A market solution for illegal immigration

We could dry up the flow of illegal immigrants into America fairly quickly, without drama, mass deportation, or Governors posing in front of machine guns, merely by changing the economics of the matter. There are easy market solutions that would dampen the demand for illegal labor overnight while slashing our enforcement costs.

We aren’t going to implement them.

Illegal immigration would cease to be a meaningful political problem if we took simple steps to make the hiring of legal or illegal immigrants much more expensive. The reason we will not be implementing such a plan is that we don’t really care that much about illegal immigration, not enough to write a check to end it.

Serious, intelligent immigration reform would offer hefty benefits along with the hefty price tag. A freer immigration system, greater access to a talented global labor pool, and the reduced burden on schools and hospitals in marginal areas would be just a few of the advantages. In the short run though, the cost of ending the era of cheap semi-slave labor would be a shock to the system, radically increasing the cost of some items like a restaurant dinner or a carton of strawberries, while other goods and services might disappear from the market more or less permanently.

Here’s what a practical solution might look like.

– Raise the minimum wage to $10. In economic terms, the presence of a mass pool of exploitable illegal immigrant workers has more or less the same effect as a mass of exploitable domestic labor. When labor prices sag, innovation stagnates and aggregate demand stagnates with it. Our illegal worker problem is to a very large extent a cheap labor problem.

– Set a higher minimum wage for green card holders, say, $12.50. Why should the wage be higher for migrants than for citizens? First, to eliminate the incentives to exploit foreign labor. Migrant labor isn’t merely cheap, it is also weak. At comparable prices many employers would still prefer illegal migrants because they are too desperate to resist terrible working conditions. A wage premium will dampen the urge to lure vulnerable and exploitable workers from abroad.

Won’t contractors and companies simply ignore the rules, leading to a larger black market? Not if the enforcement incentives are set intelligently.

– Enforcement is where this plan gets its relevance. Give workers, even illegal workers, the right to sue an employer in state court to enforce the higher wage, including triple damages and attorney’s fees. Illegal or migrant laborers may be generally reluctant to get near a courtroom. That’s why illegals who have a pending wage suit prior to initiation of deportation proceedings can stay deportation until the suit is completed. Attorney’s fee awards mean that there will be a pool of lawyers ready to serve this community.

– Employers found liable for more than $50,000 in back wages over a one year period can be subject to criminal prosecution and the loss of their corporate status – in other words, responsible individuals within the corporation can be subject to personal liability. The use of fraudulent documents by the worker in question would be a defense. These enforcement provisions would only apply to offenses committed after the law was passed.

– Optionally, some similar provision could apply to higher-earning green-card holders. Perhaps an across-the-board 5% income-premium for green card workers based on a comparison to similar job titles in the same company. These provisions are probably less important at the higher end of the wage scale as those workers are usually better positioned to represent their own interests, but such a provision might make it politically easier to loosen immigration rules.

– Make it relatively easy to obtain a work visa with a biometric ID at a US Consulate. Charge a significant, but not punitive annual fee for the visa, perhaps $500. Instead of admitting 140,000 new work visas each year as we do now, raise that number to at least 2m, if not more. Let the market decide who stays. How much enforcement and new infrastructure could we develop from $1bn a year in visa fees?

– Open access to annual work visas to immigrants already present illegally in the US if they pay a substantial fine, perhaps $3,000, and have no arrest history. Yes, “amnesty.”

– Create an option for green card holders who have been here for a significant length of time, perhaps five years, to transition onto a track toward full citizenship.

The key to this approach is the way it would handle enforcement. Everyone who uses “cheap” migrant labor would not only have to watch the horizon for ICE agents, they would also be subject to an expensive, potentially ruinous lawsuit from every worker they deal with. Immigration enforcement would become every business’s business.

Would there be a flood of new lawsuits? Probably not. Illegals are generally reluctant to get involved in court cases. However, there wouldn’t need to be a lot of lawsuits to radically change the way many businesses operate. Merely by changing the balance of power between workers and the people who hire them we would make the crime of hiring an illegal worker too expensive to commit. The risk of enforcement actions could not be easily mitigated.

Won’t millions of impoverished people from all over the world flood into America to soak up the largesse of our welfare system? Er, no. That’s one of the most bizarre fantasies afflicting America’s immigration reform debate.

Illegal immigrants are not entitled to welfare. Illegal immigrations feed themselves and their families by working, taking whatever jobs they can get no matter how dangerous, dirty, or demeaning. They struggle to get access to schools. According to well-known Communist agitator Sen. Marco Rubio, even legal migrants with immigration status are locked out of access to most of our social welfare benefits. Immigrants admitted under this program should have access to health insurance coverage, but none of the rest of the social safety net.

This approach could effectively end our immigration “problem” in its present form without a border fence, thousands of new border patrol agents, or any other border security measures. It would generate new revenue from visa fees while easing the strain on schools and public hospitals in border areas.

We will not adopt this approach because we do not want to pay the price. It turns out that shutting off the tide of cheap, desperate labor is much more expensive than the political alternative – border security theater and anti-migrant hysteria. Better to have them here, cleaning our restaurants and our kitchens while we publicly revile them then pay the price a post-illegal migrant economy.

What would that price be? It would effect nearly every household in America, forcing us to begin paying the actual, legitimate costs of hundreds of common goods and services rather than shifting those costs on the backs of people fleeing the developing world. More on that to come.

Chris Ladd is a Texan living in the Chicago area. He has been involved in grassroots Republican politics for most of his life. He was a Republican precinct committeeman in suburban Chicago until he resigned from the party and his position after the 2016 Republican Convention. He can be reached at gopliferchicago at gmail dot com.

Posted in Uncategorized
189 comments on “A market solution for illegal immigration
  1. […] delivered vouchers for the purchase of private insurance. A well-structured market could even resolve our immigration problems, cheaply and […]

  2. […] could end illegal immigration with a simple market solution – impose a premium on immigrant labor. The reason we are not going to adopt this simple solution becomes evident by comparing labor […]

  3. tuttabellamia says:

    I finally read Lifer’s entry and just skimmed the comments. I’m surprised no one has addressed the minimum wage issue in general, and the private relationship between employer and employee.

    • tuttabellamia says:

      I guess everyone has run out of steam.

    • John Galt says:

      What private relationship? The employer-employee relationship is governed by thick reams of regulation. The perceived need for this regulation comes largely from past abuses of the asymmetrical power in the relationship between individuals and corporations.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        John Galt: I am in favor of both the minimum wage and reasonable regulation, but I am not a fan of unions.

        I know a handful of posters on this site (you know who you are) are against the minimum wage, period. I’m surprised they’ve remained silent on the subject.

        I know some illegals prefer getting paid under the table and just working for what was agreed upon with their employer, without the hassle of rules and regulations. They know what they’re getting into and are okay with it a lot of the time. They don’t necessarily see themselves as victims.

      • desperado says:

        More likely the employers prefer paying under the table without the hassle of rules and regulations.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Of course, Desperado, the employers most of all, but the employees are willing participants to a great extent — not that I recommend it as the idea scenario.

      • Turtles Run says:

        Tutt

        Maybe these undocumented workers are fine with being paid under table is because they are undocumented and do not want to draw attentions to themselves. But this underground economy needs to be addressed, if people are honest in their concerns on wages becoming depressed then they need to be the first support immigration reform.

        Not a fan of unions, well I am not a fan employers that exploit their workers or seek to cut corners on worker safety. Unions give a collective voice to those that generally have little influence in their work environment.

      • John Galt says:

        You aren’t a fan of unions today, because they have largely outlived their usefulness and seem to most of us to be obstructionist in so many ways. But unions arose out of a real need. Most employees of manufacturing companies are cogs in a wheel. They may become skilled at their job, but these skill are not hard to develop (and are thus easily replaced). These employees have essentially no bargaining power for wages, hours, or workplace safety. People died as a result. Banding together in a union to bargain collectively was the response to this. Frankly, this is a market-based approach and the reasons unions are less needed today is because of government regulation doing for the workplace in general (maximum work week, minimum wage, safety regulations) what unions used to do.

        I’m sure that some workers, legal or not, are OK with being paid under the table, until the time their employer stiffs them and says, “So, what are you going to do about it?”

      • Bart-1 says:

        Turtles, as 50 would say, “Paying people under the table is NONE of the Government’s damn business”!

      • fiftyohm says:

        Actually, I would say that, and be correct about it too.

      • desperado says:

        Yes, paying employees under the table IS the government’s damn business in the same way any kind of tax evasion is the government’s damn business. Under the table income is untaxed on both sides of the transaction–the employer and the employee. No W2s and no 1099s means things like income taxes, Social Security taxes,and Medicare taxes are unpaid.I know taxes are evil to the “forced redistribution” and “taxes are theft” crowd, but they pay for things that benefit all of us.

