I've been meaning to post this for a while.
In December, the Times editorial board wrote the following ridiculous piece about illegal immigration. Its a month old, but nothing has changed, so this is still perfectly timely.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/18/opinion/18tue1.html?ref=opinion
Gee, where do I start. In the context of a new employer sanctions law, the NYT states, "We have always said that workplace laws should be enforced vigorously." Well that's a position, and not even an indefensible one. Later and throughout the piece, however, the NYT rightly points out the human and economic toll such a position takes. The REAL harm it does. The NYT sounds a lot like Bob Herbert-- whining about a problem, and balking at its own solution-- just to whine like a college freshman. Not appealing.
Sure sure, they said, "we support employer sanctions in the context of overall reform." Fine. But absent comprehensive reform, which will pass over the GOP's cold dead political corpse, does the NYT support really sanctioning employers that hire illegals or not? Should a contractor who hires undocumented Hector run a small risk of a nuisance fine and hassle, or is that contractor a REAL criminal who should, as the Arizona law referenced in the NYT piece requires, have its license REVOKED for a second offense? Should my bosses at the law firm I'm working with be disbarred for hiring an illegal absent comprehensive reform? Answers please. Well, the NYT won't answer, b/c it does not support sanctions anything like those I mention above, and is afraid to admit it. They only support employer sanctions in the context, I imagine, of a sensibly large # of LEGAL Mexican immigrants, which would make sanctions unnecessary, as there'd be plenty of LEGAL immigrants to do the work. Seems hypocritical.
The FHQ+ Electoral College Projection (10/30/24)
3 weeks ago
14 comments:
Oklahoma has passed an even broader law:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-01-09-immigcover_N.htm
Personally, while I agree there needs to be reform, I find a lot of the anti-immigration proposals offensive and short-sighted. I haven't been following it too closely, but most of the stuff I read seems to be along the lines of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
I do know someone who has been directly harmed by illegal immigrants. He works for a construction contractor, and his contractor plays is straight and is badly undercut on cost by people who hire illegals, costing him work. This neatly proves a case for enforcing MINIMUM WAGE laws and requiring employment to be on the books, but only indirectly argues against illegals in my book.
Its hard to believe Oklahoma is going to be better off, economically or otherwise, following the passage of that rather draconian law. Needless to say, this is a situation that should be resolved at the federal level. Bush/Kennedy/McCain really tried. But a totally united GOP, whipped up by the talk show crowd, said nyet. So no deporations, no legalizations, plenty of gray area, needless fear, immoral treatment (in my opinion) and inneficiency. I hope they're proud of themselves.
Secure the border first, worry about deportations, secondarily.
Employers should re-examine present
work force and discharge illegal
workers.
Arizona law may work, givr it time.
Larry:
Somewhat unlike my friend Andrew, I'm ok with "securing the border." I put that in quotes because its a LONG land and sea border (with Mexico, never mind Canada!) it will never be "secure." But making it more secure for me is only a priority at all because of dealing with known criminals and potential terrorists. I just don't see how making a fruit seller fire his illegals helps America. Legals aliens and citizens don't want those jobs, at least not at wages which make any sense in the marketplace.
And as for mass deportations, forget about it. If there is ever really talk of deporting people en masse whose only crime was coming here illegally, I will join the marches, get myself arrested, etc. THAT would be a deal-breaker for this law-abiding citizen. I will NOT allow nativists to destroy what makes my country great, if its in the power of people like me to stop it.
If Arizona, Oklahoma and the other states that walk down this path are DEADLY serious about employer sanctions, it may well "work." And America will be the worse for it.
Back in the day the American labor market had a seemingly insatiable demand for unskilled and semi-skilled labor. The demand is NOT insatiable today, but there is a demand for it. And our immigration laws allow you to come over here if you're somebody's mother/brother, but not if a local labor market demands your services, be it construction/washing dishes, picking fruit, whatever. With a perfectly mad immigration policy generally, implicitly allowing illegals to come here and work here (as we have for decades, under presidents of both parties) actually makes all kinds of sense.
