This just proves how hypocritical and stupid anti-illegal alien rhetoric is

[Marcus]

I've long said that if you want to put an end to illegal immigration, you need to punish the employers, not the workers. But if you do, it will come at a huge cost. A Texas state representative has found one solution:

Proposed Texas immigration law contains convenient loophole for ‘the help’

Texas has long been a hotbed of controversy on immigration issues. And a proposed immigration bill in the Texas state House is sure to raise more than a few eyebrows. The bill would make hiring an "unauthorized alien" a crime punishable by up to two years in prison and a $10,000 fine, unless that is, they are hired to do household chores.

Yes, under the House Bill 2012 introduced by a tea party favorite state Rep. Debbie Riddle -- who's been saying for some time that she'd like to see Texas institute an Arizona-style immigration law -- hiring an undocumented maid, caretaker, lawnworker or any type of houseworker would be allowed. Why? As Texas state Rep. Aaron Pena, also a Republican, told CNN, without the exemption, "a large segment of the Texas population" would wind up in prison if the bill became law.​

People don't have a damn clue how much we depend on "illegals" to do all the stuff we're too proud to do.

 

[Calabrio]

Yeah, I heard about this story on facebook.
Another political illiterate posted the story because she thought it made a profound point.
What does this story mean to you?

Because this woman proposes something containing selective enforcement, we should open our borders?

If the bill were framed to impose $10k fines on any business with more than 5, or 50, employees, would that be hypocritical or pragmatic to you?

Is the point of your story simply the lack of political sophistication of Re. Riddle? If it is, I'm going to let you in on a secret, many politicians are really stupid. No kidding. Have you met any of them? I have. Many of them are pretty dumb, just like a cross section of the population, except with far more ego and entitlement.

 

[shagdrum]

...many politicians are really stupid. No kidding. Have you met any of them? I have. Many of them are pretty dumb, just like a cross section of the population, except with far more ego and entitlement.

:iconcur:

 

[foxpaws]

Yeah, I heard about this story on facebook.
Another political illiterate posted the story because she thought it made a profound point.
What does this story mean to you?

I would hardly call Marcus a "political illiterate" cal - why would you do that?

Because this woman proposes something containing selective enforcement, we should open our borders?

I think that Marcus is pointing on the hypocritical nature of this legislation. The Republicans know that their voting base in Texas includes the wealthy, and the wealthy hire illegal help all the time. So, in order to keep their voting base happy - they are excluding wealthy republicans from being harmed by this legislation.

Is the point of your story simply the lack of political sophistication of Re. Riddle? If it is, I'm going to let you in on a secret, many politicians are really stupid. No kidding. Have you met any of them? I have. Many of them are pretty dumb, just like a cross section of the population, except with far more ego and entitlement.

I think it is beyond stupid - it really shows the dirty underbelly of the Republican party.

Here, with this legislation, it is OK for some to hire illegals, and not others - are some animals more 'equal' than others?

Aren't the Republicans all about the 'tough choice'? How about the 'tough choice' to live up to your words? Hire Americans if you are coming down against illegal immigration. Walk the walk...

It is easy to run employment checks - there are 3rd party agencies that can do this for you if you are just hiring a maid or nanny - so the 'lie' about it is too hard to check is just that - a 'lie'.

And they very much 'knowingly' wrote in the exception - that is where the hypocrisy comes in. You know that wealthy (and often Republican voting - especially in Texas) people have 'hired help', you want to keep their vote - you write in the loop-hole.

Republicans write laws that exclude 'their kind'. Why?

As Texas state Rep. Aaron Pena, also a Republican, told CNN, without the exemption, "a large segment of the Texas population" would wind up in prison if the bill became law.

 

[shagdrum]

I would hardly call Marcus a "political illiterate" cal - why would you do that?

Baiting doesn't become you, Foxy...

I think that Marcus is pointing on the hypocritical nature of this legislation. The Republicans know that their voting base in Texas includes the wealthy, and the wealthy hire illegal help all the time. So, in order to keep their voting base happy - they are excluding wealthy republicans from being harmed by this legislation.

So...because certain political realities lead to a questionable trade off of principle in one area of the bill, the principles behind the bill are flawed?

Or are you trying to say that there are NO true principles involved and this is simply political calculation?

I think it is beyond stupid - it really shows the dirty underbelly of the Republican party.

I see you are going with the "no principles/all political calculation" angle...

 

[foxpaws]

Baiting doesn't become you, Foxy...

I'll call 'em as I see them... Pretty lame of Cal. He discounts all of Marcus' post by claiming that Marcus is a political illiterate, when he knows differently.

