South Carolina House passes illegal immigration bill - Page 10

**TXgolfer** · 05-26-2011, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

Affirmative Action: Racist or Not?

did we stray again.....

Sorry OP

jillio · 05-26-2011, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TXgolfer

And how did AA do that? By providing advantages for one group over another based on race.... Which is one definition of racism.

No, that is not how they did it.

But in that vein, take this to the debate section where I have started a thread, and you can explain to me why you think it is appropriate for marginalized groups to continue to be marginalized while those who enjoy male white priviledge should be permitted to do so at their expense.

jillio · 05-26-2011, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

Affirmative Action: Racist or Not?

Thanks Jiro. And those who are insistent on it's racist nature are welcome to copy and paste anything they have posted in this thread.

kokonut · 05-26-2011, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TXgolfer

Oh well....I will stick with my answer then.

I actually let out a laugh on that one.

jillio · 05-26-2011, 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

I actually let out a laugh on that one.

I can see why. You are as good at avoiding answering questions directly posed to you as he is.

Got anything productive to add to the discussion? You are welcome to join us in the Debate Forum.

**Foxrac** · 05-26-2011, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

I can see why. You are as good at avoiding answering questions directly posed to you as he is.

Got anything productive to add to the discussion? You are welcome to join us in the Debate Forum.

Obviously, kokonut put me, you and Jiro on his ignore list so that why he never reply to us.

jillio · 05-26-2011, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foxrac

Obviously, kokonut put me, you and Jiro on his ignore list so that why he never reply to us.

Oh, well!

Liza · 05-26-2011, 11:22 PM

Uh.. how did the Blacks become part of the topic for illegals?

It all depends on the process of naturalization and whatnot, but I have to admit, it is unfair to the citizens to take up the burden of paying for peeps who aren't even real citizens in US. I'm sure other countries' citizens would feel the same way. There would be exceptions, like peeps granted asylum from being in danger of living in their own countries and that they wouldn't be a danger to our country.

I think it becomes very sticky for me when it comes to families trying to bring their relatives from other countries. What's the moral standpoint if the legal one fails to appease the majority?

jillio · 05-27-2011, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Liza

Uh.. how did the Blacks become part of the topic for illegals?

It all depends on the process of naturalization and whatnot, but I have to admit, it is unfair to the citizens to take up the burden of paying for peeps who aren't even real citizens in US. I'm sure other countries' citizens would feel the same way. There would be exceptions, like peeps granted asylum from being in danger of living in their own countries and that they wouldn't be a danger to our country.

I think it becomes very sticky for me when it comes to families trying to bring their relatives from other countries. What's the moral standpoint if the legal one fails to appease the majority?

It was brought in when a poster cited 2 court cases involving Black men from the 1800's.

I guess it was a natural evolution. You know, from one dark skinned people to another, lol.

**Jiro** · 05-30-2011, 01:58 AM

A Crackdown on Employing Illegal Workers

Quote:

TUCSON — Obama administration officials are sharpening their crackdown on the hiring of illegal immigrants by focusing increasingly tough criminal charges on employers while moving away from criminal arrests of the workers themselves.

After months of criticism from Republicans who said President Obama was relaxing immigration enforcement in workplaces, the scope of the administration’s strategy has become clear as long-running investigations of employers have culminated in indictments, convictions, exponentially increased fines and jail sentences. While conducting fewer headline-making factory raids, the immigration authorities have greatly expanded the number of businesses facing scrutiny and the cases where employers face severe sanctions.

In a break with Bush-era policies, the number of criminal cases against unauthorized immigrant workers has dropped sharply over the last two years.

Among the employers who have felt the impact of the administration’s tactics are two owners of Mexican restaurants in the Chuy’s Mesquite Broiler chain, which are popular for their laid-back Margaritaville mood and their broiled mahi tacos. On April 20, immigration agents descended on 14 Chuy’s restaurants in coordinated raids in Arizona and California, detaining kitchen workers and carrying away boxes of payroll books and other evidence.

