Alabama passes 'toughest illegal immigration law

[lonewolf]

Re: Alabama passes 'toughest illegal immigration law

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BlackStar</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: R_C</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: lonrwolf</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="font-style: italic">&quot;When you have 9% unemployment, I think that some people who might not have wanted those jobs previously might reconsider.&quot;</span></div></div>
<span style="font-style: italic">Oh I'm sure there are Americans who are just dying to take on these jobs</span>. </div></div>
Once I asked lonrwolf if he himself or any of his friends and family would consider that kind of work if they were unemployed. All now, he hasn't answered the question. </div></div>

You have not asked me any such question. Because if you had asked me that question I would have answered yes. Before being employed in the fire department I worked full time in a hospital kitchen that prepared it's own meals for patients, I washed dishes, commercial sized pots and pans and cleaned stoves, ovens and swept and mopped floors. I also worked on the hospital grounds crew that cut the grass and emptied the trash cans and swept and picked up the cigarette butts out of the gutters.
Yes, I have worked in less than glamorous jobs to make ends meet. You do what you have to do to survive and I would do it again.

How about you?....and please, tell me when you asked such a question.
I believe that you are intentionally lying. I would have never had a problem answering that question for obvious reasons.

[lonewolf]

Re: Alabama passes 'toughest illegal immigration law

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This is an attitude that comes with membership in the Capitalism Fan Club.

If you support a system based on selfishness and greed for everyone, disregard for the welfare of the poor comes as a direct tie-in with that support.
</div></div>

Oh my, this coming from a person that owns a home in Boston and a vacation home in Jamaica. Like your hero Chomsky, you are an eager and willing participant in the capitalist system....and this is obviously an attempt by you to hijack another thread in the name of your Communist agenda.

...and if you cared about the poor you would not promote illegal immigration, for it's nothing more than cheap labor for the ruling elite that refuse to pay workers a living wage. That's a fact and you know it.

Some MORE facts below...


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">“If you look at the things I write—articles for Z Magazine, or books for South End Press, or whatever—they are mostly based on talks and meetings and that kind of thing. But I’m kind of a parasite. I mean, I’m living off the activism of others. I’m happy to do it.” Noam Chomsky

Corporate America is one of Chomsky’s demons. It’s hard to find anything positive he might say about American business. He paints an ominous vision of America suffering under the “unaccountable and deadly rule of corporations.” He has called corporations “private tyrannies” and declared that they are “just as totalitarian as Bolshevism and fascism.” Capitalism, in his words, is a “grotesque catastrophe.”

But a funny thing happened on the way to the retirement portfolio.

Chomsky, for all of his moral dudgeon against American corporations, finds that they make a pretty good investment. When he made investment decisions for his retirement plan at MIT, he chose not to go with a money market fund or even a government bond fund. Instead, he threw the money into blue chips and invested in the TIAA-CREF stock fund. A look at the stock fund portfolio quickly reveals that it invests in all sorts of businesses that Chomsky says he finds abhorrent: oil companies, military contractors, pharmaceuticals, you name it.

When I asked Chomsky about his investment portfolio he reverted to a “what else can I do?” defense: “Should I live in a cabin in Montana?” he asked. It was a clever rhetorical dodge. Chomsky was declaring that there is simply no way to avoid getting involved in the stock market short of complete withdrawal from the capitalist system. He certainly knows better. There are many alternative funds these days that allow you to invest your money in “green” or “socially responsible” enterprises. They just don’t yield the maximum available return.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1710123/posts

</div></div>

[johnnycakes]

Re: Alabama passes 'toughest illegal immigration law

Oh my, this coming from a person that owns a home in Boston and a vacation home in Jamaica. Like your hero Chomsky, you are an eager and willing participant in the capitalist system....and this is obviously an attempt by you to hijack another thread in the name of your Communist agenda.

...and if you cared about the poor you would not promote illegal immigration, for it's nothing more than cheap labor for the ruling elite that refuse to pay workers a living wage. That's a fact and you know it.



Lonrwolf,

If you are so dense and undereducated that you don't know the difference between someone who is a capitalist and someone who worked for every penny he made and bought that land and house in Jamaica with those wages (I do not own anything in the United States.) then we needn't discuss this again.

I have explained the difference to you on a couple of occasions but you just can't learn from your mistakes as is the way with those on the right.

I am an unwilling participant in the capitalist economy but that does not make me a capitalist and if you had a clue as to what a capitalist is and isn't you'd have known that .