      • fiftyohm says:

        Des- You seem to forget that if I pay someone to do work for me, if he’s paid “under the table”, I can’t deduct it. The taxes are due from the employee. That’s why we call it an income tax. The issue is actually withholding – not whether taxes are paid or not. No one is stupid enough to believe that we can live in a civilized society without revenue to fund it. I don’t withhold taxes from what I pay my yard guy. Do you? Do you ask for his SSN? Or proof of citizenship? Is it any of my business? Or your neighbor’s? Or Austin’s? That’s what I was talking about.

      • goplifer says:

        Actually 50, to clarify a little further, you aren’t actually supposed to conduct withholding on wages paid to small-scale contractors. Also, thanks to generous loopholes designed specifically for this purpose, you aren’t required to know or even try to know the immigration status of contractors on that level.

        In that sense, those transactions are not “under the table” at all. I point this out because it starts to expose some of the hilarious inconsistency in the “enforce the current laws” approach to immigration problems.

      • fiftyohm says:

        Excellent points, Chris. Thanks!

    • DanMan says:

      The whole article is such a bag of crap it doesn’t deserve much response. Our humble host is merely advocating for government tracking of every laborer directly. I like how he declares after implementing his wonderful solutions to control labor our immigration problems will evaporate. Poof! it will! he said it!

  4. Tuttabella says:

    Lifer wrote: “Attorney’s fee awards mean that there will be a pool of lawyers ready to serve this community.”
    ************************
    I reply: There’s already a pool of lawyers ready to SCREW the immigrant community.

  5. Crogged says:

    So the conservative small ‘g’ government solutions offered below are national identity cards which can requested from any citizen at any time by any ‘official’ and having the same small ‘g’ not ‘s’ socialist government determine which jobs need to be filled in order to adjust the quotas established two years after every sea change in industry (we need more workers making 8 track tapes!). I suppose the reference is too much of an age giveaway, more workers making compact discs and digital video discs…………….

    Of course the author’s solutions fall short of the need for punishment of our worst off, until morale improves the beatings must continue.

    • Bart-1 says:

      Really Crogged? The BEST criticism of enfocing our employment laws abd nbatioanl ID laws like mosy of the developed world does is to call that “Socialist” and pretend it will be as out of date as 8 tracks? Apparently they must be pretty good solutions if that is the best argument against them you can come up with. of course you can always paly the “class and race’ cards if you can’t find an actual legal and economic argument : (“the worst off” being the employers who hire them I guess) oops, you already did! The false “tired, old” (to use Homer’s words) that Conservative oppose ALL government meme is alive and well apparently, regardless of how bogus it is. to quote Milton Friedman: “It’s just obvious you can’t have free immigration and a welfare state,”

      • Crogged says:

        We can have national identification programs AND the provisions the author suggests, if we accept that people wanting to come to the US is a good problem to have, no matter how and when they arrived.

      • Bart-1 says:

        “Accepting” that people want to come to a country with a higher standard of living is another “given” (like raising immigration quotas in areas of employment need), “regardless of who, when, and how they came” IS a problem to me though. As it is in every developed country in the world.

      • fiftyohm says:

        Hey Bart – I’ll carry around a national ID card when cows fly. When anyone asks to “see my papers”, absent legal justification like crossing an international border, they’ll be told to place said request where the sun don’t shine. God, what freaking fascist bullshit.

      • Bart-1 says:

        I’m guessing you have the same objections when asked for an ID and/or Driver’s license when voting right 50? I’m assuming you do vote. I only support it because it is everywhere (over 100 developed countries use them to stop abuse and fraud in their safety net and employment systems) abroad and domestically anyway. Tell me the difference. As far as the focus being “on the supply and not the demand” it is a little hard to take the “demand for high tech workers seriously when the richest American in tech industry cowrites an editorial in the NY Times on the 10th http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/11/opinion/sheldon-adelson-warren-buffett-and-bill-gates-on-immigration-reform.html?_r=0 , calling for “Amnesty” because of the supposed ‘shortage’ and then announces on the 17th (a week later) he’ll be laying off 18 THOUSAND high tech workers! http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/07/17/Microsoft-to-Slash-18-000-Jobs-Week-After-Bill-Gates-Pushed-for-Unlimited-Guest-Worker-Visas
        A professor quioted in the story from a tech school in my home town says the supply is 50% Greater than the demand now. This is about “CHEAP, Low wage” employment supply. Nothing more. Pretending it isn’t is as has been so frequently stated here, “myopic”.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Hey bart get off your lazy ass and figure how your beloved private capitalism you scream about actually works. Microsoft bought tanking phone manufacturer Nokia and now has to layoff unneeded employees. Duh. Happens in every major merger/takeover. And guess what would happen if Nokia Chapters 11, 13 or whatever? MORE than 18,000 layoffs.That’s why we have an FCC and a Justice Department (yes YOUR buddy Eric Holder) that ensures bigger IS really better which isn’t always the case. They vetoed the AT&T – T-Mobile merger and guess what? Everyone’s cellphone plans got cheaper with no contracts and no perpetual phone purchase surcharge thanks to an independent T-Mobile. And independent T-Mobile has free international roaming, free music streaming, free one week test drive, free switch (no early termination fees), free…

        Of course your source is breitbart who models himself ethically after the Nixon plumbers.

        And you are arguing with a REAL conservative in fitty (as in NOT a perpetual hypocrite like you bart).

      • Bart-1 says:

        yawn, more anger, insults, emotional vitriol, and ad hominem attacks from the one who never did provide ONE example to challenge his unsupported claims of Mosques that do more charitable acts than my “hateful church” which he knows nothing about or even what it is. Gets boring. Why is it that you feel this inner hostility to address ANY AND ALL posts made to everybody else? Do you ever feel any shame for routinely turning Chris’s blog into your own emotional toilet so your can dump your incessant “crap”? Talk about some needed “self-reflection”! I guess you have to resort to that when you can’t support your bogus claims. No wonder you are cool with “Allah”. Speaking of “reading comprehension”, you totally ignored the quote from the R.I.T. Professor. Selective omission for whatever doesn’t fit your ideology or just didn’t read that far? Merging/Buyouts of failing companies (Japanese) mean fewer American jobs. maybe Gates should address THAT instead of coauthoring editorials about the need for Amnesty so we can FEWER Americans hired while he merges and lays them off. Oh yeah, guess which Part Microsoft has been “paying off” to use Texans’ term? Your “Buddies”. Keep defending them while Americans lose jobs. It apparently is the “Librul” way.

      • Bart-1 says:

        Just remember the “Law of the garbage truck” Bubba. before you claim I do what you do and make unsupported accusations, here is Microsoft’s most recent “payoffs” (using Texans’ word) guess who they have been “buying for decades? https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000115

      • Bart-1 says:

        sorry, don’t want to give the name calling addicted a stroke, Nokia is Finish not Japanese.

      • fiftyohm says:

        Bart- First off, a driver’s license is not a national ID. I don’t have to present my passport to vote. Secondly, if you think we all should, please provide us with a reference proving voter fraud perpetrated by those ineligible to vote, is now, or has ever been a problem. (Outside of Chicago, that is. heh-heh.) That device is what we call a red herring.

        Insofar as employment is concerned, I suppose I’d be required to check the national ID of my yard guy? Or show my National ID before I could enter into a private transaction with a perspective employer? Y’know, for all the yapping some do about the intrusiveness of the federal government, those same people seem to be all behind a stupid program like the National ID which gets to be administered by yet another federal bureaucracy. I’m reminded here by the oft-mentioned quote about liberty and security from Franklin. I hear that mostly from the yappers. Such intellectual and philosophical inconsistency would be amusing were it not for its social costs.

        But then again, perhaps we should have a national ID card because France does.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Bart-1 says:
        July 18, 2014 at 1:41 pm
        “Why is it that you feel this inner hostility to address ANY AND ALL posts made to everybody else?”

        Um bart-1/seriouscynic/usincrisis, maybe because no one else was caught red handed (by his own pathetic stupidity) as a simultaneous multi sockpuppet ID bully troll?

        You reap what you sow.

        Don’t play the “victim” you lying clueless incompetent troll.

        And aside from that, don’t want to be called out for being a lying dumbass troll? Don’t continue to BE a lying dumbass troll. How hard is that bart?

        Yet you continue to denigrate the Muslim religion you know nothing about, plagiarize (again with the stolen garbage truck meme without attribution?), can’t add (3+2=4, then “corrected” to 1+2=4), and now can’t tell a Japanese company from a Finnish one?

        Qwitcherbitchin you lying uninformed hateful troll.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Hey fitty,

        “Freedom Fries”!!!!!! 😉

      • fiftyohm says:

        Bubba- If memory serves, I think they’re actually Belgian in origin!

      • bubbabobcat says:

        And my favorite “French culture” lesson from the lovely and apparently quite versatile Kim Darby in John Cusack’s “Better Off Dead”.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Yeah fitty and they put mayonnaise on their non-Francais pommes frites. 🙂

        How appropos about the misnomer eh? I was merely taking a potshot at the Cheney, Wolfowitz, Armitage, Rumsfeld chickenhawk jockstrap supporters’ uninformed hissy fit hysteria.

