That’s not a bad point; not a bad analogy. Oh wait - offering your services for prostitution is illegal, and offering your services for construction is not. Maybe it is pretty bad after all.
Well, technically, offering your services MAY ultimately be illegal if there are laws regarding the licensing of private contractors in the AHJ. Further, working for cash as most day laborers do usually means that no taxes are being paid on the money earned, so while the act of offering your services for construction may not be per se illegal, there can be, and likely are illegal components to the acts.
Regardless of how many (legal) immigrants we decide to allow in, there will still be some folks who we don’t want in.
I am speaking of folks like drug smugglers, and other folks who had been previously deported for serious crimes (i.e., ones other than immigration violations).
I still want to be able to keep such folk out. We don’t need to import the criminals who are willing to do the crimes that Americans won’t do.
As such, I favor both strong border enforcement, and a more liberal immigration policy.
In regards to the OP, Home Depot seems to be caught in the middle of a situation not of their making. They can’t solve immigration issues on their own, nor can they be held responsible for the hiring practices of the small buisness contractor (or some do-it-yourselfer) hiring the one or two day laborers. For example, if Home Depot was able to kick the loiterers off their property, the laborers would merely stand on the other side of the property line.
If the city council wants to make the city more “immigrant friendly”, why don’t they build the shelters on their own dime? (I believe a few other California communities have done so.)
Do you have an alternative explanation for the fact that Home Depot makes no effort to remove these people, and indeed has given public approbation of the (proposed?) legislation?
What activists, exactly?
But then they would be on someone else’s property. Or on city property. Either way, they couldn’t then be forced to build any facilities. As it is, by doing nothing they have encouraged the illegals. They should be fined. The money shouldn’t go to build facilities but to simply punish them. The ruling, as it stands now, is just one other act the government has taken to tacitly encourage illegals and further illegal immigration.
Who ecouraged? Home Depot? Or the city?
The immigration status of the folks hanging around outside Home Depot seems sort of a red herring, at least it is if you take the stated “purpose” of the city’s legislation as a truthfull one.
Even if we waved a magic wand, and made all those day laborers legal by giving them amnesty, for example, there would still be groups of men looking for work gathered on their private property.
They litter, they cause a slight health issue (urinating in the bushes). There are already laws on the books against littering and public urination. However, instead of punishing those breaking the littering laws, the city council decides to force Home Depot to build facilities for the litterers to use.
So, Home Depot must pay because of the law breaking of others. Not fair, says I.
Is that a serious question?
We’ll start with:
LULAC
laoferta
and
National Day Laborer Organizing Network to name a few.
Who do you think organizes the immigration rallies? The rally fairies?
I can all but guarantee demonstrations would have happened if either HD called the cops every day or this asinine regulation didn’t pass. The fact is that the counted population of LA city is 46.5% latino. Add in the people not counted, and latinos are the majority. The mayor is a latino and the tide in that town, indeed in the whole of California has turned. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, but when criminals and other assorted vagrants hanging out in a parking lot is not only sanctioned, but ordained by the city, AND the person who owns the parking lot is forced to provide a “safe place” for the criminals and vagrants, the inmates have truly take the helm of the asylum.
Psst. Hey, Frankie. Offering your services to do anything is illegal if you’re in the country…what’s the word I want?illegally.
I’m familiar with all those groups. I just don’t understand why they’d picket Home Depot. This is not an immigration issue; it’s a local government regulation issue. The legality of these day laborers is irrelevant.
Anyway, while your terror at the rising Latino population of LA seems genuine, your assumption that they’re some sort of homogenous voting bloc is silly.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/08/24/EDGFREBJAV1.DTL
To you and in this arguement, perhaps, but not in reality. If not for the flood of immigrants over the southern border this would not be a problem.
You’ve got it all wrong cousin, I don’t have a ‘terror’ about that influx. Frankly, if there were that many legal immigrants, I would welcome them with arms wide open. I’ve worked on various crews with guys that were likely illegal and I’ve never seen anyone work as hard as they did. Frankly, the best of them represents everything America used to be. All that having been said, the laws are what they are and the citizens who actually pay for the day-to-day operation of this country deserve, better yet, demand justice. The problem is the system, and nobody has enough courage or intelligence to fix the system for the better.
Now about the ‘homogenous voting bloc’ idea, I say you’re right. I didn’t say every single latino would vote a certian way, but people tend to vote with or for whatever it is hits closest to home. This would hit close to home in the Latino community, which would effect who gets the votes. The writer in the SFGate column says
While assumptions are the mother of all fuck-ups, you know as well as I do that people who vote, sometimes vote the issues and issues tend to deal in many cases with a particular group. Sometimes that group is ethnic, sometimes it’s not. But there is a fine line between what’s likely and being predjudiced.
Well, I responded to you- rather than others - because above you mentioned that you would like the thread to get away from the red herring of that these workers are all illegal, and would prefer to discuss the point of the OP.
My mistake.
How do you see that as a red herring? It’s a defining characteristic of the group we are talking about, is it not. Kind of like talking about fish and the fact that they live in water.
Seriously, what specifically would you like to discuss that you feel that “illegality” is not germane?
I just opened this thread because someone who calls herself “danceswithcats” is calling the state of California “nuts.”
How about this: If you don’t know anything about the details of immigration law, & the history of bigotry against the majority Chicano culture in what is presently the southwest USA; just go back to dancing with your cats & stay out of politics.
For the record, you didn’t open the thread, you’re posting to it.
I’m a he, and have been for many decades.
I didn’t call the state of California nuts, or anything else.
Although my thread was indirectly related to immigration, that wasn’t the original intent.
You are cordially invited to reinsert your your head in your ass.