Tough on Illegal immigration...

Unless it means your illegal immigrant maid.

:facepalm:

It's like she's trying to have some kind of stance due to pressure from her constituency ("is you is or is you ain't my constichency?") Then they're recognizing what an economic impact all out war on immigration will have on the state of Texas. But what a line to draw. It's all squiggly. Who decides that an illegal immigrant who works at McD's has to go but an illegal immigrant who mows your (probably HER) lawn is OK?

Why have a bill at all, then? All that tough talk about the darn illegals. Well, we really didn't mean it for EVERY illegal. Just the ones we don't need.

The bill was specifically designed to focus on businesses hiring illegals, not homeowners. Thats why it was written the way it was.

All the outcry from the left was about laws attacking the illegal immigrants. Instead the left wanted to go after the companies that hire them. OK, well this bill is EXACTLY what the left clamored for - and they're still bitching... wonder if thats because it was proposed by Republican... Nahhhhhh.

classicman;714525 wrote:

The bill was specifically designed to focus on businesses hiring illegals, not homeowners. Thats why it was written the way it was.

All the outcry from the left was about laws attacking the illegal immigrants. Instead the left wanted to go after the companies that hire them. OK, well this bill is EXACTLY what the left clamored for - and they're still bitching... wonder if thats because it was proposed by Republican... Nahhhhhh.

Maybe it's because if a company shouldn't break the law, neither should an individual? Maybe because it would make one law for the wealthy and a different one for everyone else? After all, Senator Foghorn of the Texas legislature shouldn't be deprived of his cheap yard and house workers, should he now? Nahhhhhhh.

the article wrote:

"It is an admittedly clumsy first attempt to say, 'We are really focusing on the big businesses,'" English said. Texans shouldn't be punished for hiring lawn care companies who hire unauthorized immigrants, he said, according to the Texas Tribune's website.

Wouldn't the lawn care company be the one hit by the law if it didn't have an exception, not their customer?

In a vacuum I could see an exception for one-on-one hires, as individuals may not have the resources or authority to check someone else's immigration status, while businesses are supposed to have all sorts of government-required employee info. But the law exempts certain classes of job, not one-on-one vs business, and all of the quotes in the article from supporters of the law are of the "everybody's doing it" bent.

Simply increase the number of immigrant work visas to numbers demanded and required. Then eliminate $billions wasted on silly border security that was never needed and that exists only because of stupid immigrant restrictions.

If a nation needs hundreds of thousands of immigrant workers to bring in the crops, then who in this nation is so stupid as to restrict visas to 20,000? Wacko extremists. Provide enough visas. Then illegal immigration drops to near zero. Then the few who are entering illegally are probably criminals. Means Border Patrols can finally do real law enforcement. Not work for the most stupid who get political power by promoting fear of all immigrants.

... but TW, if they're not illegal, they have a smidgen of rights and maybe even bargaining power, and you'd have to pay them more.

IMHO the situation with illegals is maintained because it provides a pool of cheap labour that can't argue. Maybe that isn't the only reason, but I believe it is a major factor.

nailed it

Berman himself has filed a number of immigrant-related bills this legislative session. One would make English the official language of Texas, a move that would save millions in printing costs, he said. The law wouldn't affect schools or ballots, he added.
Another bill would place an 8% surcharge on all money wired from Texas to Latin America. About $480 million could be collected from money sent to Mexico alone, the representative said. The proceeds would be earmarked for state hospitals.

FYI, the guy proposing the law is also proposing this, so I guess a Republican can find a tax that he likes. I wonder if this could be considered illegal by the WTO since it is a duty imposed on an export of money to a specific region.

As for the homeowner exemption, one reason it might be necessary is that it's very difficult for a private individual to do background checks. For a long term employee it might be worth paying $50-100 for some kind of verification. It would probably be simpler to hire through an agency and place the onus on the agency to do the background check for any short term help.

I would admit that if this law passed and applied to homeowners I would have to think twice before hiring a handyman that my neighbor recommended.

What if the handyman claimed to own his own company, leading me to assume that the State of Texas had verified him, and instead of writing a check out to Mr. Ortiz I wrote it out the Muchos Illegatos Home Improvement Company? What if the bank honored the check under that name. If Mr. Ortiz turned out to be illegal, would I or the bank be in trouble?

Here in PA I discovered some guys tearing up my sidewalk a few years back to lay cable. They were working for a phone company, and an official looking phone company truck was up the block. I asked them for some information on what they were doing and they claimed to speak no English. I was never sure if they were joking. I know the phone company was too smart to hire illegals. But are the contractors and sub-contractors that smart?