Your ignorance is set in stone.



Would you care to deny that U.S foreign policy over the last 100 years has created the conditions in Latin America that drives those poor towards a land with all the money?

The ruling elite FYI doesn't pay anyone a living wage. They pay only as much as it takes to keep the job filled.

The Stockholders v Ford case in 1929 set the precedent which REQUIRES corporations to minimize the payment to workers and maximize the payments to stockholders.
It is law.

With four people out of work for every job now available your talk of taking any job to make ends is just sheer hatred and disrespect of and for the working man and for the poor that is endemic in right wing thinking.

Do try to get something factual in your posts so I don't have to point out your ignorance with nearly every post.

You have shown an occasional ability to get things right but when you go off into right wing radio fantasyland you just lose all credibility.

You sound just like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and any number of similar types I listen to with this immigration crap and total warping of what capitalism and socialism are.

[johnnycakes]

Re: Alabama passes 'toughest illegal immigration law

Capitalist Meaning and Definition
(n.) One who has capital; one who has money for investment, or money invested; esp. a person of large property, which is employed in business.
Capitalist: words in the definition



cap&amp;#8231;i&amp;#8231;tal&amp;#8231;ist [countable]
1 someone who supports capitalism [&amp;#8618; communist, socialist]
2 someone who owns or controls a lot of money and lends it to businesses, banks etc to produce more wealth


capi·tal·ist (-ist)

noun

a person who has capital; owner of wealth used in business
an upholder of capitalism
loosely a wealthy person


ap·i·tal·ist (kp-tl-st)
n.
1. A supporter of capitalism.
2. An investor of capital in business, especially one having a major financial interest in an important enterprise.
3. A person of great wealth.
adj.




cap·i·tal·ist&amp;#8194; &amp;#8194;
[kap-i-tl-ist] Show IPA
–noun
1.
a person who has capital, especially extensive capital, invested in business enterprises.
2.
an advocate of capitalism.
3.
a very wealthy person.


.cap·i·tal·ist&amp;#8194; &amp;#8194;
[kap-i-tl-ist] Show IPA
–noun
1.
a person who has capital, especially extensive capital, invested in business enterprises.
2.
an advocate of capitalism.
3.
a very wealthy person.
.

[rudemonk]

Re: Alabama passes 'toughest illegal immigration law

‘Take Our Jobs’ - please
Farm workers’ immigration reform campaign tells U.S. citizens to apply


UFW President Arturo Rodriguez addressed UAW convention delegates in June.
Some messages – especially political ones – are better received with a dose of humor.
And when TV pundit Stephen Colbert, host of Comedy Central’s “The Colbert Report” (pronounced “Coal-BEAR Re-POR” – the “t” is silent in Colbert and report), joins the mix, rest assured it will be satire at its best.
The United Farm Workers’ national “Take Our Jobs” campaign is being played for jokes, but it’s about serious business: the immigrant labor issue and need for reform in our nation’s crucial agricultural industry and the way it treats its workers.
With tongue firmly planted in cheek, the union’s clever campaign to challenge assertions that undocumented immigrants are taking jobs from American workers was launched June 24, inviting U.S. citizens to apply, train and work in the fields.
“We said, ‘Invite them to take our jobs, and let’s go for it.’ It’s been phenomenal at how we’ve gotten people to look at immigration differently,” said UFW President Arturo Rodriguez, adding that the union supports farm workers regardless of their legal status or nationality.
Rodriguez said the idea came about in March when the union’s worker leadership suggested they take a different approach to U.S. immigration policy, which has turned into an increasingly ugly debate.
In January, Arizona passed a law that targeted immigrants and attempted to legalize racial profiling. On July 27 a federal judge struck down parts of the law, but the fight isn’t over. Conservative lawmakers in states including Texas, Tennessee, Virginia, Pennsylvania and Florida are threatening to introduce similar legislation.
“The reality is farm workers who are here today aren’t taking any American jobs away. They do the work that most Americans are not willing to do and often work in unbearable situations,” Rodriguez said. “I don’t think there will be many takers, but the offer is being made. Let’s see what happens.”
With passage of immigration reform as their goal, the UFW sent a letter to U.S. lawmakers encouraging them to refer constituents to vacant farm worker positions and offering to train citizens and legal residents “who wish to replace immigrants in the fields.”
“Either Congress acts to bring a solution, or we will continue to see our food production move to other countries,” said Rodriguez. “The United States depends on these farms and farm workers for food.”
The UFW supports AgJobs, a bipartisan-backed bill in the Senate that would allow those who have worked in U.S. agriculture for at least 150 days in the previous two years to get legal status (not permanent residence). More than a million farm workers would benefit.
The bill, S.B. 1070, has been proposed in various forms since the late 1990s, with backing from the UFW and other farming groups, but it has never passed.
“The Colbert Report” featured the campaign on July 8, with Rodriguez as special guest.
“Americans don’t want to work in the fields because conditions are horrid,” the UFW leader told Colbert, adding that so far only three applicants out of 9,000 inquiries took jobs in the fields.
“Make that four,” Colbert quipped, with tongue firmly planted in cheek.

