"Steve Turner" wrote in message
...

Ah yes, those EVIL capitalists! If it weren't for them we wouldn't have
any illegal immigration...

Yup, that's pretty much how it works. No jobs = not too damn many
illegal
immigrants, 'cause they don't come to America just for laughs.

How telling that you completely snipped my preceding explanation of a
completely different reason why Mexicans are coming here illegally, and
you choose instead to focus instead on the Evil Capitalists.

Correct, I didn't join you in your absurd fantasy about Mexicans et al.
being part of a deliberate invasion. I wonder how many of those guys in the
Home Depot parking lot know that *really* they're part of an invading army,
not men looking for day-labor jobs in landscaping or construction? You
can't get a better secret plan than one in which even the participants don't
know they're part of it, can you. How about those European illegal workers
on the east coast--Poles and Hungarians and so on, taking construction jobs
away from Americans since they work off the books and don't need workers
comp and so on--are they part of the plot too?

Yeah, there are radicals who make fiery speeches about the
"reconquista"--but the people who run the border are here looking for work,
not as part of a political movement.

Never mind that the minimum wage and other bureaucratic red tape prevents
American companies from competing in the global economy and making a
profit using legal American workers.

Would you like to try living on minimum wage, much less a lower rate of pay?
No? Kind of ironic for you to suggest others should, isn't it.

We must spend government resources to punish them (and probably drive them
out of business) for hiring the very illegals we can't keep out of the
country because we don't have the balls to treat this problem for what it
really is: An invasion.

Please outline the scenario in which these companies have no choice but to
hire illegals--other than a shortage of Americans willing to do those jobs.
You feel compelled to defend these corporations, yet in so doing you in
effect admit they're part of the problem because they hire illegal workers
who according to you are part of an invasion. You can't have it both ways,
at least not if you want to maintain any sort of credibility.

You can walk
through any meat packing plant and hear almost nothing but Spanish, are
we
supposed to believe the management at that company had no idea most of
their
workers are not legal residents? That's not even a good joke.

So? They're doing what it takes to stay in business. They're hiring
people who are willing to work for the wages that allows them to stay
competitive.

Let me get this straight--those packing plants managed to operate at a
profit for most of the nation's history with legal workers, but suddenly the
only way they can stay in business is to hire illegal workers? If every
meat-packing company were forced to hire Americans, surely that would remove
any competitive advantage one might get by hiring cheaper illegal workers,
would it not? Of course that would mean those pork chops on your plate
would cost you a bit more.

If Americans won't fill those jobs, that seems like a guest-worker program
such as Bush 43 proposed early in his Presidency would be a good idea.
There have been such programs in the past, there is no reason to think they
won't work again.

The Obama administration has expanded a Bush admin pilot program to
identify
and deport illegal aliens who end up in jail, even San Francisco is going
along with it. So yeah, when the govt. actually *tries* it turns out
sometimes it is effective.

Oh right, that will make a huge dent in the problem. That's like stepping
on cockroaches you can actually *see* and thinking you've killed them all.

So first you complain the govt. does nothing, then shown that the govt. is
doing something you complain it won't work. Some people get off on the very
act of complaining, it keeps them off the streets I suppose.

What part of deported don't you get?

Using the plan you outlined above? LOL! What about the 95% who haven't
done something obviously stupid and gotten thrown in jail? There's all
the rest of your cockroaches right there.

A) I didn't outline a plan, I mentioned one govt. action. B) This brings us
back to going after employers since that is where you'll find illegal
workers in large numbers, that part seems to have dropped out of your
short-term memory. And C) you like to compare illegal aliens to cockroaches
for some reason, why is that?

So after we've spent all the money on the "clamping down" program and
taken away all their employment opportunities (and driven the Evil
Capitalists out of business), to get the remaining 95% that weren't thrown
in jail we'll have to spend how much more money to track them all down and
get them deported? You've got to FIND them first!

Wait a minute, what if there *weren't* any illegal aliens to begin with
(oh I'm sorry; "undocumented residents") to feed the employment needs of
the evil profiteering (primarily white) capitalists? Wouldn't those
capitalists have to resort to becoming law abiding citizens once again
by
hiring regular law abiding citizens?

And your solution for bringing this about would be exactly what?

Securing our borders, of course! Imagine each and every one of those
illegal invaders were visibly ARMED as they entered the country.
Suddenly, this changes to a military situation, and we're talking numbers
that are on par with a full-scale military invasion, correct?

Good grief. "Imagine" something that isn't real, and then act as if it
were. Man, what color is the sky on your planet?

Wouldn't we then be justified and compelled to take military action to
prevent the invasion? WE ARE BEING INVADED - what difference does it make
whether the intruders are visibly armed or not? Why is it that the
seemingly "peaceful" nature of the invasion causes us to lay down our guns
and turns us into a bunch of tolerance pansies?

Too funny. You're outraged at what it would cost to find and deport illegal
aliens, but now you want to spend untold billions to fortify the borders and
line up troops there. The phrase "cognitive dissonance" comes to mind.

BTW, I have no problem with illegal aliens being deported (starting with the
hardened criminals), I'd like to see a more secure border and so on. But
that doesn't stop me from seeing the root cause of illegal immigration, and
that is the availability of *jobs* for those people. When I hire someone I
collect multiple documents proving they're citizens and write down the
numbers on a govt. form. But guess what? The govt. doesn't even
cross-check to make sure the S/S security on that form actually belongs to
the person named as being hired! Does that strike you as a serious loophole
in the system? Doesn't it seem like in the computer age that would be an
easy check to do?

Illegal workers are here because industry wants them here, companies like
the cheap labor, and apparently Americans like the cheap food etc. resulting
from that cheap labor. The last time there was a big immigration crackdown,
strawberry farmers in Washington state had to plow under their crops because
they couldn't find pickers. So if *you* don't mind paying more for
strawberries, okay, let's hire Americans to do that work (at higher wages,
with workers comp and so on) and everybody is happy. Except you won't be
happy, you'll be bitching about the price of strawberries.

"Steve Turner" wrote in message
...
snip

Size of a city has nothing to do with tolerance.

Lew

**** your "tolerance". If they're here illegally, there should be no
"tolerance".

--
See Nad. See Nad go. Go Nad!
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

AMEN! What part of "Illegal alien" is incomprehensible?

DGDevin wrote:

Would you like to try living on minimum wage, much less a lower rate
of pay? No? Kind of ironic for you to suggest others should, isn't
it.

Whether someone can 'live' on the minimum wage is irrelevant. If that's all
the job's worth, that's all the job's worth.


Please outline the scenario in which these companies have no choice
but to hire illegals--other than a shortage of Americans willing to
do those jobs. You feel compelled to defend these corporations, yet
in so doing you in effect admit they're part of the problem because
they hire illegal workers who according to you are part of an
invasion. You can't have it both ways, at least not if you want to
maintain any sort of credibility.

I don't think it's so much Americans aren't "willing" to do the job - it's
that the employer's can't afford them. There's a big difference between a
Mexican willing to work for ten dollars an hour and an American. For the
American, there's an additional 20% or so of overhead (Social Security
contribution, unemployment and worker's comp insurance, a not-inconsiderable
amount of paperwork, etc.). For the Mexican, it's ten bucks and
hoista-ya-legga.

On May 9, 3:05*am, Dave Balderstone
wrote:
In article , Evodawg

wrote:
Dave Balderstone wrote:

In article , Evodawg
wrote:

Whole world needs a leader like this!

Whole world needs fewer gullible fools passing along bull**** in email
and via newsgroups.

Ya know I knew I was going to get **** about this but I don't give a ****
what you think! Matter of fact I vow to become as Politically Incorrect as I
possibly can. Because I have had it with this touchy feeley bull**** that
has infested this country and the world!

It's not PC, it's that what you posted was bull**** and never happened.

--
“The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s
money.” - Margaret Thatcher

I get stuff like this from far too many of my friends. When you call
them on it, they contest Snopes saying it's obviously left wing. Then,
when Fact or Fiction says the same thing Snopes does, they don't
respond.

I've got a friend right now who is whining in disbelief that Obama
appointed someone without judicial experience--he "can't believe it!"

I sent him some facts about the early Supreme Court, including some
Washington (George, not D.C.) appointees with no judicial experience,
including a couple of the Founding Fathers.

No response.

If you want to believe something badly enough, checking facts becomes
anathema. Most people just grab at whatever motion that's on the same
wavelength as their biases.

On May 9, 2:58*pm, Evodawg wrote:
Neil Brooks wrote:
On May 9, 12:16 pm, "DGDevin" wrote:
"Evodawg" wrote in message

...

Exactly, the rule of law!!! The same should hold true for anyone that
hires
them. Watched a group of Mexican landscapers spend hours on a million
dollar
property. After manicuring the grounds to a perfection they stopped to
have
lunch when done eating left for their next job and left all their lunch
crap
in plain view in the front yard. What kind of culture does that?

So if a crew of white multi-generation Americans had done the same (which
wouldn't have been so unusual) would you blame the entire American
culture?

You DO seem to understand the fundamentals of racism.

Contractors -- in LARGE numbers -- are slobs. *You go looking around
ANY jobsite -- regardless of ethnicity of the workers -- and there is
**** ... everywhere.

Congrats to Evodawg: you're an idiot.

Screw you, I am a Contractor and the ones Ive dealt with have pride in what
they do. Never seen a white, black or Asian group of workers leave a
perfectly clean environment trashed without the intentions of returning
right away to clean up the mess.
Its obvious you have never been to Mexico. The Beach's are trashed, most of
the homes if thats what you call them have **** everywhere. In order to live
a somewhat normal life in Mexico you better have a 20 foot wall surrounding
you home. Sound familiar, what most Americans want surrounding their
Country! What a CONTRAST.... Wonder why that is?
--

Dunno. Drive around Southwest Virginia and note the roadsides. Crap
everywhere. Hang around with some rednecks for a bit, and discocver
that the trash comes from them, because their damned vehicle floors
are too full of junk to take any more. It isn't the illegals, the few
we have, nor is it the African Americans, at least no larger a
percentage than it is the whites.

****heads abound in every race and culture and always have, probably
always will.

On Thu, 13 May 2010 11:22:23 -0700 (PDT), Charlie Self
wrote:


****heads abound in every race and culture and always have, probably
always will.

You got that right. The apartment building I live in has one small
4'x3' incinerator room with a drop chute on every floor. There's a big
sign with instructions (and graphics example for those who have use a
different language) that says to put all garbage down the chute.

Yet, several times a month when I go to drop my garbage, there's full
garbage bags sitting on the floor. They carry it to the chute, why
can't they drop it down the chute?

My theory is that it comes down to pride, pride of where you live and
pride of how you live. Despite that, I know some (many) people are
pigs at heart (which in reality is an insult to pigs). I'm tempted to
go through some of these garbage bags, find out which apartment they
came from and dump the contents in front of their apartment door.
Realistically, I know though that the apartment cleaning staff are the
ones that will end up cleaning up a mess like that.

Charlie Self wrote:


If you want to believe something badly enough, checking facts becomes
anathema. Most people just grab at whatever motion that's on the same
wavelength as their biases.

Or perhaps more appropriate - if something strikes you as odd, or illogical,
that is quite normal until such time as evidence proves it to be otherwise.
Nothing wrong with a reaction that considers some things to be
not-quite-right on the surface. Forget about your notion of what "most
people" do - that's only a convenient tool to justify your own position.
Not even well proven.

--

-Mike-

On 05/13/2010 01:51 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Charlie Self wrote:


If you want to believe something badly enough, checking facts becomes
anathema. Most people just grab at whatever motion that's on the same
wavelength as their biases.

Or perhaps more appropriate - if something strikes you as odd, or illogical,
that is quite normal until such time as evidence proves it to be otherwise.

The problem arises when people don't bother actually looking for
evidence but rather assume that they're correct.

Chris

On 5/13/2010 3:28 PM, Chris Friesen wrote:

The problem arises when people don't bother actually looking for
evidence but rather assume that they're correct.

Yeah, like CNN, with their BP blowout coverage in the Gulf last week,
with the talking head, pointing to huge bags of live Louisiana crawfish
being purged for the pot, and going on knowingly about how this
"seafood" was going to suffer.

No doubt Boudreaux was around the corner laughing up his sleeve, while
counting his "consultant" fee ...

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Thu, 13 May 2010 11:16:36 -0700, Charlie Self wrote:

If you want to believe something badly enough, checking facts becomes
anathema. Most people just grab at whatever motion that's on the same
wavelength as their biases.

You got that right. When facts conflict with beliefs, facts are
ignored. Check the letters to the editor in any newspaper - it's not
just the online folks.

Just this morning, a letter in the local paper castigated someone for
believing the Earth was over 4000 years old. Ah well, it keeps things
amusing.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Charlie Self wrote:

I've got a friend right now who is whining in disbelief that Obama
appointed someone without judicial experience--he "can't believe it!"

I sent him some facts about the early Supreme Court, including some
Washington (George, not D.C.) appointees with no judicial experience,
including a couple of the Founding Fathers.

No response.


Well, our president campaigned on the promise of cooperation, comity, and
conciliation.

Had he remained true to his word, he would have said (to, say, minority
leader Senator Mitch McConnell) "Look, Mitch, this is my second appointment.
Fair's fair. I think you, and your caucus, should make the pick - subject of
course to my veto. Let's work together to make this a better country."

On May 14, 7:12*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
Charlie Self wrote:

I've got a friend right now who is whining in disbelief that Obama
appointed someone without judicial experience--he "can't believe it!"

I sent him some facts about the early Supreme Court, including some
Washington (George, not D.C.) appointees with no judicial experience,
including a couple of the Founding Fathers.

No response.

Well, our president campaigned on the promise of cooperation, comity, and
conciliation.

Had he remained true to his word, he would have said (to, say, minority
leader Senator Mitch McConnell) "Look, Mitch, this is my second appointment.

On Fri, 14 May 2010 08:12:12 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Had he remained true to his word, he would have said (to, say, minority
leader Senator Mitch McConnell) "Look, Mitch, this is my second appointment.
Fair's fair. I think you, and your caucus, should make the pick - subject of
course to my veto. Let's work together to make this a better country."

That is a laughable POV there, I mean funny as all hell.

Mark

Markem wrote:

On Fri, 14 May 2010 08:12:12 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Had he remained true to his word, he would have said (to, say, minority
leader Senator Mitch McConnell) "Look, Mitch, this is my second
appointment. Fair's fair. I think you, and your caucus, should make the
pick - subject of course to my veto. Let's work together to make this a
better country."

That is a laughable POV there, I mean funny as all hell.


Why is that any more funny than "reaching across the aisle" or, in the
spirit of "a new tone", letting Teddy Kennedy write your education bill?

/Oh yeah, because *those* things actually happened.

Mark

--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

On Fri, 14 May 2010 23:11:16 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote the following:

Markem wrote:

On Fri, 14 May 2010 08:12:12 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Had he remained true to his word, he would have said (to, say, minority
leader Senator Mitch McConnell) "Look, Mitch, this is my second
appointment. Fair's fair. I think you, and your caucus, should make the
pick - subject of course to my veto. Let's work together to make this a
better country."

That is a laughable POV there, I mean funny as all hell.


Why is that any more funny than "reaching across the aisle" or, in the
spirit of "a new tone", letting Teddy Kennedy write your education bill?

/Oh yeah, because *those* things actually happened.

This post reminded me of a phrase I've heard of (not heard) about "the
friendly reach-around". I believe it's quite fitting, too.

--
Work and struggle and never accept an evil that you can change.
-- Andre Gide

In article , lid wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2010 23:11:16 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote the following:

Markem wrote:

On Fri, 14 May 2010 08:12:12 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Had he remained true to his word, he would have said (to, say, minority
leader Senator Mitch McConnell) "Look, Mitch, this is my second
appointment. Fair's fair. I think you, and your caucus, should make the
pick - subject of course to my veto. Let's work together to make this a
better country."

That is a laughable POV there, I mean funny as all hell.


Why is that any more funny than "reaching across the aisle" or, in the
spirit of "a new tone", letting Teddy Kennedy write your education bill?

/Oh yeah, because *those* things actually happened.

This post reminded me of a phrase I've heard of (not heard) about "the
friendly reach-around". I believe it's quite fitting, too.

Larry, I'm not sure which troubles me mo that you know what that
phrase means -- or that I do.

On 5/12/2010 11:55 AM, DGDevin wrote:
"Steve wrote in message
...

Ah yes, those EVIL capitalists! If it weren't for them we wouldn't have
any illegal immigration...

Yup, that's pretty much how it works. No jobs = not too damn many
illegal
immigrants, 'cause they don't come to America just for laughs.

How telling that you completely snipped my preceding explanation of a
completely different reason why Mexicans are coming here illegally, and
you choose instead to focus instead on the Evil Capitalists.

Correct, I didn't join you in your absurd fantasy about Mexicans et al.
being part of a deliberate invasion. I wonder how many of those guys in the
Home Depot parking lot know that *really* they're part of an invading army,
not men looking for day-labor jobs in landscaping or construction? You
can't get a better secret plan than one in which even the participants don't
know they're part of it, can you. How about those European illegal workers
on the east coast--Poles and Hungarians and so on, taking construction jobs
away from Americans since they work off the books and don't need workers
comp and so on--are they part of the plot too?

Yeah, there are radicals who make fiery speeches about the
"reconquista"--but the people who run the border are here looking for work,
not as part of a political movement.

Never mind that the minimum wage and other bureaucratic red tape prevents
American companies from competing in the global economy and making a
profit using legal American workers.

Would you like to try living on minimum wage, much less a lower rate of pay?
No? Kind of ironic for you to suggest others should, isn't it.

We must spend government resources to punish them (and probably drive them
out of business) for hiring the very illegals we can't keep out of the
country because we don't have the balls to treat this problem for what it
really is: An invasion.

Please outline the scenario in which these companies have no choice but to
hire illegals--other than a shortage of Americans willing to do those jobs.
You feel compelled to defend these corporations, yet in so doing you in
effect admit they're part of the problem because they hire illegal workers
who according to you are part of an invasion. You can't have it both ways,
at least not if you want to maintain any sort of credibility.

You can walk
through any meat packing plant and hear almost nothing but Spanish, are
we
supposed to believe the management at that company had no idea most of
their
workers are not legal residents? That's not even a good joke.

So? They're doing what it takes to stay in business. They're hiring
people who are willing to work for the wages that allows them to stay
competitive.

Let me get this straight--those packing plants managed to operate at a
profit for most of the nation's history with legal workers, but suddenly the
only way they can stay in business is to hire illegal workers? If every
meat-packing company were forced to hire Americans, surely that would remove
any competitive advantage one might get by hiring cheaper illegal workers,
would it not? Of course that would mean those pork chops on your plate
would cost you a bit more.

If Americans won't fill those jobs, that seems like a guest-worker program
such as Bush 43 proposed early in his Presidency would be a good idea.
There have been such programs in the past, there is no reason to think they
won't work again.

The Obama administration has expanded a Bush admin pilot program to
identify
and deport illegal aliens who end up in jail, even San Francisco is going
along with it. So yeah, when the govt. actually *tries* it turns out
sometimes it is effective.

Oh right, that will make a huge dent in the problem. That's like stepping
on cockroaches you can actually *see* and thinking you've killed them all.

So first you complain the govt. does nothing, then shown that the govt. is
doing something you complain it won't work. Some people get off on the very
act of complaining, it keeps them off the streets I suppose.

What part of deported don't you get?

Using the plan you outlined above? LOL! What about the 95% who haven't
done something obviously stupid and gotten thrown in jail? There's all
the rest of your cockroaches right there.

A) I didn't outline a plan, I mentioned one govt. action. B) This brings us
back to going after employers since that is where you'll find illegal
workers in large numbers, that part seems to have dropped out of your
short-term memory. And C) you like to compare illegal aliens to cockroaches
for some reason, why is that?

So after we've spent all the money on the "clamping down" program and
taken away all their employment opportunities (and driven the Evil
Capitalists out of business), to get the remaining 95% that weren't thrown
in jail we'll have to spend how much more money to track them all down and
get them deported? You've got to FIND them first!

Wait a minute, what if there *weren't* any illegal aliens to begin with
(oh I'm sorry; "undocumented residents") to feed the employment needs of
the evil profiteering (primarily white) capitalists? Wouldn't those
capitalists have to resort to becoming law abiding citizens once again
by
hiring regular law abiding citizens?

And your solution for bringing this about would be exactly what?

Securing our borders, of course! Imagine each and every one of those
illegal invaders were visibly ARMED as they entered the country.
Suddenly, this changes to a military situation, and we're talking numbers
that are on par with a full-scale military invasion, correct?

Good grief. "Imagine" something that isn't real, and then act as if it
were. Man, what color is the sky on your planet?

Wouldn't we then be justified and compelled to take military action to
prevent the invasion? WE ARE BEING INVADED - what difference does it make
whether the intruders are visibly armed or not? Why is it that the
seemingly "peaceful" nature of the invasion causes us to lay down our guns
and turns us into a bunch of tolerance pansies?

Too funny. You're outraged at what it would cost to find and deport illegal
aliens, but now you want to spend untold billions to fortify the borders and
line up troops there. The phrase "cognitive dissonance" comes to mind.

BTW, I have no problem with illegal aliens being deported (starting with the
hardened criminals), I'd like to see a more secure border and so on. But
that doesn't stop me from seeing the root cause of illegal immigration, and
that is the availability of *jobs* for those people. When I hire someone I
collect multiple documents proving they're citizens and write down the
numbers on a govt. form. But guess what? The govt. doesn't even
cross-check to make sure the S/S security on that form actually belongs to
the person named as being hired! Does that strike you as a serious loophole
in the system? Doesn't it seem like in the computer age that would be an
easy check to do?

Illegal workers are here because industry wants them here, companies like
the cheap labor, and apparently Americans like the cheap food etc. resulting
from that cheap labor. The last time there was a big immigration crackdown,
strawberry farmers in Washington state had to plow under their crops because
they couldn't find pickers. So if *you* don't mind paying more for
strawberries, okay, let's hire Americans to do that work (at higher wages,
with workers comp and so on) and everybody is happy. Except you won't be
happy, you'll be bitching about the price of strawberries.

sigh By now this thread is very old and this group moves too fast for me to
keep up, especially since I've been ill and my job has flat-out overwhelmed me,
so I scarcely have the energy to pick apart your lengthy response and I'm
inclined to just say "you win", but I still have a few points I'd like to make.

I wouldn't have argued that the easy availability of jobs isn't the only reason
for illegal immigration if I didn't have at least *some* evidence to back it
up. I know a LOT of people with direct ties into Mexico (Austin isn't very far
away), and I've listened to way too many first-hand accounts to arrive at your
conclusion that they're all just here for the jobs. You do know that a great
many countries don't have much love for America, right? Do you think that
Mexico loves America? The pre-9/11 days of an "invincible" America are gone.
Arguably, that blatant act of terrorism could have been prevented, but we were
complacent and ignored the warning signs. Are there other warning signs we're
ignoring? How many other (perhaps subtle) ways can America's security be
undermined? Should we really be anything less than completely paranoid about
the motives of *anyone* who is here illegally, regardless of what country
they're from?

--
See Nad. See Nad go. Go Nad!
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/