My guess is that if the law passes, a whole cottage industry of disposable middleman companies will emerge to absorb the damage, much like already exists now. I the home building industry there used to be companies that did business under one name, went bankrupt, and were up and running under a new name.

From here

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (WMT), the world's largest retailer, escaped criminal charges when it agreed to pay $11 million, a record fine in a civil immigration case, to end a federal probe into its use of illegal immigrants as janitors.

Additionally, 12 businesses that provided contract janitor services to Wal-Mart will pay $4 million in fines and plead guilty to criminal immigration charges, officials said.

richlevy wrote:

I asked them for some information on what they were doing and they claimed to speak no English. I was never sure if they were joking. I know the phone company was too smart to hire illegals. But are the contractors and sub-contractors that smart?

What the subcontractors are smart enough to do is hire day laborers, rather than repeat employees. They get paid in cash at the end of the day. Though many are skilled enough in certain trades to bring their own equipment, they still rotate among ongoing jobs from day to day, and they prefer it that way. If there's an investigation into the subcontractor, the workers can quickly disappear and only be out one day's wages.

.

that shit is only funny on ONE side of the wall.

And in recent news....

The two most controversial provisions of Arizona's anti-illegal immigration law (SB 1070) - making illegal presence a state crime and requiring local law enforcement to follow up on reasonable suspicion of illegal status - have been enjoined by federal judges.

On Wednesday, however, a federal judge upheld the same provisions in a recently enacted Alabama law. That sets the stage for a more protracted and closer legal battle than SB 1070 opponents anticipated - a battle that will be complicated by the Obama administration's plan to enforce immigration laws only against illegal immigrants who commit other serious crimes.

The legal case against the requirement to follow up on reasonable suspicion of illegal status has always been weak. What the provision requires is that local law enforcement check with federal authorities when such reasonable suspicion arises in the context of a lawful stop for some other purpose.


The Obama administration says this is pre-empted by federal law because it doesn't want the calls and fielding them would be a burden and a diversion from its priority of going after illegal immigrants who have committed serious crimes.

Federal law, however, flatly says that the federal government shall respond to all inquires about legal status from local officials. And pre-emption only occurs when there is a conflict with federal laws enacted by Congress, not administrative preferences or practices.

In the Arizona case, Judge Carlos Bea made that point in a 9th Circuit dissent. In the Alabama case, Judge Sharon Blackburn quoted Bea's dissent and adopted its reasoning.

I've always assumed that, at the end of the day, this provision would be upheld. It's basically a state legislature dictating priorities for local law enforcement. It might be a bad idea (I think it is). But it's not really any of the federal government's business.

This reasonable suspicion follow-up has gotten most of the attention. In the hands of someone who might abuse it, say Sheriff Joe Arpaio, it could become an instrument of racial discrimination. But Arpaio could implement such a policy independent of state legislation mandating it.

The heart of SB 1070, however, was always making illegal presence a state crime. This was the provision that would enable Arizona, and Alabama, to do the job of enforcing immigration laws that the feds can't or won't do.

I have always assumed that this provision would be found to be pre-empted by a comprehensive federal scheme to deal with immigration violations. Local law enforcement could beef up efforts to identify illegal immigrants. But after identification, they had to be turned over to the feds for processing.

That's the way every federal judge who has looked at the Arizona law, including Bea, saw it. But given Blackburn's close reasoning on the matter and the Obama administration's recent administrative amnesty, I'm no longer so sure.

According to Blackburn, there is no congressional statement of an intent to pre-empt in this area. And absent that, Alabama's decision to create a state crime that mirrors federal immigration crimes enacted by Congress can't be argued to be inconsistent with Congress' purpose.

The complication is that the federal immigration crimes in question are pretty much a dead letter. There are federal criminal statutes which illegal immigrants perforce violate. But for a long time, illegal presence has been treated as a civil rather than a criminal matter - leading to deportation, not fines or jail.

A more important complication is that the Obama administration has declared it isn't going to enforce laws against illegal presence as a civil matter, except against those who commit other serious crimes. Basically, the Obama administration is saying, we're not going to enforce the immigration laws. But we don't want states to do so either.

That's going to be a difficult argument to sustain.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/2011/09/29/20110929robb093011-illegal-immigration-fight.html#ixzz1ZQQE9WmQ

Obama's JOD is ignoring the law.

Oregon is going to pass a similar law.
It will be a crime to be in Oregon if you are from California

Lamplighter;759658 wrote:

Oregon is going to pass a similar law.
It will be a crime to be in Oregon if you are from California

Oh God I wish that were a crime in the other 49 states as well....:)

48

glatt;760015 wrote:

48

I accepted Puerto Rico into the Union last night. Merc was my witness.

It hasn't hit CNN yet.

I think he's suggesting that the law be effective in California as well. Which would be great, right, they'd all have to go... where?

glatt;760015 wrote:

48

Point taken. :p:

Classic's pic in post #11 reminded me of what Steve Martin once said (as part of the 'What I Believe' skit) about immigration:

...and I believe we should allow all foreigners into this country, provided they can speak our native language, Apache.

An article in today's New York Times described Hispanic families
leaving a (small) town in Alabama after a judge upheld the State's "immigration law".

It sounded to me as though there was a terrible panic among the Hispanic families
... leaving everything behind, including homes with paid up mortages, pets, possessions,
out of fear of being separated from their children as the State began enforcement of the law.

It occurred to me I did not know what I would do if I were Hispanic and living in Alabama.

Would I send my children to school ?
Could I trust the school officials and the police ?
Would Children's Services take my children away if they did not have their birth certificate ?

More than 200 Hispanic students absent in Huntsville following immigration law ruling
By Crystal Bonvillian, The Huntsville Times
Published: Saturday, October 01, 2011, 6:50 AM

HUNTSVILLE, Alabama --
More than 200 Hispanic students failed to show up for school in Huntsville Thursday,
the day after a federal judge allowed most of Alabama's new immigration enforcement law to take effect.

Under the new law, school officials must inquire about the birth certificates of new students,
but the new law forbids teachers from sharing the identities of students in the country without documentation.

However, Huntsville school officials began to deliver messages in Spanish this week,
telling students to return, and not to fear police who patrol the halls.
<snip>
Huntsville is not the only city in North Alabama reporting an exodus.
<snip>
Dr. Casey Wardynski, Huntsville's superintendent, said that students already enrolled
in the system should not be afraid to return to school. "We are ready to educate these kids,"
he said. "We are held accountable for them."

If students are already enrolled, he says, they simply need to come to school as usual.
Lopez also asks about new students. Wardynski tells him that school officials, as required by the law,
will ask to see a child's birth certificate.
However, Wardynski reminds viewers that the law seeks only to gather statistical information.

While district administrators are required to keep track of the number of undocumented children in their system,
they are not allowed to violate the students' privacy rights by identifying them.
<snip>
According to the law, the state school board's annual report must also analyze the effects
"upon the standard or quality of education provided to students who are citizens"
by the enrollment of "students who are aliens not lawfully present in the United States."

Even with all these assurances, I could not trust the State of Alabama with my kids, and I think the adults Alabama should feel shame in having such a law.

Drive out all immigrants. Then the most productive Americans - third generation immigrants, their parents, and their kids - will not exist. Who most hate immigrants? America's least productive people. People with family lines that are too long in America.

Why does Alabama have some of the least educated Americans? Not enough immigrants. And too many people so dumb as to be told how and who to hate.

The most productive states educate kids of all immigrants. After all, the best education system trains the most productive people in America. Immigrants and their legacies.

tw;760835 wrote:

Drive out all immigrants. Then the most productive Americans - third generation immigrants, their parents, and their kids - will not exist. Who most hate immigrants? America's least productive people. People with family lines that are too long in America.

Why does Alabama have some of the least educated Americans? Not enough immigrants. And too many people so dumb as to be told how and who to hate.

The most productive states educate kids of all immigrants. After all, the best education system trains the most productive people in America. Immigrants and their legacies.

I half-disagree.

Illegal immigrants are great. They're a pool of cheap flexible labour that can't stand up for rights or negotiate with any strength, and their presence drives down the wages of the legal poor.

A lot of US citizens benefit a lot from illegals, which is why the efforts to be rid of them are so half-hearted. But goodness, you don't want them educated. So long as they can start the mower and maybe drive the truck, that's all they need. If they got education, they might start getting uppity, forget their place.

Remember, it used to be a criminal offence to teach a black person to read.

ZenGum;760840 wrote:

snip--

Remember, it used to be a criminal offence to teach a black person to read.

Fucking buzzkill of the day.

Lamplighter;760834 wrote:

Even with all these assurances, I could not trust the State of Alabama with my kids, and I think the adults Alabama should feel shame in having such a law.

Alabama has no shame. I have family in Huntsville, and I when I visited there, I was stunned by their racist attitude and the segregation that still remains informally in effect.

I wouldn't trust an Alabama school system or, for that matter, any Alabama government entity as far as I could throw it.

SamIam;760936 wrote:

I wouldn't trust an Alabama school system or, for that matter, any Alabama government entity as far as I could throw it.

Not to worry, they trust you even less....

BigV;760933 wrote:

Fucking buzzkill of the day.

Maybe if you focus on the "used to be" part...

Pico and ME;714451 wrote:

Unless it means your illegal immigrant maid.

"It is an admittedly clumsy first attempt to say,
'We are really focusing on the big businesses,'" English said.
Texans shouldn't be punished for hiring lawn care companies who hire unauthorized immigrants,
he said, according to the Texas Tribune's website.

Bold mine.

US asks appeals court to halt Ala. immigration law
By GREG BLUESTEIN, Associated Press

ATLANTA (AP) — The federal government asked an appeals court Friday to stop
Alabama officials from enforcing a strict immigration measure that has already driven
Hispanic students from public schools and migrant workers from towns,
warning that it opens the door to discrimination against even legal residents.

The Department of Justice's filing to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals also said the law,
considered by many to be the most stringent immigration rules in the country,
could cause considerable fallout as immigrants flee to other states or their native countries.

In the meantime, Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley said he intends to continue enforcing the contentious law,
which allows(*) authorities to detain people suspected of being in the country illegally
and lets(*) officials check the immigration status of students in public schools.
<snip>
"Other states and their citizens are poorly served by the Alabama policy,
which seeks to drive aliens from Alabama rather than achieve cooperation
with the federal government to resolve a national problem," the filing said.

* Is the verb: "allows" / "lets" or "requires"

LA Times
October 14, 2011*|* 1:07 pm

Court blocks parts of Alabama immigration law, upholds others

A federal appeals court Friday temporarily blocked portions of Alabama's strict immigration law,
most notably a provision requiring public schools to check the immigration status of students.

But the court also upheld a provision requiring police to check the residency status
of suspected illegal immigrants during traffic stops.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued the order after the Justice Department
requested that the court block the law until*the court*could consider it fully.
Government lawyers contended, as they have in challenges of similar laws in other states,
that the legislation was preempted by federal immigration laws.

To bad they blocked any of it...

Not a lot here for citizens of Alabama (or the US) to be proud of...

CBS News
October 22, 2011 6:19 PM
After Alabama law, Hispanic kids being bullied

(AP) BIRMINGHAM, Alabama - [This entire article deserves a read]

Lamplighter;763872 wrote:

LA Times
October 14, 2011*|* 1:07 pm

It sounds like routine traffic stops just got a little more dangerous for cops...

Lamplighter;766178 wrote:

Not a lot here for citizens of Alabama (or the US) to be proud of...

After Alabama law, Hispanic kids being bullied

Before Alabama law, Hispanic kids being bullied

"We're hearing a number of reports about increases in bullying that we're studying," the head of the agency's civil rights division, Thomas Perez, said Officials would not provide a breakdown on the types of complaints being received.
Yet the Alabama Department of Education hasn't received any reports of bullying linked to the law, said spokeswoman Malissa Valdes, and it isn't tracking the issue

Immigrants tell of dirty looks in grocery stores, and online forums are full of angry, anonymous comments from both supporters and opponents of the law.

It goes on and on.
Aside from the headline, I don't see anything in that article that proves anything has changed since the law was enacted.
Seems like a rather partisan headline with zero to back it up.

Griff;766206 wrote:

It sounds like routine traffic stops just got a little more dangerous for cops...

Guns are good, that is why we carry them.

That is why Holder, et. al. should go to prison.

Maybe guns are not necessary to solve such problems...

Daily Mail
Anthony Bond
25th Nov 2011

Last line of 'bee-fence': Farmers protect against elephant attacks using beehives

A biologist who invented a fence of beehives to reduce clashes between humans
and elephants has been presented with a prestigious award by the United Nations.

Dr Lucy King developed the fence after studying elephants' fear of being stung by bees.
Her invention stops the mighty animals from walking into farm land
because they are so scared of the stinging insects.

The fences were built with one beehive every 10 metres and
the project found that an elephant attempting to enter a farm would
instinctively try to bypass the beehive.

Oh, that should work well on our border....