Jennifer John

http://www.uaw.org/story/‘take-our-jobs’-please

[johnnycakes]

Re: Alabama passes 'toughest illegal immigration law

But the &quot;old&quot; system still applies to about half the Florida tomatoes sold. It is a national disgrace. In 2000, the U.S. Department of Labor described farmworkers as &quot;a labor force in significant economic distress.&quot; With annual incomes of between $10,000 and $12,500, their poverty rate is twice as high as other working people in this country.

On trips to Immokalee to research my book, &quot;Tomatoland: How Industrial Agriculture Destroyed Our Most Alluring Fruit,&quot; I toured a decrepit trailer with neither heat nor air-conditioning. It had one miserable shower stall and toilet to serve the 10 men who called the place home and paid a rural slumlord $2,000 a month for the privilege. I spoke with a &quot;crew boss&quot; who quit her job after seeing her workers sprayed on an almost daily basis with some of the most toxic pesticides in factory farming's chemical arsenal.

And I did something I never imagined doing in the 21st century: I interviewed a man who had toiled as a slave. He received no pay, was locked in the back of a produce truck at night and was beaten if he refused to work or tried to escape. He was one of more than 1,000 people freed in seven Florida slavery cases successfully prosecuted since 1997. A U.S. deputy attorney told me that southwest Florida was &quot;ground zero for modern day slavery.&quot;


excerpted from:
http://zesterdaily.com/zester-soapbox-ar...ato-farmworkers

[rudemonk]

Re: Alabama passes 'toughest illegal immigration law

well, there can't be any doubt to anyone who chooses to educate themselves that slavery in this modern world is alive and well, not only do we need look no further than many of our farms, but our shelves are packed with products made possible by slavery.

I doubt sincerely many americans would or could afford to buy much of anything at all, if not for modern day slavery.

entire regions are practically enslaved in China, for our goods, for example.

there are no borders anymore, not corporately anyway.

[lonewolf]

Re: Alabama passes 'toughest illegal immigration law

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Capitalist Meaning and Definition
(n.) <span style="font-weight: bold">One who has capital; one who has money for investment, or money invested</span>; esp. a person of large property, which is employed in business.
Capitalist: words in the definition
</div></div>

Ok, by your own definition, you are a capitalist and so is your hero. you have stated that you have money invested.
Chomsky has large amounts of money invested and is a person of significant wealth.

How about posting your own definition of an African American as it relates to George Bush? We will all get the gist of your twisted mind and how it applies to definitions.

[lonewolf]

Re: Alabama passes 'toughest illegal immigration law

Monk, you and the Boy Blunder from Boston are posting only half the story which pertains to illegals in the US which in fact is as good as telling a bold faced lie.

Why do you and Boy Blunder refuse to face facts as they exist?

I aknowledge the fact of the plight of the immigrant farm workers. I also must bring to your attention that allowing these people to enter the US undocumented allows for such terrible conditions to exist, as these people are here ILLEGALLY and those that hire them can treat them as badly as they want?

What part of the word ILLEGAL don't you and Boy Blunder undertand?

Also, the fact that you avoid for obvious reason, is that ILLEGALS TAKE MANY WELL PAYING JOBS, AND ACCEPT LESS PAY AND THEY TAKE JOBS FROM AMERICANS THAT NEED EMPLOYMENT, because it destroys your sympathetic arguement that illegals , only take the jobs that Americans don't want.

I've seen this with my own eyes where I live, so don't even try to argue this point with me.

Both of you need to educate yourselves before posting such bogus one sided BS.
Some facts that you have ignored.

<span style="font-weight: bold">EXAMPLE:</span>



House passes crackdown on illegal immigrants
<span style="font-weight: bold">Bills would stop construction firms from hiring undocumented workers</span>
Wednesday, June 09, 2010
By Tom Barnes, Post-Gazette Harrisburg Bureau
HARRISBURG -- Powerful opponents remain to two bills that would stop Pennsylvania construction firms from hiring undocumented, illegal immigrants, but the measures easily sailed through the state House Tuesday.

House Bill 1502, which bars contractors and subcontractors who hire illegal immigrants from bidding on state construction contracts, was approved 188 to 6. A few minutes later, House Bill 1503, which would take away state licenses and certifications from private contractors using such hiring practices, passed 188 to 7.

<span style="font-weight: bold">&quot;These bills target contractors who cheat, who use a cheap, illegal work force for profit and push hard-working Pennsylvanians onto the unemployment rolls,&quot; said Rep. John Galloway, D-Bucks, the main sponsor.

The bills also afford protection to whistleblowers, employees who report construction sites where illegal workers are employed. Mr. Galloway added that 14 states have already enacted such laws.</span>

House Democrats and Republicans don't often coalesce around an issue in such large numbers, but they did this time. One of the most vocal supporters was conser vative GOP Rep. Daryl Metcalfe of Cranberry. In a very unusual move, he joined Monday with a major labor union leader, Frank Sirianni of the state Building and Construction Trades Council, to support the measures.

<span style="font-weight: bold">Illegal immigrants &quot;take away the jobs of unemployed Pennsylvania construction workers&quot; and use state-funded health care benefits, unemployment funds and public schools, which they pay no taxes to support, Mr. Metcalfe said</span>.

Mr. Galloway's bills would require contractors to use a federal system for identification verification called E-Verify, which compiles online millions of Social Security numbers. Some companies now voluntarily use the system, he added.

If a worker has a Social Security number that had been properly and legally issued, the employer would check the online database and the person could stay on the construction job. But if the worker didn't have a legal Social Security number or didn't have papers to prove he was in the U.S. legally, he would be fired.

Supporters of the bills cite figures from a group called the Center for Immigration <span style="font-weight: bold">Studies, which last year estimated there were 18,000 to 35,000 illegal construction workers in Pennsylvania. That's a subset of the estimated 175,000 illegal immigrants in the state.</span>
Some legislators questioned if the bills would be constitutional and enforceable, if they are agreed to by the Senate. Mr. Galloway said such laws in all the other states have withstood court challenges. He said that federal law prevents states from imposing monetary sanctions against construction firms that hire illegal immigrants, but the state does have authority to bar them from state projects and remove their licenses.

However, a strong coalition has formed to fight the bills in the Senate, including an unusual pairing of the liberal American Civil Liberties Union and some Chamber of Commerce groups, which are conservative, business-oriented organizations.

The ACLU contends that a study has shown that E-Verify isn't accurate, often clearing workers who don't have valid numbers.

Andy Hoover, legislative director for the ACLU's state chapter, said the E-Verify system has put 445 million Social Security records on the Internet, &quot;available to any skillful hacker. This should send a chill down the spine of anyone with a Social Security number.&quot;

Since Republicans control the Senate and often side with business interests, the future of the two bills is uncertain

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10160/1064181-454.stm

[johnnycakes]

Re: Alabama passes 'toughest illegal immigration law

Hey ignorant,

Since you, like all right wingers do not want to accept the fact that it is U.S foreign policy, the policy of the government which has created the poverty in the Latin American countries, you need to do some serious introspection which also is something right wingers don't do.

You all look at one side of the issue and choose like all right wingers to blame the victims of U.S policies.

It is U.S policies that bring these poor to the U.S and have them taking all the jobs that Americans won't do along with working for less than a poverty wage and taking other jobs as well below a poverty level wage.

You need to put the blame where it belongs and that is with:

1) the government which pursues the policies that make these people have to leave their home countries and

2) the corporate dictatorship which owns and orders the government.

[rudemonk]

Re: Alabama passes 'toughest illegal immigration law

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: lonrwolf</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I aknowledge the fact of the plight of the immigrant farm workers. I also must bring to your attention that allowing these people to enter the US undocumented allows for such terrible conditions to exist, as these people are here ILLEGALLY and those that hire them can treat them as badly as they want?
</div></div>

well, you're half right.

it's a cocktail of corporate imperialism, the demand for low wages and low prices.

it extends beyond our physical borders, for example the slave cities in China which also produce our kid's toys (View Santa's Workshop) and other goods. Since it extends beyond our physical borders, it makes the argument about legal or illegal status because of the position of the individual, not strictly relevant. At least here, we get sales tax and other taxes, unlike the slave labor in China, so I often wonder why proponents of this illegal immigration stuff wouldn't want those benefits being spent and collected here, as a benefit to our consumerism, errrrr....&quot;freedom.&quot;

if all these illegals were not here, yet still working in this system, the slave owners overseas would see the benefits as everything is tied back to the employer corp.

Look at how our garment industry was ravaged, for another example.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">


What part of the word ILLEGAL don't you and Boy Blunder under(s)tand? (sic)
</div></div>

I don't really care so much about their legal status, because the problem is not based on physical borders, but on corporations which function sans borders. It's like saying, Oh my god people run red lights! That is ILLEGAL!!!! But they can run red lights all they want in Mexico. It's myopic.

So while I completely understand the definition of the word, in both caps and non caps, the reason why I don't care so much as to their legal status is because it's basically not relevant to any real solution and solving for that does not solve the underlying root problems, which is what people are trying to point out by saying things like, well, TAKE OUR JOBS PLEASE...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Also, the fact that you avoid for obvious reason, is that ILLEGALS TAKE MANY WELL PAYING JOBS, AND ACCEPT LESS PAY AND THEY TAKE JOBS FROM AMERICANS THAT NEED EMPLOYMENT, because it destroys your sympathetic arguement that illegals , only take the jobs that Americans don't want.
</div></div>

I'm afraid that is a myth.

And actually, there are citizens in these jobs. But there aren't giant waiting lists of legal workers lining up for them, that's laughable.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I've seen this with my own eyes where I live, so don't even try to argue this point with me.
</div></div>

I utterly question your judgement. Even if you do have some anecdotal evidence, I doubt your observations could be applied systemically because there is just a catastrophic amount piled up against you.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Both of you need to educate yourselves before posting such bogus one sided BS.
Some facts that you have ignored.

<span style="font-weight: bold">EXAMPLE:</span>



House passes crackdown on illegal immigrants
<span style="font-weight: bold">Bills would stop construction firms from hiring undocumented workers</span>
Wednesday, June 09, 2010
By Tom Barnes, Post-Gazette Harrisburg Bureau
HARRISBURG -- Powerful opponents remain to two bills that would stop Pennsylvania construction firms from hiring undocumented, illegal immigrants, but the measures easily sailed through the state House Tuesday.

House Bill 1502, which bars contractors and subcontractors who hire illegal immigrants from bidding on state construction contracts, was approved 188 to 6. A few minutes later, House Bill 1503, which would take away state licenses and certifications from private contractors using such hiring practices, passed 188 to 7.

<span style="font-weight: bold">&quot;These bills target contractors who cheat, who use a cheap, illegal work force for profit and push hard-working Pennsylvanians onto the unemployment rolls,&quot; said Rep. John Galloway, D-Bucks, the main sponsor.

The bills also afford protection to whistleblowers, employees who report construction sites where illegal workers are employed. Mr. Galloway added that 14 states have already enacted such laws.</span>

House Democrats and Republicans don't often coalesce around an issue in such large numbers, but they did this time. One of the most vocal supporters was conser vative GOP Rep. Daryl Metcalfe of Cranberry. In a very unusual move, he joined Monday with a major labor union leader, Frank Sirianni of the state Building and Construction Trades Council, to support the measures.

<span style="font-weight: bold">Illegal immigrants &quot;take away the jobs of unemployed Pennsylvania construction workers&quot; and use state-funded health care benefits, unemployment funds and public schools, which they pay no taxes to support, Mr. Metcalfe said</span>.

Mr. Galloway's bills would require contractors to use a federal system for identification verification called E-Verify, which compiles online millions of Social Security numbers. Some companies now voluntarily use the system, he added.

If a worker has a Social Security number that had been properly and legally issued, the employer would check the online database and the person could stay on the construction job. But if the worker didn't have a legal Social Security number or didn't have papers to prove he was in the U.S. legally, he would be fired.

Supporters of the bills cite figures from a group called the Center for Immigration <span style="font-weight: bold">Studies, which last year estimated there were 18,000 to 35,000 illegal construction workers in Pennsylvania. That's a subset of the estimated 175,000 illegal immigrants in the state.</span>
Some legislators questioned if the bills would be constitutional and enforceable, if they are agreed to by the Senate. Mr. Galloway said such laws in all the other states have withstood court challenges. He said that federal law prevents states from imposing monetary sanctions against construction firms that hire illegal immigrants, but the state does have authority to bar them from state projects and remove their licenses.

However, a strong coalition has formed to fight the bills in the Senate, including an unusual pairing of the liberal American Civil Liberties Union and some Chamber of Commerce groups, which are conservative, business-oriented organizations.

The ACLU contends that a study has shown that E-Verify isn't accurate, often clearing workers who don't have valid numbers.

Andy Hoover, legislative director for the ACLU's state chapter, said the E-Verify system has put 445 million Social Security records on the Internet, &quot;available to any skillful hacker. This should send a chill down the spine of anyone with a Social Security number.&quot;

Since Republicans control the Senate and often side with business interests, the future of the two bills is uncertain

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10160/1064181-454.stm

</div></div>

first of all, it's erroneous to suggest that anyone living in this country does not pay taxes. as anyone living here is sometimes taxed out the wazoo with sales taxes, gas taxes, taxes taxes taxes. so usually people who advocate for this non issue are pretty myopic, meanwhile they all vociferously complain about all the taxes. you have to love irony.

if there are legal workers who could perform those jobs, why aren't they? The jobs are there aren't they?

Maybe because the companies hiring haven't yet quite succeeded in breaking the backs of the united american workers just yet. soon though. i don't know if you play chess, but it's a brilliant strategy to bring down wages.

if you buy a gallon of gas, and an illegal buys a gallon of gas, you both pay taxes. that's undeniable. so let's set aside this &quot;they don't pay taxes bit.&quot; I'd say we need to tighten the tax code and close some ridiculous loopholes for income tax and start talking about a real issue that could result in some real significant changes.

THEN tackle the small stuff like all those illegal irish people.

I'd bet you'd find a bigger hole in tax revenues without all these illegals contributing THAT share of the tax burden...

[lonewolf]

Re: Alabama passes 'toughest illegal immigration law

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">it's a cocktail of corporate imperialism, the demand for low wages and low prices.it extends beyond our physical borders, for example the slave cities in China which also produce our kid's toys (View Santa's Workshop) and other goods </div></div>

Agreed, capitalism follows cheap labor, and in the case of the illegals in the US allowed cheap labor to follow capitalism across the US border. (Thank you, Bush)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">At least here, we get sales tax and other taxes, unlike the slave labor in China, so I often wonder why proponents of this illegal immigration stuff wouldn't want those benefits being spent and collected here, <span style="font-weight: bold">as a benefit to our consumerism</span>, errrrr....&quot;freedom.&quot;
</div></div>

That arguement is not valid. I understand the point that you make, but the loss of manufacturing jobs is another topic. Anyway, that's a terrible arguement that you are trying to make. What you are saying is that because we have lost manufacturing jobs to foreigners overseas (that have taken American manufacturing jobs), that we should welcome illegal foreigners into this country to take the rest of the jobs left, because at least they will pay taxes? Do you realize how ludicrous that sounds? Try explaining that to someone that has recently lost their job.

Consumerism? The US is (was) the number one consumer of goods in the world.
How can one consume without a job?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">if all these illegals were not here, yet still working in this system, the slave owners overseas would see the benefits as everything is tied back to the employer corp.
</div></div>

Huh? you are not making any sense to me. I get the whole overseas worker arguement, but a worker overseas cannot meet the needs of a job to be worked in the USA. such as QUOTE: <span style="font-weight: bold"> These bills target contractors who cheat, who use a cheap, illegal work force for profit and push hard-working Pennsylvanians onto the unemployment rolls</span>

You convienently ignore the facts. Why?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm afraid that is a myth.

And actually, there are citizens in these jobs. But there aren't giant waiting lists of legal workers lining up for them, that's laughable</div></div>.

You just don't get it, and nothing is laughable or funny for a person that has lost their job and can't feed their family. What's sad is there are legal workers lining up in droves for jobs....You can't possibly live in the USA? If you do you are not paying attention

Again, why do you refuse to embrace the truth? Don't take my word, do your own research on jobs taken by illegals AND their impact on a state as it pertains to services that they use on the dollar of the American taxpayer.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I utterly question your judgement. Even if you do have some anecdotal evidence, I doubt your observations could be applied systemically because there is just a catastrophic amount piled up against you </div></div>

Prove it, where are your numbers. Talk is cheap. Every state that has an illegal population is impacted in negative way, accept for the ruling elite that hire them for cheap labor.