I see you are going with the "no principles/all political calculation" angle...

You got it... Obviously all principles go out the window when your wealthy, biggest contributors to your campaign, constituents could be harmed, or be required to scrub out a toilet, or take care of their own lawn.

Oh, I believe that Ms. Riddle is also a Tea Party favorite - figures...

 

[shagdrum]

I'll call 'em as I see them...

more accurately, you spin 'em as best you can.

You got it... Obviously all principles go out the window when your wealthy, biggest contributors to your campaign, constituents could be harmed, or be required to scrub out a toilet, or take care of their own lawn.

So your hyperbolic distortion is that since certain political realities lead to a questionable trade off of principle in one area of the bill, there are no principles behind the bill.

By that standard, there has NEVER been ANY principled political document in the history of the US. Even the Constitution made political concessions.

Of course, reality dictates trade-offs and your own statements in the past on this forum show have recognize that fact, rejecting the line of reasoning you are currently promoting in the process. I am left to conclude that this is simply another opportunistic smear on your part. Gotta delegitimize, don't you...

 

[foxpaws]

So your hyperbolic distortion is that since certain political realities lead to a questionable trade off of principle in one area of the bill, there are no principles behind the bill.

By that standard, there has NEVER been ANY principled political document in the history of the US. Even the Constitution make political concessions.

Of course, reality dictates trade-offs and your own statements in the past on this forum show have recognize that fact, so you do not truly believe the line of reasoning you are promoting here. I am left to conclude that this is simply another opportunistic smear on your part.

I am questioning why they chose that 'trade-off'.

Right now, in light of food prices rising, it would make more sense to limit questioning (regarding immigration status) of itinerant farm workers. If we don't allow illegal aliens into the fields - our price for food will go up even higher - and it is expected to increase at recorded levels over the next year.

But, nope - they chose the 'help' of the wealthy to be excluded. It is obvious that they are choosing political contribution over the well being of the populace.

 

[shagdrum]

I am questioning why they chose that 'trade-off'.

You are doing far more then that.

Obviously all principles go out the window when your wealthy, biggest contributors to your campaign, constituents could be harmed, or be required to scrub out a toilet, or take care of their own lawn.

Questioning the trade off is far different the saying "all principles go out the window".

Don't back track now when you made a contradictory statement less than an hour ago...

Right now, in light of food prices rising, it would make more sense to limit questioning (regarding immigration status) of itinerant farm workers.

...which would give you something else to spin as nothing but political calculation masquerading as principle.

Never mind all the border violence going on and the costs that is imposing...

 

[cammerfe]

Political BS

This thread is a good example of trying to find a detail in current events that makes it possible to score points against the dirty---fill in the blanks.

A few thoughts:
1. The 'illegal' problem is too complex to be solved with a wave of the magic wand
2. That doesn't mean it's un-solvable.

We need to first stop the flood across the border
And, as a separate problem, deal with the different categories of illegals already here.

And, for goodness sake, stop all the self-righteous posturing. Illegal means not-legal. Unless you are talking about a small kid, the people involved must have known they were breaking the law. Kindly, politely, THROW 'EM OUT!!!

KS

 

[Mechanicboy]

without the exemption, "a large segment of the Texas population" would wind up in prison if the bill became law.[/INDENT]

I say so be it. Tough choices have to be made, so make them. People are in love with intangible ideas, but once they begin to feel tangible results they change their tune, I.E. exemptions.

If there were to be any kind of exemption it would be that the employer could be allotted a certain amount of time to help the their "illegal" employee a path to citizenship.

Those that want to be here legally are, I've worked with illegals and worked with those have have found the path to citizenship while working with me, so B.S. if people say there's any excuse for not being a legal citizen. The only excuse is pure LAZINESS, I've seen it, so no excuses.

 

[Mechanicboy]

If we don't allow illegal aliens into the fields - our price for food will go up even higher - and it is expected to increase at recorded levels over the next year.

No,
I don't know about all crops, but the crops I've worked with(almonds, rice, several row crops) the cost of labor in the field has NO affect on the cost of the product to the consumer. Besides, only about 10% of the cost of say a bag of Rice comes from the actual farm, the other 90% is from packaging, transportation and marketing.

Farmers only hire illegals because they look for the cheapest labor, they are just taking advantage of the situation. It would cost the farmer more if the cost of labor went of, but not the consumer, at least not the products I've produced.

 

[Marcus]

You're all reading much more into this than I intended. The argument I have been making for years is that all of the chest-beating about "DEPORT THEM ALL" and all the other nonsense is based on blind ignorance of the economic consequences, and / or political posturing.

