Nightingale

No. I'm not saying get rid of the minimum wage and pay people more. That'd be silly. I'm saying get rid of the minimum wage and let employers pay employees what they think the job is worth. If farmers have to pay $7 an hour to strawberry pickers, our fruit would cost $20 a basket. However, if we let farmers pay legal workers what they feel the job is worth (probably somewhere aroudn $2 or $3 per hour), our strawberry costs will go down, along with the cost of all of our basic services, reducing inflation and preventing further inflation. The people on the bottom wage level won't be any worse off, because even though they're getting paid less, they're more likely to be able to find employment in the first place because jobs won't need to go to illegal workers willing to be paid under the table. Wage-influenced inflation will stop, and the poor will do what they've always done: pool their financial resources for more purchasing power. Removing the minimum wage gives employers the ability to negotiate with employees over what their pay will be. Employers and employees will have equal power, because without minimum wage, employers can say "I'll pay this much" and an employee can say "no thanks...the guy down the road is offering 50 cents more." Then, the first employer can either raise the wage, or let the guy move on, hiring the next person who is willing to work for what he is willing to pay. Employers need workers, and workers naturally migrate to the best environment they can get. Workers need work, and will take on a job that pays a wage they're willing to work for.

The wal-mart argument is an interesting one, but economically flawed. Our society is built on a capitalist structure, which makes the concept of a "living wage" impossible. When you try to pay the people making the lowest salary more money, so they can pay their rent, buy their food, etc..., all you do is make everything cost more. If McDonalds has to pay their employees $15 instead of $7, they'll have to raise prices to balance their budget. Not only that, but the people who are picking the potatoes and making the burger buns and raising the cattle will be paid more, making those products cost more. Employers are going to pass on the increase in cost to their customers, and you'll find yourself paying $9 for a big mac. Now, because everything's become more expensive because our most basic labor costs more, rents start going up (landlords have to eat and shop also), and so you end up in a situation which is exactly the same as where you started. The low wage earners can't afford to buy food or pay rent, because by increasing the supply of money, you've increased the demand for goods, and things have equalized right back to where they were, except your dollar is now worth about half what it was before.

This is a prime example of why abolishing minimum wage laws would benefit Americans. If that guy's not paying a set wage, he can pay his employees a wage that allows him to be competitive rather than consistently underbid by other companies.

If you're keeping an open ear and an open mind, SC can only be educational (and sometimes amusing!). I've found that my own viewpoints have been strengthened by the time I spemd here, because I've been forced to do research and have better learned to articulate my own opinions, and the reasons for them. And, sometimes, of couse, I learn something new, and change my mind.

My guess would be that the prosecution was trying to demonstrate to the jury exactly what the kids went through, and trying to convince the jury that there was no way that someone who was crazy could do what she did for the length of time required to drown five kids. Do I think it was necessary? probably not. The court has no control over what jurors do once they are sent to deliberate. This lack of control is compensated for by strictly regulating what goes in to the juror's heads. As a society, many of us trust what's printed in our newspapers and shown on our news television broadcasts. The court is concerned that if a juror sees a headline "OJ Simpson Killed Wife" that the juror will believe the newspaper has more information than is being given to the juror. This may or may not be the case, but shouldn't be taken into account by the juror. It's hard to ignore knowledge that you think you have (evidenced by the declaration of mistrials instead of striking very prejudicial comments from the record and letting the trial continue). Do I think they go overboard sometimes? Yes. A fair trial, IMO, is where the defense team forces the prosecution to prove its case. It's not enough to just "know" someone did something. The prosecution must provide proof "beyond a reasonable doubt." Defense attorneys exist to keep the prosecution honest and to hold the government accountable for the evidence it presents, as well as to be an advocate and voice for their client in a system where they really have very little power. We have an adversarial system by nature, and it breaks down if both sides do not do the best job they can.

If the US was interested in protecting the weak, we would've been in Rwanda.

Agreed! This is one of the reasons why we need to streamline our immigration procedures so we can actually begin to regulate immigration and keep track of who's here. If people know they've got a good chance at getting here legally, there's no reason to go crawling under fences and taking long journeys where there are no trash cans.

