1394 replies to this topic

[AmScray]

El Guapo, on Friday, July 30th, 2010, 11:03 AM, said:

Well now that's just silly.Porsche's come stock with 19" rims.

I'll take "Things A Mexican Might Know Off The Top Of His Head" for $500, Alex...

[navybuttons]

AmScray, on Friday, July 30th, 2010, 12:14 PM, said:

I'll take "Things A Mexican Might Know Off The Top Of His Head" for $500, Alex...

lolo

[CaneBrain]

best article written about Arizona's law BY FAR:CNN) -- Despite everyone talking about Arizona's new immigration law, Senate Bill 1070, no one has asked if it was Arizona's best option. Was there no other approach to address immigration without undermining the state's economy or shredding our social fabric? Nobody had a better idea for balancing security with the draw and demand of American jobs? What about an offer to work with Congress? Was the only solution to blow up the place? It should concern everyone that no one asked these questions. If you watch the SB1070 hearings here, not a single legislator asks about or offers alternatives, although a few express "concerns." One legislator, Daniel Patterson, strongly challenged the law's sponsor, state Sen. Russell Pearce, on his immigration claims. Patterson's courage was rewarded with the loss of his committee assignment. Pearce announced he would run primary challengers against any Republican who voted against SB1070. He threatened to hold up bills sponsored by anyone who did not support SB1070. He was so hell bent on passing his immigration bill that he packed hearings with supporters and, surprise, committee chairs limited the speaking time of opponents. Even if someone had another idea, the process was set up to ignore it.So what hath SB1070 wrought? Distrust. Blame. Boycotts. Poorly worded protest signs. There's the rumored loss of 200,000 to 300,000 convention room bookings for 2011-2013. There's damage to Arizona's reputation. Hispanic citizens expect to be racially profiled. There's the potential filing of hundreds of lawsuits against state and local government agencies and big paydays for the lawyers who will try those cases. Nothing much positive so far -- but it gets worse.Simple math suggests kicking 300,000 workers out of the state means at least a $6 billion hit to Arizona's economy. Add those jobs lost in support or supply businesses and the impact could reach $29 billion annually. Don't expect the law's proponents to have a plan for replacing those lost billions with anything other than empty promises of thousands of newly available low-paying jobs and overestimated savings -- all based on a flawed report from the Federation for American Immigration Reform. The report ignores that undocumented workers and family members pay the very same property and sales taxes that fund Arizona's education system and the state's general fund. It ignores the contributions that children who are citizens make to the state's tax base once they enter the workforce. If undocumented worker departures open up jobs, then why is the Bureau of Labor Statistics reporting Arizona's unemployment rate increased every month since SB1070 was signed into law? The bureau reports that Arizona lost 11,700 jobs from May to June and unemployment rose to 9.7 percent. We see news reports of immigrants leaving all the time, so jobs must be available. How can this be?The fact is, SB1070 is pushing out both the legal and the undocumented. They own businesses. They employ people. They pay taxes. They own homes. They spend money at stores owned by people who aren't leaving. Those businesses will lay off workers, reduce operations or close. That means fewer jobs, increased housing and commercial vacancies, depressed home values and foreclosures, and less sales, property and employment tax revenue for the state. We see it happening daily.Anyone paying attention could have seen this coming. Unfortunately, few really were. The rest were "satisficed" -- a combination of satisfied and sufficed that means settling on any solution rather than an optimal one -- that SB1070 would solve the problem, in glorious denial as to the real damage the bill is doing to Arizona.Has SB1070 solved any part of the problem? SB1070 doesn't secure the border and the unemployment figures don't indicate any improvement. It has created far more economic and social problems than it solves, but few proponents want to admit that. This is the result of not asking, "Is there a better way?"States considering mimicking SB1070 would be wise to heed warnings of adverse economic and social impacts. They would be wiser to question the "facts" SB1070 proponents trot out to support similar efforts. They would be wisest to say, "What else have you got?"Is there a better way? How about putting Ellis Island-type centers on the borders and channeling everyone looking for work through them? Employers, as in current law, would tell the government what type and how many jobs they need, ones that aren't being filled by domestic workers. Those jobs would be advertised on the internet, where interested immigrants and Americans can compete for them. Knowing the job demand, Congress could set market-based visa quotas that make sense.Instead of paying coyotes $2,500 to be smuggled into the United States, the job seekers would pay Uncle Sam to expedite the privilege. This takes billions out of the hands of smugglers and funds the solution to the problem. If 500,000 people are crossing into Arizona each year, this generates $1.25 billion to help cover the costs of building and operating these centers, with access to labor for business and better allocation of Border Patrol resources to finding drug smugglers. Read more about the proposal here.Arizonans have lived with political obsession and distortion on immigration for four years and my only suggestion to other states is: Don't follow our lead. Think of something else, because SB1070 isn't worth the economic and social trouble.The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Todd Landfried.

