Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
The Library => The SGA => Topic started by: Kaos on September 30, 2011, 06:42:17 AM
-
http://blog.al.com/live/2011/09/foley_elementary_students_pare.html
FOLEY, Alabama -- Many of the 223 Hispanic students at Foley Elementary came to school Thursday crying and afraid, said Principal Bill Lawrence.
Nineteen of them withdrew, and another 39 were absent, Lawrence said, the day after a federal judge upheld Alabama’s strict new immigration law, which authorizes law enforcement to detain people suspected of not being U.S. citizens and requires schools to ask new enrollees for a copy of their birth certificate.
Even more of the students -- who are U.S. citizens by birth, but their parents may not be -- were expected to leave the state over the weekend, Lawrence said.
"It’s been a challenging day, an emotional day. My children have been in tears today. They’re afraid," he said. "We have been in crisis-management mode, trying to help our children get over this."
Foley Elementary has the area’s largest percentage of Hispanic students, about 20 percent of its student body.
Under the new immigration law, schools must check the citizenship status of any student who enrolls after Sept. 1.
The students must present a birth certificate. Those who cannot do so have 30 days to submit documentation or an affidavit signed by a parent or guardian saying that they are here legally.
If they don’t, schools would enter a notation in the statewide computer system saying that no proof of citizenship was provided.
Interim state schools Superintendent Larry Craven sent a letter to local superintendents Thursday detailing that process. But it remained unclear what might happen after the notation is made in the computer system.
"We just key it in. That’s all we do. We are not the enforcers. We just put it in the system. What happens from there, I don’t know," Lawrence said.
Federal law states that schooling cannot be denied based on immigration status. Also, Alabama’s new law lists public schooling as one of a few things — including immunizations, soup kitchens and prenatal care — that are exempted from proof of citizenship.
On Thursday, Lawrence said he wanted to get a message across to his students that they are safe at Foley Elementary.
He sent out an automated telephone message to all parents, explaining that the law applies only to newly enrolled students and that "no one’s going to come here and search through your child’s folder to find out if he’s legal or not."
Lawrence said that parents are afraid that they’ll get arrested and detained, and be cut off from their children.
"Many have made arrangements with American citizens in case they are separated from their children," Lawrence said. "One of our mothers has agreed to accept seven families’ worth of children, just in case."
Only 3 percent of the students in Mobile County are Hispanic, and the population is scattered about, so Superintendent Roy Nichols said he doesn’t expect the new law to have much of an impact here.
"There is some fear out there," though, he said. "There are probably a few families that will leave."
School employees won’t be asked to do any policing, but he said they will have to report students who do not offer up proof of citizenship.
There’s "no question" that the schools will follow the law, he said. Some school employees, such as registrars, might feel torn when they sit down with families they know and have to mark that no documentation has been provided.
"Knowing that what they’re doing may cause them to be deported may cause them to be in a moral dilemna," he said, "but I would tell them that as long as they’re accepting a paycheck from Alabama, they have to follow the law."
Lawrence said he’s sad for the families and for these children.
"I can’t imagine what I would do if I were in that situation. I’d be pulling my children close to me as well, doing whatever I needed to do," Lawrence said.
"The reality is, that’s why they’re here. They’re here for their children. They want the best for their children, and that’s the tragedy in this piece.
"We’re going to continue to work with the children who stay here, make this a safe environment for them to learn."
Well boo fucking hoo.
-
Sorry, but their parents are the ones that chose to be illegal. Blame the lawbreaker, not the law.
No deportation will be necessary if every state does this. They will all go back home. If they want to come back bad enough, they will do it the right way. The same legal way my folks came over.
-
They're fleeing everywhere!
http://blog.al.com/wire/2011/09/immigration_law_impact_hispani.html
BIRMINGHAM, Alabama — Hispanic students have started vanishing from Alabama public schools in the wake of a court ruling that upheld the state's tough new law cracking down on illegal immigration. Fucking A!
Education officials say scores of immigrant families have withdrawn their children from classes or kept them home this week, afraid that sending the kids to school would draw attention from authorities.
There are no precise statewide numbers. But several districts with large immigrant enrollments — from small towns to large urban districts — reported a sudden exodus of children from Hispanic families, some of whom told officials they would leave the state to avoid trouble with the law, which requires schools to check students' immigration status. How about they leave the fucking country?
The anxiety has become so intense that the superintendent in one of the state's largest cities, Huntsville, went on a Spanish-language television show Thursday to try to calm worried parents.
"In the case of this law, our students do not have anything to fear," Casey Wardynski said in halting Spanish. He urged families to send students to class and explained that the state is only trying to compile statistics.
Police, he insisted, were not getting involved in schools.
In Montgomery County, more than 200 Hispanic students were absent the morning after the judge's ruling, and a handful have withdrawn. In tiny Albertville, 35 students withdrew from school in one day. About 20 students either withdrew or told teachers they were leaving in Shelby County, in suburban Birmingham. Don't have enough money for schools? Here's an easy solution. Don't educate illegals.
Local and state officials are pleading with immigrant families to keep their children enrolled. The law does not ban anyone from school, they say, and neither students nor parents will be arrested for trying to get an education.
But so far, many Spanish-speaking families aren't waiting around to see what happens. Fucking A!
A school worker in Albertville — a community with a large poultry industry that employs many Hispanic workers — said Friday many families might leave town over the weekend for other states. About 22 percent of the community's 4,200 students are Hispanic. Adi-Fucking-os
"I met a Hispanic mother in the hallway at our community learning center this morning, where enrollment and withdrawal happens. She looked at me with tears in her eyes. I asked, 'Are you leaving?' She said 'Yes,' and hugged me, crying," said the worker, who spoke on condition of anonymity because she was not an authorized spokeswoman.
In Russellville, which has one of the largest immigrant populations in the state because of its poultry plants, overall school attendance was down more than 2 percent after the ruling, and the rate was higher among Hispanic students.
There's "no firm data yet, but several students have related to their teachers that they may be moving soon," said George Harper, who works in the central office.
Schools in Baldwin County, a heavily agricultural and tourist area near the Gulf Coast, and in Decatur in the Tennessee Valley also reported sudden decreases in Hispanic attendance.
Related report: After immigration ruling at Foley school with Hispanic population, students cry, withdraw, no-show
The law does not require proof of citizenship to enroll, and it does not apply to any students who were enrolled before Sept. 1. While most students are not affected, school systems are supposed to begin checking the status of first-time enrollees now.
The state has distributed to schools sample letters that can be sent to parents of new students informing them of the law's requirements for either citizenship documents or sworn statements by parents.
In an attempt to calm fears that the law may lead to arrests, the letter tells parents immigration information will be used only to gather statistics. Whoever wrote the letter should be fired
"Rest assured," the letter states, "that it will not be a problem if you are unable or unwilling to provide either of the documents." Rest assured it should be.
-
Cause that's the problem with those Mexican immigrants. They're too damn educated. What we need is the a law that forces their children to grow up illiterate so that they're even more of a drain on society than their parents.
-
Cause that's the problem with those Mexican immigrants. They're too damn educated. What we need is the a law that forces their children to grow up illiterate so that they're even more of a drain on society than their parents.
Illiterate...literate...in their own country.
I'll tell you what we really need. We need to be extra-sensitive to these illegal immigrants and just ignore the fact that American citizens' education is depleting because we can no longer afford it.
I'll tell you what we really need. We need to keep telling the kids in Algebra that they have to share a textbook with another student because the county is literally too bottomed out to buy new ones. We need to tell teachers who have 35 kids in a room that there's no money to hire new teachers.
We need to ignore the fact that for every student enrolled, it costs the state $10k per year just to fund that student in the classroom.
And ignore the fact that at my school, we have 76 (as of the first week of school) illegal immigrant children in our school.
Since education is depleting in this country, I'll do the math for you - that's about $76,000 just at my school alone. $76k that isn't being repaid through taxes.
Sorry, but my sensitivity is shot. At this point, our country has to right the wrong it's committed to itself. We can't waste a generation of our own children just because we don't want to hurt an illegal immigrant's feelings.