Hehe. I know what you mean. I was working in a law office last summer that had major computer issues. They gave me a fairly ancient pentium 4, and the thing ran soooo slowly. I was having trouble getting my job done because I needed the computer to work so I could do my research and write my memos. If something's wrong with a computer that I know how to fix, and it'll make my life easier if I fix it, I'll fix the damn thing. So, I cleaned up the hard drive, ran a virus scan (OMG... I didn't know it was possible to have over 500 viruses (virii?) on a computer and have it still work even slightly) and defragmented the hard drive, and fixed some really stupid directory structures. By the end of the first week, my computer was the only one in the office that actually worked. I didn't think anything of it, other than I could now get my job done. Unfortunately, my boss noticed that my computer was the only one in the office that actually worked... By the end of the summer I was about to scream "I'm a law clerk, not tech support!"

Well, you said you wanted all countries to have a military with only defensive capabilities. How do you plan on achieving that? Do you really think China/Korea/Saudi Arabia/Iran, etc... are going to just voluntarily give up their offensive capabilities? The US has very strong defensive capabilities already. So far, we haven't had a conflict on our own soil with another nation in a very long time. What we have had is conflicts with individuals and organizations that operate under the radar. Reducing our own offensive capabilities and those of other nations isn't going to solve that problem at all. It doesn't even begin to address it. What you're proposing seems extremely naive.

That's not a reasonable option, primarily because forcing other countries to disarm would need to be an offensive military action itself. You're talking WWIII here at least.

When's the last time you broke the speed limit?

And this is the kinda stuff I associate with smokers. Fortunately, my own mental associations don't make all, most, or even a majority litterers. Just because it's an idea in my head about a certain class of people doesn't make it correct.

Do you have any sources to back this up? Last I checked, we've been hearing the same thing since before the Irish showed up here in en masse in the early 1800s. Of course he doesn't, because the facts are demonstrably opposite. You can provide facts demonstrating that illegal immigrants pay more in taxes than they use? Let's see 'em! Blues, Dave Sure! Here ya go: "According to a study by the Urban Institute, the 1996 welfare reform effort dramatically reduced the use of welfare by undocumented immigrant households, exactly as intended. And another vital thing happened in 1996: the Internal Revenue Service began issuing identification numbers to enable illegal immigrants who don't have Social Security numbers to file taxes. One might have imagined that those fearing deportation or confronting the prospect of paying for their safety net through their own meager wages would take a pass on the IRS' scheme. Not so. Close to 8 million of the 12 million or so illegal aliens in the country today file personal income taxes using these numbers, contributing billions to federal coffers. No doubt they hope that this will one day help them acquire legal status—a plaintive expression of their desire to play by the rules and come out of the shadows. What's more, aliens who are not self-employed have Social Security and Medicare taxes automatically withheld from their paychecks. Since undocumented workers have only fake numbers, they'll never be able to collect the benefits these taxes are meant to pay for. Last year, the revenues from these fake numbers—that the Social Security administration stashes in the “earnings suspense file”—added up to 10 percent of the Social Security surplus. The file is growing, on average, by more than $50 billion a year. Beyond federal taxes, all illegals automatically pay state sales taxes that contribute toward the upkeep of public facilities such as roads that they use, and property taxes through their rent that contribute toward the schooling of their children. The non-partisan National Research Council found that when the taxes paid by the children of low-skilled immigrant families—most of whom are illegal—are factored in, they contribute on average $80,000 more to federal coffers than they consume." -Tribune News

If the mechanic did something like that, and it comes out in the civil suit, he will probably face criminal prosecution. However, often, if it wasn't for the plaintiffs in the civil suit hunting down the facts, criminal conduct would go unnoticed. Also, most dropzones don't have insurance. Neither do most jump pilots. The only people who have insurance in this case is probably the aircraft manufacturer, and they'll only be held responsible if there was a design defect or if they were negligent, and in that case, they should pay. Suing the manufacturer will allow them to obtain discovery from them about the aircraft schematics and design history, and they might not be able to get that otherwise. If there really is a problem with the plane, that's where they'll find out.