Lastly, it PAINS me to EVER say that George W. Bush is right about ANYTHING. But I think he's very right about immigration. Its one of the few issues he understands, being the former governor of Texas, and I think his views and instincts are right. *Looks up at ceiling nervously for fear of lightning striking from above...*
I haven't sorted through all my feelings on the immigration issue, but I think I'm in line with you Danny. I would like to see a more secure border (as you said, it can't be completely secured, at least not with the technology and manpower we have today). I also think it would be harmful to the economy to deport illegal immigrants en masse. There needs to be a middle ground to the debates. I don't like the draconian laws in Oklahoma. At the same time, there need to be some protections for the American workers. I'd like to see the "legalization" of the illegal immigrants, in that they are taxed (which makes sense since they do receive benefits). Like I said, I'm still sorting through all the issues and my feelings on the subject. But I still believe that this country was built on the backs of immigrants, and we shouldn't do a 180 and completely shut it down. Sadly, I agree with you Danny in that GW might have actually had a clue on this issue.
Danny,
What will Supreme Court rule
on 2nd Amendment in June or so.
Collective right( National Guard)
or individual right?
Larry:
By god you ask the hard questions. I have not followed the 2nd amendment case. Since this decision will be political/bias based, rather than based on legal arguments, even if I had followed it I really couldn't predict. If you FORCED me to guess, and guess it is, I'll GUESS they will proclaim a 2nd amendment right to private gun ownership without any reference to a "well regulated milita," subject to reasonable government oversight. But I'm guessing based on my knowledge of the judge's predilictions only.
Boy ,I hope Supreme Court will
rule in favor of individual
gun rights.
Down with Comprehensive Immigration
Reform, secure the Border First.
Down with non-sensical gun control,
God Bless Charelton Heston!!!!!!!!
what is non-sensical gun control v. sensical gun control??? Please elaborate. Personally, I'd love to see guns banned, but I also know that it is not practical, and I don't believe in arguing impracticalities. I believe in real solutions for real problems. I can live with legal guns, what I don't like are assault weapons, cop killer bullets, etc.
and while securing the border is nice, that doesn't solve the myriad of other issues related to illegal immigration
Bryan,
Here in Calif we have non-sensical
gun control, e.g., no more than one
hand gun purchase per month,
must show gas bill, phone bill
as proof of residence, some high quality handguns, .45 ACP Gold Gup
not legal for sale as manufacturer
did not submit for testing.
We need crime control, not non-sensical gun control.
What are your hobbies, I may not like them and wished them banned?
Please define assault weapons, here in Calif an 18" bbl slide action shotgun is legal, same gun semi auto is illegal, is this sensible or non-sensical?
you know, I hate when people argue about it being unfair to ban their "hobby," gun collecting. If somebody starts collecting weapons grade plutonium, or weaponized anthrax spores, should we give him a pass simply because its his hobby? I think it's a stretch to think my baseball card collection could be used to inflict mass casualties. Maybe if I get real good with my aim, I can poke somebody's eye out.
I'm not sure what is non-sensical about not allowing more than one gun purchase per month, showing proof of residency, etc. Please explain.
I'm not advocating a gun ban. Regardless of the constitutionality arguments, it's simply not practical and any argument in favor of a ban is pointless imo. But I am in favor of restrictions. In other words, I'm looking for the middle ground.
i don't know the difference between a slide action and a water slide, so I can't answer your question on defining assault weapons. Sort of like what they say about porn, I know it when I see it. Heck, sometimes I like it.
Bryan,
Are you comparing anthrax to a shotgun??
Slide action shotgun, you must manually move the slide back to eject a spent shell, then forward to load another.Semi auto just keep pulling the trigger till gun is empty.
Isnt my drivers license proof of state residence, suppose I have money and want to buy 2 guns, what is wrong with that.?
Why make it harder for a law abiding citizen to buy a gun?
no, guns are much worse than Anthrax. How many people have been murdered by Anthrax in the last 50 years?
Seriously, I just don't buy the hobby argument. Other arguments, yes. The hobby argument is weak. The potential dangers outweight the gains.
As for driver's licenses, I'm not familiar with the reasons why CA requires more proof of residency. Maybe because they realize they have a problem with their DMV giving licenses to non-citizens, fake IDs, etc. Just speculating. With a dangerous item, I just don't have a problem with a little extra identification.
As for montly purchase limits, again, I don't know CA's rationale. I'm guessing it's too prevent mass purchases, illegal guns sales. Maybe 1 is too strict, but there should be limits. Just because you have the money and a driver's license, I don't think it should be easy to go and buy a truckload of guns.
Again, I'm not saying guns should be banned. I'm just advocating what I consider reasonable limits on a dangerous product.
Post a Comment