It is clear, to me, that the bill this woman has presented falls into the latter category. She wanted to make a bold statement about her "dedication" to the illegal immigrant problem, but she knew that it is impossible to apply it consistently due to economic reality.

What the bill amounts to - whether that was its intention or not - is saying it's OK to be here illegally as long as you're working as a maid, groundskeeper, pool cleaner, or some other domestic job. Talk about sending the wrong message.

On a side note, Shag, I've noticed for a long time that you will go to the most ridiculous lengths to defend anything that anyone on the right says or does. Why can't you just admit that this is a stupid idea and move on?

 

[Marcus]

By the way, don't talk to me about illiteracy until you learn that it's called the "Democratic party" or "Democratic senator", and not "Democrat party" or "Democrat senator", etc. You people really look like buffoons when you misuse the term.

 

[shagdrum]

On a side note, Shag, I've noticed for a long time that you will go to the most ridiculous lengths to defend anything that anyone on the right says or does. Why can't you just admit that this is a stupid idea and move on?

Where have I defended the exception made in this law?

In fact, I thought I "concurred" with Cal's implicit characterization of it as a stupid idea in post #3.

By the way, don't talk to me about illiteracy until you learn that it's called the "Democratic party" or "Democratic senator", and not "Democrat party" or "Democrat senator", etc. You people really look like buffoons when you misuse the term.

Well, we can't all be as enlightened and insightful as you.

 

[Calabrio]

I don't want to speak for the specifics of the woman or the bill. Again, I think I've addressed how low I think of most congress people, Republican or Democrat.

But let's address some concepts associated that may be associated with it.
Is it reasonable to have a policy that treats large companies that employ several dozens or hundreds of employees differently than it someone who employees one?

If McDonalds is hiring illegals, is it appropriate to fine them $10k, but if my neighbor has an Ecuadorian nanny (that they may honestly think is legal because these people usually have fake documents) should they also be subject to a $10k fine, or is some proportionality reasonable here?

I don't think it's hypocritical to distinguish between a large company and a private individual/home or a tiny business with less than ten people.

That doesn't mean any penalty isn't appropriate.
It also means that we may need to establish a system where it's easier for small employers to verify status.

 

[cammerfe]

Foot In Mouth

By the way, don't talk to me about illiteracy until you learn that it's called the "Democratic party" or "Democratic senator", and not "Democrat party" or "Democrat senator", etc. You people really look like buffoons when you misuse the term.

Actually YOU are the one misusing the language. A 'Democratic Senator' is a Senator who is Democratic. A Democrat Senator is a Senator who is a Democrat. Your mis-use is very common, but a mis-use none-the-less. (You really look like an a ss when you try to instruct others and you are wrong. And 'Senator', being a title, is always capitalized.)

KS

 

[Mechanicboy]

If McDonalds is hiring illegals, is it appropriate to fine them $10k, but if my neighbor has an Ecuadorian nanny (that they may honestly think is legal because these people usually have fake documents) should they also be subject to a $10k fine, or is some proportionality reasonable here?

I don't think it's hypocritical to distinguish between a large company and a private individual/home or a tiny business with less than ten people.

Well I disagree with this because I believe we should all be held equally accountable, however,

It also means that we may need to establish a system where it's easier for small employers to verify status.

I completely agree with that. It should be like a Title Company were they insure that the person is legal and will pay the legal consequences if they are wrong.

 

[Marcus]

Actually YOU are the one misusing the language. A 'Democratic Senator' is a Senator who is Democratic. A Democrat Senator is a Senator who is a Democrat. Your mis-use is very common, but a mis-use none-the-less. (You really look like an a ss when you try to instruct others and you are wrong. And 'Senator', being a title, is always capitalized.)

KS

No I'm not misusing it, you are.

democrat

–noun
1. an advocate of democracy.

2. a person who believes in the political or social equality of all people.

3. ( initial capital letter ) Politics .

a. a member of the Democratic party.
b. a member of the Democratic-Republican party.​

4. Also called democrat wagon. a high, lightweight, horse-drawn wagon, usually having two seats.​

And the word "senator" is only considered a title, and thus capitalized, when it precedes a name. e.g. "Senator Grassley".

The dropping of the "ic" is a recent phenomenon. I started noticing it when listening to Limbaugh, but I don't know if he was the first. In any case, it's become commonplace almost entirely within right-wing circles (pundits, bloggers, etc.) You rarely find it misused in mainstream news sources.