How will all the facts get in? Well, at least the NTSB report. What if it comes back that some Terrorists shot it down? Certainly no-one names in the suit is responsible. To sue the dead pilots estate and cost his family money defending someone that might have done no wrong is so reprehensible I cant believe it. I wouldnt piss in these fuckers mouths if their teeth were on fire! I hope karma catches up to them. At this point, the pilot's family is probably not going to do much of anything until they see the facts. Ditto with the dropzone. They'll sit back, wait for the report, pass the report along to the plaintiffs and then ask the plaintiffs if they are sure they still want to sue. If the plane was shot down by a terrorist, chances are, the suit will be dropped.

Simple. The dropzone says "the pilot was supposed to be responsible for making sure scheduled maintenance is done. He was responsible for checking his aircraft and ensuring the safety of the passengers. We just give him a runway and loan him the plane." The other issue is that most of the time, the facts do not come out until the lawsuit. So, they don't know who's responsible. Maybe routine maintenance really was part of the pilot's job. Maybe it's in his contract. Maybe the dropzone was supposed to take care of everything. Maybe, the dropzone had a contract with the manufacturer for maintenance. Maybe there was a problem with the aircraft itself. A lot of this won't be known until the completion of the discovery process, and then they can drop names as necessary.

In some states, any immediate family member, including parents (and grandparents in some cases) can sue. California is different in that it only allows dependants to sue. Some other states just base it on relationship rather than financial dependance. For example, under Georgia law, if there is no surviving spouse or child, the decedent's parents are allowed to sue.

That's very easy to do, if, for example, you're an apartment complex that gets identification from new renters, if you're a grocery store that cards for alcohol, or if you're a school that simply files away copies of birth certificates. It's not so easy if someone is dealing with a government entity or someone authorized to run a credit check. When you run a credit check, the SSN must match the name and birthday. To copy someone's SSN, you have to know their name and date of birth. Since usually only the name and SSN are printed on the card, this isn't an easy thing to do, even if you've stolen the card itself. When you're applying for government services, they check your documentation against official records. And believe me, they check. I couldn't renew my driver's license because the birthdate that social security had didn't match the date on my birth certificate or driver's license. After 9-11, all the systems are linked. Social security was able to look at DMV records with the click of a mouse, and DMV has access to social security records. I came in with my social security card, driver's license, passport, birth certificate, and even student ID and library cards, and because the birth date was wrong by one day on the social security records (someone made a typo when entering the data), it took a congressional inquiry to get it straightened out. It is not as easy to fool a government agency as you might think. If legitimate citizens with proper paperwork are going through stuff like this, imagine how accurate forged paperwork would have to be... Now, since the computers are linked, they can check a fake driver's license just by typing in the state and number, and they get a photo of the license, the name, and the driving record.

Just like drugs, cigarettes, and alcohol... trying to limit supply (stop people from coming in) doesn't work. You must reduce demand. As far as I can see, the only thing that will reduce demand is the elimination of the minimum wage. As long as there is a minimum wage, there will be a demand for under the table labor. Farmers know that people don't want to pay $20 a basket for strawberries. If the farms want to stay in business, they MUST keep their costs down. About the only thing they can shortcut on is labor costs. As long as someone is willing to do the job for cheaper than the minimum wage, there will be a demand for illegal employment. Fining the farmers without removing minimum wage requirements won't work. It won't work because people won't pay $20 a basket for strawberries, and if they don't hire under the table, they go out of business anyway. Either the fines shut them down or the high minimum wage shuts them down. However, if you remove the minimum wage, you remove the incentive to hire people illegally, because you can now hire them legally. There's no reason not to hire people legally, because you can pay them the same amount you were paying the illegal hires. At that point, fining them for hiring illegal workers will actually accomplish something. The immigration criteria standards MUST change if we want to regulate the flow of people entering the US. Making the standards as strict as they are tells people that the ONLY way they can get here is illegally. If that's the only way, they'll take it. However, if we make it easier to immigrate (let in anyone with a job and a sponsor, for example) remove the minimum wage, and fine people who hire illegal workers (you have to have all three components for this to work), we then have a system in place that lets the government keep track of who's here, makes it easier for companies who depend on immigrant labor to hire them legally, and removes any incentive to hire illegal workers.

