Just to add some more. We have an economy with staggering unemployment and stagnant wages. It’s affecting those at the bottom the worst. Supporting a flood of illegal workers shouldn’t be a liberal idea. If the illegal workers were engineers and other white color workers instead of manual laborer, and McDonalds employees, and they were driving down your wages, the people on this board would be livid. But we have an H1B visa limit for those sorts of jobs. If not, engineers from India and China would be arriving by the planeload to accept jobs at lower wages than is being paid now. Unless we get our economy on track we won’t be able to afford to address important issues like UHC and AGW.
No. Civil penalties never have jail time associated with them.
It has nothing to do with who I like. I care about wages in America because I, my children, and my country are better off when more of the country is more prosperous.
I would say it is much more important to go after American companies illegally employing illegal immigrants.
An illegal immigrant who is stopped at the border, or caught and deported later, is easily and almost instantly replaced by another. There is not really any deterrent effect; the job the deportee had or would have had is now available to another illegal immigrant (the employer’s motivation for wanting an illegal immigrant for the position will remain the same). On the other hand, if several American business owners are sent to prison, real prison, for employing these people, I expect the demand for illegal immigrants will dry up significantly.
If we were really serious about reducing illegal immigration, that’s the way to do it. Much more cost-effective than border patrols and all the rest.
[raises hand] The dehumanization inherent in the usage has bothered me since I first heard the term, nearly twenty years ago.
Yes, it does beat “illegal.”
But, to nitpick, “criminal” does not have to refer only to “felon”; if, as your prior post implies, you believe that correct use of the language is important in the discussion, it doesn’t seem quite fair for you to insist on other people being correct without demanding the same of yourself.
I think all their property-factory, real estate, vehicles and bank accounts- should be seized.
That does have a certain immediate visceral appeal. But perhaps a six-month amnesty could be announced prior to full-scale implementation.
Okay, a six-month full-scale implementation (to show we mean business), followed by a six-month amnesty, followed by permanent implementation.
I can’t believe you used dehumanization. Do you not think that women are important? Words have consequences, and when you refer to people as humans it denies the role of women in society and makes them an afterthought.
Mods, I know we’re trying to limit the level of vulgarity with which we address one another, even in the Pit, so can you tell me if I’m allowed to invite someone to go piss up a rope?
Need answer fast.
My mistake, fair enough. That said, correctness isn’t my concern so much as the use of slurs, or as you put it, dehumanization.
It does appear from the language that any person who is subject to the civil penalty in (b) has also committed the misdemeanor(?) in (a).
It cannot have escaped your attention that only one gender is physically equipped to piss up a rope, without elaborate gymnastics. You might employ a less blatantly sexist trope, i.e., piss on a rope, or suggest that one indulge in a bit of non-partnered sexual congress.
I believe that refers to other crimes they might be charged with. Fraud, quite often - knowingly presenting false identification, etc.
Wait . . . Does that mean I can’t call people a cunt? Even in GD?
Oddly enough, I’m fairly certain I have not cussed once in this thread, and I just posted in the twin GD thread a post which contained “hell” twice, and “fucking” once. I may have things precisely bass-ackwards.
And that’s a potential argument which I’d like to see expanded with facts and figures and whatnot. And it’s worth analyzing what would happen if this influx of labour was removed (or at least significantly reduced). Business closures? Higher prices?
And presumably the huge influx had drastically negative effects on America that you can easily point out to us, right?
This sounds dangerously close to a centralized planned economy, comrade, but no matter. I figure your better solution is just to make the process of entering the country easier with heavily-computerized border stations that can run instant background checks and medical staff that can run a basic disease check. Better to let them in under minimal control than just willy-nilly, wot?
Fear of a dirty bomb can be used to rationalize a great many restrictions, though. I’m not sure how entrenched Arizona actually is in immigrant-run crime, which is why I’d like some statistics.
I’ll accept for the sake of argument that these problems exist - I’m just asking for actual numbers. Do you (or anyone) know of a link to something written by an Arizona hospital administrator or school principal on the issue?
I fail to see the distinction between not wanting to do a job and not wanting to do a job for low wages. Heck, there are any number of jobs I’d do for HIGH wages, but not otherwise.
Numbers?
By this reasoning, why not put maximums on corporate profits?
In situations like this, we testosterone-impaired should avail ourselves of the advice and wisdom of the nearest or dearest incarnation of the Goddess. I have found that such advice is readily available and is often offered without any solicitation, so eager are they to generously assist in our self-improvement.
If this law is grossly abused, at the very least I’ll come out in favor of modifying guidelines so that the abuses are curbed. If the nature of the abuses makes guidelines an unlikely cure – for example, if the abuses are the result of agencies ignoring guidelines already extant – then I’ll come out against it.
As a person of Hispanic origin, I repeat: I don’t know. It’s not necessary for the law to lay out specifics. For example, a Terry stop has reasonably specific guidelines, and they did not raise for legislation, did they? Yet is the whole structure of a Terry stop unworkable? No.
Maybe you should read the actual law before continuing to share your thoughts.
What section of the law says that?