I have no idea what's behind it, but it has a jarring effect every time I hear or read it. It's like hearing someone say, "I seen that movie last week." Maybe Rush thinks his listeners are too stupid to know the difference between "Democratic Party" and "democratic government". Or maybe it's because he doesn't want people to associate the former with the latter. Or perhaps, it's just because "Democrat" has a much harsher and negative sound than "Democratic". After all, "Democrat" ends with "rat".

This isn't about nitpicking. We all make mistakes in grammar, typos, misspellings, etc. The point is, it is a deliberate misuse of the term, not just a difference in the preferred usage, and it's become almost an epithet within the right.

 

[foxpaws]

That doesn't mean any penalty isn't appropriate.
It also means that we may need to establish a system where it's easier for small employers to verify status.

It is very easy to check - there are lots of 3rd parties that do this, and they access the US databases. I am sure many of those people who are hiring housekeepers are using them - to check to see if the people they are hiring aren't criminals. They are also the same services you use when you check out tenants - they are really easy, and on-line.

And the fine needs to be enough to discourage - not a slap on the wrist - those who hire domestic help are saving thousands of dollars a year by hiring illegal aliens, the fine should reflect that - $10,000 is not unreasonable.

 

[Mechanicboy]

The dropping of the "ic" is a recent phenomenon. I started noticing it when listening to Limbaugh, but I don't know if he was the first. In any case, it's become commonplace almost entirely within right-wing circles (pundits, bloggers, etc.) You rarely find it misused in mainstream news sources.

I have no idea what's behind it, but it has a jarring effect every time I hear or read it. It's like hearing someone say, "I seen that movie last week." Maybe Rush thinks his listeners are too stupid to know the difference between "Democratic Party" and "democratic government". Or maybe it's because he doesn't want people to associate the former with the latter. Or perhaps, it's just because "Democrat" has a much harsher and negative sound than "Democratic". After all, "Democrat" ends with "rat".

This isn't about nitpicking. We all make mistakes in grammar, typos, misspellings, etc. The point is, it is a deliberate misuse of the term, not just a difference in the preferred usage, and it's become almost an epithet within the right.

Maybe it's because even the democrats refer to themselves as democrats. Google it.

http://www.wa-democrats.org/
http://www.jeffcodemocrats.com/
http://www.whatcomdemocrats.com/
http://wa-demchairs.org/kcdems/
www.democrats.org

When I've asked people if they are a Democrat or Republican, they never correct me and say "I'm a Democratic."

 

[Mechanicboy]

It is very easy to check - there are lots of 3rd parties that do this, and they access the US databases. I am sure many of those people who are hiring housekeepers are using them - to check to see if the people they are hiring aren't criminals. They are also the same services you use when you check out tenants - they are really easy, and on-line.

And the fine needs to be enough to discourage - not a slap on the wrist - those who hire domestic help are saving thousands of dollars a year by hiring illegal aliens, the fine should reflect that - $10,000 is not unreasonable.

I partially agree. $10,000 seems like a lot, but when you consider they someone has the money to pay a persons wage out of pocket, $10k is probably chump change and might not be enough. $10k would be a good first time offense, but should increase if repeat offenses are committed.

 

[shagdrum]

This isn't about nitpicking. We all make mistakes in grammar, typos, misspellings, etc. The point is, it is a deliberate misuse of the term, not just a difference in the preferred usage, and it's become almost an epithet within the right.

Yes, because this supposed "misuse" really misleads people.

Truth is, you are nitpicking on a point that is, at best, questionable. However, now that you have been called on what amounts to nothing but a petty and irrelevant smear attempt, your ego demands you defend it.

What was that about, " go[ing]to the most ridiculous lengths" to defend the indefensibe?

 

[Marcus]

Maybe it's because even the democrats refer to themselves as democrats. Google it.

http://www.wa-democrats.org/
http://www.jeffcodemocrats.com/
http://www.whatcomdemocrats.com/
http://wa-demchairs.org/kcdems/
www.democrats.org

When I've asked people if they are a Democrat or Republican, they never correct me and say "I'm a Democratic."

Charles Schumer is a Democrat.
He is a member of the Democratic Party.
He is a Democratic senator.

Is it really that hard for you?

 

[Marcus]

Yes, because this supposed "misuse" really misleads people.

Truth is, you are nitpicking on a point that is, at best, questionable. However, now that you have been called on what amounts to nothing but a petty and irrelevant smear attempt, your ego demands you defend it.

What was that about, " go[ing]to the most ridiculous lengths" to defend the indefensibe?

Smear attempt? Who do you believe I was trying to smear exactly? And who "called" me on it?