Texsox

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 7, 2010 -> 09:07 AM) No rights and proper trial? For shame. No jurisdiction for any court.

LOL After the wild market ride yesterday I was looking to diversify my investments. Yeah the Time's title hooked me. I was bored. Actually I started with their article on the most expensive item ever sold at auction, http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages...1917097,00.html Picasso's Nude, Green Leaves, and Bust. They have some pretty cool lists.

I will admit this, it is possible to enforce this law in a sane manner. I've just never been a believer that Arizona local police could pull it off . . .

I decided I'm not going to the All-Star game, who's with me?

Pretty cool, but blasting 'em away from the back of a naval ship while the leader was "negotiating" was pretty cool.

http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1650788,00.html

I'm reading this and thinking, he could still have thrown out Konerko . . .

Scotty Pippen pulled one of those also. If he is struggling with a mental illness, sports is probably the toughest arena to get well in. It's kind of funny, but if he didn't give a s*** and just sat down on the bench, there is no story.

QUOTE (WCSox @ May 6, 2010 -> 08:50 AM) I sure as hell wouldn't go to the media and tell them that I want X amount of money and demand to play a position that I clearly no longer have the skills to play. I must've missed the memo about us not being allowed to criticize players who say incredibly dumb things to reporters. Are we not allowed to criticize JD for hitting near the Mendoza Line for half of last season (and then blaming it on Kenny for acquiring Rios) while collecting $11 million as well? Criticize all you want. So if you could retire tomorrow, would you state under what conditions you would return, or just let employers guess?

These were legal workers. The DoL would issue about 1,000 VISAs for work on the boats. TRhey reduced the number to 400 after pressure from a couple unions. With a month or so before the season opened they started advertising for workers nationwide and through the unions. ABout 40% of the boats sat at their dock, fueled. QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 5, 2010 -> 03:57 PM) Well, we've found another way to kill the gulf of mexico shrimp industry. That ought to help with the immigration problem, right?

If every drug user would also lose their jobs? They couldn't use drugs for long without income. The police would be called in and they would be arrested. Perhaps we could add large fines for companies who have drug users on their payroll. QUOTE (Y2HH @ May 5, 2010 -> 05:38 PM) No, this still wouldn't do it.

If you could retire today, would you work for any amount of money just to be working? QUOTE (WCSox @ Apr 30, 2010 -> 01:50 PM) Funny how Thome doesn't have a problem playing for $1.5 million. JD needs to get over himself. He's old, the market is bad, he can't play defense anymore, and he couldn't hit during the second half of last season. He's not getting Damon money, or even Teahen money.

We could also win the war on drugs if every employer drug tested every employee weekly. QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ May 5, 2010 -> 03:28 PM) And this I wholeheartedly agree with - enforcement on businesses is a key piece to any useful legislation in immigration reform.

So what jobs do you think they are working? Yep, some are working in the restaurant industry, etc. But overall they are taking the lowest paying jobs. They are also the largest group of migrant workers. That isn't racist, that is stating facts of their employment. And last time I drove through Indiana I saw plenty of farm crops. QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 5, 2010 -> 03:24 PM) I don't know when racism became OK here, but clearly not all illegals are fruit pickers. This doesn't happen just in the crop belt, or there wouldn't be illegals here in Michigan City.

And who would be working those jobs? I already saw the local shrimp industry destroyed when the DoL sharply reduced the number of temporary VISAs they would allow. For some reason there just wasn't enough epople willing to spend 10 months on a shrimp boat in the Gulf of Mexico. QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 5, 2010 -> 03:22 PM) No we wouldn't, because we wouldn't have the extra 15 million or so people here.

How many unemployed people do you know who are willing to work seasonal jobs for low wages? QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 5, 2010 -> 03:05 PM) And if they aren't here, we don't at all. Not to mention in a time when there is 10% unemployment in this country, it might actually free up some jobs, and increase some wages for people.

If there were enough willing citizens to take those jobs, we would still have the same problem. The lowest income tax brackets have negative rates. From a financial stand point illegals who do not have a social security number are the best deal. They consume less of those services than a citizen. ALso, a citizen is not likely to move to Mexico but a Mexican national is. THat is why we have turned our heads since Reagan. QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 5, 2010 -> 03:02 PM) Which do you think will cost more, a one time fine to an employer, or a lifetime of social services?

There are already incentives by the Mexico government for companies from all over the world to relocate or add plants in Mexico. NAFTA has further incentified companies to locate operations in North America. One of the largest concentartions of Japanese companies outside Japan is in Reynosa, Tamps, Mexico. Most of those managers live on the US side of the river and commute daily.

Than I am saying conservatives have a problem with a million other things that cost money, why don't they care now? QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 5, 2010 -> 01:49 PM) No I am saying liberals don't have a problem with a million other things that cost companies money, why do they care now?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 4, 2010 -> 04:55 PM) I actually said this years ago. If you want to really solve the problem, take away the incentive to come here illegally. If it were my ball of wax, I would institute massive fines to employers who were caught with illegals on their payroll. Call it like $50,000 per instance. Then make sure that there is a level of enforcement, unlike most governmental regulators in this country. There will be no more talk about rounding everyone up and sending them back. The problem will solve itself to a large degree. QUOTE (Y2HH @ May 4, 2010 -> 06:47 PM) Then up the fine to $50,000,000 for companies of certain size. Fixed. Whatever the case may be, cut off the reason they come here illegally at the source, then open the gate for those who do it legally to prosper, rather than suffer as they do now. Doing nothing isn't the answer. QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ May 5, 2010 -> 12:17 PM) Tex, I am not sure what you are reading, but I believe that everyone here agrees with that statement, and has expressed that as well. You keep bringing it up as if people are against that.

Great point. We already require multiple proof of the right to work. I believe we both would agree that there is a range of acceptable. Less and it isn't enough, more and it is too much. It is even more of an issue when the additional requirements do not address the core problem, but are a simple bandaid, or worse, capitulating to a block of voters without doing any real good. Much like ties go to the runner, I would like to see a great deal of proof that an employer willingly and knowingly hired illegals or anyone working for cash before jeopradizing the jobs of innocent people at the company. But I've always been a huge pro business guy. I want to see small business thrive and placing a death penalty on being fooled by an illegal seems to hurt us more than help. QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 5, 2010 -> 12:05 PM) So why is this "giant pain in the ass" so much worse than any of the others that we require as a government, or want to see passed?

Do you really think deep background checks for temporary, minimum wage jobs is a solution or a bandaid? Here is an example. A watermelon packing shed near me operates for about 4 months. They need around 600 employees when they are at full capacity. These employees are paid around minimum wage. When they finish there some are hired at the local citrus sheds. Then they are heading north for other crops. They will probably work for half a dozen different employers before the year is over. You want each of those employers to spend hundreds of dollars conducting deep background checks on every employee? You will destroy our Ag industry in America and make us even more dependent on foreign grown food. QUOTE (Y2HH @ May 5, 2010 -> 10:51 AM) Then I guess the solution actually is to start killing them on sight since you don't think any other solution is viable. Guess we should just give up! It can be done, despite the excuses I'm hearing here.

In the interest of collecting taxes, the IRS looks the other way when someone seems to be working four jobs in three states at the same time. Same with Social Security. The person whose identity is being used learns of it when the IRS contacts them about unreported income. Another problem is people will actually allow it to happen. They will allow a friend or family member to use their ID. They receive credit towards Social Security and a refund of the taxes paid so they "win". The illegal works the job and the citizen collects the benefits. Do a background check or whatever and it all looks legit.

Actually from what I've heard down here they will use the name if it matches well. Which is another reason why having "illegal looking" citizens carrying identification papers seems like a terrible idea. Basicaly if a male hispanic around the same dob walks in and says his name is Juan Guerra and the birth certiifcate and social security card say Juan Guerra, and they are looking for someone to work for six weeks at a produce shed, I have some empathy. QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ May 5, 2010 -> 09:48 AM) Tex, at least as of a few years back when I still had my store open, I was required to fax info about all new employees to the state so they could check for child support orders. The info included name, dob and ss number. How hard is it to tap into that info and at least see if the name and ssn actually match? That is a quick and easy way to start, since most people stealing ssn's don't keep the original name.