But at the arraignment days later in federal court here, no immigrant workers stood before the judge. The only criminal defendants were the owners, Mark Evenson and his son Christopher, and an accountant who worked with them, Diane Ingrid Strehlow. If the Evensons are convicted on all charges against them of tax fraud and harboring illegal workers, they each could face more than 80 years in jail.

Of 42 illegal immigrants caught in the Chuy’s sweep, only one was charged with a crime, and it was not related to the raid. Thirteen workers were processed for immigration violations — which are civil offenses — and detained or deported. The others remained in this country as witnesses or to seek legal status through the immigration courts.

Under President George W. Bush, immigration agents frequently conducted high-profile factory raids, leading away scores of unauthorized workers in handcuffs, often to face jail time for document fraud or identity theft before being deported. After a raid in Postville, Iowa, in 2008, nearly 300 immigrant workers went to federal prison.

The Chuy’s prosecution contrasted with the application by state and county authorities of a law that Arizona adopted in 2007 to punish employers who hire illegal immigrants; the measure was upheld by the Supreme Court on Thursday. Despite the political furor over that law, only a handful of cases have been brought against employers under its terms, which provide mainly for civil penalties. But state authorities have continued to bring criminal cases against illegal immigrant workers, leading to their deportations.

The Obama administration’s record on workplace enforcement has been fiercely debated in Washington since President Obama announced that he would try, against steep odds, to pass an immigration overhaul this year. Administration officials say that their audits and investigations of employers have laid the groundwork for a system that would dissuade companies from hiring illegal immigrants.

“We have steadily increased our efforts to investigate and prosecute employers who violate the law on a serious and grand scale,” said John Morton, the director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, also known as ICE. The next step, administration officials said, is to open a pathway that would allow millions of illegal immigrants in the country to live and work here legally.

Republicans, pointing to the decline in arrests of unauthorized workers, say the administration is failing to remove those immigrants from the work force just when Americans are grappling with high rates of unemployment.

“While President Bush’s so-called get-tough strategy clearly did not do enough to remove illegal workers, President Obama’s strategy is much worse,” said Representative Elton Gallegly, Republican of California, who is chairman of the House Judiciary Committee’s immigration subcommittee.

Secretary Janet Napolitano of the Homeland Security Department halted the flashier raids in 2009. Until this year, ICE’s leading tactic was “silent raids,” audits of companies’ hiring documents. If immigration inspectors found irregularities suggesting that immigrant workers’ identity documents might be false, managers had to dismiss the workers or risk prosecution.

Last year, according to government figures, the enforcement agency started 2,746 workplace investigations in addition to the audits, more than double the number in 2008, the last full year of the Bush administration. Fines totaling about $43 million, also a record, were levied on companies in immigration cases.

Department of Homeland Security officials, speaking anonymously in order to discuss internal policy, said immigration officers were no longer authorized to carry out workplace raids unless they cooperated with federal prosecutors to prepare criminal cases against the employers. Last year, 119 employers were convicted.

In March, Rick M. Vartanian, the president of a furniture company in California, was sentenced to 10 months in prison for hiring illegal immigrants. A federal investigation is also under way into hiring practices at the Chipotle chain of Mexican fast-food restaurants.

Dennis K. Burke, the United States attorney for Arizona, who led the Chuy’s prosecutions, called them a “game changer” for the state. During a lengthy inquiry, investigators, including undercover operatives, discovered that the Evensons were keeping two sets of books: one for waiters and cashiers, Mr. Burke said, and another for Mexican kitchen workers.

According to the indictment, a customer complained to Mark Evenson that he was employing illegal immigrants. “I need to hide you in the kitchen,” Mr. Evenson is said to have told one Hispanic employee he knew to be undocumented.

Mr. Burke said prosecutors saw that they could accuse the Evensons under the severe penalties of the tax code — “the hammer,” as he put it. Charged with evading more than $400,000 in taxes on wages for some 360 unauthorized immigrant workers, the Evensons together face more than $10 million in fines if convicted on all counts. They have pleaded not guilty, and their lawyers declined to comment, saying they awaited evidence from prosecutors.

Unusually, even immigration lawyers who represented Chuy’s workers spoke favorably of the federal handling of the case.

“ICE was nice,” said Delia Salvatierra, a lawyer in Phoenix who represents two workers who were in the process of gaining legal status when they were detained. “It was as benign as it can get,” she said. Officers released the two workers so they could pursue their cases in immigration court.

The two of them, who are brothers, said they came to the United States from Mexico in the 1990s. Both had worked most of the time since in Chuy’s restaurants. The eldest, Alejandro Díaz Ojeda, 36, learned to cook the Chuy’s menu. Then he taught his brother, Javier, who is 30.

The brothers said they had been treated well. “I became very fond of the company,” Javier said.

Their experience, however, suggests how the Evensons kept their menu prices famously low. The brothers said they were paid an hourly wage — Javier made $9.50 after 14 years — by payroll check for the first 40 hours a week. Any overtime was paid with a different check, with no taxes deducted and no higher rate, they said. Both brothers said they often worked 70 hours a week.

The severe charges against the Evensons registered broadly with Arizona executives, business leaders here in Tucson said. But they said the case was mainly a cautionary lesson for managers who knowingly hire unauthorized immigrants.

“If companies are paying workers under the table,” said Glenn Hamer, president of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, “we encourage the federal government to throw the book at them.”

well! there ya go!

Berry · 05-30-2011, 06:54 AM

So.. .Is the problem the employing of illegal aliens, or the paying under the table and the government not getting the tax dollar?

There are native born Americans who figure getting paid $9.50 under the table is the same as getting paid $12.35 over the table with all the taxes taken out.

I can actually understand the government cracking down on "under the table" employees better than I can understand the "cracking down on illegal" immigrants. In today's economy everyone needs every dollar they can get -- Just for gas to get back and forth to work. The government is no exception.

But it would be nice if everyone were clear on exactly what the issue is.

jillio · 05-30-2011, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Berry

So.. .Is the problem the employing of illegal aliens, or the paying under the table and the government not getting the tax dollar?

There are native born Americans who figure getting paid $9.50 under the table is the same as getting paid $12.35 over the table with all the taxes taken out.
I can actually understand the government cracking down on "under the table" employees better than I can understand the "cracking down on illegal" immigrants. In today's economy everyone needs every dollar they can get -- Just for gas to get back and forth to work. The government is no exception.

But it would be nice if everyone were clear on exactly what the issue is.

There's a lot of white folks in certain industries that figure the exact same thing.

**Beowulf** · 05-30-2011, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

There's a lot of white folks in certain industries that figure the exact same thing.

jillio · 05-31-2011, 04:23 PM

Finally found what I was looking for:
"...although staying uninvolved may work for the people we know, it will not work for a community. Hiding behind the external control of security systems, guards, and gated walls is not the American dream. The biggest problem of our society is our inability even to conceive of getting to know, much less ge a long with, many people who are repugnant to us. We see them as dangerous or potentially dangerous, and many of them are. Theya re the last people we would consider putting into our quality worlds.
But neither we nor the people we fear and try to avoid have any idea that we need each other. We and they have the same genes; our need for belonging, if not love, has no conditions. Whatever conditions we impose have to do with the psychology we use; there is no psychology in our genes. As long as external control psychology continues to be the psychology of our society, we have no way of dealing with these people except to punish them and hide from them."

William Glasser

I thought this was relevent to several threads we have seen recently. Took me awhile to locate it in my references, but here it is.

Berry · 05-31-2011, 08:43 PM

When Bertrand Russell told someone, "I'm agnostic" the reply was, "That is fine so long as we all believe in the same God and go to church on Sunday."

**deafskeptic** · 05-31-2011, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Berry

When Bertrand Russell told someone, "I'm agnostic" the reply was, "That is fine so long as we all believe in the same God and go to church on Sunday."

http://maxcdn.fooyoh.com/files/attac...4/facepalm.jpg
</ facepalm >

jillio · 05-31-2011, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Berry

When Bertrand Russell told someone, "I'm agnostic" the reply was, "That is fine so long as we all believe in the same God and go to church on Sunday."

Yep. External control psychology.

**TXgolfer** · 06-06-2011, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Finally found what I was looking for:
"...although staying uninvolved may work for the people we know, it will not work for a community. Hiding behind the external control of security systems, guards, and gated walls is not the American dream. The biggest problem of our society is our inability even to conceive of getting to know, much less ge a long with, many people who are repugnant to us. We see them as dangerous or potentially dangerous, and many of them are. Theya re the last people we would consider putting into our quality worlds.
But neither we nor the people we fear and try to avoid have any idea that we need each other. We and they have the same genes; our need for belonging, if not love, has no conditions. Whatever conditions we impose have to do with the psychology we use; there is no psychology in our genes. As long as external control psychology continues to be the psychology of our society, we have no way of dealing with these people except to punish them and hide from them."

William Glasser

I thought this was relevent to several threads we have seen recently. Took me awhile to locate it in my references, but here it is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Yep. External control psychology.

But wait.....Were you trying to locate this in your references......or did you see it in your reading? You are reading Choice Theory to find solutions for a difficult client? Right?

BTW I would consider Choice Theory kind of fluffy reading for a professional....I mean....even lowly ol me has read it.

What Are You Reading Right now?

**Smithtr** · 06-06-2011, 05:27 PM

I have one person illegal because Canada implementation one person from moved Englansh from Saskatoon I heard it

sad news!

**Foxrac** · 06-09-2011, 01:20 PM

Ugh, the governor in my state signed the tougher anti-immigrant bill into law.

Alabama governor signs 'tough' immigration law – This Just In - CNN.com Blogs

They said it is tougher than Arizona, not surprised at all.

**Daredevel7** · 06-09-2011, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foxrac

Ugh, the governor in my state signed the tougher anti-immigrant bill into law.

Alabama governor signs 'tough' immigration law – This Just In - CNN.com Blogs

They said it is tougher than Arizona, not surprised at all.

Yea, just saw that.....

I feel bad for the numerous Mexicans here who are going to be constantly stopped...

I do hope that SOME aspect of this law (particularly the E-Verify) will alleviate some of the problem with illegal immigrants taking a lot of the blue collar jobs. I have a few friends who are painters and are having a hard time finding jobs that pay well enough since some jobs are done by illegal immigrants.

But.. overall... I don't think it will do jack squat.

**Foxrac** · 06-09-2011, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daredevel7

Yea, just saw that.....

I feel bad for the numerous Mexicans here who are going to be constantly stopped...

I do hope that SOME aspect of this law (particularly the E-Verify) will alleviate some of the problem with illegal immigrants taking a lot of the blue collar jobs. I have a few friends who are painters and are having a hard time finding jobs that pay well enough since some jobs are done by illegal immigrants.

But.. overall... I don't think it will do jack squat.

Yup, I support mandatory E-Verify and no problem with me, even high court support this case.

Rest of other part of this law, it isn't because I rather to let immigration officers to deal with immigrant issues because they are specialized and trained to intact with immigrants (ICE/INS for example), not regular law enforcement officers. It will be little more constitutional if state create their own state immigration officers that meet federal requirement and has equal level training as ICE does but I'm not sure about court ruling because it is federal responsibility to deal with immigrants, not state.

jillio · 06-14-2011, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daredevel7

Yea, just saw that.....

I feel bad for the numerous Mexicans here who are going to be constantly stopped...

I do hope that SOME aspect of this law (particularly the E-Verify) will alleviate some of the problem with illegal immigrants taking a lot of the blue collar jobs. I have a few friends who are painters and are having a hard time finding jobs that pay well enough since some jobs are done by illegal immigrants.

But.. overall... I don't think it will do jack squat.

Man, Alabama cops are going to have their hands full! They already have a full time job stopping anyone who doesn't fit the Good Ole Boy profile!

DURAY · 06-15-2011, 03:53 AM

umm, half of the posters who supported the illegal immigrants and themselves white privileges themselves. Limo liberals a usual who don't practice what they preached....like ignoring the laws in Mexico where speaking and writing Spanish is the law...