      • fiftyohm says:

        Bubba- Loved the clip. “Peru”. LOL.

      • Bart-1 says:

        Is There ANYTHING lazier than name calling KC? I guess it takes the place of supporting your claims huh?

      • Bart-1 says:

        50, did I miss you submitting a better idea?

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Sneaking in an old blog to get the last word in bart? Really?

        You are beyond sad.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        And it’s not “namecalling” when it’s the factual documented truth bart.

        Is there anything dumber than a troll that inadvertently outs himself because he loses track of which sockpuppet he was logged in under in the same blog? Ain’t that right bart-1/seriouscynic/usincrisis?

    • Bart-1 says:

      It’s a heck of a lot more than France. Why do you think showing a national ID to hire, or be hired, would be so “invasive”? Comparing the cost to the benefits it is a “no-brainer” when combined with a nationally mandated Everify and it would help clean up the 1% of fraudulent SSN and IDentity theft(not even considering the Franklin quote and security). If you think that a national ID would be more intrusive than what the Drivers’ license can provide already, I’d love to know what. I’m guessing the 100 other countries are all ruled by “fascists” as well right? Maybe Chris is right, we don’t have the stomach to do what would fix the problem. Let’s just keep raising the federal debt ceiling some more!

      • fiftyohm says:

        Why? Because it’s none of the government’s damn business who I pay to mow my freaking lawn, Bart. Or how much I pay him, as we’ve arrived at a symmetrical, consensual, private transaction. Or that I should be made to prove my identity to someone wishing to pay me a consulting fee for services. That’s why.

        Next, am I to suppose that social security fraud could be solved by a national ID? How many social security transactions require showing an ID? Checks? Ah – so now I’d be required to show ‘my papers’ to deposit a check in my account? Guess we’d all have to go personally to the bank from now on, huh? But let’s for the moment assume you’re right about the savings. It’s a fair trade-off, right? What was that quote again? And Identity theft? Are you kidding me? Do you actually believe a National Identity card would prevent online identity theft? When was the last time you met an on-line merchant face-to-face?

        And I used France as an example of the type of “socialist” country you guys tend to deride so frequently. (As a point of fact, they are.) And you turn around and suggest them as a role model for the United States?

        If you ask me, the only “no-brainer” is the remarkably twisted, convoluted and erratic worldview of most of the proponents of a National ID.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Will you get over you hypocritical myopic self already bart?

        Rail against the terrorist Catholic priest that killed an 8 year old in a bombing and maybe anyone might find any legitimacy in your racist hate rants.

        White Christian terrorists ok, heathen brown terrorists bad. Whatever bart.

        One more time, don’t want to be called out for being a lying hypocritical dumbass troll? Don’t continue to BE a lying hypocritical dumbass troll. Why is that so hard for you bart? Don’t bother, it was a rhetorical question we all already know the answer of.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Bart, usually I agree with you, and while I often don’t completely agree with Fifty, I am with his side of the national ID argument. Not just no, but hell no. We are not even required to have an ID on our person if we are just walking around town. We do have the legal obligation to identify ourselves if a police officer has reason to ask, but just giving name and date of birth to be verified through the system is enough to meet that requirement.

        Fifty, you are taking it quite a bit over the top, though. We have things like direct deposit for banking, and online banking through secure (maybe) systems. But we do have to (usually) show ID to withdraw funds and cash checks. Depositing into an account can be done without ID. I wish more places would ask for ID when using credit cards. I am in full support of showing a state issued photo ID or other legal photo ID when voting. I even support showing a legal photo ID and a background check when buying a firearm from a licensed dealer.

      • Bart-1 says:

        The “red herring” was why you would so violently object to a national ID card (not a passport)being requested for certain activities when they demand a drivers’ license(or one of several others pieces of ID) to vote. Very gray areas between a “transaction” and employment. Tell me where you divide hiring a housekeeper who is here illegally and making a private “transaction” with them. I could also take it to the opposite extreme that the Government should NEVER require anybody be here legally to be hired then. “None of their damn business right”? I don’t see the need to have national ID on your person at all times. I never asserted that. I see the need to have one like they do in most developed countries to comply with legitimate governmental requirements like travel, employment, or access to government programs. I don’t see it as being any more invasive than having a driver’s license being required in certain situations.I must have missed where you showed it would be. Don’t use the “cost” of such programs when we spend untold Billions militarizing the border. Don’t tell me about the threat of our privacy being invaded if we have these. Our privacy has been fully invaded without them. THAT would be a red herring. So basically your objection to doing what they do in Europe is because you prefer we do something else to solve this than they do, correct? OK, go ahead and tell me what would work better then.

      • fiftyohm says:

        Gee Cap – You have to show an ID when withdrawing money from an ATM? I don’t. Just sayin’…

      • CaptSternn says:

        No, Fifty, but you have to input a password, one you created after showing an ID to create the account in the first place.

      • fiftyohm says:

        Cap – The only reason you needed that ID when the account was opened was for tax purposes. (Specifically an SSN, which is probably in itself, an extralegal requirement.)

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Will you get over you hypocritical myopic self already bart?

        Rail against the terrorist Catholic priest that killed an 8 year old in a bombing and maybe anyone might find any legitimacy in your racist hate rants.

        White Christian terrorists ok, heathen brown terrorists bad. Whatever bart.

        One more time, don’t want to be called out for being a lying hypocritical dumbass troll? Don’t continue to BE a lying hypocritical dumbass troll. Why is that so hard for you bart? Don’t bother, it was a rhetorical question we all already know the answer of.

      • Bart-1 says:

        Wow, was that a defense of this religion talking about an isolated incident concerning a Catholic Priest? Great justification there! Probably the best you got though. Maybe you could bring up the Crusades r the Spanish Inquisition too.!

      • bubbabobcat says:

        You can say whatever you want to justify it bart, but you are nothing but an ignorant racist hater. I’m sure Jesus told you to hate Muslims as the Christian thing to do right bart? I’m just glad you are no longer poisoning the minds of impressionable 12 year olds. At my taxpayer expense.

      • Bart-1 says:

        never did provide one example of a mosque’s charitable acts KC? Hmmm wonder why?

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Yes bart, Muslims have never had one single charitable act ever. Your petty nonsensical racist hate is beyond ignorant. Yup you are doing Jesus’ work and spreading his “love” alright.

  6. flypusher says:

    Someone riddle me this- the right wing claims that this isn’t even a little bit about race, no sir, it’s about the law!!! People protesting around those buses carrying undocumented children have been getting lots of media buzz. Have there been any equivalent protests at the HQs of Perry Homes or Tyson Foods or any other business with sketchy hiring practices that are a really poorly kept secret? Maybe those patriots are just as mad at those people, but the evil leftist media isn’t covering it. Anybody got any links about those protests?

    • Tuttabella says:

      Exactly. I was saying something along the same lines yesterday. Why protest against this specifically, when there are so many things to protest to about?

      Actually, since you did mention the media, I do think a lot has to do with what news the media chooses to cover (not which protests). This thing with the kids from Central America has received so much attention in the media — to the point of saturation — that it brings out the protesters. Or is it the other way around??

      • flypusher says:

        Not so long ago some were caterwauling about the media not covering this story. I think it goes to show that you can’t expect to please all of the people even some of the time.

        This story is certainly most newsworthy and it serves as one gigantic floodlight to illuminate what a mess we’ve allowed our immigration system to become. It ought to shame people into constructive action.

      • flypusher says:

        “Um, Fly, I didn’t post that comment. Derp!”

        Never said you did. I just replied to multiple things in one post. The quotes were included for a reason.

    • rucasdad says:

      Because frightened children are more of an easier target. If they went to those other places, they may get met with equal animosity from adults which is scary to them. Yea, better to stick with innocent children. It’s the more manlier and “patriotic” thing to do.

    • objv says:

      fly, how many people were protesting? 50? 100? With the population of the US at over 300 million you are going to find a few people upset with just about anything no matter what.

      Tutt: With all the talk of profiling people named Garcia yesterday, I have to admit to a bit of profiling myself as a slipped a carton of Ben & Jerry’s Cherry Garcia into my shopping cart last afternoon. 🙂

      • rucasdad says:

        “…as a slipped a carton of Ben & Jerry’s Cherry Garcia into my shopping cart last afternoon.”

        You mean to tell me that not only did you let something with a Hispanic surname into your home but you supported that librul company!?! Oh the horror….but I guess a high calorie count will make any conservative republican ignore their standards.

      • rucasdad says:

        😉

      • flypusher says:

        Sure most people aren’t protesting, but of those who do, where is it aimed? Same goes for those militia types- where is their focus?

        I in no way support “open borders”. However, the “demand” end of this issue has a lot to do with the “supply”, but the “supply” is getting the brunt of the anger.

      • flypusher says:

        “nice you included Tyson Foods Fly! I’m guessing you either didn’t know or were trying to cover up the fact they that they gave huge campaign payoffs to Clinton ”

        Actually it is YOU doing the guessing, or more accurately the assuming. You are assuming that I am a partisan Dem who wants to blame this problem solely on the GOP. Well guess again. I’m an Indy, and I’ve made it quite clear in my posts on this issue that I see both parties as obstructionists here, each for their own self-serving reasons.

        You were salivating so much over that anticipated “gotcha” too. Didn’t even occur to you that I included Tyson to make a bipartisan point, did it?

      • CaptSternn says:

        I think it funny when some claim to be independents but vote for one party. Fly, I doubt you ever voted for Bush, McCain or Romney or even for Ted Cruz. You have been on the left for as long as I can remember. I suppose I could claim to be an independent since I voted the LP ticket because I wasn’t liking republican actions and policies, but I don’t remember ever voting for a democrat. Have you voted for the Green Party or some other?

      • flypusher says:

        “I think it funny when some claim to be independents but vote for one party. ”

        I think it’s even funnier that you think you know how I’ve voted. For example I voted Gary Johnson in the last Presidential election.

        ” My direct address to Fly’s supposed “independent” politics regarding Tyson and Clinton is a Straw man how? ”

        It is you getting caught with your foot in your mouth.

      • John Galt says:

        For the record, I’ve voted Dem, Rep, Lib, and Ind. In 1996, I voted for three different parties for president, senator, and rep (in NC). Living in Massachusetts from 98-03, I routinely voted Rep. Since moving here, with a rather different strain of Republicanism, I vote mostly Dem, though I’ll probably vote for Sarah Davis for state House.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Um, Fly, I didn’t post that comment. Derp!

        Goodnight.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Sternn scoffed, “I think it funny when some claim to be independents but vote for one party.”

        What, like Kabuzz?

    • Bart-1 says:

      nice you included Tyson Foods Fly! I’m guessing you either didn’t know or were trying to cover up the fact they that they gave huge campaign payoffs to Clinton and received coincidentally a 2001 57 count charge of conspiracy to truck in illegal employees from 1994-2000. http://www.rense.com/general18/USchargestyson.htm Which they quickly claimed was the actions , “of a few select managers acting on their own”. Where have you heard THAT bfeore recently?” Hmmmmmmm. BTW, Most “Tea Party” advocate turned on “W” and Perry for their covering of employers who break employment laws. You didn’t happen to see the drop in his last election percentages either did you? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_gubernatorial_election,_2010
      http://influenceexplorer.com/organization/tyson-foods/aded072fd93e4560870d94a6e06f3c39

      • Bart-1 says:

        Should have linked 2006 as when many “Tea Party” people began to turn on Rick Perry’s lack of follow through with his promised Border enforcement and toughening of Employers in his first “real” term as Governor. His opponents began to refer to him as “39% Rick” due to his loss of support in a 4-way race. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_gubernatorial_election,_2006

      • texan5142 says:

        So I guess that means any corporation that gives money to the GOP is a “payoff”.

        So Clinton is to blame for Tyson breaking the law?

        Straw man.

      • flypusher says:

        No Texan, we can’t make excuses for Clinton or anyone else in office the past 3 decades a pass on this. There’s never anything direct, but I don’t think that it is at all a coincidence that these shady employers give lots of $ to both sides, and both sides manage to do nothing to address the issue.

        As I’ve said before I’ll give W credit for being on the correct side of this issue by backing the 2007 bipartisan immigration reform plan. That would have been a good start.

      • texan5142 says:

        I hear you fly, just pointing out the obvious that it is all a payoff. Clinton …….getting caught was not the problem, lying about was. If he would have just said, yep, you got me, I am a stupid man who was thinking with my dick, what can I say. I am sorry.

        It would have blown over much quicker . Pun intended

      • Bart-1 says:

        texan512 writes first: “So Clinton is to blame for Tyson breaking the law?
        Straw man.”
        he then crawfishes, “I hear you fly, just pointing out the obvious that it is all a payoff. Clinton …….getting caught was not the problem, lying about was.” So at first you defend Clinton by claiming Tyson’s “campaign Contributions” while breaking employment law is a strawman, then you claim that hey all do it? How exactly is asserting someone ISN’T to blame by saying he’s just as guilty as everybody else? My direct address to Fly’s supposed “independent” politics regarding Tyson and Clinton is a Straw man how? Do you even understand what it means? It is a totally unrelated subject being attacked. Explain how that fits. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

  7. johnofgaunt75 says:

    I would note that the Arizona immigration law that Stern is holding up as an example on here was sponsered by former Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce.

    For those that are not familiar with this bigot, Former Senator Pearce called for the reinstatement of a 1950’s policy called “Operation Wetback.” Nice hugh? Nothing racial about that at all, right?

    Pearce also befriended a man by the name of R.T. Ready. Mr. Pearce even endorced Ready for city counsel and later was his sponser in Mr. Ready’s baptism into the LDS church.

    Mr. Ready is a known member of the National Alliance, a Neo-Nazi organization. There are photographs of Mr. Ready marching around in SS uniforms carrying Nazi flags on the streets of Arizona. Mr. Pearce claims that he never knew anything about Mr. Ready’s background or his racist views. And yet, Mr. Pearce was caught forwarding emails to friends and certain close supporters sent to Mr. Pearce by the National Alliance. These emails contained vile accusations about how the “Jewish controlled media” was attempting to destroy the white race in America and spread the “lie” of the Holocaust. Coincidence? Mr. Pearce was subsequently removed from office in a re-call in disgrace.

    So, when supporters of the Arizona law claim that there is nothing racial or racist about the law, the history of the law’s development and the person primarily behind its passage tells otherwise.

    Why in the hell would someone want to support a law pushed on and supported by a Neo-Nazi associate?

    • johnofgaunt75 says:

      Finally, I would note that J.T. Ready is now dead. Why? Because in 2012 he barged into a house and murdered four people, including a 15 month old infant. He then killed himself.

      This was the person who was friends with the prime backer of the Arizona law; a mass murderer and a Nazi. Nice hugh?

    • CaptSternn says:

      That’s it? That’s all you got? A couple of unsavory politicians? And that’s why the majority of the Arizona state legislature passed the bill, they are all white supremacists? That’s why dozens of other states introduced copy-cat bills, they are all white supremacists? Really? No real standing to criticise the laws so attack a couple of politicians? That’s all you got?

      Again, it looks a lot more like you want illegal aliens in the country.

    • johnofgaunt75 says:

      Stern,

      The law was the brain child and the personal crusade of a bigot. If you have no problem jumping on the band wagon with this racist and his Nazi associates, that’s your own damn fault.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Ok, so more than a dozen other states are nothing but white supremacists in your eyes. Got it. You fit right in with Lifer, when you got nothing else, start screaming “RACISTS!”

      • johnofgaunt75 says:

        You know about the history and background now. Perhaps they did not.

        But now that you know, don’t be surprised when the label gets applied. Especially given the other policies you support (I remember Stern essentially saying “I support the right of diners or shops to tell blacks that they are unwelcome but I PROMISE, I PROMISE I am not racist.”). After awhile Stern, the evidence starts to tell a story.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Now we are back to the fact that I support property rights, allowing you to decide who will or will not be welcome on your property or in your home, even your right to do business with or not do business with, and that somehow translates in your brain “RACIST!” Ok, so you are against property rights and you demand to be forced to do business with Hobby Lobby and Chick-Fil-A. Or maybe you want your rights, just as long as nobody else has equal rights?

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Stern…I’m curious…have you ever convinced anyone to alter their thinking with those arguments?

        It is just an unconvincing mash of words that longs for the days when Black folks couldn’t eat in certain restaurants and had to worry if they would be allowed to stay at a hotel while on a trip.

        Seriously, you really need to ratchet up the persuasiveness of your argument if you are going to convince people that Denny’s can deny service to Black people or that Virginia has the right to refuse to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple.

      • rucasdad says:

        The only person that Capt is winning over with his arguments is Capt (and Buzz but that’s nothing to brag about).

      • CaptSternn says:

        HT, do you want the free choice to decide who will be allowed onto your property and into your home? Do you want the free choice to decide where you will buy your groceries?

      • rucasdad says:

        “HT, do you want the free choice to decide who will be allowed onto your property and into your home? Do you want the free choice to decide where you will buy your groceries?”

        What Capt really means….

        “HT, do you REALLY want to let scary brown/black people into your business/property/home? Think about it, HT….HOODIES. Do you really want to go to scary urban areas to buy your groceries? HT…..HOODIES!?!”

      • CaptSternn says:

        Rucas is projecting again. Then again, so are others. Racists focus on race.

      • Bizzaro world of Capt.

        The people who support the right of EVERYONE, regardless of race or creed, to visit resturants, shop at the local mall and drink in a water fountains are the real racists.

        The people who do not support this right and also support a law in Arizona backed by Neo-Nazis are not racists and the true defenders of a color blind society.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Stern…why yes, I enjoy those freedoms.

        As an entity however, my company does not have the freedom to refuse to hire Black folks.

        I think we are OK with that.

        I think most folks can hold it in their heads that there are differences between me buying groceries and Kroger refusing to sell food to Black people.

        Your very tired, “in your own home” shtick gets so old. I’ve rarely been required to have the four members of the New Black Panthers to my house for a sleepover.

        I’m assuming you are trying to make the point that the incredibly small number of people who live in the place they work would be required to let Black people in their house (the horrors!), but few of those folks have enough employees to fall under the EEOC requirements and be required to hire Black folks.

        If your argument is to protect corporate entities and racist people who live in their stores and that we need to change laws so that Black people can denied a stay at a Holiday Inn, you are going to have to come with something stronger.

        I continue to be curious how I’m infringing on the Commonwealth of Virginia’s freedom to deny marriage licenses to inter-racial couples. Is it because I can be discriminatory to Virginia by living in Texas, and thus Virginia gets to be discriminatory too?

        You and Rand Paul need to get your heads together to figure out away to explain how the country would be better if Denny’s could refuse service to Black folks and Virginia could refuse marriage licenses to interracial couples.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Meh, here we go again. Lets just get to the end already, HT and 75 do not support private property rights, and to infringe on, violate or remove private property rights of individuals, they support assumed and automatic guilt without charges, without lawyers, without trial, without a jury, with no evidence or proof what-so-ever.

        Ok, great, now that this part of the discussion is over with, how about we get back to the problem with illegal aliens?

      • johnofgaunt75 says:

        Stern, if your idea of “property rights” includes the right of a business to hang a sign outside that says “N*&&ERS STAY OUT” then, no, I DO NOT support this deranged version of “property rights.” Damn proud of it too.

      • CaptSternn says:

        I know, we have been through all this before. You support assumed and automatic guilt. That has carried over to other issues where people are denied other rights to their property, and are even sent to prison for long sentences because of that same assumed and automatic guilt, and you “are damn proud of it too.”

        Ok, we are all done here, nothing else to see. Move along folks.

      • rucasdad says:

        Poor Capt, always wants to hold others to the extreme implications of their beliefs but doesn’t like the same done to him. Could it possibly be that you’re for property rights but are not a racist just like some of us here are for wealth equality but aren’t socialists, etc.?

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Stern…it is at least a little striking that we seem to get to this point in the discussion…and you always jump out of the discussion.

        I can outline at least a couple of benefits associated with requiring Virginia to recognize interracial marriages and benefits of Denny’s being required to sell food to Black people, yet it does not seem that we can identify the benefits of not having those things.

        There is a reason for that.

      • CaptSternn says:

        No, HT, I don’t just jump out of the discussion. We recently hashed this thing out all the way through and I see no point in repeating the entire process from the beginning again.

        Bottom line, you and others support assumed and automatic guilt because the ends justify the means. It is worth it to you that it applies in some cases to deny property rights to individuals and they can’t build their home on their own property, the federal government basically takes it over without compensation.

        In other cases people are sent to prison for years on end over some substance that leftists want to protect them from, protecting them from themselves.

        People can’t sue McDonalds over obesity and people can’t sue gun manufacturers when their products are used in the commission of a crime. Oh, and a farmer can’t grow wheat for his own personal use when the feds say so.

        But it is all worth it because some black business owners can’t serve blacks only.

        And it isn’t going to change anytime soon. See? I really do get it, I understand your position. I don’t agree with it and will always speak out against it, not that it will do much good, especially for those people doing long prison terms because of it. Land of the free, innocent until proven guilty, except when it isn’t and they are assumed guilty from the beginning.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Stern…buddy…I will happily sit with rapt attention as you walk from the CRA ensuring that Black people can eat at Denny’s all the way to something about obesity and McDonalds and crimes and gun manufacturers.

        I’ll let you try to walk me from the CRA to drug prohibition and farmers growing wheat.

        You have Bob Beamon-like jumping ability.

        I do notice that you always leave out the fact that you think it should be OK for Virginia to refuse to recognize interracial marriage.

        I am not the least bit surprised you understand my position. The issue is that I (and no one other than Rand Paul) understand your position.

        That is the light I’m seeking.

        I get that you are always going to speak against some bugaboo only you (and Rand Paul) see…your mind is not going to change here.

        I get that. I just want to try to understand from where it is you are coming and how you get from the CRA requiring Holiday Inn to rent rooms to Black people all the way to farmers growing wheat.

      • CaptSternn says:

        They are all based on the very same thing, HT, assumed and automatic guilt of commerce between the nations, among the several states and with the Indian Tribes. No charges, no trial, nor proof, no lawyer, just assumed and automatic guilt. And it is guilt of commerce even when there is no commerce.

        You will pretend you had no clue, just a deer in the headlights, you had no idea that slope was so slippery when people like you took us down it. Why, you are just totally shocked. And then you will continue to support it because the ends justify the means.

        And it has not a thing to do with marriage of any sort. You tried to change the subject, to move away from the assumed and automatic guilt. Maybe you already knew what slope people like you have taken us down and you just didn’t want the light to be shined in those dark corners.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        So…wait….because your interpretation of the ICC and how it applies to the CRA has something to do with presumed guilt, you think that “caused” or lead to prohibition of drugs?

        I (and everyone else) freely admit the ICC had to undergo “advanced interrogation” to get fit the CRA…but that has nothing to do with farmers and drugs and any of the assorted bugaboos you are including here.

        Why can’t we just focus on the CRA and letting Black folks stay at a Holiday Inn?

        Can’t someone be against prohibition while still favoring CRA?

        You are seeing connections that don’t exist or at least certainly don’t have to exist.

        The marriage issue absolutely plays into this discussion. I simply do not understand why you think it would be better if Virginia had the ability to refuse to issue marriage licenses to inter-racial couples.

        I’m not understanding your positions.

      • CaptSternn says:

        HT, let me try to make it simple, the portions of the CRA that do not allow private businesses to discriminate are based on the commerce clause, presumed guilt. The same goes for the Controlled Substances Act and the Endangered Species Act. Without the assumed and automatic guilt, those and other laws crumble. If you support assumed and automatic guilt, then that is what you support, and those are the consequences of supporting such a thing.

        Kind of like opening that can of worms where the government can now force us to buy services and products, what will be next on the list?

      • CaptSternn says:

        And marriage laws are not based on the commerce clause, so that is a separate subject.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Jesus (the accountant, not the deity) Stern…that is some wacky, convoluted argument against the CRA.

        I swear to the deity of your choice that the same human brain can hold support for the CRA and antagonism for goofy prohibition laws without exploding.

        If you think the CRA was the linchpin to later lunacy, you are barking up the wrong tree.

        I appreciate the explanation. I see from where you are coming, but geez, there is a big bold world out there beyond the black and white.

        Certainly, marriage has little to do with ICC or CRA, but we tend to talk about these issues at the same time, and we’ve never received the full explanation regarding why it would be OK if Virginiia decided not to grant marriage licenses to interracial couples.

        .

      • CaptSternn says:

        I’m not against tha CRA, HT. I am against assumed and automatic guilt without charges, trial, judge, jury, due process, lawyer, …

        I know you understand that, but it seems that you cannot face that reality. For you and many others, the ends justify the means.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Stern…here in the real world…from a very practical perspective, the CRA and the application of the ICC within it has nothing to do with presumed guilt.

        No one presumes the folks in Birmingham won’t rent a hotel room to Black people…they are just prohibited from doing that.

        From a practical standpoint, how is that anything but a good thing?

        Sure, going through all the hoops for the ICC is a laborious process, so rather than trying to wade through that, we just made it illegal not to serve food to Black people.

        So, if you feeling sorry for the ICC (as though it is getting its feelings hurt) and the torture it went through is the reason you think it should be legal for IHOP not to serve Black people, then this is one of those really big issues of your whole-hog approach leading you down bad, bad paths.

        From all of your writing, there certainly is more to it that that. There is a “this is my property and I can do what I want with it” perspective that you have, and the answer to that is, “sure, within reason”, and our history has plentiful evidence of your approach not working out well for lots and lots of people.

        OK, so now I think I have the picture on the CRA. I don’t agree in the slightest, but I see from where you are coming.

        Now, let’s walk through why you think it should be OK for Virginia to refuse to recognize inter-racial marriage. If there is a nutshell version of that position that can be given in less than 1000 words, I’m down with getting through it.

      • CaptSternn says:

        *sigh*

        HT, the proper enforcement against discrimination in a transaction of interstate or international commerce, or commerce with Indian Tribes, would be to take it to a court of law and prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it was indeed an interstate or international transaction, and then prove discrimination in that single avt of commerce. Due proces means that would have to be done for every individual transaction of commerce the person is accused of, and then of disrimintating against another person during that transaction.

        It would mean that in every federal drug case, the prosecution would have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the person in possession of that bag of weed, the crack cocaine rock, had to have crossed state or national lines in an act of interstate or international commerce. Every single individual case.

        It would mean every case the federal government prohibits a person from developing their private property it would have to be proven in a court of law, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the cave bug engaging in an act of interstate or international commerce in that individual transaction of commerce.

