlier, I might have increased the volume some, but again that is also more due to the economy and the high unemployment rate. Any job going to an illegal that a citizen could be getting when unemployment is so high should be something to complain about. Additionally Obama wanted to grant quasi-amnesty for illegals without really doing anything to stop the future flow across the border. When he was talking about that I was very critical of him. I'm actually not opposed to amnesty if it is done right. By done right I mean anyone hear right now illegally with a criminal record gets deported. Anyone here illegally right now can obtain citizenship within one year provided they learn English in that year and can pass the citizenship exam in English, and provided they do not commit a felony during that time. By done right I also mean that we build a concrete barrier with an electric barrier on top, and immediately deport anyone that comes in illegally in the future, and do away with the anchor baby law. If you find me a politician that will push all that, and have the wall built prior to amnesty being given then I'll support amnesty. Under any other terms I will oppose it. Another reason it is a hotter item right now than it has been in the past is there wasn't nearly as much Mexican Drug Cartel violence going on in the border states, and when one state finally had enough and manned up, Obama and Holder told them they couldn't. ETA: Additionally if you go back an look when Bush was suggesting immigration reform there were several threads on it as well. Edited January 26, 2011 by Perchoutofwater Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 In an effort to curtail illegals many cities have tried to enact ordinances that restrict the number of unrelated persons that may live together in a dwelling, often these ordinances are overturned as being unconstitutional. Would the same thing happen with local ordinances aimed at fining people for hiring illegal immigrants? Also, Arizona tried to pass an ordinance that would require police to inquire about an individuals immigration status. How is this different than a company being required to check the same thing, wouldn't this also be profiling and unconstitutional? Dude . . are you kidding me? I can do a full background check on any prospective employee as a condition of employmnet. If you dont like it, dont apply. We also require drug tests. That goes for every single potential employee, not just the ones that look messican. It is applied evenly across the board. Plus, we hire quite a bit of hispanics that work in the greens and ground dept and in the kitchen. When people apply, it says on the application that we do background checks and drug tests. A lot leave once they read that part. How can a local ordinance that fines a business for hiring illegal immigrants be unconstitutional? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billay Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Billay, I've been complaining about this for as long as I've been on the boards. I was very critical of Shrub and the way he handled it as well. For me it isn't political in the since that one side or the other is doing a better job, neither one of them is doing worth a damn. So, please don't come in here and try to say this partisan. As I've said earlier, I might have increased the volume some, but again that is also more due to the economy and the high unemployment rate. Any job going to an illegal that a citizen could be getting when unemployment is so high should be something to complain about. Additionally Obama wanted to grant quasi-amnesty for illegals without really doing anything to stop the future flow across the border. When he was talking about that I was very critical of him. I'm actually not opposed to amnesty if it is done right. By done right I mean anyone hear right now illegally with a criminal record gets deported. Anyone here illegally right now can obtain citizenship within one year provided they learn English in that year and can pass the citizenship exam in English, and provided they do not commit a felony during that time. By done right I also mean that we build a concrete barrier with an electric barrier on top, and immediately deport anyone that comes in illegally in the future, and do away with the anchor baby law. If you find me a politician that will push all that, and have the wall built prior to amnesty being given then I'll support amnesty. Under any other terms I will oppose it. Forgive me perch, I forgot for a moment there that you comprised the entirety of the republican party and the conservative movement. Its not all about you, you know. If I were to delete all your posts in which you claim to be right, or not to have been wrong, you'd have no posts at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Dude . . are you kidding me? I can do a full background check on any prospective employee as a condition of employmnet. If you dont like it, dont apply. We also require drug tests. That goes for every single potential employee, not just the ones that look messican. It is applied evenly across the board. Plus, we hire quite a bit of hispanics that work in the greens and ground dept and in the kitchen. When people apply, it says on the application that we do background checks and drug tests. A lot leave once they read that part. How can a local ordinance that fines a business for hiring illegal immigrants be unconstitutional? How can a local ordinance that requires proof of citizenship in order to rent an apartment or a home be found unconstitutional? There are several cities that have these ordinances and are paying big bucks to fight to maintain their right to these ordinances in courts right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Forgive me perch, I forgot for a moment there that you comprised the entirety of the republican party and the conservative movement. Its not all about you, you know. If I were to delete all your posts in which you claim to be right, or not to have been wrong, you'd have no posts at all. Well forgive me but there are only three conservative posting in this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Billay, I've been complaining about this for as long as I've been on the boards. I was very critical of Shrub and the way he handled it as well. For me it isn't political in the since that one side or the other is doing a better job, neither one of them is doing worth a damn. So, please don't come in here and try to say this partisan. As I've said earlier, I might have increased the volume some, but again that is also more due to the economy and the high unemployment rate. Any job going to an illegal that a citizen could be getting when unemployment is so high should be something to complain about. Additionally Obama wanted to grant quasi-amnesty for illegals without really doing anything to stop the future flow across the border. When he was talking about that I was very critical of him. I'm actually not opposed to amnesty if it is done right. By done right I mean anyone hear right now illegally with