I think a lot of people here are reacting emotionally rather than logically, and that's a very human thing to do. When I read stuff about child porn, it makes me very angry that people would do that to kids, and disgusted at the content. My gut reaction is "ban that shit." I try to take a few steps back from the emotional side of the issues, though, and look at things from logical and legal perspectives. The logical perspective was in my post above... You can't get rid of illegal goods just by making them illegal. You have to reduce demand, and the supply will go away. The legal perspective is that if no children are harmed/used in the making of digital porn, then it simply isn't child porn. There aren't any children there. What's on a computer is what comes out of someone's head, and it's just not practical to police thought. When you start policing thought, you run into a slippery slope... where does it end? Who decides what's okay to look at and to think and to feel? Where do you draw the line between art and porn if art is legal and porn isn't? Who decides? For example, take Stanley Kubrick's film "Lolita". I thought it was a great movie. However, when it was made, the film sat around for over six months because Kubrik couldn't find anyone to play it. I don't think most people would consider the film porn now... but what about the original Nabokov novel? The novel is a lot more descriptive than the film about the interactions between Humbert and Lolita. Is that pornography? Is it child pornography because the character in the book is underage? Is it child pornography because someone might imagine in their own head what those scenes would look like? Can the written word even be pornography? All this stuff is so ambiguous. I think the supreme court drew the line in a really reasonable place. No children = no child porn.

If there was actually a way for those people to immigrate legally, I would agree with you. However, if you check the INS website, you'll see that the US isn't, and hasn't for about the last fifteen years, accepting immigration applications from anyone from Mexico who doesn't have a family member here or something similar to a PhD or special talent of some kind. I wouldn't have a problem with employers going to Mexico, interviewing people there, and then sponsoring them for permission to come here, as long as they remain employed. Then, they could remain here as long as they are employed, and would be subject to deportation if they become unemployed or until they go through the process to become a citizen. Those processes should be made available to anyone who is able to immigrate legally. As long as there are jobs here, there will be illegal immigration unless we make it possible for those people to come here and work legally. We can drastically reduce the need for illegal labor by eliminating the minimum wage and charging heavy fines for hiring illegal immigrants, but we also need to give employers access to immigrants when they don't have enough applicants who want to do the job here. Example: If a farmer needs 25 strawberry pickers, he hires the guys who apply here, and pays them what they negotiate together. Then, if he got fewer people than he needed, he can go to mexico and sponsor some immigrants to come up here and work for him, and their green card would be valid as long as they are employed, and when they become citizens, they can bring their immediate family here to join them. Put the green card system on something like the DMV driver's license system to help keep track. If people can easily immigrate to the US and work here legally, there's no reason to do so illegally. Reduce/eliminate the demand for illegal labor, and you reduce/eliminate the incentives to immigrate.

"At the heart of this issue is differentiating between immigrants who are in the country legally and those who aren't. Only immigrants with lawful permanent resident, refugee or asylums status are authorized to receive public benefits. However, the public misconception often is that illegal immigrants also have access to the benefits, a notion propagated by some politicians said [Jonathan] Blazer [a policy attorney with teh National Immigration Law Center]. "This framing continues a campaign that has included Agriculture Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) and Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) giving the impression that food stamp cuts have something to do with illegal immigration or illegal immigrants fraudulently obtaining food stamps, a claim that is erroneous," Blazer said, adding that the cuts hurt those immigrants who "pay taxes, have children in the military and contribute positively to society." "The response from our office is illegal immigration has never been a topic that has been broached at all," said Alise Kowalski, spokesperson for the Agriculture Committee. Goodlatte-an attorney with immigration law background-"would never confuse the legal with illegal non-citizens," she said. An earlier version of the House Republican Conference's summary of the deficit reduction bill, however, listed "restricting illegal immigrant access to food stamps and Medicaid" as a key provision. It has since been corrected, but it is an example of the confusion surrounding the issue. Blazer said that politicians "make a name for themselves for being tough on immigrants. But it has nothing to do with that." -BU.edu "Nationally, only 66 percent of people who are income-eligible for food stamps receive them4. In New York City, roughly 700,000 people are eligible to receive food stamps but don’t, costing NYC businesses roughly $1 billion in lost sales. Studies conclude that the main reason eligible people don’t participate is the complex bureaucracy involved in applying, which is frustrating and humiliating...Illegal immigrants are not eligible to receive food stamps, and never have been; there are stringent processes to determine citizenship in the program. Legal immigrants are also not allowed to receive food stamps until they have been in the country for five years (with the exception of asylum cases and some other situations). Immigrants generally are far less likely than other groups to apply for food stamps, both because they fear jeopardizing their immigration status, and because the complex application process is doubly hard for those who do not speak English well." sources: Across the U.S. Economy.” Economic Research Service (USDA). http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/fanrr26/fanrr26-6/ 2004. “2004 Food Stamp Program Access Index (PAI) State-by-State.” Food Reseach and Action Center. http://www.frac.org/html/federal_food_programs/FSP/Participation_Rates_04.html