        Every single individual case where the person is accused of engaging in interstate or international commerce, or commerce with an Indian Tribe, in that single individual transaction. That is innocent until proven guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, through due process in a court of law.

        I know you are an intelligent person. Well above average. I believe that about everybody that posts here on this blog. I know you fully understand, but you just can’t bring yourself admit that you do not support the concept of innocent until proven guilty in all cases because it would mean people have rights and would be free to do things you think are morally wrong, things I think would be morally wrong.

        But I do support individual liberty and rights, I do support the concept of innocent until proven guilty, even if it means my favorite Mexican restaurant suddeny decided they ain’t gonna serve white people any more. It is their business, their property, and honestly if somebody didn;t want to serve me because I look white, I would not want to force them to do so. Might end up with some extra ingedients on the plate that I would rather not ingest.

        Now, honestly, over the course of several discussions, we have beaten the crap out of this horse, dead or otherwise. So next time it comes up that I do support your right to discriminate, somebody else’s right to discriminate, just get right to the point and say that I support due process and you support assumed and automatic guilt without due process and be done with it. In fact, I think I will save some of my comments here to text files and next time I will just copy and paste a few of them. Much easier that way. Otherwise, I am off this merry-go-round.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Stern…this is where your position falls apart.

        When you have to go with “you do not support the concept of innocent until proven guilty” you just lose folks. It is the worst way to have a discussion. Seriously man, it is the kind of stuff that Ann Coulter does.

        The CRA prohibiting Marble Slab from refusing to sell ice cream to Black people has nothing to do with crack or weed.

        If you think the CRA was the linchpin to all the other crap, then I can’t help you brother.

        Heck, even if you think the CRA was the linchpin, it still would be OK to think the CRA was right and the others were wrong. Humans are able to handle that kind of nuance without spraining their brains.

        I absolutely promise, you entire socio/political philosophy won’t fall apart.

        There is some measure of nobility in defending the right of free speech for someone who loudly shouts down the things you love. There is no nobility in this position.

        Do you think it is at all possible, even in the slightest bit, that I believe in due process and innocent until proven guilty but also believe it is a great idea that Taco Bell is not allowed to refuse service to Black people?

        Do you not think rational humans can hold those two thoughts in their heads at the same time?

        We are off this subject…I clearly hate being being innocent until proven guilty.

        I will still be thrilled to hear the thought process for Virginia being able to deny a marriage license to interracial couples, but I’m sure we’ll get to that topic the next time gay marriage comes up.

      • CaptSternn says:

        No, HT, either you believe in innocent until proven guilty or you don’t. And it is very clear that you don’t.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Stern…

        It is hard to figure out if it is an issue of you having a ridiculously high opinion of yourself or that you have a low opinion of everyone else, but either way, it must suck for you to have to live around all these folks who are just not as true and righteous as you.

        That is just some class A bullshit right there.

    • rucasdad says:

      Not really fair to bring up the guilty by association claim since repubs never lost their shit over people like Bill Ayers….oh wait.

      Capt is best at implying things but never actually standing up for them. It’s his schtick. It’s also a great way to avoid responsibility.

      • johnofgaunt75 says:

        And Bill Ayers wasn’t an elected official and wasn’t still marching around with Weather Underground flags.

        Ready was an elected Republican official in Arizona, a member of the National Alliance, an active memeber of a militia organization, a speaker at Tea Party rallies…and then he committed mass murder.

      • texan5142 says:

        Sternn brings up guilt by association as he hangs his rebel flag. You are a tool Sternn.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Hmmm, somebody else brings up “amnesty” and we go off on a tangent and I am blamed for being the first to mention it. Now somebody else brings up Bill Ayers and I get the blame for that as well. Interesting.

      • Turtles Run says:

        Cappy

        No one blamed you for Bill Ayers, the point was how right wingers would lose their bowels over Obama’s association with him.

        Though if I were a betting man I would happily wager that you tossed out the Bill Ayers association at some time as well.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Never saw any reason or need for it, Turtles. Obama is bad enough all on his own.

      • texan5142 says:

        Sure he is.

  8. John Galt says:

    Sternn and the others are cranky about illegal immigration, with Sternn wanting an Arizona-like bill everywhere, predicting mass self-deportation. There are unintended consequences, not just of the human kind. Alabama has a similar law and, indeed, lots of illegal immigrants decided there were greener pastures than Alabama (a conclusion I came to many years ago). One of the justifications for this law was that the immigrants took jobs from the citizens of that fair state. Turns out, most of the citizens didn’t want, couldn’t hack or weren’t qualified for those jobs, or were otherwise unsuitable (read: criminals or drug addicts). Turnover rates, which were always high, are 90% per year now and the companies are using headhunters to recruit people – mostly immigrants (legal) – to cut up chickens. The costs imposed are not insignificant to turn over the job of chicken dissection from people willing to do it and good at it to people who are neither.
    http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-09-24/africans-relocate-to-alabama-to-fill-jobs-after-immigration-law

    • Anse says:

      The reason I hate these laws is not just how they are enforced against illegal immigrants, but the fact that in order for them to truly be enforced effectively, we’d all end up under the microscope. For example, how in the heck do we make it okay for cops to demand proof of citizenship from people without turning this into the kind of “police state” that makes it impossible for us to leave our homes without being prepared to make some random cop satisfied that we belong here? Are we really advocating for a society in which every single citizen is forced to carry papers around? Isn’t that the kind of “big government” we’re supposed to oppose?

      • CaptSternn says:

        What is worng with being asked for your Driver’s License if you are stopped for speeding or running a red light?

      • johnofgaunt75 says:

        I have no problem with being asked for my driver’s license or form of identification. My problem is that a driver’s license is not proof of citizenship or even proof of your legal right to be in the country. Until we have a form of identification or system that actually allows police officers to rationally tell whether or not someone may be here illegally from looking at their identification or ID, all these laws do is grant the police to unreasonably detain and harass people who speak with an accent or don’t look “American” (which, more often than not, means brown people).

      • CaptSternn says:

        “Specifies a presumption of lawful presence with these IDs: Arizona driver license or ID; tribal enrollment card or ID; valid federal, state or local government issued identification, if the issuing entity requires proof of legal presence before issuance.”

        http://www.ncsl.org/research/immigration/analysis-of-arizonas-immigration-law.aspx

      • johnofgaunt75 says:

        Ugh, you can have a German ID card or a French ID card or a Canadian ID card or even a….GASP….Mexican ID card and still be here in the US completely legally as a tourist or a temporary visitor.

        I work with a guy who is British and he still uses his UK driver’s license and he has been here for over six months. He doesn’t drive here which is why.

      • Anse says:

        So Sternn, your view is that as long as illegals aren’t speeding or otherwise disobeying the law, it’s all okay?

      • CaptSternn says:

        Anse, an officer would check the status of a person in a lawful stop, such as for speeding or running a red light.

        75, ever hear of a passport?

      • johnofgaunt75 says:

        Is it now illegal to not carry your passport with you at all times in the United States? When did that law come about? Most people I know lock them up at their hotel or place of residence.

        I find it especially interesting that a state like Arizona, that depends so much on tourism, would essentially grant police there the right to harass and detain people from out of state.

        And not your language Stern: “…valid federal, state or local government issued identification, if the issuing entity requires proof of legal presence before issuance.”

        What this means is that if you have a driver’s license from a state where the state does not require “proof of legal presence before issuance” you can be detained and harassed. Many states only require proof of birth and residence. Again, for a state like Arizona that lives off rich people coming in and playing golf, this seems to be so stupid.

        I guess this is what happens when you spend too much time in the sun.

      • CaptSternn says:

        75, why not just come right out and say you want illegal aliens in our country and that you don;t want any immigration laws enforced? Much shorter, simpler and to the point.

      • John Galt says:

        It is ironic when supposed libertarians like Sternn, fearful and distrustful of the government, offer solutions in which the watchful eye of law enforcement turns its suspicions on people based on the presumption of guilt (which greatly exercises him in other circumstances). I am imagining a jack-booted thug saying, “Your papers, please,” in my best East German accent.

        A question: who here could prove their citizenship with nothing more than the identification they have on them at this moment?

      • johnofgaunt75 says:

        Stern,

        I see you don’t have a way to wiggle out of this one and now you are simply putting words in my mouth.

        I am fine with having a law that allows properly trained police to identify who is legally allowed to be in this country and who is not. The Arizona law does not do that. PERIOD. Why are you supporting an ineffective law (especially given the history of this law)?

      • CaptSternn says:

        John, a person must prove citizenship or legal residence to get an ID, DL or CHL in Texas, so by having one or more proves citizenship or legal residence.

      • CaptSternn says:

        75, police have the ability to communicate with other agencies. I see it happen all the time, and police here will contact ICE when they detain or arrest somebody that is here illegally.

      • johnofgaunt75 says:

        How do they know they are here illegally unless you catch them crossing or in a box car or something?