a criminal record gets deported. Anyone here illegally right now can obtain citizenship within one year provided they learn English in that year and can pass the citizenship exam in English, and provided they do not commit a felony during that time. By done right I also mean that we build a concrete barrier with an electric barrier on top, and immediately deport anyone that comes in illegally in the future, and do away with the anchor baby law. If you find me a politician that will push all that, and have the wall built prior to amnesty being given then I'll support amnesty. Under any other terms I will oppose it. Another reason it is a hotter item right now than it has been in the past is there wasn't nearly as much Mexican Drug Cartel violence going on in the border states, and when one state finally had enough and manned up, Obama and Holder told them they couldn't. ETA: Additionally if you go back an look when Bush was suggesting immigration reform there were several threads on it as well. Perch, you have been very consistent on this issue. But you rail against what the fed ISNT doing as opposed to what your local municipalites COULD be doing immediately. Waiting for the federal gubmnet to fix this will take forever, that is why doing ANYTHING locally is helpful to force the issue without appearing to overtly profile is a good thing. I say "overtly" profile because then you get into individual liberty issues, like when checking immigration status of someone pulled over and people start calling the ACLU to sue. Apply it across the board against potential job candidates with something like the everify system, step up crackdown on suspected companies ducking the law, and make VERY VERY punitive fines for companies that knowingly hire illegals without doing proper background checks. The more local gubmnet does things right (without the overt hispanic profiling) the more it forces the hand of the fed gubment to actually address the issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Perch, you have been very consistent on this issue. But you rail against what the fed ISNT doing as opposed to what your local municipalites COULD be doing immediately. Waiting for the federal gubmnet to fix this will take forever, that is why doing ANYTHING locally is helpful to force the issue without appearing to overtly profile is a good thing. I say "overtly" profile because then you get into individual liberty issues, like when checking immigration status of someone pulled over and people start calling the ACLU to sue. Apply it across the board against potential job candidates with something like the everify system, step up crackdown on suspected companies ducking the law, and make VERY VERY punitive fines for companies that knowingly hire illegals without doing proper background checks. The more local gubmnet does things right (without the overt hispanic profiling) the more it forces the hand of the fed gubment to actually address the issue. I'm all for that. Most businesses here do that, though that. As I pointed out in another post in this thread there have been several municipalities that have tried to make proof of citizenship a requirement for renting a home or apartment, but everyone that has tried ends up in court. It seems that anytime a local or state government actually tries to do something about this some one (half the time it is the federal government) steps in and says they can't. Then the federal government which does have the authority to do something about it does nothing about it, because it isn't politically expedient. As I've and others have said in the past though Billay has a bad memory this isn't a political issue because both political parties suck at handling because none of them want to do what really needs to be done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 How can a local ordinance that requires proof of citizenship in order to rent an apartment or a home be found unconstitutional? There are several cities that have these ordinances and are paying big bucks to fight to maintain their right to these ordinances in courts right now. Can you name any? The link below shows a legal opinion on the matter. http://www.thelandlordtimes.com/?q=story/a...atus-renting%3F Perch the key is not structuring a ordinance that specifically targets messicans, but treats everyone evenly across the board so that it cant be challenged in court at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 (edited) Can you name any? The link below shows a legal opinion on the matter. http://www.thelandlordtimes.com/?q=story/a...atus-renting%3F Perch the key is not structuring a ordinance that specifically targets messicans, but treats everyone evenly across the board so that it cant be challenged in court at all. Farmers Branch, TX which is about 100 miles from me. Escondido, CA Hazelton, PA Are the first three that come to mind that have tried and have ended up having to spend a ton of money fighting court cases against the law. ETA Freemont NB Edited January 26, 2011 by Perchoutofwater Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Farmers Branch, Texas which is about 100 miles from me. There you go Perch . . .the ordinance was poorly drafted. Another American town has passed legislation against illegal foreign nationals that have been invading our country unhindered. Farmers Branch, Texas passed several measures by a unanimous decision of the City Council. The measures include apartment renters providing proof of citizenship or residency and making English the city's official language. In addition it lets police apply to participate in a federal program that would enable them to check the residency status of suspects in custody and initiate deportation proceedings in certain cases. Dont reference deportation at all. Dont reference messicans at all. Apply the same law to everyone. Dont give any possibe defense to not renting to illegals. In fact, draft a STATE law that makes a mandatory background check or everify as part of the rental contract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 http://www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=News...ws_iv_ctrl=1007 The harboring question would be fought tooth and nail by landlords if it meant renting to illegals, IMO. I think the Hazelton case will get kicked up to the Supremes on appeal . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 So Billay, what you are saying is Obama really hasn't done anymore than Shrub did, which isn't much at all, the reason he can claim lower illegal immigration is because of the crappy economy, not because of his policies. I'll agree with that. I don't know; it would appear Billay is giving Bush full credit for reducing the number of illegal aliens since the decrease in illegal immigration is due to the crappy economy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 I don't know; it would appear Billay is giving Bush full credit for reducing the number of illegal aliens since the decrease in illegal immigration is due to the crappy economy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 How can a local ordinance that requires proof of citizenship in order to rent an apartment or a home be found unconstitutional? There are several cities that have these ordinances and are paying big bucks to fight to maintain their right to these ordinances in courts right now. So you're advocating for broader governmental power to restrict our rights to enter into contracts and other dealings involving private property? Interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 So you're advocating for broader governmental power to restrict our rights to enter into contracts and other dealings involving private property? Interesting. Heh heh heh Well played Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted January 27, 2011 Author Share Posted January 27, 2011 Dude . . are you kidding me? I can do a full background check on any prospective employee as a condition of employmnet. If you dont like it, dont apply. We also require drug tests. That goes for every single potential employee, not just the ones that look messican. It is applied evenly across the board. Plus, we hire quite a bit of hispanics that work in the greens and ground dept and in the kitchen. When people apply, it says on the application that we do background checks and drug tests. A lot leave once they read that part. How can a local ordinance that fines a business for hiring illegal immigrants be unconstitutional? Who is going to enforce the law with regard to employers hiring illegals? More importantly, which companies are you going to check to see if they have illegals working for them and how do you decide? It would be impossible to adequately cover all companies in the state so you would have to come up with guidelines on which company to check for illegals. We wouldn't want to profile a company according to the ethnic make-up of their employees, that would be profiling. You wouldn't want to audit companies in an industry that historically employs messicans, again, you would be profiling. Also, since the company, or more importantly the potentially illegal employee is not doing anything illegal at the time therefore you have no probable cause to stop and check the immigration status of an individual, at least that is what Arizona was told. We employ a large number of hispanic workers, we mandate that they have an SS number and all their documents in order. I am 100% certain that at least one of them is illegal, but their SS numbers and documents all check out... Say you do attempt to enforce this law, you fine a company that is hiring illegals, what do you do with the now unemployed illegal? Do you deport him or turn him lose on the street, which is what happens currently, to go and find another job at a golf course? We have been told numerous times by ICE that they are not going to carte blanche deport people, hell there is a girl here in Cobb County that is living proof of that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 Who is going to enforce the law with regard to employers hiring illegals? More importantly, which companies are you going to check to see if they have illegals working for them and how do you decide? It would be impossible to adequately cover all companies in the state so you would have to come up with guidelines on which company to check for illegals. We wouldn't want to profile a company according to the ethnic make-up of their employees, that would be profiling. You wouldn't want to audit companies in an industry that historically employs messicans, again, you would be profiling. Also, since the company, or more importantly the potentially illegal employee is not doing anything illegal at the time therefore you have no probable cause to stop and check the immigration status of an individual, at least that is what Arizona was told. We employ a large number of hispanic workers, we mandate that they have an SS number and all their documents in order. I am 100% certain that at least one of them is illegal, but their SS numbers and documents all check out... Say you do attempt to enforce this law, you fine a company that is hiring illegals, what do you do with the now unemployed illegal? Do you deport him or turn him lose on the street, which is what happens currently, to go and find another job at a golf course? We have been told numerous times by ICE that they are not going to carte blanche deport people, hell there is a girl here in Cobb County that is living proof of that. The Feds have a checking system called eVerify. I don't think it's mandated but I do believe it works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 Who is going to enforce the law with regard to employers hiring illegals? More importantly, which companies are you going to check to see if they have illegals working for them and how do you decide? It would be impossible to adequately cover all companies in the state so you would have to come up with guidelines on which company to check for illegals. We wouldn't want to profile a company according to the ethnic make-up of their employees, that would be profiling. You wouldn't want to audit companies in an industry that historically employs messicans, again, you would be profiling. Also, since the company, or more importantly the potentially illegal employee is not doing anything illegal at the time therefore you have no probable cause to stop and check the immigration status of an individual, at least that is what Arizona was told. We employ a large number of hispanic workers, we mandate that they have an SS number and all their documents in order. I am 100% certain that at least one of them is illegal, but their SS numbers and documents all check out... Say you do attempt to enforce this law, you fine a company that is hiring illegals, what do you do with the now unemployed illegal? Do you deport him or turn him lose on the street, which is what happens currently, to go and find another job at a golf course? We have been told numerous times by ICE that they are not going to carte blanche deport people, hell there is a girl here in Cobb County that is living proof of that. I would just keep auditing your company for illegals over and over and over . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted January 27, 2011 Author Share Posted January 27, 2011 (edited) I would just keep auditing your company for illegals over and over and over . . . Do you think that if strict laws were passed at the state level that we would see a high rate of unemployment among hispanics due to employers not wanting to take a chance at potentially being fined or losing their business license? I mean think of all of the innocent people, the natural born hispanics, that may get caught up in this. Also, IRCA 1986 does make it illegal to hire illegals and provides for stiff penalties for doing so. You know how employers get around this law. The don't hire people as employees, they hir them as independent contractors or sub-contractors. This would continue to happen even if new state laws were enacted, don't you think? Edited January 27, 2011 by SEC=UGA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.