Do you have any sources to back this up? Last I checked, we've been hearing the same thing since before the Irish showed up here in en masse in the early 1800s.

There is no shortage of landfill space, rather there's an overabundance. He's right. There is no shortage of landfill space at all. "All of the garbage America produces in the next 1,000 years would fit in an area 44 miles on each side and about 120 feet deep. About 73 percent of all municipal solid waste in the United States ends up in landfills. And despite many potential landfill spaces, the number of landfills actually receiving trash is shrinking. Over the past 10 years, more than half of the 18,500 municipal solid waste landfills that existed in 1979 have closed. Further, once lined and covered, a landfill is not permanently unusable. Parks, golf courses and buildings cover the surface of some covered landfills. Properly sited and operated, landfills pose little threat either to human health or to the environment...A landfill containing the next 1,000 years' worth of U.S. garbage would occupy less than one-tenth of one percent of our land." Source: A. Clark Wiseman, U.S. Wastepaper Recycling Policies: Issues and Effects; Lynn Scarlett, A Consumer's Guide to Environmental Myths and Realities

If they've got food stamps, they're probably here legally. "A person must be a U.S. citizen or an eligible non-citizen to qualify for food stamps WHO CAN GET FOOD STAMPS? U.S. citizens and certain legal immigrants who have little or no income and very few assets are likely to be eligible for food stamps. This includes, but is not limited to, people who are: * Unemployed * Retired with no or low pension or Social Security income * Working, but earning low wages * On state cash assistance (TFA, SAGA, or State Supplement) * Homeless * Legal immigrants who are disabled and receiving disability benefits (SSI, or disability-related Medicaid) are eligible for federal food stamps without a waiting period. Sponsor deeming and sponsor liability apply to disabled immigrants who entered the U.S. after December 19, 1997 and have enforceable affidavits of support. * Students in post-secondary schools (college) can receive food stamps if: 1. Age under 18 or 60+ 2. Physically or mentally disabled 3. Receiving TFA 4. Responsible for more that 50% of the care of a dependent family member if under age 6 or age 6-12 if adequate care is not available 5. Enrolled less than half time 6. Enrolled half time or more and employed a minimum of 20 hrs/wk 7. Placed in higher education by the Workforce Investment Act (former JTPA) program. WORK REQUIREMENTS FOR FOOD STAMPS (Effective July 1, 2006) Federal law limits Able-Bodied Adults Without Dependents (ABAWDs) to 3 months of Food Stamps in 3 years, unless they are working, doing community service, or in an approved employment/training program for at least 80 hours a month. WHO CAN NOT GET FOOD STAMPS? The following CANNOT get food stamps, regardless of how low their income is: * Most strikers. * Most college and university students between the ages of 18-59, unless they meet one of the exceptions listed above * Illegal immigrants WHAT DOCUMENTS ARE NEEDED? * Identification * Proof of citizenship or refugee status. * Legal immigrants with permanent residence status ("green card") should call to ask what documentation is required. * Proof of earned and unearned income * Documentation of countable assets (bank account statements, title of car, car loan information, stocks, bonds, CDs, etc. * Social Security numbers for everyone in the household. * Verification of your shelter expenses, such as rent receipt or lease and utility bills." Source: Conn. State Dept. of Social Services and the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture