Forcing businesses to provide for illegal workers

[billvon 3,111]

>Hmm, there is something wrong with this sentence.

Because drug laws are too strict? I agree, and I think immigration laws are too strict as well; we should not be keeping out people who want to come to the US, work hard and make a better life for themselves.

But the solution for both of these problems is to change the laws, rather than reacting to the people who we associate with breaking them - whether they are blacks or hispanics.

[masterrig 1]

Quote

>Hmm, there is something wrong with this sentence.

Because drug laws are too strict? I agree, and I think immigration laws are too strict as well; we should not be keeping out people who want to come to the US, work hard and make a better life for themselves.

But the solution for both of these problems is to change the laws, rather than reacting to the people who we associate with breaking them - whether they are blacks or hispanics.

That's the last thing we need... more new laws! We have laws stacked like cord-wood! We have some very good laws that just need to be enforced. As long as our politicians and big business keep saying 'NO', the laws don't get enforced. We need stricter enforcement of our immigration laws. You do it legal or stay out!!! I don't care what color or where they are from.
As long as there is a huge demand for dope, the dope will keep pouring into this country. I still say, close our borders!


Chuck

[SkyDekker 1,465]

I don't see the problem? Companies are being forced to clean up a nuisance they have so far ignored and refused to clean up.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

I don't see the problem? Companies are being forced to clean up a nuisance they have so far ignored and refused to clean up.

Because they didn't cause the nuisance - unless you think you should be responsible for providing shelter for the homeless guy that hangs out in your front yard.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,111]

>That's the last thing we need... more new laws!

I agree. If anything, we need fewer laws.

On the drug side of things, legalizing at least some of the less-damaging drugs would simplify the law a bit, relieve crowding in prisons, free up police and courts to deal with the more dangerous offenders and let more people do what they want.

On the immigration side of things, I don't think we need any new laws. But we do need to be better at allowing people in who want to work (so they don't have to come illegally) and at keeping the criminals/freeloaders out. Basically give people more incentive to come in legally and less incentive to just jump the border.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

less incentive to just jump the border.

Gee the Mexicans COULD just open a DZ just across the border from SD San Diego....

[billvon 3,111]

>Gee the Mexicans COULD just open a DZ just across the border from SD
>San Diego...

Better yet, do what they proposed in Tijuana International.

Have a DZ straddling the border. A loading/landing area on the US side, a loading/landing area in Mexico. Runway in the middle. Use whoever has the cheapest aircraft, and fuel on whatever side has cheaper fuel. A big common party area; you'd need passports for that though. Draw people from Mexico AND the US! You could build it right next to the Trident landing area down there; it's already zoned.

OK, maybe there are some practical problems there.

[masterrig 1]

Which drugs would we make legal and which would we make illegal. Now, we have heroin coming more in demand than cocain! The demand is attributed to the fact that we are a wealthier nation!? (They aren't talking about me!)
I recall, you and I having a similar conversation in regard to allowing good, hard workers in and the bad guys out. I recall, we discussed a non-immigrant worker program and we have such a program. The ports of entry, here in Texas, allow workers to come and go freely. These folks work at various jobs here and are even supplied transportation to some workplaces and back to the POE. The problem is, all that open country between the POE's. That's where we need to really crack down. It's those long stretches of open, rough country and we just don't have the man-power. I think if, our National Guard, wasn't involved in Iraq, they could be used to protect our borders.


Chuck

[masterrig 1]

It's 'private property'... a 'nuisance'... why, don't they just run 'em off? Tell them they cannot gather there, report them as tresspassers. No tresspassers... no shelter.


Chuck

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

>Hmm, there is something wrong with this sentence.

Because drug laws are too strict?

I just meant it's a bit of an oxymoron to combine "enforce the laws against drug use" and "let people live however they want to live." But I doubt that's how you meant for it to sound anyway.

Quote

But the solution for both of these problems is to change the laws, rather than reacting to the people who we associate with breaking them - whether they are blacks or hispanics.

Agreed.

[birdlike 0]

Quote

>Is it really called "xenophobia" to be concerned that your way of life,
>your quality of life, and your own culture are under threat of being
>subsumed by a population that are not even in your country legally?

Yes. One sees the same sort of fear when black families start moving into a neighborhood of provincial white families. "What will happen to our schools? You know, they all do illegal drugs; our neighborhood is going to go down the shitter!

But there are real-life examples of things like that going on. It's not always blacks, of course. But where is it that whites move into a neighborhood and make it turn to shit?

You haven't lived in southern Florida, have you, Billvon?

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

But where is it that whites move into a neighborhood and make it turn to shit?

You don't get out much if you haven't seen this happen.

Crime isn't a race thing, its a person thing. Honestly its a stupidity thing. Education level doesn't even come into play, since you can be "well educated" and an idiot.

Ever see a group of white-trash meth-heads move into an area? It destroys the area. The grass even stops growing. You think I'm making a joke, I'm not.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

I don't see the problem? Companies are being forced to clean up a nuisance they have so far ignored and refused to clean up.

Because they didn't cause the nuisance - unless you think you should be responsible for providing shelter for the homeless guy that hangs out in your front yard.

Your analogy doesn't fit, and the big-box stores do have a social responsibility to the neighborhood, especially since they arguably benefit from the day-laborers. See my post #87.

If the stores don't want to install accommodations to reduce the laborers' being a public nuisance, then let them take the responsibility to patrol their premises and enforce a no-loitering policy. The local police are too thinly-stretched as it is to handle the extra burden of keeping loitering non-customers off the premises; nor is it fair to raise taxes to pay for more police to address this.

[billvon 3,111]

>But where is it that whites move into a neighborhood and make it turn to shit?

Chula Vista and Santee, for two local examples. And Oceanside is getting pretty bad in places.

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I don't see the problem? Companies are being forced to clean up a nuisance they have so far ignored and refused to clean up.

Because they didn't cause the nuisance - unless you think you should be responsible for providing shelter for the homeless guy that hangs out in your front yard.

Your analogy doesn't fit, and the big-box stores do have a social responsibility to the neighborhood, especially since they arguably benefit from the day-laborers. See my post #87.

A responsibility that is often rewarded by big tax breaks.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[masterrig 1]

Quote

>But where is it that whites move into a neighborhood and make it turn to shit?

Chula Vista and Santee, for two local examples. And Oceanside is getting pretty bad in places.

I lived in El Cajon for a few years, in the early 70's and the areas you mentioned, didn't look all that good back then!

What amazes me is, the governor of California (The Governator), recently hosted a meeting of governors from border states from both Mexico and the U.S. Rather than discussing the kid-nappings of U.S. citizens by Mexican drug cartels (many from right there in San Diego County!), the murders of both Mexican Nationals, U.S. citizens and our Border Patrol Agents, the drug cartel 'wars' over control of the drug trade into the U.S. and the problem of illegal aliens, they chose to discuss the 'greening of the border'! The convention was held at Universal Studios. Let's see... Oh Yeah! General Electric owns Universal! G.E., stands to make billions from this convention and over all 'greening', through the sales of their 'energy saving bulbs' and what have you. I just don't understand this. Maybe, if these governors just ignore these problems that directly impact U.S. citizens maybe... it'll just go away. Maybe, the 'meth' producers will use solar energy!


Chuck

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

Even with massive "illegal" influx

Interesting misuse of quotes in that sentance.

. . =(_8^(1)

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Because they didn't cause the nuisance

They did indirectly by not dealing with the nuisance on their property. As with everything, if you leave it long enough, somebody will find a way to legislate it.

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

Even with massive "illegal" influx

Interesting misuse of quotes in that sentance.

He was quoting a word from the subject line of the thread.

Now, do you have a point?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I don't see the problem? Companies are being forced to clean up a nuisance they have so far ignored and refused to clean up.

Because they didn't cause the nuisance - unless you think you should be responsible for providing shelter for the homeless guy that hangs out in your front yard.

Your analogy doesn't fit, and the big-box stores do have a social responsibility to the neighborhood, especially since they arguably benefit from the day-laborers. See my post #87.

My analogy fits quite well - you don't receive any value from a homeless guy in your front yard, and Home Depot isn't receiving any value from the day laborers hanging out in the parking lot - well, they may get a couple bucks from people buying shit from the coke machines - woohoo!!

In fact, Home Depot is being hurt by the actions of the day laborers (having to clean up their trash/shit) - just as you would be hurt by having to clean up after the homeless guy hanging out in your yard.

Maybe you can point out those laws that show where Home Depot has ANY sort of "social responsibility", thanks. While it's good if a business "gives back" to the neighborhood, it is NOT a legal requiremend NOR a "responsibility".

Quote

If the stores don't want to install accommodations to reduce the laborers' being a public nuisance, then let them take the responsibility to patrol their premises and enforce a no-loitering policy. The local police are too thinly-stretched as it is to handle the extra burden of keeping loitering non-customers off the premises; nor is it fair to raise taxes to pay for more police to address this.

Should YOU be required to hire a security firm to run the homeless guy off your front yard? I don't disagree that a private security company would help - but who do you think gets called when they tell the mall ninja to blow it out his ass? That's right - the police. Oddly enough, I always thought that it was the JOB of the police to enforce laws like loiitering and public nuisances - silly me!

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,111]

>you don't receive any value from a homeless guy in your front yard, and
> Home Depot isn't receiving any value from the day laborers hanging out
>in the parking lot . . .

If they just hung out in the parking lot and drank beer, you would be correct.

However, if that homeless guy helps you unload your guest's cars, and helps your neighbor mow his lawn - then they are more akin to the day laborers that hang out in the Home Depot parking lot. And your neighbors would have every right to ask you about that guy who helps your guests out.

>Should YOU be required to hire a security firm to run the homeless guy
>off your front yard?

If you let other homeless guys help your guests unload their cars - yes, you then bear some of the responsibility. Naturally you don't have to hire a security guy, but you also can't sit in your house and say "that's a DIFFERENT homeless guy! Not my problem! Call the cops."

>Oddly enough, I always thought that it was the JOB of the police to
>enforce laws like loiitering and public nuisances - silly me!

It is. However, if a company, through their actions, require the police to be used far more often than average - then they bear some fiscal responsibility.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>you don't receive any value from a homeless guy in your front yard, and
> Home Depot isn't receiving any value from the day laborers hanging out
>in the parking lot . . .

If they just hung out in the parking lot and drank beer, you would be correct.

However, if that homeless guy helps you unload your guest's cars, and helps your neighbor mow his lawn - then they are more akin to the day laborers that hang out in the Home Depot parking lot. And your neighbors would have every right to ask you about that guy who helps your guests out.

Funny - all the times I've gone to Home Depot, none of the stock clerks drove home with me to help unload - so how is Home Depot gaining from this?

What do *I* gain from someone mowing my neighbor's yard, exactly?

Quote

>Should YOU be required to hire a security firm to run the homeless guy
>off your front yard?

If you let other homeless guys help your guests unload their cars - yes, you then bear some of the responsibility. Naturally you don't have to hire a security guy, but you also can't sit in your house and say "that's a DIFFERENT homeless guy! Not my problem! Call the cops."

See above.

Quote

>Oddly enough, I always thought that it was the JOB of the police to
>enforce laws like loiitering and public nuisances - silly me!

It is. However, if a company, through their actions, require the police to be used far more often than average - then they bear some fiscal responsibility.

Sweet - so, since I've only had to call the police twice in my life, I should get a break on my property taxes!!

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,111]

>What do *I* gain from someone mowing my neighbor's yard, exactly?

Nicer looking neighborhood, I imagine.

Look, once again this analogy is getting overused so I will switch back to a strictly Home Depot centric approach.

Day laborers hang around Home Depot because they know they can find work there. It benefits them because they get paid to work. It benefits Home Depot's customers because they can find a laborer to do work for them. It benefits Home Depot because day laborers + materials = one stop shopping for yard work, and that increases their business. It also benefits them because if you get a day laborer to help you load, that's one less employee Home Depot has to have helping you.

If those day laborers stood around all day, worked for no one and just drank beer then they would be like any other loiterers. (Why they would do this in a Home Depot parking lot is open to question, of course.) However, they are not - they are there specifically to work for Home Depot customers. That makes them unlike a homeless guy just sitting on your lawn.

Does that mean that Home Depot has a responsibility to house them, or pay them, or arrest them? No.

Does that mean that Home Depot can just throw up their hands and say "we bear no responsibility whatsoever for these guys! I don't even know why they're here." ? No. They _do_ bear some responsibility for making the decision to allow them to benefit Home Depot's bottom line.

How much responsibility is the question that is under discussion.

[masterrig 1]

I think, I asked this question or made the statement... it's private property! Home Depot can ask them to leave, they are a nuisance. They even carry signs in their stores 'NO LOITERING'. Put those signs up and call the cops! 7-11 stores and other businesses have those signs up. Those signs, seems to me, would be cheaper than building a 'shelter' for them. The next thing will be, they will have to provide hot meals for them!


Chuck

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

What do *I* gain from someone mowing my neighbor's yard, exactly?

Same as I got when my neighbors were on vacation and I mowed their yard, I expect.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.