Are you aware that they are attempting to intimidate people from hiring those workers, as well as just intimidating the workers, whether the workers are legal or illegal aliens? They are even following them to their work sites, which sure sounds like stalking to me.
If INS wants to go to a day labor site and check papers, cool by me. If a bunch of xenophobic hooligans decide they want to determine who is or isn’t an illegal alien, it’s not so cool.
Feel free to point out where I favor controls on immigration. Take your time.
Once again, I’m very aware that there won’t be universally open borders anytime soon, even if all of the xenophobes in the world saw the light tomorrow. There are some people who actually think we need to control the flow even though they aren’t racist. Heck, some of them even have reasonable arguments. IF we’re going to have legal and illegal status, which I’m pretty sure we will for a long time, then I think the only punishment should be on the employers. I just don’t find someone risking his life to attempt to achieve a better one to be worth of my contempt.
To be completely honest, if the employers were hiring them at fair wages, treating them the way a legal resident would be treated by his employer, and taxes were being paid, I’d not even have a beef with the employers themselves, but if you want someone punished, I’ll nominate them.
Which was not the point you made. You accused them as being racist.
What is view on Neighbor Patrols, where people in the community aid in the efforts to curtail criminal activity in their communities? This seems much the same to me. Of course, once again, you ascribe racist motivations to people jsut because you feel like it.
Yes, I did. They are.
When the neighborhood watch starts stalking the soccer-moms out jogging with their kids, taking their pictures, etc., simply because criminals have also been seen in that neighborhood around the same time of day, then I’ll also have a problem with them.
Don’t need much time, thanks. It seems that you are unaware of what you type, and can’t decipher the meaning of your words when they’re copy-and-pasted back to you. Let’s try again:
“A hell of a lot wider” does not equal “abolish”. Now you clarified your statement afterward, good. But the sentence above implies fewer restrictions, not zero restrictions. Somethig like “open the doors all the way” would have implied you were against controls, but you chose to not use words like that. No matter, we have more important things to discuss.
Great, let’s punish all the employers. But don’t the illegals themselves bear any responsibility for their own actions? Are there other groups that you would give a pass to for breaking the law. I understand the temptation to come here, but that is not an excuse to come take, or enjoy, what you are not entitled to. I’m very tempted to enjoy the pool at the Playboy Mansion on a hot day. I don’t think that would be met with a blind eye, do you?
Thanks for being so forthcoming. Given the gulf in our relative positions on this issue I don’t think we’re ever going to agree. Not to be snarky, but I don’t see your position as one that is thought out enough to be workable. Of course, maybe I’m just not understanding you well enough.
I know you did. The point is that you do not know these people, You do not know their motivations.
I also see that you must hold on to the position that they are racist because if you let go of it you have nothing. Nothing.
And going after the soccer moms is a ridiculously poor analogy. A soccer mom jogging with her kids would be the people the Watch is trying to protect.
What wold you say to someone who helps the authorities find illegal day laborers who is not a racist? Or do you not think that is a possibility at all?
Here’s a question, if it was known that at a particular spot that over half the day laborers were illegal, would looking there still be racist? How about 90%?
There’s a big difference between my position on something, and what I’d like to see in an ideal world. In my ideal world, the KKK would not exist. My position on the KKK is that the KKK has a right to exist, is likely going to exist for some time, and that they have a right to spew their hatred far and wide. In my ideal world, all borders would be open. Since I am fully aware that that is not possible at this time, my position is that we err on the side of openness, and if that presents problems, then attempt to rein it in in a reasonable manner. If you still think I favor restrictions, you’re going to have to come up with more evidence to convince me that I meant something I didn’t mean.
As noted, I’d rather not even punish them, as long as they treat those working for them fairly.
Sure they do. If we decide that anyone can come here, but that they need to spend a day or two filling out some forms stating their intention to do so, I’d be a lot more willing to punish those coming over without documentation. Most of them have no such option.
Sure, I do that all of the time, and did so previously in this thread. I don’t consider certain illegal activity worthy of condemnation. For example, when sodomy was illegal in Texas, I certainly had no issues with people partaking in such activities, and would have been a lot more likely to help them get away with it than to report them.
Since that is Hugh’s private property, you need to take it up with him. If that property belonged to several people, and some of them invited you, even though Hugh and some others don’t like you, I don’t have a problem with you being there, and I’m not sure if Hugh would have any legal recourse to stop you.
It’s quite workable, and I’m pretty flexible in the long term. If it proves too much of a burden, then we adjust accordingly. I just don’t find it to be a burden at all at this point. I find the situation in Germany to be quite similar. When the “wall” came down, there were some hardships suffered (and still are to an extent) due to the massive influx of unemployed persons into West Germany. I still think it was the right decision, and I think in time it will end up being the best thing for all involved. They will be fellow Germans, and in time the area formerly known as East Germany will likely thrive.
You’ll note that I consider this to be bi-directional. If we’re to do this, Mexico (and Canada, and anyone else who wishes open borders (even non-physical borders) with us) will need to reciprocate. If the world did this, I believe that thousands of years from now, populations would have shifted, not all into America, but rather to areas around the globe that offer resources, harbors, or other commercial attractants. I just don’t find that unsettling, and in fact, I think it would temper a lot of extremism, prejudice, poor governments, and other problems that are caused by locked off boundaries. If you read carefully, you’ll see that I’m not calling for a one world government, or anything of that nature. I’m fine with U.S.A. remaining a separate entity known as the U.S.A., and China remaining China. I just think they’d change for the better if we all had more direct interaction with each other.
Well, I thin we understand each other pretty well. We are simply on opposite ends of this issue. I’d like to pretty much leave it at that, except for this point.
An invitation, implied or real, does not override whether or not you can stay on someone’s property. If I, a guest of the mansion, invite you over, but it turns out you have been previoulsy banned, my invitation carries very little if any weight. Now Hugh, on the other hand, can invite. He is the owner. I can knock on the door, express my wishes and hope that he grant my entry. If he does not, it is not then okay to sneak in.
The U.S. has laws, like virtually every other coutry in the world, that make it illegal for someone to be here without the proper authorization. I, or any citizen, can’t invite someone in as I do not have the authority to override stated laws.
They’ve been monitored by various groups and the press and it’s quite clear that a large number of them are indeed racist.
I don’t need to hold onto anything. Many of them are racially motivated.
Why can’t she be the criminal? Is it because she has kids, because she’s a woman, because she’s white, or maybe because she’s wearing a jogging suit? Day labor is not an illegal activity. Just because some illegals engage in it does not mean that all of those engaging in it are illegal.
I’d tell them the same thing the Border Patrol has already told them. Let the professionals do their job. The authorities don’t want the help.
Sure, it’s possible. Hell, the Minutemen probably had quite a few of them before they started opening the floodgates to the racists. 9/11 made quite a few people a bit more intolerant (motivated out of fear in my opinion) of foreigners in general, so I wouldn’t be surprised if some of them took the next step and sought out like-minded individuals. Many of them seem to come around once they realize who they’re in bed with. Just ask Linda Chavez.
If the INS looks there, no, not necessarily racist, although I might or might not have problems with it depending on the procedures used to determine status. If it turns out they are performing searches on workers after determining that they are legal, for instance, I’ve got beefs with them. If Joe Bob Whitebread stalks some poor legal immigrant trying to get food on the table, just because he’s in the same area and has a similar skin-tone to that illegal immigrant standing near him, yes, that’s racist. If Joe Bob thinks someone is illegal just because he speaks Spanish, has dark skin, and mows lawns for a living, yes, that’s also racist.
Except that I stated quite distinctly that that ban might not hold if Hugh wasn’t the sole owner of said property, and another owner invited you. I agree completely that if it’s solely Hugh’s, he can kick you off.
If you were trying to find illegals, what would you look for? If you knew that many of the day-laborers in the area were illegals, how wold you use that information in a non-racist way?
I’d look for employers that hire illegals, false documentation submissions, etc. The last thing I’d do is go find a place that has a mixture of illegal and legal aliens and start doing ID checks. I find that as abhorrent as police heading to the projects and randomly searching blacks for drugs. Of course, I’m not a fan of racial profiling, so that shouldn’t be surprising.
Note that all of the above pertain to law enforcement officers. Ordinary citizens doing any of the above are far less acceptable to me. When ordinary citizens start stalking legals because they think they are illegal, the only arrests that should be taking place are of the stalkers.
Since the topic is supposed to be related to landlord/tenant issues, I’d like to know what you think of my statement in post 54 as a counterpoint to your stance on gun registration.
I’m not sure I understand what you’re getting at, but I’ll try to answer. It’s not that I think lists of citizens are a bad thing in their own right, but specifically on the gun issue. The government having a list of gun owners seems to run counter to the intent of the second amendment. If the government ever got out of hand and people were angry about it, they would know where all the guns are. Not a great thing if there’s to be a revolution. And I kind of like them thinking there could be a revolution at some point. Also, that list, purged from the list of citizens, would leave a list of those who do not own guns. And this list might be something a criminal organization would find valuable in targeting homes.
I don’t mind the government having my driver’s license info, age, height, eye color, class of vehicle I am licensed to operate;, marital status; legal status; or address. I see no detriment to law abiding people coming from the existence of those lists. And if it helps the authorities locate the illegals, I’m all for it.
I agree the northern border is not any better protected. But I was not addressing the border enforcement issues as a whole, I was only describing the Econdido, California problem. They found that the overcrowding of the public schools is due to the fast growing population of undocumented immigrants. The vast majority of those immigrants are coming from points south of California, and not from Norway, Chad, or China. I suspect that if Escondido was having tens of thousands of illegal immigrants from Norway crowding their districts, they would be “profiling” the nordic looking types.
I would assume that this is a legitimate buisness expense for tax purposes. Also, if it does show to be a huge financial burden for tenant or landlord, possibly the city, state, or local government can arrange to provide this service at low or no cost. (The city hiires a service provider for a district at a flat rate maybe.)
While the current legislation does not provide for this compensation, that does not mean something could not be set up in the future.
So, it’s ok if the landlord conducts one “as a good buisness practice”, but once the they are mandated to do that by the city, it’s bad?
Thing is, in Escondido, the landlord is the custodian of the info, not the government. Then, if the city receives complaints of overcrowding in an apartment building, then they ask for that info. I don’t think that that info can be used for other purposes (if they try, it will be challenged in court for lack of warrant, I assume).
I agree that a crackdown on employers knowingly employing undocumented workers should be done as well. But cracking down on the employers in the neighboring community of San Marcos doesn’t necessarily loosen the overcrowding in the classrooms in Escondido. (Especially if San Marcos announced itself as a “sanctuary city”.)
I assume (although I cant find the info, my google skills are not as advanced as some) that the current penalties for landlords breaking the tenancy/zoning laws needed buffing. (The statute they just introduced adds $1000/day fine.)
The overcrowding in the Escondido city services (specifically mentioned as school classrooms) has been studied by (paid) third party studies, and shown to be an illegal immigrant problem (not due to legals or natural born). Escondido is only addressing a problem they have, not any problem Detroit or New York may have.
You may not agree, but I actually do try to think through these things. It’s an ever evolving process and skill.
If the government wanted to corral all the troublemakers with guns, all they have to do is seize the computers at the NRA. Probably organized a lot better than the government could ever manage also.
Good point. Which is why I don—
Never mind.