**Beowulf** · 06-15-2011, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DURAY

umm, half of the posters who supported the illegal immigrants and themselves white privileges themselves. Limo liberals a usual who don't practice what they preached....like ignoring the laws in Mexico where speaking and writing Spanish is the law...

That doesn't apply to tourists.

jillio · 06-24-2011, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beowulf

That doesn't apply to tourists.

Right. Nor does it have anything to do with the topic.

05-30-2011, 06:54 AM	#281 (permalink)
Berry Registered User Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Oroville, Ca. Posts: 2,024	So.. .Is the problem the employing of illegal aliens, or the paying under the table and the government not getting the tax dollar? There are native born Americans who figure getting paid $9.50 under the table is the same as getting paid $12.35 over the table with all the taxes taken out. I can actually understand the government cracking down on "under the table" employees better than I can understand the "cracking down on illegal" immigrants. In today's economy everyone needs every dollar they can get -- Just for gas to get back and forth to work. The government is no exception. But it would be nice if everyone were clear on exactly what the issue is. __________________ Free Jillio! Living life in the sandbox.

05-31-2011, 04:23 PM	#284 (permalink)
jillio Banned Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 60,296	Finally found what I was looking for: "...although staying uninvolved may work for the people we know, it will not work for a community. Hiding behind the external control of security systems, guards, and gated walls is not the American dream. The biggest problem of our society is our inability even to conceive of getting to know, much less ge a long with, many people who are repugnant to us. We see them as dangerous or potentially dangerous, and many of them are. Theya re the last people we would consider putting into our quality worlds. But neither we nor the people we fear and try to avoid have any idea that we need each other. We and they have the same genes; our need for belonging, if not love, has no conditions. Whatever conditions we impose have to do with the psychology we use; there is no psychology in our genes. As long as external control psychology continues to be the psychology of our society, we have no way of dealing with these people except to punish them and hide from them." William Glasser I thought this was relevent to several threads we have seen recently. Took me awhile to locate it in my references, but here it is. Berry likes this.

05-31-2011, 08:43 PM	#285 (permalink)
Berry Registered User Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Oroville, Ca. Posts: 2,024	When Bertrand Russell told someone, "I'm agnostic" the reply was, "That is fine so long as we all believe in the same God and go to church on Sunday." jillio likes this. __________________ Free Jillio! Living life in the sandbox.

06-09-2011, 01:20 PM	#290 (permalink)
Foxrac Need Stormtroopers? Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Zaphias Posts: 32,472	Ugh, the governor in my state signed the tougher anti-immigrant bill into law. Alabama governor signs 'tough' immigration law – This Just In - CNN.com Blogs They said it is tougher than Arizona, not surprised at all. __________________ In Moto We Trust

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Today
Deafness	Sponsored Links __________________ This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members. Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

05-26-2011, 11:22 PM	#278 (permalink)
Liza Registered User Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Jacksonville Posts: 4,367 Blog Entries: 2	Uh.. how did the Blacks become part of the topic for illegals? It all depends on the process of naturalization and whatnot, but I have to admit, it is unfair to the citizens to take up the burden of paying for peeps who aren't even real citizens in US. I'm sure other countries' citizens would feel the same way. There would be exceptions, like peeps granted asylum from being in danger of living in their own countries and that they wouldn't be a danger to our country. I think it becomes very sticky for me when it comes to families trying to bring their relatives from other countries. What's the moral standpoint if the legal one fails to appease the majority?

06-06-2011, 05:27 PM	#289 (permalink)
Smithtr Siberian Husky Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Canada Posts: 14,655	I have one person illegal because Canada implementation one person from moved Englansh from Saskatoon I heard it sad news!

06-15-2011, 03:53 AM	#294 (permalink)
DURAY Registered User Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 548	umm, half of the posters who supported the illegal immigrants and themselves white privileges themselves. Limo liberals a usual who don't practice what they preached....like ignoring the laws in Mexico where speaking and writing Spanish is the law...