-
As has been discussed, as long as we keep up the giveaway programs, they'll continue to take advantage of them. Education is a very small piece of this mess.
-
As has been discussed, as long as we keep up the giveaway programs, they'll continue to take advantage of them. Education is a very small piece of this mess.
My thing is, if we're going to stop the giveaway program (we should), why stop at illegal immigrants? Why not take e-verify a little further. I promise you we have many, many more Americans taking advantage of giveaway programs than we do illegals. If we're finally to the point where it's socially acceptable to cut off welfare programs, why stop with the Hispanic community?
I know a 58 year old grandmother, who COULD draw disability, but doesn't, because she found a job that she could perform with her disability. If she can, so can 90% of the people drawing government checks now. If we're going to do this, we should see it all the way through.
-
My thing is, if we're going to stop the giveaway program (we should), why stop at illegal immigrants? Why not take e-verify a little further. I promise you we have many, many more Americans taking advantage of giveaway programs than we do illegals. If we're finally to the point where it's socially acceptable to cut off welfare programs, why stop with the Hispanic community?
I know a 58 year old grandmother, who COULD draw disability, but doesn't, because she found a job that she could perform with her disability. If she can, so can 90% of the people drawing government checks now. If we're going to do this, we should see it all the way through.
I understand what you're suggesting, but these are two very different issues requiring two completely separate solutions. Also, as a point of correction, this is NOT focused on Hispanics. It's focused on illegal immigrants.
-
I understand what you're suggesting, but these are two very different issues requiring two completely separate solutions. Also, as a point of correction, this is NOT focused on Hispanics. It's focused on illegal immigrants.
I disagree. The law covers illegal immigrants, but is most definitely focused on Hispanics.
-
I disagree. The law covers illegal immigrants, but is most definitely focused on Hispanics.
Which is why it will be found unconstitutional ultimately. There are so many better ways to handle the problem...
-
Which is why it will be found unconstitutional ultimately. There are so many better ways to handle the problem...
Constitutional protection does not apply to people who are here illegally. The Constitution is for Americans.
-
Constitutional protection does not apply to people who are here illegally. The Constitution is for Americans.
That has nothing to do with the Constitutionality, it would be how it negatively effects/targets legal Hispanic citizens. It deems to give police officers probably cause to pull over whomever they like and use this law as a scapegoat.
-
That has nothing to do with the Constitutionality, it would be how it negatively effects/targets legal Hispanic citizens. It deems to give police officers probably cause to pull over whomever they like and use this law as a scapegoat.
I support profiling. Stereotypes exist for a reason.
-
It makes me cry knowing that my tax money is going to illegals while Mant Americans still have a hard time getting aid from the government. Round them up and send them home. It has been done here before.
-
I disagree. The law covers illegal immigrants, but is most definitely focused on Hispanics.
Because they are 90% of the illegal population.
-
That has nothing to do with the Constitutionality, it would be how it negatively effects/targets legal Hispanic citizens. It deems to give police officers probably cause to pull over whomever they like and use this law as a scapegoat.
A police officer can pull me over now and ask for ID with very little reason/cause. If I have my ID, I am ok. What is so unconstitutional about asking for ID from ANYONE, at the State Level? If you are legal, you have nothing to worry about. What part of a someone's Constitutional rights are violated by getting ID asked? Please tell me this. I have to show it for EVERYTHING I do.
And it doesn't target Hispanics. It targets anyone who is illegal. Show me in the law where it says hispanic or Mexican and I will agree with you. You guys think with too much empathy and not enough IQ. And you are making huge inferences that are not there.
-
Which is why it will be found unconstitutional ultimately. There are so many better ways to handle the problem...
Where does it say anything about Hispanics in the law? Did the drafters of the legislation have a problem with Hispanics? (Wasn't that first arrest for someone from Yemen?) And, if there are "so many better ways" to address this, please correct all of us knuckle-draggers...
Continuing to tip-toe around this issue and crying "unconstitutional" eveytime we try to do something is just authorizing theft by foreign invaders... And YES... They are foreign invaders.
-
Where does it say anything about Hispanics in the law? Did the drafters of the legislation have a problem with Hispanics? (Wasn't that first arrest for someone from Yemen?) And, if there are "so many better ways" to address this, please correct all of us knuckle-draggers...
Continuing to tip-toe around this issue and crying "unconstitutional" eveytime we try to do something is just authorizing theft by foreign invaders... And YES... They are foreign invaders.
Yeah, lulz... It's about the illegal Lithuanian population.
-
Yeah, lulz... It's about the illegal Lithuanian population.
Oh, I see... You people have got to make this about race. Nevermind the fact that the first person arrested under the new law was from Yemen. That must be a border town in Mexico... Que?
-
More sad wailing...
http://blog.al.com/live/2011/10/baldwins_hispanic_business_own.html
FOLEY, Alabama — On a typical day, Guadalupe Pineda-Rios might sell one bus ticket to Mexico.
On Thursday, he sold 25. Make 'em one way, multiply that by 100 and we'll have something.
Since 2006, the 61-year-old Pineda-Rios has owned the Foley La Michaoacana market, which caters to Hispanic customers.
Along with the bus tickets, he sells myriad items such as phone cards, soccer shirts, CDs, dolls, snacks, dresses, tortillas and sodas.
Alabama’s strict immigration law, much of which was upheld in a Wednesday ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Sharon Lovelace Blackburn, has driven away as much as 50 percent of his business.
For years Pineda-Rios, a Mexican immigrant himself, had worked odd jobs for little pay — in a field for $15 a day, in a market for $7 an hour — until he had saved enough to start his own business, he said Saturday through interpretation from his 13-year-old son, Jose Carlos Pineda. English motherfucker. You live here. Do you speak it?
In a small strip mall just off Ala. 59, he owns the market, a butcher shop and a restaurant.
"That was his dream of all his life," Jose said. "From night to the morning, his dream went away."
Now, the family’s future is uncertain.
"If the law keeps going," the son said, "he might have to close. And if the business closes, he has to leave."
Afraid to leave home
Pineda-Rios’s brother, 52-year-old Clemente Pineda-Rios, who owns a La Michaoacana in Robertsdale, estimates his customer base has dropped by as much as 75 percent.
Standing with his daughter, Jessica Pineda, 18, behind the counter of the store, which also holds a butcher shop and a restaurant, he rubbed his forehead under his baseball cap in frustration. In the past, he saw at least 100 customers a day. These days, he might get 20 to 25. Yes, the immigration law -- which merely upholds what's legal -- has turned the economy sour. Well fuck me running. That's all it is?
Many of his daughter’s closest friends have left the state, and she now rarely leaves home, except to go to work. She stays in Alabama because it’s where her family stays.
"I was born in the United States," she said. "I know I have my American rights. But if I go outside people are going to think I’m illegal. I get scared because we have the color."
Baldwin County has one of the fastest-growing Hispanic populations in the state, with 224 percent more recorded in 2010 — 7,992 — than the 2,466 in 2000, according to the latest Census figures.
The Foley area’s population grew from about 3 percent Hispanic to nearly 8 percent during that same time.
By comparison, Mobile County’s Hispanic population grew by about 125 percent during that decade.
Business plummets
For seven years, Jesse Martinez, a 30-year-old Texas native, has owned the Panaderia y Abarrotes (Bakery and Grocery), known by regulars as San Blas, in Foley.
He’s building a home in town for his wife, two sons, ages 8 and 14, and 19-year-old stepdaughter.
In the past, they would make up to 1,000 baked goods a day, including their specialty Tres Leches (three milk) cake, a traditional dessert popular for birthdays, baptisms and weddings.
But in recent months, he said his business is down by as much as 90 percent. It's the fucking economy, Jose. You know, that thing your illegal compadres are fucking up.
Two of the four cupboards were completely empty Saturday, with a pile of bananas at front of the store turning black.
Martinez is unsure what he might do if he has to close his business.
"Whatever doesn’t go to waste, we’ll take to the flea market," he said.
Looking for help from the federal government
Lunchtime is typically busy at nearby Margarita’s, owned by Robert Iniguez and his wife, Margarita, the restaurant’s namesake.