        Asking for an identification tells you NOTHING. That is something that you seem to fail to grasp. Frankly, I would have no problem with a national identification system like Israel but we don’t have that here. All this law does is grant the police the power to harass people who they have a hunch to be here illegally. They have no way of really knowing.

      • CaptSternn says:

        “Specifies a presumption of lawful presence with these IDs: Arizona driver license or ID; tribal enrollment card or ID; valid federal, state or local government issued identification, if the issuing entity requires proof of legal presence before issuance.”

        http://www.ncsl.org/research/immigration/analysis-of-arizonas-immigration-law.aspx

        Since you seemed to have missed it the first time. If the ID is not presented, contact ICE and determine the status of the person if it is suspected they are not in the state or nation legally. Police have radios, they have telephones, this isn’t the 1700s.

      • johnofgaunt75 says:

        Capt.

        I read it the first time you posted it.

        According to the law, you can be detained if you fail to provide what they want…even if you are legally allowed to be in the country. That means tourists and that means people who don’t have driver’s licenses from states that require one to prove legal residence can be detained….sometimes for hours. ICE checks do not take moments Stern.

        Why do you support the arbitrary detention of certain citizens and others who are legally allowed to be in this country? Are you afraid of Swedish tourists playing golf Stern? Or, like the Nazis who also support this law, is it just the “Messcans” you are worried about?

      • CaptSternn says:

        Why do you support people being in this country illegally, 75?

      • John Galt says:

        “John, a person must prove citizenship or legal residence to get an ID, DL or CHL in Texas, so by having one or more proves citizenship or legal residence.”

        No it does not. It proves that you were once legally in this country. As discussed, this applies to roughly half of illegal immigrants. A driver’s license last 5 years, I think.

      • John Galt says:

        “Why do you support people being in this country illegally, 75?”

        When did you stop beating your wife, Sternn?

      • CaptSternn says:

        John, I think you are catching on, people are begging the question by insisting that this about race rather than law.

      • johnofgaunt75 says:

        The history of this law and the type of people who are supporting it shows it’s about race.

        If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it’s probably an f-ing duck.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Ok, so the legislatures of dozens of states, including in the North East, are full of white supremacists in the eys of 75.

        This is one reason the left needs to be voted out, everything in their world is based on skin color. Laws, national security, individual liberty and rights, etc., have no meaning. Only the color of a person’s skin color has meaning. If what they supported had any merit, real merit, they could leave race, ethnicity, religion and all the rest out of it.

  9. desperado says:

    Some good proposals with the possibility of multiple benefits. Not only the increase of revenue from visa fees but the potential economic growth from more money being in the hands of more people, which leads to where economies are grown, on the demand side. A higher minimum wage for immigrants would also drive up wages for others, and companies having to actually pay people a living wage would have an effect on the growing income inequality gap.

    But alas, it won’t happen and the comments are a good example of why. Stern throws out the A word and more than half of the comments deal with what amnesty is or isn’t. Credit where credit is due, he’s good at what he does.

    • CaptSternn says:

      Apparently we have yet another person that didn’t actually read the latest entry before posting a comment. Hell, he didn’t even read the comments.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        I am guilty of same. I just realized I haven’t read Lifer’s entry, and just a handful of the comments. I’ve been hung up on Fly’s analysis of the word AMNESTY.

      • CaptSternn says:

        I find it strange that I am the one being accused of bringing the word into the discussion when it is right there in Lifer’s blog entry.

      • texan5142 says:

        I do not find it strange, you have a habit of reading things into what people post that was never said. People know this, you are guilty because of your own association.

  10. johnofgaunt75 says:

    If we truely want to know who has a legal right to be in this country and who doesn’t, we should require every citizen and legal resident an official state ID. This ID would be biometric and all persons would be required to carry it with them at all times. It could also serve as a driver’s license, voter ID, etc.

    This would solve all kinds of problems but no one is willing to do this. I understand the historical unease with such a requirement but plenty of free, open, democratic countries require citizens and legal resident to have and carry them (or the equivalent such as a passport). These countries include such tyrannical states as Germany, the Netherlands and Israel.

    Anyway, if you truely want to know who is legally allowed to be in this country and who isn’t, a pretty good way to determine that is to require everyone to have such an identification and to carry it at all times.

  11. John Galt says:

    I like a lot of this, but I think it is naive to expect that a black market of below-minimum labor won’t exist, and probably a large one. If you’ve come here to provide a better life for your family, the prospect of suing an employer for the back wages between $5 and $10/hour, followed by deportation is not that attractive. There needs to be more active enforcement as part of this with, as you say, a significant penalty to the employer.

    A small correction: green card holders are non-citizen permanent residents who are eligible to apply for citizenship after 5 years, provided they have lived here most of that time and jump through some hoops. It sounds like your work visa would fall far short of a green card.

  12. flypusher says:

    From dictionary.com:

    am·nes·ty [am-nuh-stee]
    noun, plural am·nes·ties.
    1. a general pardon for offenses, especially political offenses, against a government, often granted before any trial or conviction.
    2. Law. an act of forgiveness for past offenses, especially to a class of persons as a whole.
    3. a forgetting or overlooking of any past offense.
    verb (used with object), am·nes·tied, am·nes·ty·ing.
    4. to grant amnesty to; pardon.

    A key point in these definition- notice that there is no requirements, expectations, conditions, etc. mentioned on the part of the person receiving the amnesty. It’s just given, no strings attached. The righties throw around that word amnesty too broadly, like attaching it to the DREAM act. That plan sets actual conditions; it’s not a freebie. Now I personally think the bar should be raised on the requirements (a tour of duty on the military or a college degree within 6 years plus a job), but it’s a very good idea for dealing with people stuck in this mess through no fault of their own. If you are defining amnesty as anything less as total mass deportations, you are unreasonable, unrealistic, and a big part of the problem.

    • CaptSternn says:

      It doesn’t say that anything is required, nor does it say that nothing would be required.

      • flypusher says:

        It doesn’t say that people receiving amnesty get a pet unicorn either, so by what passes for logic on your world, that is fair game to add to the definition.

    • flypusher says:

      More definitions:

      ” absolution, remission. Pardon, amnesty, reprieve are nouns referring to the cancellation, or delay with the possibility of eventual cancellation, of a punishment or penalty assigned for the violation of a military regulation or a civil law; absolution from guilt is not implied, merely a remission of the penalty. A pardon is granted to an individual, often by the action of a government official such as a governor, president, or monarch, and releases the individual from any punishment due for the infraction of the law, as a death sentence, prison term, or fine: to be released from prison with a full pardon. An amnesty is a pardon granted to a group of persons for past offenses against a government; it often includes an assurance of no future prosecution: to grant amnesty to political prisoners; an amnesty period for delinquent taxpayers during which no penalties are assessed. ”

      Note the absence/cancellation of punishment portions. Having to pay a fine sure sounds like punishment to me, but perhaps Sternn has an original definition of “fine” that he wants to share?

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Hey, instead of calling it a FINE, which suggests punishment, just call it a TAX. Problem solved.

      • CaptSternn says:

        LOL Tutt. Classic.

      • flypusher says:

        Either way, they’re not getting off scot-free.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Fly, I’m not sure what you’re trying to say with your dissection of the word AMNESTY. Are you saying that because the word AMNESTY implies there are no strings attached, then there should be no conditions? Or that another, more correct term should be used? Or that opponents of amnesty are falsey assuming there are no conditions? I think most people, even opponents, understand there are conditions, but many opponents think the conditions are not stringent enough, or easily faked, or that any type of amnesty, no matter how many strings are attached, is still unacceptable.

      • Bart-1 says:

        Tutt, That is exactly what Fly is asserting since ONE of the definitions of Amnesty means “condition-free” and has a negative connotation for those who are opposed to “rewarding” those who flaunt breaking our laws..

      • Tuttabella says:

        Bart, I’m not really sure what Fly is asserting, but I THNK she is trying to say that the word AMNESTY is a misnomer here, because there ARE conditions, lest anyone think otherwise.

        How about:

        CONDITIONAL AMNESTY RESULTING IN LEGAL STATUS

        The PROBATION part is already a given, because anyone who is not a US citizen, even LEGAL residents, can be deported for breaking certain laws (upon the third DUI, for example), not just illegals who have been granted amnesty, although illegals granted amnesty may have to abide by stricter rules, since they were already pardoned once.

      • Tuttabella says:

        Bart, that is just one of many definitions and observations about the word AMNESTY that Fly has thrown out.

        She has posted on several occasions that she feels the Dream Act requirements should be more stringent, so that tells me she is probably okay with there being strict conditions for AMNESTY, or whatever the heck it should be called.

      • flypusher says:

        Tutta, my objections are over people who stretch the definitions of the word “amnesty” in such a way to mislead and obstruct the whole reform discussion. Those people use that word to discribe what happened back in ’86 as well as what Chris has proposed as well as my take on the DREAM act. Those things are not the same and any attempt to imply that is gross intellectual dishonesty. We are talking about cleaning up a mess we let sit for almost 3 decades. In that mess are people who could be productive citizens, many of them in this situation because of the actions of others. I’m all for giving them a chance to prove themselves. That’s not the same as a free pass, despite NJ insistence that it is.

    • Tuttabella says:

      Fly, the word AMNESTY in and off itself may not imply conditions, but that can be easily qualfied by calling it what it is: CONDITIONAL AMNESTY.

      • flypusher says:

        Or probation. That word fits quite nicely. These loose definitions are part of the problem in dealing with this issue. How can you even discuss the issue when people keep making up new definitions. I’m quite sure that almost no one is in favor of amnesty as it happened back in ’86. But most of us are also not in favor of the “just deport ’em all” extreme either.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Fly, you seem to be trying to make the argument that only unconditional forgiveness can be considered amnesty. Nothing in anything you have posted on the subject backs that claim up. It can be unconditional forgiveness, but it doesn’t have to be, such as the period for delinquent tax payers where no penalties are assessed, which means the taxes must be paid during that period or penalties will be assessed, possibly back penalties to cover that period.

        Another example is when Houston offers a period of amnesty for unpaid traffic tickets, a period where people can pay the fine, often reduced, and don’t have to pay for the failure to appear.

        http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Houston-offers-traffic-ticket-amnesty-4214465.php

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Both CONDITIONAL AMNESTY (which refers to past actions, such as having lived here a certain period of time and having a clean record) and PROBATION (which refers to future requirements, such as keeping a clean record, etc)

  13. CaptSternn says:

    Your proposed solution is to pay them better, give them more benefits and maybe be a little bit mean to people that own corporations on the side? And of course, amnesty. That doesn’t sound like a solution to me, unless your goal is to encourage more illegal immigration or illegal ex-pats.

    I say we should follow the examples of states like Arizona, SB 1070, and those that have since copied the legislation and passed very similar bills. Illegal aliens were fleeing Arizona even before the laws, immigrants and ex-pats alike. Most of the legislation has been upheld as constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court, so that part or question is already out of the way.

    Nothing will ever completely solve the problem, just as there will always be crime, there will be people here illegally. But it would seriously reduce the numbers. Then we could talk about increasing the amount of work visas issued. Maybe even for those here illegally now, but without any possibility that they would ever qualify for citizenship as they have shown they do not respect our nation or our laws. I would be open to negotiate on that point, though I really think they should be deported and never allowed to legally return under any circumstances.

    • flypusher says:

      People keep throwing around the A-word (amnesty) a whole lot, but I’m not seeing it in Chris’ proposal.

      • CaptSternn says:

        “Open access to annual work visas to immigrants already present illegally in the US if they pay a substantial fine, perhaps $3,000, and have no arrest history. Yes, “amnesty.” ”

        Right there in the blog entry, Fly. Helps to actually read the entry before commenting on it.

      • flypusher says:

        You keep using that word without understanding its meaning. True amnesty makes no demands of the person receiving it.

      • CaptSternn says:

        First deny it was mentioned, then try to twist and squirm your way out of it. Funny.

      • flypusher says:

        No squirming, but rather actually using the English language correctly. Only in your bizarre world would someone having to pay a fine and submit to a background check be termed “amnesty”.

        You are so bloody predictable in your errors.

    • Anse says:

      Calling illegal immigrants “criminals” is like calling a desperate man who steals bread to feed his hungry kids a criminal. That comparison doesn’t hold for a lot of American poor people but it is perfectly apt for those who are coming into this country at great risk to their lives.

      It’s why we can’t work together on this, Sternn. Your concept of law is not based in true justice. It’s based on what I believe Chris has described as a “playground-level fixation” on the rules.

      • CaptSternn says:

        A person that steals is a criminal. That’s it. The person that was stolen from expects and deserves justice.

      • Anse says:

        Except, Sternn, that nothing has been taken from you. You have no standing. You are not a victim of illegal immigration.

      • flypusher says:

        I’m betting that with things like lower food/construction prices, you probably gained more than you lost.

      • Bart-1 says:

        last time I checked “standing” was only relevant to legal suits and not in regards to actual definitions

    • goplifer says:

      Oh, all the talk about “liberty” somehow blows away like smoke when white male supremacy is on the line. All of a sudden every Tea Partier becomes a raving authoritarian.

      Tens of thousands more cops, harsher enforcement, gun nests on the border. You know, liberty.

      • CaptSternn says:

        What does any of this have to do with white male supremacy? How is enforcing immigration laws somehow against individual liberty and rights?

      • Bart-1 says:

        I was impressed that the “white, male” race factor was originally omitted. Silly me, how could I have believed that would last? Talk about lowering the acidic rhetoric, have an intelligent, unemotional discussion, and then throw in the race bomb. Yeah, that isn’t contradictory at all. (rolls eyes). I’m wondering if anyone has heard of the “Dutch Disease” in economics? I never hear it even mentioned. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_disease

  14. Anse says:

    It’s a pretty complex proposal you’ve got there. Not sure I can go along with a higher minimum wage for green card holders. I agree that there needs to be a disincentive to hire illegal workers, but I can’t imagine why simply prosecuting employers who knowingly hire illegals wouldn’t suffice.

    • Bart-1 says:

      How about “fixing” an already broken Social Security Administration system and ACCURATELY require employers to have ACCURATE numbers for all employees? Investigate EVERY Employee/employer who doesn’t. Not real “complicated” or expensive, maybe overly simplistic, bur why does every governmental solution need to be so expensive and complicated (as in the tax code)? Every other developed county does this. I’m constantly hearing how we need to become more like other countries when it comes to education, healthcare, etc., etc., etc, when they are hugely impacted by our tidal wave of illegal undocumented workers. Suing 13 states that pass laws requiring E-Verify because “it is a national concern” just shows that Chris does have a point that we aren’t serious about making hiring Illegal Immigrant cost (either economically OR poltically). The liberals and media basically George W.’s & Rick Perry’s side when challenged by Hutchison on this. “Politics indeed make strange bedfellows”.

      • goplifer says:

        Bart, are you really ready for a national ID? Again, every Tea Partier becomes an authoritarian once someone strokes their racial fears.

      • Anse says:

        I could get behind the E-Verify thing, and I will agree that we make things overly complicated when they don’t have to be. It’s a bit early to take the discussion to a different subject, but there is a compelling reason why our politicians are loathe to simplify the tax system, and it ain’t because of liberals. Rightwingers want taxes to be complicated and a general pain in the arse. They want the prospect of paying taxes to be as unsavory as possible. We could have our income taxes taken out automatically, without any problem whatsoever; it would enable us to dissemble the crazy-complicated system of loopholes that exists. You’d get your paycheck and the taxes would already be paid, and you’d learn to adjust your budget to live on the real income that automatically-taxed paycheck reflects. But anti-tax people don’t want that. It’s how they do it in Europe and it could be done here, but it won’t because it would remove a useful campaign issue.

      • Bart-1 says:

        Chris, Why would I oppose a national ID that almost every country with huge social safety net programs requires? Are you opposed to it or something?

      • Bart-1 says:

        Anse, so who are the “Left-winders” who are advocating simplifying the tax code and reducing tax brackets like Reagan did? How about the “Leftwingers” who support flat tax rates? I know numerous “evil, so-called, Right-wingers” who have proposed it and the elimination of most deductions (yours truly included). Can you provide me with just a few of this supposedly exhaustive list of Liberals who support it or are you just “blowing smoke”?

      • Bart-1 says:

        Chris, FYI, I am NOT a big Ron Paul disciple. The “real ID” laws are already in phase 1 of implementation Chris. see link below for those states that are in compliance. rather than throw the “tired,old” (to use Homer’s words) tripe about it being all about “racial fears” you love to rely on, notice what “color” those states are? Notice the states that benefit most from a steady flow of illegal immigrant labor are NOT in compliance. Hmmm, real “leftwingers” there Huh?

      • Bart-1 says:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REAL_ID_Act (oops, here is the link and the map). This also would be a great double identifier with the EVerify duplicated SSN’s.

    • goplifer says:

      If we are going to loosen the rules we also need to create a premium for labor pool coming from that liberalization. It also makes it that much harder to take advantage of a pool of people who aren’t in the best position to represent their own interests.

      And of course, not very many of them will actually end up making $12 an hour. The industries that used to rely on semi-slave labor will probably just have to automate or disappear. That’s the point really. Instead of opening our borders to create a new underclass we will open our borders to those who can make more meaningful contributions more quickly.

      • Bart-1 says:

        I have REPEATEDLY stated that our employment needs should be our priority in Immigration reform and loosening restrictions on needed fields is universally understood.

      • Anse says:

        It seems to me that focusing so intently on those “needed fields” implies a much stronger approach to economic regulation than the U.S. currently employs. The truth is that immigrants to this country need not only present a useful pool for employment gaps that currently exist. They can also provide unexpected contributions to the economy as a whole, up to and including starting small businesses of their own. The economy is more dynamic than is possible for one central government to say, “we have this need, we’ll fill it with X”.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Goodreads

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 471 other followers

%d bloggers like this: