According to this, the Minutemen are breaking the law, in direct contradiction of their claims. So it seems that you do not mind somepeople breaking the law, just people to whom you object breaking the law.
Well done, Eagle Eye. I added the Minutemen in mid-thought because of the food and water aspects. They do NOT apprehend anyone. My apologies, I should have written it much more clearly. Thank you for pointing out the one miniscule flaw in my America-saving position. Now, even that is gone. 
I don’t know about everywhere else, but the apartment complex I live in does a full background check on you before you can live here. And it’s not even a nice place. That means that they check to see if you’re legal, they check to make sure you don’t have a history of blowing shit up or molesting small children (mostly because of the sex offender registry - if someone is a sex offender they check to make sure that they’ve registered with the state about their move), they make sure you have a job where you say you do, etc. It’s amazing how many people still manage to slip through, though - I know for a fact that the people downstairs from me and to my right are all illegal; I used to work with them both at Domino’s.
So while I like the concept well enough, I just don’t think it’s going to be effective. The only way to stem the tide of illegal immigrants is going to wind up taking rights away from American citizens, and it’s just not worth it.
~Tasha
I’m sure these noble humanitarians have provided all sorts of food and water to every illegal thay have spotted. Interestingly, I’ve never actually seen any evidence that that has happened.
Then you won’t mind gun registration, right?
That quote was from magellan01
Speaking as a landlord, how the hell am I supposed to know which prospective tenants I need to see a permit from? Do I watch out for an accent? Or odd phrases that no red-blooded American would use? Do I make a note of overseas creditors when I do a credit check? Check the underside of their vehicle for types of mud which are found only in the Rio Grande alluvial plains?
Can I give Canadians a free pass, since their type of immigration is more welcome than a Nigerian’s?
I have my own issues with racism and xenophobia to deal with, thank you, I don’t need any help from the government. If the only law they’re breaking is immigration laws, and if they pay their rent on time and keep the place quiet and clean, then as a landlord I don’t feel that I should give a shit.
You’re taking my comment out of context. The comment was meant to imply “anything” in the specific quest to stem illegal immigration. Since I do not see how gun registration would help that, I do not think it is germaine to the illegal immigration discussion.
That said, it is a fair question in broader context. Whatever steps the government takes that tend to be invasive, I think it falls to them to demonstrate how such measures will achieve specific goals. I’m on the fence as far as gun registration. I see how it can be used as a tool to solve some crimes, and that is a good thing. But,my guess is that the most people who register their guns will not be comitting crimes with them. I’m not sure it’s such a great thing that there be a list of gun owners that are law abiding (resultiing, also, in a list of citizens who do NOT own guns), while most crimes with a gun are probably committed by those not so inclined to follow the law. I have not studied the issue and cold probably be persuaded either way. Without strong reasons why the invasive measure should be allowed, my default would be that it doesn’t pass the test of being able to achieve a desired result. Again, though, I’d be very open to hearing the counter arguement.
And then we’ll help them right back in. We want them here as cheap, easily abused labor. We simply wish to harass and sneer at them while we use them, that’s all. We’re not really trying to keep them out; our economy is dependent on them to a large degree. Plus, they are a major source of taxes.
Because it’s silly. This is about harassing people in order to appeal to the bigot vote. It has nothing to do with illegality, or they’d go after the employers, not the landlords.
And numerous replies in those threads about how that is nonsense. We are the ones preying on them.
We’ve built a big chunk of our economy around exploiting these people, then blame them for their own victimization. Typical American behavior, but it’s still disgusting.
Who does this? How are they helped?
Going after their employers should be Priority 1, as it will have a real effect. Okay, tied for Priority 1 with securing the border.
What do you mean by “blame them for their own victimization”? We’re (I) am blaming them for being here illegally. A problem remedied by then leaving of their own volition or being deported.
:rolleyes: But thanks for not disappointing.
I’ve never been a landlord, but I’ve been a renter a few places. They all checked up on me, and it’s common sense to do so. The landlord has a substantial amount of capital wrapped up in the property. So, why on earth would he rent to a stranger he knows nothing about? Once that checking is done, the landlord knows whether the new tenant is legal (or at least has some plausible fake papers.)
If you rent to a criminal, and you know he’s a criminal, you pretty much qualify as a fool. I could be wrong, but that’s what it looks like from here.
May I suggest checking all prospective tenants? May I suggest making copies of the provided documents, and keeping them on file?
I had to provide a copy of my Social Security card, and I think my last pay stub, when I applied for my apartment. (I have been there 11 years. I believe those copies I had provided were lost when the Property Management company changed hands…)
Technically, no.
My landlord did a cursory background check on me, as well (Employment status, public records of criminal record), presumably to ensure that I will pay my rent on time with checks that dont go boinggg.
I can’t speak towards the Hazelton PA. case, but as I understand it, the Escondido CA. case is similar.
In Escondido, there were sections of the community (the poorer income areas) that were experiencing a rapid growth in classroom overcrowding, and a growth in required city services (like trash collection, sewage disposal, public transportation, police, fire, and ambulance services).
The city council commisioned a study into the cause of the growth. I think the study was done by the University of California as well, a “third party”.
The cause: Apparantly a lot of landlords were taking advantage of the large illegal immigrant population in the area (and the overall housing shortage in the county), and renting apartments to many more occupants than originally envisioned. (Like 20 occupants in a 2-bedroom apartment). This was on a large scale, though, not just one or two landlords.
Does the city council have the right to regulate zoning issues, as well as police landlord/renter issues?
One of the problems that I can see with the ordinance is that landlords are not document/immigration status experts, and may be seen as an undue burden to expect them to spot fruedulent documents.
Excellent, we’re agreed.
Naw, you had other racist sources, too, such as your heroes the Minutemen and my favorite xenophobe, Tanton. I’m willing to stop this sidetrack, as if it continues, we’ll have a multi-page thread titled “Can we agree on what ‘Xenophobia’ means?”.
I have an actual position. Open the doors a hell of a lot wider and punish those who employee illegal immigrants. Feel free to not entertain it, though.
And most renters are legal residents (resulting, also, in a list of citizens who are legally renting).
Sorry, I was being sarcastic here. It was a ahem botched joke.
I was trying to riff on the notion that we’re only worried about stopping immigrants at the southern border. This goes into a glaring hypocracy I see from the anti-immigration camp, in that the Mexican border is somehow more of a threat than the Canadian. Case in point: there are more documented cases of actual terrorists being stopped at the Canadian gates.
I personally believe that the color of the immigrant’s skin is a huge factor in the anti-immigrants’ opinions, one which they will never admit to.
Here the thing: your landlord was not required by law to do these background checks on you. They were simply following good business practices. When the state steps in and requires the landlord to do these background checks, now with extra checkmarks, at the landlords’ expense, that’s a problem. This would result in more fees for the landlord, and ultimately the tenant, to pay, which would artificially drive up the price of renting vs. buying. Also, I don’t like the idea of policing my tenants to this degree; we’re getting closer and closer to East Germany, here.
Yes, the city council’s JOB is to regulate zoning issues. (They also have a say in how various employers, who flaut the law and hire illegal immigrants, do their business.) If a landlord is renting a property beyond the scope of the zoning laws, then that landlord is breaking the law. This is an existing and well-established law which should already be enforced.
Looking at this from a different perspective, I fail to see how “overstuffing apartments” = “illegal immigrants renting”. I’ve seen plenty of this happening with natural-born citizens. It’s hardly the realm of illegal immigrants.
Gee, you think?
Many of them slip up and show their true colors eventually. The Minutemen, for example, created a web-site targetting those day-labor pickup spots. The problem is, many people looking for work at those spots are here perfectly legally. What most of them do have in common is the color of their skin.
I notice you said “a lot wider”, not “completely”. I take that as evidence that you do favor controls on immigration. Is that correct?
If so, what do we do if we give amnesty to everyone here and allow ten times the legal immigration than we currently do, and people are still sneaking in? Anything? Just open the doors wider?
No, that’s not correct, nor did I say any such thing. I would like for all borders to be completely open in all directions. I’m also aware that it’s not going to happen for several reasons, the most obvious of which is that we don’t have control over other countries’ decisions in this regard. I’m therefore willing to open them much wider, while simultaneously punishing those who knowingly employee the illegals.
I have zero problem with granting amnesty to all who are currently here. I’m also fine with ten times the legal immigration we currently have. If that proves to be problematic (and no, Rushton won’t be on the committee that determines that), then make it seven times, nine times, five times, etc. In any case, I’d definitely make it easier for those south of the border to become legal workers and residents here, as they have some pretty tough hurdles compared to many in the world, unless they have relatives already here. Again, the only punishment I’d want to see dished out is for employers who knowingly hire the illegals.
Here is your quote: (bolding mine)
Now feel free to clarify your position, but don’t claim you never said something when the words are right there for all to see.
Huh? But there would be no illegals in an open-borders world. And if the borders are to be open, and everyone can come here legally, shouldn’t they be allowed to earn money to feed themselves and their families. Why should employment be against the law?
Are you of the opinion that if you are looking for illegals that are day-laborers that a day-labor pic up spot would be a poor place to look for them?
The truth is that that is a perfectly logical place to look. The fact that many of the people there may or may not share the same skin color or ethnicity doesn’t change that fact. If you want to inject race into this you simpley need to point out that most of the people who are here illegally come from Mexico and points south. That is their own doing. Or do you not feel that people of brown skin should be held accountable for their decisions and actions?