They serve authentic Mexican cuisine, which their daughter Elizabeth Iniguez, says is hard to find elsewhere in southwest Alabama.
But at noon Saturday, only one table was occupied. Bullshit. Don Carlos was full.
Most of the regulars who have left were friends, she said.
While the family hasn’t noticed an increase in police activity since Gov. Robert Bentley signed the immigration law in June, Elizabeth Iniguez said they might have to leave the state as well.
They have thought about opening a market in Mississippi.
Margarita Iniguez, who speaks little English, asked through her daughter whether the federal government would help businesses like hers.
"It’s really hard for our family now," Elizabeth Inguez said.
The U.S. Department of Justice has appealed Blackburn’s ruling, saying Alabama’s law is too far-reaching and encroaches on federal authority over immigration.
"We’re just waiting on Obama," Jessica Pineda said, "to see what he can do." Fuck this.
-
Oh, I see... You people have got to make this about race. Nevermind the fact that the first person arrested under the new law was from Yemen. That must be a border town in Mexico... Que?
lulz, 1 person from Yemen was arrested?!?!? Must be completely unbiased then...
-
lulz, 1 person from Yemen was arrested?!?!? Must be completely unbiased then...
Yeah... They'll prolly set 'em free anyway since he's not Mex'can. E'rybudy knowz, the white debilz are just goin' afta dem Mex'canz. The dark hair and dark skin must have confuzed the cracka cop.
Fuckin' dufus...
-
Yeah... They'll prolly set 'em free anyway since he's not Mex'can. E'rybudy knowz, the white debilz are just goin' afta dem Mex'canz. The dark hair and dark skin must have confuzed the cracka cop.
Fuckin' dufus...
Dude, if you honestly don't think this law was created with Hispanics in mind...specifically targeting without saying it, then you have gone full retard.
-
Dude, if you honestly don't think this law was created with Hispanics in mind...specifically targeting without saying it, then you have gone full retard.
Well its not like we are being invaded by Canadians. And states are having to try and stem the flow of Mexican invaders the best they can. The law applies to any illegal, but it would be stupid not to recognize the Invasion from the south. So it matters not that most illegals are mexicans, but that the law be applied equally.
-
Well its not like we are being invaded by Canadians. And states are having to try and stem the flow of Mexican invaders the best they can. The law applies to any illegal, but it would be stupid not to recognize the Invasion from the south. So it matters not that most illegals are mexicans, but that the law be applied equally.
(http://www.fistpumpsfromlastnight.com/wp-content/uploads//314/FIST%20PUMP-400x400.jpg)
-
Dude, if you honestly don't think this law was created with Hispanics in mind...specifically targeting without saying it, then you have gone full retard.
Actually, it was probably created with illegal aliens who might happen to be from Mexico and South America in mind, since that probably defines 90+% of Alabama's illegal immigrant problem. Targeting without saying it? WTF does that mean, pendejo??? So, they must have documented to only look for straight-haired-brown-skinz... That explains how illegal alien from Yemen got caught up in this.
Like I said, Fucking Dufus...
-
So far, it seems that the new law is working without having to be enforced.
-
AWK, be honest - you just don't personally like the law. There is nothing illegal about it. NOTHING. The only thing illegal are the people it targets.
-
So far, it seems that the new law is working without having to be enforced.
And BINGO was his name-o
-
AWK, be honest - you just don't personally like the law. There is nothing illegal about it. NOTHING. The only thing illegal are the people it targets.
Actually, I don't care either way... Since I was born here legally. Do I think it could be handled better? Yes. I am just letting you know that I'm 95% sure it will be found unconstitutional due to it's language and functionality. I did a lot of Constitutional Law shit. I'm a man. I'm 40.
-
Actually, I don't care either way... Since I was born here legally. Do I think it could be handled better? Yes. I am just letting you know that I'm 95% sure it will be found unconstitutional due to it's language and functionality. I did a lot of Constitutional Law shit. I'm a man. I'm 40.
So just the semantics of the way it is written is illegal to you or the law itself?
The general premise of the law is to catch illegals in the state. Nothing unconstiutional about that. Now, if they put some bad wording in it (I haven't read it verbatim), then that's another issue. I just haven't seen anyone point out exactly what is unconstitutional about it? I highly doubt there is any specific language in it targeting hispanics.
-
Well this section of it may be illegally targeting hispanics: Any suspected illegal immigrant that understands what "Hable espanol?" means is automatically placed in the back of a pick up truck and dropped off in Mississippi.
-
So just the semantics of the way it is written is illegal to you or the law itself?
The general premise of the law is to catch illegals in the state. Nothing unconstiutional about that. Now, if they put some bad wording in it (I haven't read it verbatim), then that's another issue. I just haven't seen anyone point out exactly what is unconstitutional about it? I highly doubt there is any specific language in it targeting hispanics.
No, it will be overturned due to its results...the underlying effects.
I don't have time to write why, it would take hours and I'm not VandyVol. But it will be similar to this: Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action v. Regents of the University of Michigan.
A law can appear to be constitutional on it's face, but naturally the underlying effects are far different. See the Jim Crow laws. "A citizen can not vote unless they are literate." "A citizen can not vote unless they pay a poll tax." Both of these laws, on their face, seem constitutional. They don't refer to a specific race and apply broadly. However, everyone knew, including the legislators, that they were targeting the African American community. And a study of the effects of the law proved just that. What happened to those laws? Were they found to be constitutional?
-
No, it will be overturned due to its results...the underlying effects.
I don't have time to write why, it would take hours and I'm not VandyVol. But it will be similar to this: Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action v. Regents of the University of Michigan.
A law can appear to be constitutional on it's face, but naturally the underlying effects are far different. See the Jim Crow laws. "A citizen can not vote unless they are literate." "A citizen can not vote unless they pay a poll tax." Both of these laws, on their face, seem constitutional. They don't refer to a specific race and apply broadly. However, everyone knew, including the legislators, that they were targeting the African American community. And a study of the effects of the law proved just that. What happened to those laws? Were they found to be constitutional?
I can actually see on face value why those would be deemed as such. The Immigration Law I just don't see it. Illegal is illegal, unless its specifically calling out a certain group that is protected. Most of the good results from it will be deterence, as we are seeing already. Voting is a guaranteed right, and illiteracy or taxes paid aside shouldn't dictate that right. With this law we are dealing with people here illegally. There really aren't any rights since they are not citizens. Maybe I am just not seeing something.
-
What happened to those laws? Were they found to be constitutional?
Hell I don't know, you're the one that went to law school.
-
Hell I don't know, you're the one that went to law school.
Post reminded me of the Bar exam. We had just come out of the segment on tax and as you always do, we're discussing the question/answers etc. The scenario was about a young couple who came into some money and blah blah yada yada. Anyway, we're standing around talking about what we put and this one guy who had been standing there, not saying anything goes, "I put, this couple needs to talk to a tax attorney or an accountant..why are you asking me?"
We laffed.
He wasn't at the swearing in ceremony.
-
What the plaintiffs are saying:
In a filing Sunday, the plaintiffs listed some of the problems they contend are already occurring:
- "In a least one public elementary school in Montgomery on Sept. 30 teachers asked already enrolled Latino students questions about their immigration status and that of their parents."
- In the two business days that the law's (school provision) has been in effect, substantial numbers of currently enrolled children began withdrawing from Alabama public schools and others stayed home based on their fear that they would be subject to the new verification and recording requirements.
The Huntsville City Schools saw 207 Hispanic students absent on Thursday. After Superintendent Casey Wardynski went on Spanish-language TV Thursday evening and said in Spanish "our students need not be afraid." The system also did a robo-call in Spanish to encourage students to return, the number of abasences declined on Friday to 127.
- The Montgomery Probate Office has published a notice requiring proof of U.S. citizenship or proof that a person is lawfully in the U.S. before any transaction can be conducted, except for corporations, LLCs or LLPs.
- On Sept. 29, Alabama Power told at least one family whose electricity had been disconnected that it could not restore power unless they could provide proof of lawful residence in the U.S.
- At least some individuals are being told they cannot renew rental agreements if they cannot provide provide of residence.
The state argued that Blackburn, last week, determined those laws were not unconstitutional in rejecting the plaintiffs request for a preliminary injunction. The state argued the plaintiffs have used the same failed arguments in seeking a stay while the case is appealed to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta.
A group of about 80 people protested the immigration law Sunday at state Sen. Scott Beason's church in Gardendale.
Times Staff Writer Crystal Bonvillian contributed to this report.
-
What the plaintiffs are saying:
What I heard:
Whine, whine, bitch, bitch, bitch. Fuck the gringos, esse.
The Superintendent of Huntsville schools has a gaping, bleeding vagina. Perhaps the whore should move to Mexico.
To this I add: Congratulations to landlords for making tenants prove they are here legally. Congratulations to Alabama Power for demanding that customers not be illegals.
-
I can actually see on face value why those would be deemed as such. The Immigration Law I just don't see it. Illegal is illegal, 1 . unless its specifically calling out a certain group that is protected. 2. Most of the good results from it will be deterence, as we are seeing already. 3. Voting is a guaranteed right, and illiteracy or taxes paid aside shouldn't dictate that right. With this law we are dealing with people here illegally. There really aren't any rights since they are not citizens. Maybe I am just not seeing something.
1. The Jim Crow laws didn't specifically call out a certain group. 2. Same thing was said referencing the Jim Crow laws. It isn't that bad, we don't even enforce it half the time. It just scares the African Americans away from the polls. 3. Yes, it is. So is due process and protection from discrimination (13th Amendment). Even if you take the argument that they are illegal and not citizens, I think it could be found unconstitutional based on the simple fact that it gives law enforcement officers unchecked power when it comes to probable cause and pulling anyone over.
Scenario: Officer thinks someone is drunk driving, but the driver has not broken a traffic law or anything. Well, shit, I can just pull him over and say I have probable cause because I thought he was transporting illegal aliens or is one himself.
-
The issue of constitutionality in this particular case doesn't really have much to do with protected classes. And no, it doesn't take hours to explain the reasoning as to why portions of this law may be unconstitutional.
First, it should be noted that this law includes a severability provision, stating that “If any part of this act is declared invalid or unconstitutional, that declaration shall not affect the part which remains.” So if the only section found to be unconstitutional is the one which prevents employers from claiming wages paid to illegals as deductible, then all other sections can still be validly enforced.
There are a variety of sections that have been challenged for a variety of reasons; it's not as simple as stating that the law as a whole has been challenged for only one constitutional reason, such as the underlying effects.
The majority of the claims as to constitutionality are based upon federal preemption. As an example, Section 13 of the law creates an Alabama-specific harboring scheme that “removes any federal discretion and impermissibly places the entire operation – from arrest to incarceration – squarely in the State’s purview.” (Cited from Judge Blackburn's memorandum opinion (http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/files/11-2746-memopn-entered.pdf) entered on September 28).
The opinion also found that sections 11(a), 13, 16, and 17 would likely be deemed unconstitutional, based upon the fact that they preempt the federal government by placing immigration operations within the State's purview.
I think people know that this is a law against illegal immigrants, and I think they immediately jump to conclusions about protected classes when the constitutionality of such a law is brought into question. But, in actuality, the majority of the claims which are being considered as having merit are based upon federal preemption.
-
Federal preemption is unconstitutional.
-
The issue of constitutionality in this particular case doesn't really have much to do with protected classes. And no, it doesn't take hours to explain the reasoning as to why portions of this law may be unconstitutional.
First, it should be noted that this law includes a severability provision, stating that “If any part of this act is declared invalid or unconstitutional, that declaration shall not affect the part which remains.” So if the only section found to be unconstitutional is the one which prevents employers from claiming wages paid to illegals as deductible, then all other sections can still be validly enforced.
There are a variety of sections that have been challenged for a variety of reasons; it's not as simple as stating that the law as a whole has been challenged for only one constitutional reason, such as the underlying effects.
The majority of the claims as to constitutionality are based upon federal preemption. As an example, Section 13 of the law creates an Alabama-specific harboring scheme that “removes any federal discretion and impermissibly places the entire operation – from arrest to incarceration – squarely in the State’s purview.” (Cited from Judge Blackburn's memorandum opinion (http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/files/11-2746-memopn-entered.pdf) entered on September 28).
The opinion also found that sections 11(a), 13, 16, and 17 would likely be deemed unconstitutional, based upon the fact that they preempt the federal government by placing immigration operations within the State's purview.
I think people know that this is a law against illegal immigrants, and I think they immediately jump to conclusions about protected classes when the constitutionality of such a law is brought into question. But, in actuality, the majority of the claims which are being considered as having merit are based upon federal preemption.
First, never said it was the only reason it was being challenged. Just said this is the reason why I think it will be found unconstitutional. Second, I said I think the due process issue is more important than the protected class. There are private groups and individuals that filed suit as well. You are referencing only the Justice Department's suit.
-
Is it Constitutional for the Federal Gov't NOT to "uphold the law" the last 20 years of this shit happening and spiraling out of control? No one was crying unconstitutional then when the law wasn't being "upheld" and was being ignored. If that had not happened, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
-
First, never said it was the only reason it was being challenged. Just said this is the reason why I think it will be found unconstitutional. Second, I said I think the due process issue is more important than the protected class. There are private groups and individuals that filed suit as well. You are referencing only the Justice Department's suit.
I only cited to the opinion regarding the claims from the U.S., but if you've read or kept up with the private claims, the same premise still stands: federal preemption is the focus. The opinion by Judge Blackburn (http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/files/11-2484-memorandum-opinion.pdf) for the private suit dismissed most of the non-preemption claims as unlikely to succeed.
Virtually every private claim features a challenge to the law based upon federal preemption. Yes, several of them include other claims, ranging from the Confrontation Clause (dismissed as not likely to succeed) to the First Amendment (dismissed due to the fact that the code section in question was already deemed likely to be unconstitutional based upon preemption).
But most of the claims that were not preemption claims were dismissed as unlikely to succeed, or not ripe for review. Claims involving searches and seizures in violation of the Fourth Amendment can not be carried forth until the law is applied and improper searches occur; you can't judge whether a statute will be applied improperly based upon its face alone.
The only non-preemption claim I can find that the court considered worthwhile was a Compulsory Process claim. Essentially, one section of this law dictates that courts can only consider the federal government's verification when determining if an alien is lawfully present. This effectively prevents the defendant from introducing anything in his own defense.
Other than that, the primary point of contention is federal preemption. I only bring this up because there seems to be a lot of misguided conversations about whether illegal immigrants have constitutional rights, whether racial profiling is unconstitutional, etc. Ultimately, all of this is moot, as it has either already been dismissed by Judge Blackburn as not having a likelihood of success on the merits, or it was never even brought up in the lawsuits in the first place. I just think people are jumping the gun and making assumptions about what this case is focusing upon.
-
I only cited to the opinion regarding the claims from the U.S., but if you've read or kept up with the private claims, the same premise still stands: federal preemption is the focus. The opinion by Judge Blackburn (http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/files/11-2484-memorandum-opinion.pdf) for the private suit dismissed most of the non-preemption claims as unlikely to succeed.
Virtually every private claim features a challenge to the law based upon federal preemption. Yes, several of them include other claims, ranging from the Confrontation Clause (dismissed as not likely to succeed) to the First Amendment (dismissed due to the fact that the code section in question was already deemed likely to be unconstitutional based upon preemption).
But most of the claims that were not preemption claims were dismissed as unlikely to succeed, or not ripe for review. Claims involving searches and seizures in violation of the Fourth Amendment can not be carried forth until the law is applied and improper searches occur; you can't judge whether a statute will be applied improperly based upon its face alone.
The only non-preemption claim I can find that the court considered worthwhile was a Compulsory Process claim. Essentially, one section of this law dictates that courts can only consider the federal government's verification when determining if an alien is lawfully present. This effectively prevents the defendant from introducing anything in his own defense.
Other than that, the primary point of contention is federal preemption. I only bring this up because there seems to be a lot of misguided conversations about whether illegal immigrants have constitutional rights, whether racial profiling is unconstitutional, etc. Ultimately, all of this is moot, as it has either already been dismissed by Judge Blackburn as not having a likelihood of success on the merits, or it was never even brought up in the lawsuits in the first place. I just think people are jumping the gun and making assumptions about what this case is focusing upon.
Just like in Roe v. Wade, it will take a certain situation with a private suit/citizen to hit the Supreme Court. But like I said, it will be the due process issues that make it unconstitutional. The application of the law.
-
Due process is for citizens, not invaders.
The law should be changed to treat illegals as enemies in war.
-
Due process is for citizens, not invaders.
If that's your personal stance on how things should be, then have at it.
But if that's an attempt to state that due process rights aren't given to non-citizens, then it's an incorrect statement.
The Fourteenth Amendment insures that due process rights are given to "any person." And there's no reason to infer that "person" can only refer to "citizen," because the Fourteenth Amendment also prohibits states from making or enforcing "any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States."
This has been interpreted numerous times by the Supreme Court to mean that non-citizens ("persons") have due process and equal protection rights. Examples?
In Yick Wo v. Hopkins, the Supreme Court overturned the criminal conviction of a Chinese citizen living in California on the ground that the law in question violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection.
In 2008, the Supreme Court issued an opinion in Boumediene v. Bush which held that it was unconstitutional for the Military Commissions Act to deny habeas corpus rights to Guantanamo detainees, none of whom was an American citizen.
I don't know who started the nonsensical myth that non-citizens don't have due process rights, but even politicians publicly spout this type of false crap without having any knowledge of constitutional interpretation or common law history.
-
Just like in Roe v. Wade, it will take a certain situation with a private suit/citizen to hit the Supreme Court. But like I said, it will be the due process issues that make it unconstitutional. The application of the law.
Eventually, maybe. But the law was enjoined prior to its effective date of September 1, so no one has been adversely affected by the application of the law yet. And the sections currently being challenged will likely be found unconstitutional on preemption grounds, which will strike those sections from the law.
Unless there are other unchallenged sections which could affect someone's due process rights, and unless those unchallenged sections are eventually upheld and enforced, then there won't be a successful due process claim.
Also, if officers are trained to ask for identification only upon reasonable suspicion of a crime other than the crimes outlined in this immigration law, then there won't be any successful due process claims.
But, of course, if officers begin detaining people because they "look" illegal, and for no other reason whatsoever, then you've got a host of potential constitutional rights violations, including interference with due process rights.
-
Eventually, maybe. But the law was enjoined prior to its effective date of September 1, so no one has been adversely affected by the application of the law yet. And the sections currently being challenged will likely be found unconstitutional on preemption grounds, which will strike those sections from the law.
Unless there are other unchallenged sections which could affect someone's due process rights, and unless those unchallenged sections are eventually upheld and enforced, then there won't be a successful due process claim.
Also, if officers are trained to ask for identification only upon reasonable suspicion of a crime other than the crimes outlined in this immigration law, then there won't be any successful due process claims.
But, of course, if officers begin detaining people because they "look" illegal, and for no other reason whatsoever, then you've got a host of potential constitutional rights violations, including interference with due process rights.
If, shit, when.
-
If that's your personal stance on how things should be, then have at it.
But if that's an attempt to state that due process rights aren't given to non-citizens, then it's an incorrect statement.
The Fourteenth Amendment insures that due process rights are given to "any person." And there's no reason to infer that "person" can only refer to "citizen," because the Fourteenth Amendment also prohibits states from making or enforcing "any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States."
This has been interpreted numerous times by the Supreme Court to mean that non-citizens ("persons") have due process and equal protection rights. Examples?
In Yick Wo v. Hopkins, the Supreme Court overturned the criminal conviction of a Chinese citizen living in California on the ground that the law in question violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection.
In 2008, the Supreme Court issued an opinion in Boumediene v. Bush which held that it was unconstitutional for the Military Commissions Act to deny habeas corpus rights to Guantanamo detainees, none of whom was an American citizen.
I don't know who started the nonsensical myth that non-citizens don't have due process rights, but even politicians publicly spout this type of false crap without having any knowledge of constitutional interpretation or common law history.
^
This is why lawyers suck.
They don't know what illegal means.
-
So far, it seems that the new law is working without having to be enforced.
^^ This.
Token mentioned this in another post, and I agree with both of you. I think the purpose of this law is two-pronged. The first is just a bluff to make any illegals leave, and the second is to put the federal government on notice that if they refuse to act, the states will.
At our department, we report anybody in our jail that is suspected of being illegal to ICE. We've always done that since there has been a means to do so. We have done this with hispanics, Czech, etc. If ICE can't find anything on that person, they issue a detainer, and then come to interview them. If ICE determines that the person is here illegally, they take that person. Two years ago, they would be taken to New Orleans, sent to a deportation hearing, and would be out of the country within a month or two. For the past year or so, they are sent to New Orleans, given a court date, post a bond, and then they are released.
I just don't see what the big problem is with making sure somebody is in our country legally. I don't care what color their skin is, or what language they speak. As long as you go through the proper authority to be here, then more power to you. It's all fun and games until a terrorist sneaks into the country and blows something up. I know that's one extreme end of the spectrum, but the point stands.
-
We need to ignore the fact that for every student enrolled, it costs the state $10k per year just to fund that student in the classroom.
And ignore the fact that at my school, we have 76 (as of the first week of school) illegal immigrant children in our school.
Since education is depleting in this country, I'll do the math for you - that's about $76,000 just at my school alone. $76k that isn't being repaid through taxes.
You teach language, not math, right?
-
You teach language, not math, right?
So carry 1, add the it up top, add to the 7, subtract 2, add 0...yep, he teaches english.
-
Just to stoke the fire a bit, it's not just Mexican brown skinned people, although they are still the majority crossing over. India? Phililipines? (Sani's kids coming home?) Very interesting. Per the 2009 Dept of Homeland Strip Searches:
Mexico continued to be the leading source of unauthorized immigration to the United States. There were 6.7 million unauthorized immigrants from Mexico in 2009, representing 62 percent of the unauthorized population. The next
leading source countries for unauthorized immigrants in 2009 were El Salvador (530,000), Guatemala (480,000), Honduras (320,000), and the Philippines (270,000). The ten leading countries of origin represented 85 percent of the unauthorized immigrant population in 2009.
Between 2000 and 2009, the Mexican-born unauthorized immigrant population increased 2.0 million or 42 percent. The greatest percentage increases occurred among unauthorized immigrants from Honduras (95 percent), Guatemala (65 percent), and India (64 percent).
-
Curious. Where do they come up with those numbers? If the people are here illegally, are they going to fill out a census? Are they speaking up..."Jes, I am Jose Santore an Jes, I am here illegally".
"Oh an jus so your count weel be accurate, I am from Guatemala".
-
Curious. Where do they come up with those numbers? If the people are here illegally, are they going to fill out a census? Are they speaking up..."Jes, I am Jose Santore an Jes, I am here illegally".
"Oh an jus so your count weel be accurate, I am from Guatemala".
Extrapolated out from the ones they bust trying to cross. Random sampling, I suppose.
-
Just to stoke the fire a bit, it's not just Mexican brown skinned people, although they are still the majority crossing over. India? Phililipines? (Sani's kids coming home?) Very interesting. Per the 2009 Dept of Homeland Strip Searches:
You'd be surprised about how many "Mexicans" aren't from Mexico. I worked for a bank that was the first in Alabama to develop products for customers who spoke Spanish.
Now, maybe Mexican immigrants tend not to have bank accounts or be paid by checks that must be cashed at a bank, but the majority of Hispanic customers were not Mexican. I saw people from Guatemala, Peru, Costa Rica, the Phillipines, etc. Sure, some from Mexico, but not nearly as many as I thought I'd see based upon popular stereotypes and government reports.
Not that it matters much, but interesting nonetheless.
-
Congratulations to landlords for making tenants prove they are here legally. Congratulations to Alabama Power for demanding that customers not be illegals.
Believe it or not, this type thing is a shitload better than any law.
-
Illiterate...literate...in their own country.
