US vs Arizona

[Mikey]

Nick, really? Tsu was just making an example that these things don't affect staples as such and so would have less of a personal repercussion in the market.

So then because it isn't something essential means it's not going to affect a lot of people?

He said

but the products in my example aren't the type that average people buy. How many cases of screws and fasteners did you buy last year? How many power tools?

Thus saying that average people don't buy those sorts of things, and I think that the majority of the people within the town I live in are average people, and the majority of them have bought a lot of screws, power tools, etc.

So therefore it would affect a lot of people in general, not just large businesses, or the such.

Holy hopping snot.

This is so tangential to the discussion, but I will answer it ONCE.

I believe that you are intelligent enough to discern the difference between "example" and "entirety of an argument." What Tsu said about hardware was the former, not the latter. We use examples because they serve as a simple way to illustrate a point; Tsu could have spoken in generalities about the mechanics of commerce, but he used an example because it's easier to speak and (usually, unless someone is deliberately misinterpreting it to incorrectly serve a point) understand. If you feel he used a poor example, then fine; but whether or not he did isn't germane to the topic at all.

Secondly, perhaps Tsu could have used more precise semantics (even the best of us make a mistake once in a while.) However, I believe that you know full well what the intent of his post was, and to stick to the letter of the argument in order to attack it rather than accept the clear intent is just a poor performance. It seems pretty obvious that Tsu was simply making a differentiation between consumer staples and items which target a more specialized and selective consumer base.

Lastly, if you want to keep playing the literal game rather than discuss actual meaning, then you're just wrong. The number of wood screws, or drill bits, or whatever-the-hell hardware that the "average" person in your town buys - even though, apparently, your town is the only one in which DIY homeowners live - is statistically insignificant compared to the number purchased within the construction industries. Thus, even over-literalizing Tsu's post, we can still make the correct judgement of it - that there is a blatant separation between the effects of labor issues on consumer staples and that on specialty items.

[stitch626]

As it is, companies can basically say, "Take what we're offering if you want a job; we could always replace you with an illegal or three."

Or: "Give us the raise or we report you." Works both ways.

Get a freaking passport and this is a non-issue.

Sorry, thats for me.

She did have a passport. Her hair was different in the pic, so they said it wasn't her.
Had to call her bro and ask him for more details.

You do in fact get a deportation hearing in which a judge or some such authority makes a simple determination of facts (being that you are not here legally).

This I did not know (never been deported). Would the person get some sort of advocate at the hearing, or must they speak for themself (not including translators for communication blocks)?

Let's break this down. "How not?" - simple. Your anecdote is about poor judgement by a group of enforcement officials, which is completely independent of the law itself. Our discussion here is about the law, not about whether any individuals will mishandle it. You say yourself that this law "can be abused just the same as the current ones." By your logic, then, we shouldn't have any laws at all, because any law enforcement may be mismanaged by individual enforcement officers. This is patently ridiculous. Cops botch traffic stops all the time, but I don't think we should abolish all traffic laws; you, however, would argue that we should.

This law encourages poor judgment (in the form of racism). More than any federal one. This law targets illegals who look Mexican, because thats the majority of Illegals that would be in Arizona. That is my overall point.
It'll be even worse if they get a district by district competition going on who can catch the most illegals (happens in NY with traffic tickets).

Cops botch traffic stops all the time, but I don't think we should abolish all traffic laws; you, however, would argue that we should.

No, I would suggest better methods.

but a sick kid who is an illegal alien, or an illegal immigrant who cuts of a finger doing under-the-table field work, will be treated at an ER... on my dime.

Yeah, not even close to Medicaid, no federal funding iirc.
So if a plane crashes near the border and happens to land in the US, you are against the illegals there to get medical care.
Or a boat crashes into the dock in NYC (again) and someone on board gets severely injured but hasn't gotten their visitors visa yet (or loses their passport in the crash). Would you have them die there on the boat, or get free ER treatment as an illegal (since they don't have their visitor visa/passport).
Simple fact is, ER is for everyone, doesn't matter their legal status.

In our world, though, if a kid can prove his residence - with nothing more than a cell phone or utility bill, or even a claim of relation to the addressee thereon - he can't be turned away from public education

OK. Didn't realize how easy it was.

Did you just turn one year old? Of course the jobs which illegal immigrants take are illegal. How else can you hire someone who's not here legally? The point is that illegal immigrants provide unfair competition for jobs. Let's say Ed's Landscaping wants to put on three guys. Which is cheaper:
a) hire three guys legitimately; for whom you have to file, pay a legal minimum wage, offer things like FMLA; conform to OHSA requirements, etc.; or,
b)hire three illegal immigrants for whom you have to provide none of these things, nor even insure for worker's comp, nor have to pay a competitive rate.

At which point his business is illegal, at which point you report him.
Of course, this would require that the people who you report it to do their jobs.

[BigJKU316]

This I did not know (never been deported). Would the person get some sort of advocate at the hearing, or must they speak for themself (not including translators for communication blocks)?

There would be no need for an advocate (though I think they get one anyway) as this is a simple determination of fact in almost all cases. If it goes beyond that then yes, they would get a lawyer (there are many who specialize in this field) and go from there.

But we are not talking about a complicated case in most instances. You ask for proof of authorization to stay and work, if it is not provided then you are deported. It is a simple ruling on facts. There is no he said/she said invovled. No damages to be decided or anything like that. It is fundamentally simple and is done quickly, as it should be.

[Captain Seafort]

Get a freaking passport and this is a non-issue.

Sorry, thats for me.

She did have a passport. Her hair was different in the pic, so they said it wasn't her.
Had to call her bro and ask him for more details.

So all she had was a passport that didn't look like her, easily forged documents, and no US birth certificate on one of the leakiest borders in the world. It sucks, but I'm not surprised by the reaction, nor do I find it too objectionable.

This law encourages poor judgment (in the form of racism). More than any federal one. This law targets illegals who look Mexican, because thats the majority of Illegals that would be in Arizona. That is my overall point.

And the problem with that is...what, exactly?

No, I would suggest better methods.

Such as?

So if a plane crashes near the border and happens to land in the US, you are against the illegals there to get medical care.
Or a boat crashes into the dock in NYC (again) and someone on board gets severely injured but hasn't gotten their visitors visa yet (or loses their passport in the crash). Would you have them die there on the boat, or get free ER treatment as an illegal (since they don't have their visitor visa/passport).
Simple fact is, ER is for everyone, doesn't matter their legal status.

The objection is not towards the provision of medical treatment, but towards medical treatment without reimbursement. It isn't cheap, and should be paid for, either through the individual's government, from them directly or through their medical insurance.

[IanKennedy]

Click it or ticket in Az too, I don't get it about the whole papers thing. It is Federal Law that all foreign nationals carry their greencard, passport, etc. I carry my papers all the time, it's called a drivers license and social security card.

They keep that quiet. I've been to the US many times and never been told that you have to keep a passport on you at all times.

[stitch626]

So all she had was a passport that didn't look like her, easily forged documents, and no US birth certificate on one of the leakiest borders in the world. It sucks, but I'm not surprised by the reaction, nor do I find it too objectionable.

She didn't have a US birth certificate cause she was born in Guatemala (which I already said). She did have copies of her adoption papers.

And the problem with that is...what, exactly?

The problem being that anyone who is perfectly legal (and happens to look Hispanic) is also a target.
And if there is inter district competition, it is possible, even likely that the officers involved may try to fudge things.

Such as?

For example, RFID chips in the liscences and RF readers added to the radar guns. This would provide the ID of the driver before the cop even pulls him over. Yes, it would cost money (OH noz ) but it would make it a far bit easier to catch speeders and would lower the amount of false tickets.

The objection is not towards the provision of medical treatment, but towards medical treatment without reimbursement. It isn't cheap, and should be paid for, either through the individual's government, from them directly or through their medical insurance.

Right... and it is paid for at some point. Usually by the hospital (as in they eat the cost and make up for it somewhere).

[BigJKU316]

Right... and it is paid for at some point. Usually by the hospital (as in they eat the cost and make up for it somewhere).

By charging other consumers that do pay more....which is the problem.

They also make it up by writting it off as a loss, thus reducing tax revenue. Which is another problem.

[IanKennedy]

I thought RFID only worked over a metre or three. Certainly not far enough for the average cop car to pick you up without being able to actually see you.

[stitch626]

I thought RFID only worked over a metre or three. Certainly not far enough for the average cop car to pick you up without being able to actually see you.

Most do. There are higher ones that can get up to 5 meters (cost more though). More than enough for standard 2 lane roads.
For highways, something else would need to be used.

[Tyyr]

I thought RFID only worked over a metre or three. Certainly not far enough for the average cop car to pick you up without being able to actually see you.

Most do. There are higher ones that can get up to 5 meters (cost more though). More than enough for standard 2 lane roads.
For highways, something else would need to be used.

...you're not joking are you?

Aside from this bat shit crazy idea I would absolutely love for someone to explain to me how to combat illegal immigration and do it racially sensitively without it being a total fucking fiasco.

[stitch626]

I would absolutely love for someone to explain to me how to combat illegal immigration and do it racially sensitively without it being a total f***ing fiasco.

Me too. But that is what the major backers of this new one say.

[Captain Seafort]

She didn't have a US birth certificate cause she was born in Guatemala (which I already said).

My point exactly - she wasn't a US national by birth.

She did have copies of her adoption papers.

Copies tend to cause problems. Whenever I've needed to produce my birth certificate to apply for something, they've wanted the original.

The problem being that anyone who is perfectly legal (and happens to look Hispanic) is also a target.

Whereupon they produce ID and continue without problems. It's no different from someone with a German name during the war or an Irish name in 70s, 80s or 90s or an Islamic or Arabic name today being getting looked at more closely than otherwise - some ethnic or religious groups have a higher proportion of drama merchants than others.

For example, RFID chips in the liscences and RF readers added to the radar guns. This would provide the ID of the driver before the cop even pulls him over. Yes, it would cost money (OH noz ) but it would make it a far bit easier to catch speeders and would lower the amount of false tickets.

As Ian pointed out, those things are very short range and more importantly, while you may roll your eyes, cost is a very important factor in whether or not to introduce a given measure. How many millions or billions of dollars would it take to introduce the measures you propose even across the souther border states?

Right... and it is paid for at some point. Usually by the hospital (as in they eat the cost and make up for it somewhere).

Not an acceptable answer. Yes the hospital will likely have enough money to cover the cost, but that is not an excuse for them not getting paid. If they decide to waive the bill, good for them, but if not someone needs to cough up.

[Tyyr]

Right... and it is paid for at some point. Usually by the hospital (as in they eat the cost and make up for it somewhere).

Yes, they make up for it by charging everyone else more. So ya me, I get to pay more for medical care because someone else skates on their medical bills. What a wonderful system.

[stitch626]

cost is a very important factor in whether or not to introduce a given measure. How many millions or billions of dollars would it take to introduce the measures you propose even across the souther border states?

No idea. Depends on the number of drivers and the number of cops who would need the readers. First number is easy to get. Second, much harder.

And my point with the is that everyone seems to have the pathological need to avoid spending any extra money even to make use of a better method.
Just like BP has continually tried the cheaper methods which were not likely to work rather than go with the more expensive one that teams of engineers said would work.

And that isn't the only possible method of catching speeders with less false tickets. That was just one example. Another would be GPS chips in liscence plates. Another would be to stop them from competing on who will get the most tickets per month (sort of an artificial quota).

[Mikey]

Or: "Give us the raise or we report you." Works both ways.

Report how, exactly? If the legals want the work, they'll suck it up; if they don't, then they no longer at the place in question, and have nothing to go on. It must be nice for you if having a job in your adult life will not be a necessity, but then there's the rest of us.

This law encourages poor judgment (in the form of racism). More than any federal one. This law targets illegals who look Mexican, because thats the majority of Illegals that would be in Arizona. That is my overall point.
It'll be even worse if they get a district by district competition going on who can catch the most illegals (happens in NY with traffic tickets).

You still haven't answered the point. You're using an example of poor execution in one instance as an argument against the law. In reality, it's just an argument against poor execution.

No, I would suggest better methods.

Go ahead. Such as... ? Again, you are arguing about execution in a discussion of the laws themselves. So, which is it - abolish law, or have the occasional happenstance of individuals performing poorly?

Yeah, not even close to Medicaid, no federal funding iirc.
So if a plane crashes near the border and happens to land in the US, you are against the illegals there to get medical care.
Or a boat crashes into the dock in NYC (again) and someone on board gets severely injured but hasn't gotten their visitors visa yet (or loses their passport in the crash). Would you have them die there on the boat, or get free ER treatment as an illegal (since they don't have their visitor visa/passport).
Simple fact is, ER is for everyone, doesn't matter their legal status.

This is so full of shit I can smell it over the internet. The plane and boat examples are accidents. Illegal immigration is not, and is something that can be combatted by rule of law. And the simple fact is that we all get fucked because the ER is for everyone, regardless of legal status.

At which point his business is illegal, at which point you report him.
Of course, this would require that the people who you report it to do their jobs.

Adrressed above. Who's reporting it? The guy trying to feed his family, who all of a sudden will never work again because of what he did? Or the guy who wants to bear the brunt of a slander suit because the employer can dump those illegals as easy as he got them, with no paper trail?