Are Illegal Immigrants Really Taking Jobs Away From American Workers?
By Dan Fastenberg, Posted Jun 6th 2011 @ 2:30PM

When the Supreme Court voted to uphold the &quot;Legal Arizona Workers Act&quot; (LAWA) on May 25, the ability for states to revoke business licenses for firms hiring illegal immigrants was protected. (LAWA is distinct from Arizona SB 1070, which empowered law enforcement officers in Arizona to engage in racial profiling.)

Reaction to the decision among likely voters was strongly in favor: <span style="font-weight: bold">A Rasmussen poll conducted on May 27 and 28 found that 61 percent of Americans support a law in their state that would shut down companies that knowingly and repeatedly hire illegal immigrants.</span>
Activists who advocate for restrictive immigration policies welcomed the ruling. &quot;<span style="font-weight: bold">There's a downward effect on wages,&quot; says Jessica Vaughn, the director of policy studies for the D.C.-based Center for Immigration Studies, referring to the introduction of undocumented workers in the market. &quot;There's so many occupations where wages have just been stagnant for many years, or even declined, like in construction, building trades industry and custodial work. Of course, it's not just one thing. You can't control competition from China. But immigration policy is something that we can control as a nation.&quot;</span>
Support for the penalization of companies hiring illegal workers can be chalked up to a variety of motivations. But the view that it protects American jobs has been embraced by many, including politicians like Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), the chair of the House Judiciary Committee and a member of the Reclaim American Jobs Caucus. &quot;Not only is this law constitutional, it is common sense. <span style="font-weight: bold">American jobs should be preserved for Americans and legal workers,&quot; he said of the high court's 5-3 ruling. &quot;Today, there are 7 million individuals working in the United States illegally. E-Verify will help turn off the jobs magnet that encourages illegal immigration.&quot;</span>
The debate over whether there is any correlation between immigration policy and the fortunes of American workers is in fact an open one. And according to Pia Orrenius, the senior economist for the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, the major question among most economists is actually why the impact of the nation's estimated 12 million illegal immigrants on the labor market is so small.

Given that the topic of the economic impact of immigration is so politically charged, scores of studies have been ordered on the subject. The widely-shared consensus holds that for every 10 percent increase in the share of foreign-born workers in a specific area there's less than 1 percent change in the average wages of legal residents, including for low-skilled workers, says Orrenius. (Wages are used as the economic metric for employment in the U.S.)

Two leading papers that present the view of a minimal negative economic impact are: &quot;Immigration and National Wages: Clarifying the Theory and Empirics,&quot; published in 2008 by academics Gianmarco Ottoviano and Giovanni Peri; and the landmark, &quot;The New Americans: Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration,&quot; published in 1997 by James P. Smith and Barry Edmontson, working under the aegis of the 1990 Immigration Act.

These economists caution against extrapolating from anecdotes of immigrants coming to a specific town and taking jobs. Smith and Edmontson do concede, though, that &quot;the losers may be the less-skilled domestic workers who compete with immigrants and whose wages will fall.&quot; But they go on to say: &quot;To the extent that immigrants specialize in activities that otherwise would not have existed domestically, immigration can be beneficial for all domestic residents. In this case, there is little substitution of new immigrant workers for domestic workers.&quot;

The argument that an infusion of foreign workers represents a new and non-competing workforce, and therefore poses little threat to the American worker, is buttressed by other economic analysis. Among them is the related concept that as immigrants carry out jobs that natives wouldn't want, or even wouldn't exist if it weren't done by a foreigner, the native-born American is freed up to specialize. And that complementary model improves overall efficiency. Finally, the so-called &quot;immigration surplus&quot; holds that the US economy must benefit from a net gain in goods and services because wages earned by immigrants tend to be lower than the cost equivalent of what they produce.


Should companies be shut down for hiring illegal immigrants? Yes 4082 (80.2%)
No 791 (15.5%)
Undecided 219 (4.3%)

<span style="font-weight: bold">But activists who do see a negative impact from the country's illegal immigrant population point out that the creation of a whole new jobs market is the very point.

&quot;There are jobs that provide no benefits, no retirement,&quot; says Jim Gilchrist, the president of the anti-illegal-immigration group, the Minuteman Project. &quot;As long as the laws are not enforced, cheap wages with no benefits will continue.... You take that out, the low wage element out, and you'll see American citizens applying for jobs like landscaping, shoveling concrete, because wage rates will go up, and they'll come with retirement benefits and unions.&quot;</span>Such a hypothesis assumes that those jobs could sustain such costs, and people wouldn't simply choose to carry out those tasks on their own. These activists, however, also point to a rival set of economic data that suggest an even greater wage impact from immigration. This school, led by Harvard economist George Borjas, takes issue with comparing immigration statistics between cities, as the other reports do. The gripe centers on a failure to account for the ongoing movement of people between cities. Instead, Borjas studies the topic from a national perspective, and uses economic models for comparative analysis. (Borjas was approached for this article, and didn't return a request for an interview.) And whereas the first school sees a wage impact of around 1 percent, Borjas' reports see the figure closer to 3 percent for every 10 percent increase in population. The rate gets as high as 8 percent for low-skilled workers.

In addition to Arizona, E-Verify is only fully required for all statewide employers in Mississippi. But the program is on the books in a variety of partial iterations in 18 states, and is poised to gain momentum in the wake of the decision. Just two weeks after the Arizona decision, the Roberts court ordered the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to review its overturning of a Hazelton, PA, act that mandated the denial of business permits for firms hiring illegal immigrants. But as proponents of the program continue to link E-Verify to the fortunes of the American labor force, Orrenius says that there's one matter about which the economists have no argument.

&quot;Everyone kind of agrees in the long run you should have a growing economy and capital should flow in and these wage effects eventually wash out,&quot; she says.

http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2011/06/06/could-hiring-immigrants-actually-help-the-american-worker/

<span style="font-style: italic">And we have this....</span>



<span style="font-weight: bold">New Study Shows True Cost of Illegal Immigration in Pennsylvania </span>


(Washington, D.C. August 6, 2009) A study released this week by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), documents the real cost of illegal immigration to Pennsylvanians. <span style="font-weight: bold">The Costs of Illegal Immigration to Pennsylvanians finds that providing education and health care to illegal aliens and their families, and incarcerating criminal illegal aliens, costs state taxpayers nearly $730 million annually.

The Costs of Illegal Immigration to Pennsylvanians reveals that taxpayers spend:

$ 660 million a year to educate and provide special instruction in English to the children of illegal aliens.
$ 50 million a year on unreimbursed health care for illegal aliens and their families.
$ 17.5 million a year to incarcerate criminal illegal aliens.
The cost study is based on an estimated illegal alien population in Pennsylvania of about 140,000 persons -- nearly triple the 2000 population. While the native-born population has remained steady throughout the decade, the state's foreign-born population grew by 34.5 percent</span>.

&quot;Voters in Pennsylvania, like voters everywhere, want their elected officials in Harrisburg and Washington, D.C., to protect their interests, their jobs, and their tax dollars from the impact of mass illegal immigration,&quot; said Dan Stein, President of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). &quot;Even as the state wrestles with a budget crisis that has brought it to the brink of being unable to pay its bills, illegal immigration is draining nearly three-quarters of a billion dollars from state coffers.&quot;

While cash-strapped states like Pennsylvania face rapidly increasing costs associated with illegal immigration, policy decisions being made in Washington are compounding these burdens. &quot;At a time when the Obama administration is intent on systematically dismantling interior immigration enforcement, and congressional leaders are considering providing health care to illegal aliens, voters in the Keystone State need to be aware of the heavy fiscal burden illegal immigration is placing on them. It is time political leaders stopped pandering to the illegal immigration lobby, and started enforcing laws that serve the interests of ordinary Americans.&quot;


http://www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=Ne...ws_iv_ctrl=1741

[Tuff Gong]

Re: Alabama passes 'toughest illegal immigration law


Good luck deporting 12 million illegals.
I think the USA should establish voluntary deportation. Presently you can't self-deport for the USA, except maybe to Mexico!

[lonewolf]

Re: Alabama passes 'toughest illegal immigration law

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tuff Gong</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Good luck deporting 12 million illegals.
I think the USA should establish voluntary deportation. Presently you can't self-deport for the USA, except maybe to Mexico! </div></div>

They will leave with no means to make a living. Arrest and fine any employer caught hiring anyone in the US illegally. Take away any and all health and welfare assistance and schooling. They will as you say self-deport.

[jah_yout]

Re: Alabama passes 'toughest illegal immigration law

hey friend- i hate to break it to you but you and your ancestors are here illegally