I'll tell you what we really need. We need to be extra-sensitive to these illegal immigrants and just ignore the fact that American citizens' education is depleting because we can no longer afford it.
I'll tell you what we really need. We need to keep telling the kids in Algebra that they have to share a textbook with another student because the county is literally too bottomed out to buy new ones. We need to tell teachers who have 35 kids in a room that there's no money to hire new teachers.
We need to ignore the fact that for every student enrolled, it costs the state $10k per year just to fund that student in the classroom.
And ignore the fact that at my school, we have 76 (as of the first week of school) illegal immigrant children in our school.
Since education is depleting in this country, I'll do the math for you - that's about $76,000 just at my school alone. $76k that isn't being repaid through taxes.
Sorry, but my sensitivity is shot. At this point, our country has to right the wrong it's committed to itself. We can't waste a generation of our own children just because we don't want to hurt an illegal immigrant's feelings.
More misconception offered to support the law. Even illegals pay taxes. They pay property tax if they by property, or through rent, and paying sales tax like the rest of the world. Despite the misconception that most are paid in cash under the table, having had a father and brother in the construction business, this isn't true as well. Are some? Yes, but just as many "Americans" are too. What the majority of them don't do is file tax returns, or draw government checks. If they live in the school district, most are paying their way via taxes.
-
More misconception offered to support the law. Even illegals pay taxes. They pay property tax if they by property, or through rent, and paying sales tax like the rest of the world. Despite the misconception that most are paid in cash under the table, having had a father and brother in the construction business, this isn't true as well. Are some? Yes, but just as many "Americans" are too. What the majority of them don't do is file tax returns, or draw government checks. If they live in the school district, most are paying their way via taxes.
Explain the discrepancy between the number of students registering for school and the amount of tax dollars available for each school.
Because we're being told that the explanation for lack of funding is the exorbitant amount of illegal immigrants being unaccounted for during registration.
So maybe it isn't taxes. Maybe the problem is that we don't know these kids are even in the area until they show up on the first, second, third, fourth day of school. Or the third week. Or whenever they decide to show up.
And then suddenly they do show up needing the same amount of money the other kids in the classroom do.
I also should have edited my post. We don't have 76 known illegals in our school. The number is right now at 221.
-
Explain the discrepancy between the number of students registering for school and the amount of tax dollars available for each school.
Because we're being told that the explanation for lack of funding is the exorbitant amount of illegal immigrants being unaccounted for during registration.
So maybe it isn't taxes. Maybe the problem is that we don't know these kids are even in the area until they show up on the first, second, third, fourth day of school. Or the third week. Or whenever they decide to show up.
And then suddenly they do show up needing the same amount of money the other kids in the classroom do.
I also should have edited my post. We don't have 76 known illegals in our school. The number is right now at 221.
All I'm saying is, if they work, the vast majority pay taxes. If you see them working in any legit business, they've most likely provided a SSN, and are cut taxes, and maybe even over pay because they don't file a return. If they pay rent, they pay property tax the same wall all renters pay such taxes. If they buy products, they pay sales tax. All local state and federal agencies are hurting now...it's the economy. People bitch and complain about the "illegals being a drain" but I see them working, and shopping. IE earning a check where they're cut taxes, and spending money where they pay sales tax.
And don't confuse me with arguing for letting them remain illegally, I'm just saying, many misconceptions are offered for why they should go back. Use truth, and I have no problem with your arguments.
-
Are you sure they all work?
I'll give you a rundown of one of my current student's family:
- Dad works
- Oldest sister (senior in HS), my student (freshman), four younger kids (I think two are in elementary school)
- Mom and Aunt are housekeepers
- Grandfather lives at home (he may work. not sure)
- They all live together in a trailer
- My student and her older sister are both on free lunch. I assume the others are as well.
This isn't an uncommon situation for many of the ESL students at my school. That doesn't seem like a family that pumps a lot back into the economy.
-
Are you sure they all work?
I'll give you a rundown of one of my current student's family:
- Dad works
- Oldest sister (senior in HS), my student (freshman), four younger kids (I think two are in elementary school)
- Mom and Aunt are housekeepers
- Grandfather lives at home (he may work. not sure)
- They all live together in a trailer
- My student and her older sister are both on free lunch. I assume the others are as well.
This isn't an uncommon situation for many of the ESL students at my school. That doesn't seem like a family that pumps a lot back into the economy.
You cited 3 in the household that work for sure. 2 sound like they may get paid in cash.
I assume they pay rent, power, water, and shop for groceries.
Sounds to me like how many of the immigrant families that flooded in to NYC back in the day lived. Hand to mouth, those that could contributed, while they carried the older and younger generations, with the younger generations getting an education.
I work in a rural county that is majority white, almost no hispanics, and yet, many of the families are in the same situation. A huge source of income where I work is a Social Security or Disability Check, and no ability to blame it on illegals.
-
Sorry I wasn't clear. The Aunt and Mom stay home as housekeepers. As in keepers of their own house. I'm sure they contribute in some way in their neighborhood...err...park. Maybe watch other families' kids. Not sure.
-
Sorry I wasn't clear. The Aunt and Mom stay home as housekeepers. As in keepers of their own house. I'm sure they contribute in some way in their neighborhood...err...park. Maybe watch other families' kids. Not sure.
Show me one of these families drawing gubment checks, and I'll be there with you.
When I'm in a grocery store, it's never the "illegal looking" ones paying with a WIC check. The "illegal looking" ones always have a wad of cash.
-
I'm in full agreement with this law and is something long overdue. However, the "long overdue" part means that there are going to be some growing pains, for lack of a better term, as we go forward. As I believe THS said earlier, we have allowed ourselves to get in this situation and it's not as simple as loading up all the illegals and shipping them back from whence they came.
Some businesses will suffer in the short term. Saw an article in the paper yesterday, which echos the sentiments of many down in my area. Tomato farming in this State is one that (Right or wrong) relies heavily on immigrants as its chief work force. Well, that work force has quickly exited stage left, leaving the farmers with a crop dying on the vine. Their fault? Maybe, but I'm here to tell you that the average American doesn't want the nasty sweat jobs and the work ethic of these illegals is 10X that of those available for hire.
Good example came today when I talked to my contractor this morning. Guy is singing the blues because his framing crew just walked...in this economy. I built my house 4-5 years ago. My contractor told me, "You just wait until it's time to frame it...you'll be blown away"
Why is that?
"Because my framing crew is a group of Mexicans and they work their asses off." He was right and yes, I was blown away. I saw them and other Mexican crews in my developing neighborhood working like ants from dawn til after dusk..Sunday to Sunday. Ever since he told me that I started paying attention. Was sitting on my back porch one Saturday afternoon, having a frosty cooooool one, watching this crew framing a house behind mine. It was getting late and these guys were working at a fevered pitch and had no intentions of stopping until they couldn't see. They'd be back to start again around 6:30 the next morning. I stopped them. Got in my car, went to the store and bought a throw away cooler and a case of beer. Iced it down and drove up to that house, got out and set it down, giving them the thumbs up. It was quittin' time....senor.
Me and my buddy have a Mexican guy who has been doing work for us for years. Landscaping, construction whatever. Exact same work ethic. No job too big or small or shitty. He's begging for the work and will not stop until it's done. He moved to Tennessee last week. Again, going back to my first sentence, my point is I completely agree that the illegal immigrant problem is long overdue in being addressed. It has to be. But, it's not without a heavy backlash. And despite the fact that we can all pick out specific instances to the contrary, I'll wager Tarheels left nutt that the work ethic in the overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants, more specifically Latino immigrants, is far greater than the average American citizen. It's no wonder that there are a number of jobs where the employer would much rather take his/her chances on that immigrant. Does it make it right? Nope. They're taking that chance and some are paying dearly for it now.
-
All I'm saying is, if they work, the vast majority pay taxes. If you see them working in any legit business, they've most likely provided a SSN, and are cut taxes, and maybe even over pay because they don't file a return. If they pay rent, they pay property tax the same wall all renters pay such taxes. If they buy products, they pay sales tax. All local state and federal agencies are hurting now...it's the economy. People bitch and complain about the "illegals being a drain" but I see them working, and shopping. IE earning a check where they're cut taxes, and spending money where they pay sales tax.
And don't confuse me with arguing for letting them remain illegally, I'm just saying, many misconceptions are offered for why they should go back. Use truth, and I have no problem with your arguments.
Several of my customers employ illegals. Very manual labor type jobs. I can tell you this. They are NOT on the payroll. Most if not all of them get paid under the table. Ever went to a Chinese or Mexican resturaunt (where they have illegals working) , go to pay at the register and have them not actually ring it up on the register, but instead do it with a calculator? Thats the under the table money. Happens to me all the time in Columbus. I suspected that is what it was. I actually asked the owner of one place a few times since I knew him well (Chinese resturaunt). He flat out told me that half his guys weren't on the payroll since they weren't legal citizens and every 3rd or 4th transaction they ring up goes to pay those guys in cash (2 of them were from China, 3 were from Mexico - yes Mexicans working in a Chinese joint). He had no issue telling me this. My point is, most of them aren't officially on a payroll and therefore are paying no income taxes. It is what it is.
-
Several of my customers employ illegals. Very manual labor type jobs. I can tell you this. They are NOT on the payroll. Most if not all of them get paid under the table. Ever went to a Chinese or Mexican resturaunt (where they have illegals working) , go to pay at the register and have them not actually ring it up on the register, but instead do it with a calculator? Thats the under the table money. Happens to me all the time in Columbus. I suspected that is what it was. I actually asked the owner of one place a few times since I knew him well (Chinese resturaunt). He flat out told me that half his guys weren't on the payroll since they weren't legal citizens and every 3rd or 4th transaction they ring up goes to pay those guys in cash (2 of them were from China, 3 were from Mexico - yes Mexicans working in a Chinese joint). He had no issue telling me this. My point is, most of them aren't officially on a payroll and therefore are paying no income taxes. It is what it is.
I'm not saying it doesn't happen. Fact is, the guy you asked would probably be cheating one way or the other, whether with illegals or other legal locals. Hey, maybe I'm naive, but the fast food joints, the big chains, employ a lot of them around where I live. Hard for me to believe they can get away with what you're describing with that many employees. They'd have to "hide" half their gross revenue.
A buddy of mine employs many of them in his landscaping business, and not a single one is "off the books" and he claims they don't work cheap either. The crews my father and brother employed all showed their "illegals" to be on the books and being cut too. Did they secretly pay off the books? Don't know.
-
I'm in full agreement with this law and is something long overdue. However, the "long overdue" part means that there are going to be some growing pains, for lack of a better term, as we go forward. As I believe THS said earlier, we have allowed ourselves to get in this situation and it's not as simple as loading up all the illegals and shipping them back from whence they came.
Some businesses will suffer in the short term. Saw an article in the paper yesterday, which echos the sentiments of many down in my area. Tomato farming in this State is one that (Right or wrong) relies heavily on immigrants as its chief work force. Well, that work force has quickly exited stage left, leaving the farmers with a crop dying on the vine. Their fault? Maybe, but I'm here to tell you that the average American doesn't want the nasty sweat jobs and the work ethic of these illegals is 10X that of those available for hire.
Good example came today when I talked to my contractor this morning. Guy is singing the blues because his framing crew just walked...in this economy. I built my house 4-5 years ago. My contractor told me, "You just wait until it's time to frame it...you'll be blown away"
Why is that?
"Because my framing crew is a group of Mexicans and they work their asses off." He was right and yes, I was blown away. I saw them and other Mexican crews in my developing neighborhood working like ants from dawn til after dusk..Sunday to Sunday. Ever since he told me that I started paying attention. Was sitting on my back porch one Saturday afternoon, having a frosty cooooool one, watching this crew framing a house behind mine. It was getting late and these guys were working at a fevered pitch and had no intentions of stopping until they couldn't see. They'd be back to start again around 6:30 the next morning. I stopped them. Got in my car, went to the store and bought a throw away cooler and a case of beer. Iced it down and drove up to that house, got out and set it down, giving them the thumbs up. It was quittin' time....senor.
Me and my buddy have a Mexican guy who has been doing work for us for years. Landscaping, construction whatever. Exact same work ethic. No job too big or small or shitty. He's begging for the work and will not stop until it's done. He moved to Tennessee last week. Again, going back to my first sentence, my point is I completely agree that the illegal immigrant problem is long overdue in being addressed. It has to be. But, it's not without a heavy backlash. And despite the fact that we can all pick out specific instances to the contrary, I'll wager Tarheels left nutt that the work ethic in the overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants, more specifically Latino immigrants, is far greater than the average American citizen. It's no wonder that there are a number of jobs where the employer would much rather take his/her chances on that immigrant. Does it make it right? Nope. They're taking that chance and some are paying dearly for it now.
Pretty well my feelings and experience on it too.
-
I'm not saying it doesn't happen. Fact is, the guy you asked would probably be cheating one way or the other, whether with illegals or other legal locals. Hey, maybe I'm naive, but the fast food joints, the big chains, employ a lot of them around where I live. Hard for me to believe they can get away with what you're describing with that many employees. They'd have to "hide" half their gross revenue.
A buddy of mine employs many of them in his landscaping business, and not a single one is "off the books" and he claims they don't work cheap either. The crews my father and brother employed all showed their "illegals" to be on the books and being cut too. Did they secretly pay off the books? Don't know.
One of my customers (a recycling plant) has about 2 dozen mexican/guatemalan workers. Not a one of them on the books. This is the rule, whereas unfortunately I think the buddy of yours you speak of is the exception. If they are on the books, they are most likely legal in some form (H1B, etc) due to E Verify. I don't mind them all being there to be honest. It's good business for me on one side of the coin. Also, ive talked to many of the guys - all workaholics and very cordial folks. You can tell they just want to work and live decently. But on the other side of the coin, we have to get this shit under control and straightened out. It's not personal. Lawbreakers need to pay the price and do things the right way. It's a huge strain on the economy and we have to have some way of knowing who in the hell is in our country.
-
The work ethic in the overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants, more specifically Latino immigrants, is far greater than the average American citizen.
This is entirely correct, although the lazy American part is a whole other issue. That is due to the Entitlement state we live in. Everyone is owed something. And no one feels the need to work or do anything to get it. Sad.
It's no wonder that there are a number of jobs where the employer would much rather take his/her chances on that immigrant. Does it make it right? Nope. They're taking that chance and some are paying dearly for it now.
Although their work ethic is to be praised Snag, but I think we know why the employers prefer the illegals. $$$ Under the table means you can pay them what you want with no redtape, no minimum wage. Not saying I blame them, but that is the primary reason.
-
One of my customers (a recycling plant) has about 2 dozen mexican/guatemalan workers. Not a one of them on the books. This is the rule, whereas unfortunately I think the buddy of yours you speak of is the exception. If they are on the books, they are most likely legal in some form (H1B, etc) due to E Verify. I don't mind them all being there to be honest. It's good business for me on one side of the coin. Also, ive talked to many of the guys - all workaholics and very cordial folks. You can tell they just want to work and live decently. But on the other side of the coin, we have to get this shit under control and straightened out. It's not personal. Lawbreakers need to pay the price and do things the right way. It's a huge strain on the economy and we have to have some way of knowing who in the hell is in our country.
I haven't talked to my landscaper buddy in a while. The E Verify thing may have changed who he hires or the way he does things. I know, he, like all other folks that employ them do so because they're reliable, and work their asses off at jobs they're otherwise hard pressed to fill. My brother used to feel like so many here, but making a living is personal, and when his business got more productive when the jobs started getting done quicker, he changed his mind. I suspect there's lots of good, decent small business owners out there that struggle to find reliable labor, and have resorted to using the illegals in order to keep their business running best. In many ways the American laziness creates the opportunities that these illegals take advantage of.
-
Although their work ethic is to be praised Snag, but I think we know why the employers prefer the illegals. $$$ Under the table means you can pay them what you want with no redtape, no minimum wage. Not saying I blame them, but that is the primary reason.
Again, just going by what I'm told, these folks generally don't work on the cheap. You may can pay them slightly less if you're paying them off the books, but they don't work hard labor for minimum wage or less.
-
One of my customers (a recycling plant) has about 2 dozen mexican/guatemalan workers. Not a one of them on the books.
Can you explain to me how they do this? Do that take in a lot of cash that they don't declare?
-
Can you explain to me how they do this? Do that take in a lot of cash that they don't declare?
Yep, the same way those resturaunts I mentioned do it. Again, I don't blame em. But we have to get this shit under control.
-
Let's face it; if we rounded up every illegal worker right now and shipped them out, that would be a pretty big blow to the economy, imo. Unfortunately, we have become dependent on illegal labor because we have allowed it to go on for so long. And I think the notion that it will be very difficult and/or expensive to find Americans to fill those jobs that would be vacated is true. People have become dependent on the government teat, so why would they want to toil in the fields for 12 hours a day for minimum wage when the government will give them better money to sit on the couch and watch Springer all day?
On the other hand, how would it balance out not having those illegals using government giveaway programs? I would bet that a good bit of them aren't paying back into these programs since they are paid under the table. I guess it's a matter of who can better absorb the fucking......the government, or private businesses.
-
On the other hand, how would it balance out not having those illegals using government giveaway programs? I would bet that a good bit of them aren't paying back into these programs since they are paid under the table. I guess it's a matter of who can better absorb the fucking......the government, or private businesses
Therein lies the rub. If you don't think these people are getting gubment checks, you are crazy. Most illegals that work the restaurants came here legally and their visa ran out. Many were hired under the legal number. But None of them pay taxes. The employer pays his share and keeps paying even though the number has expired. Hopefully with the e-verify the employers know when the number is up.
I have a good friend that I coach with from Mexico. He is legal (as is his wife and kids), but his family is not. Many of them get gubment money. There are ways around it and the gubment don't care. My friend is a staunch conservative that wants all illegals to be sent back to do the right thing. Even though it wolill hurt his business. He is in the drywall business. You think there are a few illegals doing that?
-
Let's face it; if we rounded up every illegal worker right now and shipped them out, that would be a pretty big blow to the economy, imo. Unfortunately, we have become dependent on illegal labor because we have allowed it to go on for so long. And I think the notion that it will be very difficult and/or expensive to find Americans to fill those jobs that would be vacated is true. People have become dependent on the government teat, so why would they want to toil in the fields for 12 hours a day for minimum wage when the government will give them better money to sit on the couch and watch Springer all day?
I understand what you're trying to say, but I don't fully agree. It might be a shock, but it might also free up some employment opps for some willing-and-able legal inhabitants.
-
Therein lies the rub. If you don't think these people are getting gubment checks, you are crazy. Most illegals that work the restaurants came here legally and their visa ran out. Many were hired under the legal number. But None of them pay taxes. The employer pays his share and keeps paying even though the number has expired. Hopefully with the e-verify the employers know when the number is up.
I have a good friend that I coach with from Mexico. He is legal (as is his wife and kids), but his family is not. Many of them get gubment money. There are ways around it and the gubment don't care. My friend is a staunch conservative that wants all illegals to be sent back to do the right thing. Even though it wolill hurt his business. He is in the drywall business. You think there are a few illegals doing that?
Are these things you have personal knowledge of, or simply choose to believe?
Did I read you correctly, your "legal friend" wants his "illegal family members" shipped home?
-
Are these things you have personal knowledge of, or simply choose to believe?
Did I read you correctly, your "legal friend" wants his "illegal family members" shipped home?
My legal friend's wife wants them to be refused FREE money. While she and her husband work their ass off, his illegal family receives gubment money. There are holes all in our system. It has been gamed by the minorities since the late 60's. Now even they are pissed off because the illegals are now gaming the system too. As far as being shipped home, she probably does. He would not complain. They are a drain on our economy and have been for over 20 years.
If you have ever had a friend or a family member need assistance, you would know how the system is geared toward minorities and away from others. It will take you longer to get what you need than it does a minority.
And yes, my neighbor owns a mexican restaurant. He explained to me how he ends up with illegals, but he keeps paying his share. He said he encourages them to pay taxes, but none do. Now with E-verify, I'm not sure how that works. If it is only on hire day, then the ones already there can still work and not pay taxes.
-
Are these things you have personal knowledge of, or simply choose to believe?
Did I read you correctly, your "legal friend" wants his "illegal family members" shipped home?
Objective study after objective study proves it, whether its Forbes, the Budget Office, etc. It's pretty consistent that it's a drain on the economy at the point it's gotten now.
-
Objective study after objective study proves it, whether its Forbes, the Budget Office, etc. It's pretty consistent that it's a drain on the economy at the point it's gotten now.
My knowledge of it is seeing them all work, or want to work. I don't have any that I really know. If illegals are getting gov't money, then I have a problem with that.
-
My knowledge of it is seeing them all work, or want to work. I don't have any that I really know. If illegals are getting gov't money, then I have a problem with that.
Any minority that has or makes below X amount of money gets a govt check. They just add to those numbers in huge amounts. They are part of an already existing welfare state. Rick Perry even wants to subsidize a college education for them in Texas - The Dream Act.
-
Any minority that has or makes below X amount of money gets a govt check. They just add to those numbers in huge amounts. They are part of an already existing welfare state. Rick Perry even wants to subsidize a college education for them in Texas - The Dream Act.
How does one that is not a citizen, get a government check? If it's really that simple to scam the gov't, then surely I can get one too?
-
My "googles" of these issues discussed here indicates there are studies that will show whatever the particular side wants to show. The only thing they all agree on is that it's nearly impossible to do a truly accurate study on the fiscal impact of illegals on the economy and gov't resources.
-
My "googles" of these issues discussed here indicates there are studies that will show whatever the particular side wants to show. The only thing they all agree on is that it's nearly impossible to do a truly accurate study on the fiscal impact of illegals on the economy and gov't resources.
There is one study that will get accurate results.
SEND THEIR ASSES BACK. And then do a recalculation.
-
There is one study that will get accurate results.
SEND THEIR ASSES BACK. And then do a recalculation.
CCT went there.
-
CCT went there.
Hell, if it don't work, we can always invite them back.......
-
Hell, if it don't work, we can always invite them back.......
When we identify the ones who are working illegally, we should enforce the appropriate laws. There's no problem with them working here. They just need to get the correct work permit and follow our laws. There's no excuse for working illegally. We have at least half a dozen work programs, many of which can be applied for after work is obtained, and it doesn't cost the employer anything to support the process. And, once you get a work permit, you can bring your family over, obtain housing, attend school, etc... Half the crap floating around excusing the illegal problem and complaining about these laws is complete nonsense.
-
That may be true, but they do not go back when the wok permit expores. That is why we have so many here today. Do you think the majority of illegals jumped the fence? Hell no. They came here legally and then stayed past their date. No modern country in the world has a work visa that is unlimited. At some point in time, you have to pay. We are just the worst country in the world at enforcing it!
-
There is one study that will get accurate results.
SEND THEIR ASSES BACK. And then do a recalculation.
This isn't about Hispanics.
-
This isn't about Hispanics.
Who gives a fuck if it is?
You got cockroaches crawling all over your kitchen. You call the exterminator. If he happens to find a few ants and earwigs, that's good too. But you called him because roaches were swarming.
-
Who gives a fuck if it is?
You got cockroaches crawling all over your kitchen. You call the exterminator. If he happens to find a few ants and earwigs, that's good too. But you called him because roaches were swarming.
Your metaphor usage is very telling.
-
That may be true, but they do not go back when the wok permit expores. That is why we have so many here today. Do you think the majority of illegals jumped the fence? Hell no. They came here legally and then stayed past their date. No modern country in the world has a work visa that is unlimited. At some point in time, you have to pay. We are just the worst country in the world at enforcing it!
Oh, I agree. A somewhat related story... I had to obtain a permit to work at a client site in Canada. Canada is one of those countries that will incarcerate you if you stay beyond the length of your work permit. Mexico does similar. Perhaps, we need to consider it.
-
Your metaphor usage is very telling.
Only to the narrow minded.