[CaneBrain]

The guy behind this law, Pearce, sounds like he is the embodiment of everything that is wrong with politics.

[Jeepster80125]

CaneBrain, on Tuesday, August 3rd, 2010, 1:06 PM, said:

The guy behind this law, Pearce, sounds like he is the embodiment of everything that is wrong with politics.

I think you should direct your hate to all politicians, not just the ones supporting this bill.All politicians are pieces of shit.

[Jeepster80125]

Mmmm, more funding for the insane war on drugs from this racist legislation, awesome.How much border security does $600 million buy?Short answer: Not too much.Long answer: Congress stood on its head to pass a supplemental $600 million border security bill yesterday, with two Senators returning to adopt the provision with unanimous consent. Election-year politics has a lot to do with the legislative consensus. But what exactly did the bill do?It funds about 1000 new Border Patrol agents, adding to the 20 thousand already on the force. That’s a continuation of Bush Administration policies, which roughly doubled the size of the Border Patrol from 10 to 20 thousand over eight years. A five percent increase in border staffing won’t make a big difference, but it’s better than the Obama administration’s initial budget, which proposed to cut the size of the force by one percent. It also adds around 250 new officers at ports of entry – the legal crossing points from Mexico. That makes sense. As illegal crossings get harder, smuggling through the ports of entry will increase, and these officers will be needed.The bill adds money for a couple more drones, again following Bush Administration policy. Drones have value, but I can’t help wondering how much these will add. The real problem in using them has been the extreme reluctance of the FAA to allow UAV flights along the border (or anywhere else, for that matter).Surprisingly, a third of the money goes to the Justice Department, mainly to fund FBI, DEA, and ATF investigations of drugs and guns. There certainly is value in launching more crossborder investigations of Mexican organized crime, but in my experience, law enforcement agencies sometimes get money by selling the crime of the month, and there’s no guarantee that the increased funding will actually result in increased attention to that crime. My guess is that Sen. Schumer, with his Judiciary Committee background, is just more open to Justice Department appeals for funds than to DHS appeals. ICE, for example, is responsible for crossborder crime and immigration enforcement, but it gets no more of a boost in funding than the Justice components, and I hear it’s been told that the funds are not to be used for immigration enforcement, just for drug and money smuggling. That, of course, reflects the deep animus in the advocacy community toward immigration enforcement away from the border; the advocates weren’t happy with added border enforcement, but they would have erupted if the administration and Congress had added funds for interior enforcement.Much was made of the fact that these increases were “paid for.” That’s true, sort of. It looks as though a lot of it was “paid for” by canceling hundreds of millions of dollars in fence-building and air security spending. In addition, Congress is claiming a lot of new revenue by charging an extra $2,000 for H-1B visas issued to companies that mainly depend on immigrant labor to carry out jobs in the US. There’s a policy case for discouraging that kind of company (although the more discouraging we do, the less “paid for” this bill becomes). Established US companies tend to use H-1B visas to hire college and postgraduate workers to fill particular slots and to try out employees for permanent employment. The mainly Indian companies that rely heavily on H-1B labor seem to be outsourcing companies, and the anecdotal claim is that they use the visas to bring in workers from India who work alongside US workers and learn to do their jobs, then return to India to do the US workers’ jobs in India. If you were making policy in the middle of a bad recession, you might prefer the first use of H-1B visas to the second.But there could easily be a WTO challenge to the new fee. In a dumb move that hasn’t recently been repeated, the US long ago agreed at the WTO that it would always allow at least 65,000 H-1B visa holders to enter the country. I would not be surprised to see India challenge the new fee on a couple of WTO grounds – that it discriminates in practice against foreign companies and that it effectively withdraws – or at least improperly burdens — the binding US commitment to admit 65 thousand workers (after all, India will argue, no one would think the US was living up to its WTO commitment if it raised H-1B visa fees to $1 million apiece). If so, there’s a real possibility that a WTO dispute resolution panel will force the US to drop the fee, and perhaps any visa fees not directly related to the cost of issuing the visas. That will show just how dumb it was to add immigration issues to trade negotiations. But the pressure to make more such concessions continues. And as USTR runs out of trade concessions that other countries want, it is increasingly looking to make concessions in areas of policy whose social consequences it doesn’t understand or doesn’t care about.UPDATE: Typos fixed; parenthetical added

[85suited]

CaneBrain, on Saturday, June 26th, 2010, 8:26 AM, said:

And the official spokesman for the Border Patrol agrees with me. Maybe the border patrol should get their story straight.

maybe the "official spokesman" is just another federal beaurocrat?http://www.washingto...-101436299.html

[akoff]

85suited, on Wednesday, September 1st, 2010, 4:47 AM, said:

maybe the "official spokesman" is just another federal beaurocrat?http://www.washingto...-101436299.html

he had a sit down with Barak and they came to the conclusion that the best thing do would be to talk to them. It works well with extremist gruops in the middle east and illegals with violent criminal records are similar. they are going to explain that we don't care for that kind of thing here an if they would just stay south of the border and continue to bribe the police and leaders there everything will be fine. When those guys go back to the cartel leaders and explain barak's request i am sure this whole thing will go away...

[CaneBrain]

85suited, on Wednesday, September 1st, 2010, 8:47 AM, said:

maybe the "official spokesman" is just another federal beaurocrat?http://www.washingto...-101436299.html

biggest joke I ever read and the Dept. of the Interior policy they refer to was instituted when Obama was a child. I am sure being in an ICE detention facility is the best thing ever. Not to mention the amount of money it would cost to patrol how they want to patrol is astronomical....but hey what's fiscal responsibility when you are too busy using illegal immigrants as a scapegoat.Someday, somewhere, a Republican will call for a law that punishes employers for hiring illegals in a way that actually has some teeth. He will be instantly assassinated by Karl Rove but then we will actually be on the right track.

[85suited]

CaneBrain, on Wednesday, September 1st, 2010, 8:47 AM, said:

biggest joke I ever read and the Dept. of the Interior policy they refer to was instituted when Obama was a child. I am sure being in an ICE detention facility is the best thing ever. Not to mention the amount of money it would cost to patrol how they want to patrol is astronomical....but hey what's fiscal responsibility when you are too busy using illegal immigrants as a scapegoat.Someday, somewhere, a Republican will call for a law that punishes employers for hiring illegals in a way that actually has some teeth. He will be instantly assassinated by Karl Rove but then we will actually be on the right track.

Karl Rove - BoogeymanYou are right this is a joke that this goes on:

Quote

Council 118 President Chris Crane said in a statement that Morton and Coven “have abandoned the agency’s core mission of enforcing United States Immigration Laws and providing for public safety, and have instead directed their attention to campaigning for programs and policies related to amnesty and the creation of a special detention system for foreign nationals that exceeds the care and services provided to most United States citizens similarly incarcerated.” As a result, according to Crane, ICE “engages in the large-scale release of criminals back into local communities … and refuses, for political reasons, to request the additional manpower and resources needed to adequately operate the [Secure Communities] program.” Union officials claim ICE officers are prohibited from making arrests outside of jail settings, creating an “amnesty through policy,” while senior ICE officials continue to mislead the public about the effectiveness of their criminal enforcement programs

or that this goes on

Quote

Violent felons (the only kind of criminals ICE picks up) are sent to “resort-like” detention facilities that provide “bingo nights, dance lessons and hanging plants,” Crane said. Once there, many of the inmates “openly brag to ICE officers that they are taking advantage of the broken immigration system and will be back in the United States within days to commit crimes, while United States citizens arrested for the same offenses serve prison sentences.”

[CaneBrain]

85suited, on Wednesday, September 1st, 2010, 11:28 AM, said:

Karl Rove - BoogeymanYou are right this is a joke that this goes on:or that this goes on

so they say. I am glad you have total faith in them....I don't buy that crap for a second. ICE detention facilities in Miami are nasty places. Sounds like more BS rhetoric like "a vast majority of people illegally crossing the border are working for the drug cartels."Maybe some of these guys should think about addressing the source of illegal information: American businesses are willing to hire them. But, it is verboten for a conservative to ever go after business in any way, shape or form so instead we will waste our time and billions securing a border that is massive. GREAT PLAN.

[85suited]

CaneBrain, on Wednesday, September 1st, 2010, 10:37 AM, said:

so they say. I am glad you have total faith in them....I don't buy that crap for a second. ICE detention facilities in Miami are nasty places. Sounds like more BS rhetoric like "a vast majority of people illegally crossing the border are working for the drug cartels."Maybe some of these guys should think about addressing the source of illegal information: American businesses are willing to hire them. But, it is verboten for a conservative to ever go after business in any way, shape or form so instead we will waste our time and billions securing a border that is massive. GREAT PLAN.

Waste our time securing our border?Im glad you put your faith in a washington beaurocrat over the men and women serving on the border.

[CaneBrain]

85suited, on Wednesday, September 1st, 2010, 11:48 AM, said:

Waste our time securing our border?Im glad you put your faith in a washington beaurocrat over the men and women serving on the border.

See, you don't understand simple things which is why I am wasting my time. It's not about faith. I don't put faith in anything. I look at how large our borders are; I know we have money problems as is. I realize it would be cheaper to just punish employers who hire illegals harshly cutting off the problem at the source than to spend billions trying in vain to secure a 1000 mile long border. It's an easier and more cost-effective way to stop illegal immigration. But, conservatives don't actually care about fiscal responsibility and they definitely would never enact a law that punishes a businessman so instead they demand billions and billions to try and secure thousand of miles of border instead.

[Pot Odds RAC]

CaneBrain, on Wednesday, September 1st, 2010, 11:52 AM, said:

See, you don't understand simple things which is why I am wasting my time. It's not about faith. I don't put faith in anything. I look at how large our borders are; I know we have money problems as is. I realize it would be cheaper to just punish employers who hire illegals harshly cutting off the problem at the source than to spend billions trying in vain to secure a 1000 mile long border. It's an easier and more cost-effective way to stop illegal immigration. But, conservatives don't actually care about fiscal responsibility and they definitely would never enact a law that punishes a businessman so instead they demand billions and billions to try and secure thousand of miles of border instead.

So you must think that the most effective drug laws would be to come down hard on the users rather than the suppliers.

[CaneBrain]

Pot Odds RAC, on Wednesday, September 1st, 2010, 11:56 AM, said:

So you must think that the most effective drug laws would be to come down hard on the users rather than the suppliers.

No, the most effective drug laws would be treatment for harder drugs and legalization for softer drugs. Not only do the two issues not analogize well but I don't think the analogy even works; the employers are the suppliers in this case.....they supply the market for labor.

[Pot Odds RAC]

CaneBrain, on Wednesday, September 1st, 2010, 11:59 AM, said:

No, the most effective drug laws would be treatment for harder drugs and legalization for softer drugs. Not only do the two issues not analogize well but I don't think the analogy even works; the employers are the suppliers in this case.....they supply the market for labor.

Wow. That's just. Wow. So the illegal immigration isn't the illegal part anymore, the previously legal work being provided to the illegal immigrant is. The "market" is the supply, not the resource input of labor.Just wow.

[Balloon guy]

CaneBrain, on Wednesday, September 1st, 2010, 6:47 AM, said:

biggest joke I ever read and the Dept. of the Interior policy they refer to was instituted when Obama was a child. I am sure being in an ICE detention facility is the best thing ever. Not to mention the amount of money it would cost to patrol how they want to patrol is astronomical....but hey what's fiscal responsibility when you are too busy using illegal immigrants as a scapegoat.Someday, somewhere, a Republican will call for a law that punishes employers for hiring illegals in a way that actually has some teeth. He will be instantly assassinated by Karl Rove but then we will actually be on the right track.

I worked on a farm for a couple years here in So Cal and the spot inspections and INS over watch was enough that my employer never hired illegals. If he was ever caught, the fines were so steep that there was no incentive to hire anyone illegal.That was in the early 90s, I doubt the laws softened.I also heard a really funny bit about how the Obama administration is such a hypocrite with regards to illegal immigration when they are prosecuting the party crashers who came to the white house function without an invite. You can figure the joke, pretty funny.And thanks for reminding me, I bought Karl Rove's book and have been meaning to read it. Will start it tonight

[CaneBrain]

Balloon guy, on Wednesday, September 1st, 2010, 12:13 PM, said:

I worked on a farm for a couple years here in So Cal and the spot inspections and INS over watch was enough that my employer never hired illegals. If he was ever caught, the fines were so steep that there was no incentive to hire anyone illegal.That was in the early 90s, I doubt the laws softened.I also heard a really funny bit about how the Obama administration is such a hypocrite with regards to illegal immigration when they are prosecuting the party crashers who came to the white house function without an invite. You can figure the joke, pretty funny.And thanks for reminding me, I bought Karl Rove's book and have been meaning to read it. Will start it tonight

I am sure his book will be very interesting, no sw.California is a liberal paradise....doubt those laws exist in AZ, TX, etc.

[Balloon guy]

CaneBrain, on Wednesday, September 1st, 2010, 9:17 AM, said:

California is a liberal paradise....doubt those laws exist in AZ, TX, etc.

Shouldn't the laws be reversed then?If it is really hard to hire an illegal on the farms, wouldn't you say that is a more conservative stance?

[loogie]

Jan Brewer derails in less than ten seconds."I have (giant pause, looks at notes) done so much."