[Kerrigan]

washingtonpost.com

The system that gives Hispanics six votes / person is "set to expand across the country."

Hispanics already get preferential treatment via affirmative action. You can be a complete numbskull Puerto Rican and get into a top-20 college or law school if you a crack a 1050 on the SAT or a 155 on the LSAT.

And it's not like these people are exactly "minorities" any more. In a generation or two they will rival caucasians for the plurality of this country.

So, again, why do they get all of this preferential treatment?

Perhaps we should cut them back to one vote per person, dump affirmative action, and, perhaps, change the law to retroactively revoke the citizenship of anyone who is not descended from a legal immigrant. Surely one or two people here must be in agreement on this.

[reader50]

The title is deceptive.

Six trustee positions were being voted on, so every voter can cast up to 6 votes. The change here is that every voter can apportion their six votes as they wished. They could go the traditional way, with one vote each towards six candidates. Or they could put up to six votes towards a single candidate (and not vote for any of the other candidates).

It's an interesting way to let votes be focused. A technical flaw in the system is that if most voters chose to focus their votes like this, there would be no guarantee that six candidates would win. That is, 3-4 candidates might win with huge totals, and the last couple positions might be filled by candidates with only 10-20 votes apiece.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by reader50 

A technical flaw in the system is that if most voters chose to focus their votes like this, there would be no guarantee that six candidates would win. That is, 3-4 candidates might win with huge totals, and the last couple positions might be filled by candidates with only 10-20 votes apiece.

That's a feature, not a bug.

[Doofy]

I can't see anything wrong with this setup, to be honest. If people are stupid enough to waste their other five votes in order to get one guy on the board instead of choosing their six favourite candidates and maybe getting six of their people on the board, that's their problem.

[Dork.]

What a screwed up system. A single candidate can't serve in all six positions, why should a single person be able to vote for them six times?

[The Final Dakar]

I think the general idea behind these kind of systems is to make votes matter by allowing you to allocate more than one to a candidate if you can't find six to you liking (thus giving those candidates a better chance of winning).

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

In Port Chester, trustees had been elected two at a time every two years, with conventional at-large voting. Most voters were white, and there were always six white trustees even though Hispanics made up half the population and nearly a quarter of the voters.

I'm just curious why half the population of a place is only a quarter of the voters.

[reader50]

The Hispanic turnout must be 1/3 that of the other half of the population combined.

[The Final Dakar]

Registered voters?

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

washingtonpost.com

The system that gives Hispanics six votes / person is "set to expand across the country."

Hispanics already get preferential treatment via affirmative action. You can be a complete numbskull Puerto Rican and get into a top-20 college or law school if you a crack a 1050 on the SAT or a 155 on the LSAT.

And it's not like these people are exactly "minorities" any more. In a generation or two they will rival caucasians for the plurality of this country.

So, again, why do they get all of this preferential treatment?

Perhaps we should cut them back to one vote per person, dump affirmative action, and, perhaps, change the law to retroactively revoke the citizenship of anyone who is not descended from a legal immigrant. Surely one or two people here must be in agreement on this.

I'm Puerto Rican.

[Big Mac]

Based on what I've read and heard about this legal precedent, I'm having a difficult time understanding how it's at all constitutional. Let me get this straight - because Hispanics are supposedly underrepresented as a portion of the voting population, the Hispanics who voted in this court controlled election are getting 6 votes to the single vote that non-Hispanics get? They say this is supposed to provide equal protection to the Hispanic minority, but I don't see how granting extra votes to Hispanics doesn't adversely impact the equal protection guaranteed to every other citizen.

What am I missing here?

[angelmb]

Do citizens of the United States differentiate Hispanic from Spanish like this?

From Spain:
Spanish (adj.)
Spaniard (noun)

From Central America or South America:
Hispanic (adj.)
Latino (adj. and noun)

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by angelmb 

Do citizens of the United States differentiate Hispanic from Spanish like this?

From Spain:
Spanish (adj.)
Spaniard (noun)

From Central America or South America:
Hispanic (adj.)
Latino (adj. and noun)

Technically Hispanic refers to Spanish-speaking peoples so would include Spaniards as well as most Argentinians, Guatamalans, &c but not Brazilians. while Latino refers to someone from Latin America and so would refer to Brazilians, Argentinians, Guatamalans, &c., but not Spaniards.

In practice, I doubt most Americans are aware that there are people who speak Spanish from anywhere other than Mexico and it's various provinces (such as Puerto Rico, Costa Rica, Peru, Argentina...). It seems to me that the common perception is that 'we' (white people) call them 'Hispanic' (at least when we're trying to be more polite than calling them 'damned Mexicans') while 'they' (brown people) call themselves 'Latino'...

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by angelmb 

Do citizens of the United States differentiate Hispanic from Spanish like this?

From Spain:
Spanish (adj.)
Spaniard (noun)

From Central America or South America:
Hispanic (adj.)
Latino (adj. and noun)

If you originate from a Spanish speaking country other than Spain, you are considered Latino/Hispanic by the Census regardless if you are black, white, asian, polynesian, etc. A former president of Peru, Alberto Fujimori, is of Japanese descent, (born and raised in Lima), and would be considered Hispanic.

[Cold Warrior]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Let me get this straight - because Hispanics are supposedly underrepresented as a portion of the voting population, the Hispanics who voted in this court controlled election are getting 6 votes to the single vote that non-Hispanics get?

The way I read it, all voters in that city get 6 votes, no matter their race. This setup just allows voters to apportion their 6 votes to less than 6 candidates.

I find the concept intriguing. What if state-wide House districts went away and were replaced by this system? 10 Representatives state-wide, no districts, citizens with 10 votes, their choice on how to apportion.

I think the system needs more study, but if all citizens get 6 votes and a voter wants to toss all 6 at one candidate, I don't know that I'm against it on a local level.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior 

The way I read it, all voters in that city get 6 votes, no matter their race. This setup just allows voters to apportion their 6 votes to less than 6 candidates.

I find the concept intriguing. What if state-wide House districts went away and were replaced by this system? 10 Representatives state-wide, no districts, citizens with 10 votes, their choice on how to apportion.

I think the system needs more study, but if all citizens get 6 votes and a voter wants to toss all 6 at one candidate, I don't know that I'm against it on a local level.

Great, instead of one hanging-chad there will be 6 as if our elections systems apparently aren't complicated enough already.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Based on what I've read and heard about this legal precedent, I'm having a difficult time understanding how it's at all constitutional. Let me get this straight - because Hispanics are supposedly underrepresented as a portion of the voting population, the Hispanics who voted in this court controlled election are getting 6 votes to the single vote that non-Hispanics get? They say this is supposed to provide equal protection to the Hispanic minority, but I don't see how granting extra votes to Hispanics doesn't adversely impact the equal protection guaranteed to every other citizen.

What am I missing here?

You're not missing anything. It's only Constitutional because courts have said it was. It's just as constitutional as any other affirmative action program.

[OAW]

Clearly there are some here who are so anti-affirmative action that it's negatively impacting their ability to perform rudimentary reading comprehension.

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

The system that gives Hispanics six votes / person is "set to expand across the country."

That statement, in and of itself, is patently false. Period. Any way you slice it. And the OP then went downhill from there. Nowhere .... absolutely nowhere .... in that article is it stated that "Hispanics" get six votes per person. In fact, it explicitly stated, that everybody gets six votes per person that they could then apportion as they wished.

If one wants to oppose affirmative action ... that's fine. But don't resort to outright mischaracterizations to make a point. This new voting system for electing at large representatives has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with "affirmative action", "preferential treatment", or anything of the sort.

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

I'm just curious why half the population of a place is only a quarter of the voters.

Not every member of the population is of voting age. A large portion of the HIspanic population is under the age of 18.

OAW

[BadKosh]

Maybe this??? Again, it's not like the president is taking his oath of office seriously.

630 WMAL: Stimulating Talk – Breaking News

[ort888]

It's so hard being a middle class white man in today's world.

[P]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Based on what I've read and heard about this legal precedent, I'm having a difficult time understanding how it's at all constitutional. Let me get this straight - because Hispanics are supposedly underrepresented as a portion of the voting population, the Hispanics who voted in this court controlled election are getting 6 votes to the single vote that non-Hispanics get? They say this is supposed to provide equal protection to the Hispanic minority, but I don't see how granting extra votes to Hispanics doesn't adversely impact the equal protection guaranteed to every other citizen.

What am I missing here?

Quite a bit, but that article isn't helping any. The explanation of how the system works is hidden a ways down.

There are six trustees. Every two years, two of them are up for reelection - like the Senate. The old system apparently meant that everyone voted for their favourite, and numbers one and two got elected to those two seats. The solution mandated by the judge was that:

a) all the trustees were up for relection every time (it doesn't say how often that election is held)
b) each voter got six votes, and can apportion them as has been discussed

The votes are then all tallied, and the top six people get elected. Personally, I think that implementing only a) would have increased minority representation wihtout the fancy voting.

[BadKosh]

Lets give 'em citizenship too!

Obama Labor Chief: Illegals Have a Right to Fair Wages | The FOX Nation

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Lets give 'em citizenship too!

Obama Labor Chief: Illegals Have a Right to Fair Wages | The FOX Nation

You realize that allowing employers to pay unfair wages to illegal aliens would result in more employers hiring illegal aliens over legal residents/citizens, right? You should be favor of enforcing wage regulations across the board if your goal is to curb illegal immigration. It's arguably not enough depending on your point of view, but if it's actually compatible with your goal why are you complaining about it?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

You realize that allowing employers to pay unfair wages to illegal aliens would result in more employers hiring illegal aliens over legal residents/citizens, right? You should be favor of enforcing wage regulations across the board if your goal is to curb illegal immigration. It's arguably not enough depending on your point of view, but if it's actually compatible with your goal why are you complaining about it?

Gee, I'm going to go out on a limb here and speculate that his actual point is that it's ridiculous for an administration official to be saying that someone who isn't even in the country legally has a RIGHT to something in this country- certainly not a job. All over the world, it is NOT the 'right' of non-citizens to have jobs in countries other than their own. It's also not a 'right' of non-citizens to get involved in the politics of other nations, let alone demand their 'rights' from them. But of course, it's somehow 'racist' when the US enforces the same thing that every single other nation on earth enforces as well.

[The Final Dakar]

How would you enforce it? If you know a company is ripping off illegals, maybe you should fine the **** out of the company for employing illegals?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Not every member of the population is of voting age. A large portion of the HIspanic population is under the age of 18.

OAW

I'm sure that's part of it, but let's not forget that a percentage of the population of any race is going to be under voting age. So again, if 50% of the population is so underrepresented, why not address the REAL reasons behind it, rather than some ballot scheme?

And I'm still not quite getting how that works either- if cumulative voting is applied equally, to all races involved, then how exactly does it help Hispanics specifically? Can't blacks and whites also use the same system? If whites already outnumber everyone else (60% according to the last census) then wouldn't this also affect the outcome of cumulative voting?

I guess I'm just not getting how the use of this is making it so that a community with only a quarter of the total turnout has any more real voting power compared to everyone else, unless you're doing something squirrelly in ONLY educating that particular community how to use it to their advantage, but not really pointing out the same thing to everyone else.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

How would you enforce it? If you know a company is ripping off illegals, maybe you should fine the **** out of the company for employing illegals?

I'm all for it! Heck, I'm all for shutting them down and throwing the owners (who are cheating EVERYONE) in jail. Who exactly is against this? It's what most people have been asking for from day one, but what the government refuses to do except in a handful of raids now and then.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Gee, I'm going to go out on a limb here and speculate that his actual point is that it's ridiculous for an administration official to be saying that someone who isn't even in the country legally has a RIGHT to something in this country- certainly not a job. All over the world, it is NOT the 'right' of non-citizens to have jobs in countries other than their own. It's also not a 'right' of non-citizens to get involved in the politics of other nations, let alone demand their 'rights' from them. But of course, it's somehow 'racist' when the US enforces the same thing that every single other nation on earth enforces as well.

Do illegal aliens have the same rights as citizens and legal residents? No. But they have rights, simply by virtue of their existence, the most obvious being the right to due process when they encounter law enforcement. People call these sort of non-nationality-specific things "human rights," as in "The Secretary of State in her remarks condemned China's failure to more stringently address human rights abuses." I don't believe that anyone has argued that illegal aliens have a "right" to a job. Certainly not even citizens have a right to that.

My question to BadKosh stands. It would be interesting to see if he is able to reconcile his knee-jerk distaste for assigning rights to illegal aliens with practical movement toward his objective of halting illegal immigration.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

I'm all for it! Heck, I'm all for shutting them down and throwing the owners (who are cheating EVERYONE) in jail. Who exactly is against this? It's what most people have been asking for from day one, but what the government refuses to do except in a handful of raids now and then.

Gee, I think Dakar's point is that encouraging illegal aliens to complain about their sh!t wages would make it easier to identify companies that hire illegal aliens. Also the part about discouraging further hiring of illegals.

[The Final Dakar]

My point was their plan for enforcing either made no sense or ignored the larger problem.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

My point was their plan for enforcing either made no sense or ignored the larger problem.

Gee, I think you point was that .....err...uhh....shut up!

[OAW]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

I'm sure that's part of it, but let's not forget that a percentage of the population of any race is going to be under voting age. So again, if 50% of the population is so underrepresented, why not address the REAL reasons behind it, rather than some ballot scheme?

True ... but a greater percentage of the Hispanic population is under the voting age than the non-Hispanic, white population. Considerably so.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

And I'm still not quite getting how that works either- if cumulative voting is applied equally, to all races involved, then how exactly does it help Hispanics specifically? Can't blacks and whites also use the same system? If whites already outnumber everyone else (60% according to the last census) then wouldn't this also affect the outcome of cumulative voting?

I guess I'm just not getting how the use of this is making it so that a community with only a quarter of the total turnout has any more real voting power compared to everyone else, unless you're doing something squirrelly in ONLY educating that particular community how to use it to their advantage, but not really pointing out the same thing to everyone else.

Well this has to do with the nature of voting for majority and minority groups. By the very nature of being the majority, the white community has always had it's interests represented. Now whether they have been represented well is another matter. My point is that the white community in that area is essentially guaranteed to have representation by a member of their community given their numbers. As such, they are in a position to then segment their vote on other criteria. Ethnic or identity based politics is much less of an overt factor. However, minority communities by their very nature historically haven't been able to elect someone from their community to offices that don't represent districts where they are the majority ... simply because A) they don't have the numbers and B) the white community has historically not voted for non-whites in such situations. Of course, there are some notable exceptions but an analysis of voting patterns over the history of the US undoubtedly shows that this has been the rule. So minority communities are much more likely to vote in blocs than the majority community. It's the only way to maximize the strength of their vote ... otherwise it is diluted even further.

So what this system does is give minority groups the opportunity to vote as a bloc in a manner that would significantly improve their chances of having a representative from their community in one of these 6 at-large offices, without negatively impacting the majority. Everyone gets 6 votes to apportion as they choose, so no one can claim that one group is being favored over another. So if any group (not just ethnic groups) decides to vote as a bloc and apportion the majority or all of their 6 votes to one or two candidates, they can greatly increase the likelihood of getting the candidate(s) of their choice elected. However, this strategy comes at a price. Namely, they are essentially giving up the opportunity to have a say on the other open positions. Of course, the majority can do the same thing ... but in all likelihood they wouldn't. After all, they are the majority so they really don't need to. At least not on the basis of ethnicity. But suppose this were a majority Democratic district? The Republicans could pursue this strategy in order to get a Republican in one of the offices. Etc, etc.

It's actually a very ingenious approach IMO. Almost "parliamentary" in some respects.

OAW

[reader50]

The voting percentage difference can't be explained by age demographics. The gap is too big.

Hispanics: 50% of the population, 1/4 of the votes.
All Others: 50% of the population, 3/4 of the votes.

Given those numbers, Hispanics vote at only 1/3 the rate per citizen that the other 50% does. To explain it with age demographics alone, they all have 10-kid families vs 2-3 kid families in the other group.

It is much more reasonable to assume a significantly lower registration & turnout rate. Voter apathy among the Hispanic 50%.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Do illegal aliens have the same rights as citizens and legal residents? No. But they have rights, simply by virtue of their existence, the most obvious being the right to due process when they encounter law enforcement.

It's ironic that you mention law enforcement! If we were actually enforcing laws- you know, like our immigration laws- we wouldn't have the Sec. of Labor telling people who are BREAKING THE LAW and that we're looking the other way for it, that they have some 'right' to expect others not to BREAK THE LAW and that we're looking the other way for that too! Do you even see the blazing irony in that? Why does this 'law enforcement' thing only work in ONE direction in this scenario?

Let's advocate breaking a whole segment of laws, in order to promise selective enforcement of other laws- based on which ones we like and which ones we don't.

Here's an idea- let's have RULE OF LAW and enforce ALL of our laws, equally, for everyone. That means no phony guarantees for employers that they have some 'right' to expect labor laws to be ignored for them, but by the same token, others don't have any 'right' to expect immigration and labor laws to be ignored for them either! I know, I know- radical idea. Even though it's practiced in virtually EVERY country on earth- except increasingly, the United States.

People call these sort of non-nationality-specific things "human rights," as in "The Secretary of State in her remarks condemned China's failure to more stringently address human rights abuses." I don't believe that anyone has argued that illegal aliens have a "right" to a job. Certainly not even citizens have a right to that.

A job in a foreign country -and by extension the wages afforded by that job- are not "human rights". This statement wasn't addressing illegals being beaten or mistreated- it was telling people an absolute falsehood that they have a 'right' to a certain wage in a country that to them is a foreign country, when in fact they have no such 'right' to even a job in a foreign country.

I'm always in favor of businesses HAVING to pay what jobs are actually worth- to legal US citizens, and having to obey ALL laws of the US. Along with the nation's labor laws, that also includes the nation's immigration laws. Can't abide by that? Don't do business here.

My question to BadKosh stands. It would be interesting to see if he is able to reconcile his knee-jerk distaste for assigning rights to illegal aliens with practical movement toward his objective of halting illegal immigration.

I don't see where he kneejerked over anything, since were not talking about actual 'rights'. I think it's hard for some people to understand that just because you WANT something, it doesn't magically become your 'right'.

Employer: "I want a 'right' to pay shit wages, and hire illegals that will work for them, and I want everyone else to always look the other way because that works for me and is highly profitable." TOUGH. That's not your 'right' to demand, nor some corrupt politician to promise you.

Illegal alien: "I want a 'right' to a job and a fair wage in a country that I've entered illegally because that works for me and is convenient." TOUGH. That's not your 'right' to demand, nor some corrupt politician to promise you.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by OAW 

*snip*
It's actually a very ingenious approach IMO. Almost "parliamentary" in some respects.
OAW

Interesting and well-explained. I hadn't given it that much thought, but I think you're right. So long as it's applied equally and fairly to all voters, and if it actually results in people at least feeling that they are better represented, then I guess whatever works.

Fundamentally I take issue with the idea that people *need* representation based on race- IE: whites represent whites, Hispanics represent Hispanics, etc. but then again, if a group collectively feels the need to be represented by someone that 'looks like them' then so be it.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

It's ironic that you mention law enforcement! If we were actually enforcing laws- you know, like our immigration laws- we wouldn't have the Sec. of Labor telling people who are BREAKING THE LAW and that we're looking the other way for it, that they have some 'right' to expect others not to BREAK THE LAW and that we're looking the other way for that too! Do you even see the blazing irony in that? Why does this 'law enforcement' thing only work in ONE direction in this scenario?

Let's advocate breaking a whole segment of laws, in order to promise selective enforcement of other laws- based on which ones we like and which ones we don't.

Here's an idea- let's have RULE OF LAW and enforce ALL of our laws, equally, for everyone. That means no phony guarantees for employers that they have some 'right' to expect labor laws to be ignored for them, but by the same token, others don't have any 'right' to expect immigration and labor laws to be ignored for them either! I know, I know- radical idea. Even though it's practiced in virtually EVERY country on earth- except increasingly, the United States.

A job in a foreign country -and by extension the wages afforded by that job- are not "human rights". This statement wasn't addressing illegals being beaten or mistreated- it was telling people an absolute falsehood that they have a 'right' to a certain wage in a country that to them is a foreign country, when in fact they have no such 'right' to even a job in a foreign country.

I'm always in favor of businesses HAVING to pay what jobs are actually worth- to legal US citizens, and having to obey ALL laws of the US. Along with the nation's labor laws, that also includes the nation's immigration laws. Can't abide by that? Don't do business here.

I don't see where he kneejerked over anything, since were not talking about actual 'rights'. I think it's hard for some people to understand that just because you WANT something, it doesn't magically become your 'right'.

Employer: "I want a 'right' to pay shit wages, and hire illegals that will work for them, and I want everyone else to always look the other way because that works for me and is highly profitable." TOUGH. That's not your 'right' to demand, nor some corrupt politician to promise you.

Illegal alien: "I want a 'right' to a job and a fair wage in a country that I've entered illegally because that works for me and is convenient." TOUGH. That's not your 'right' to demand, nor some corrupt politician to promise you.

Let's see, I just explained that we're not talking about having a right to a job, and you proceeded to ignore me. Why am I not surprised. Take out the deliberate hyperbole and there might be something for me to respond to.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Let's see, I just explained that we're not talking about having a right to a job, and you proceeded to ignore me. Why am I not surprised. Take out the deliberate hyperbole and there might be something for me to respond to.

Who's we?
Dude, you RARELY ever are talking about anything that actually relates to the *actual* subject.

Face it, you accused Badkosh of a kneejerk post (all 5 words of it!), when in fact it was you kneejerking in response, injecting bullcrap that wasn't anything he even mentioned.

[The Godfather]

If in 2012 there are two <insert race here> candidates for these trustee positions, neither of them might get enough votes to get elected.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Do illegal aliens have the same rights as citizens and legal residents? No. But they have rights, simply by virtue of their existence, the most obvious being the right to due process when they encounter law enforcement. People call these sort of non-nationality-specific things "human rights," as in "The Secretary of State in her remarks condemned China's failure to more stringently address human rights abuses." I don't believe that anyone has argued that illegal aliens have a "right" to a job. Certainly not even citizens have a right to that.

My question to BadKosh stands. It would be interesting to see if he is able to reconcile his knee-jerk distaste for assigning rights to illegal aliens with practical movement toward his objective of halting illegal immigration.

It's simple. Throw ALL the illegals out - they have proven their inability to be good citizens or law abiding people just by being here illegally. The illegals should never be allowed back in. Second, close the damn borders. Illegals have as many rights as illegal invaders during war time. Perhaps a little more emphasis on not being law breakers or bleeding heart liberal fools who ignore those laws they don't agree with. Anchor babies shouldn't matter. Retro active to 1995, no such thing as anchor babies. Throw them out!

How about amnesty? You think Obama will make them citizens so they will vote for him?

Senators Challenge Pres. Obama on Rumors of Executive Order Amnesty | NumbersUSA - For Lower Immigration Levels

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Who's we?
Dude, you RARELY ever are talking about anything that actually relates to the *actual* subject.

Face it, you accused Badkosh of a kneejerk post (all 5 words of it!), when in fact it was you kneejerking in response, injecting bullcrap that wasn't anything he even mentioned.

"We" is just the people participating in the thread.

I think maybe we have different definitions of "kneejerk." I referred to BadKosh's statement as "kneejerk" because he posted a link and a one-line statement suggesting his displeasure, without indicating any real clue as to what in particular he was unhappy about. I replied to point out, in the context of what I assumed is his desire to curb illegal immigration, that this kind of initiative by the Labor Department might actually contribute to the goal of decreasing illegal immigration, if it in fact makes it harder for companies to pay illegal immigrants crap wages, which is one of the motivations for hiring them. And of course the ability to find jobs is one of the motivators for immigrants crossing the border illegally. I don't think any part of what I said there qualifies as "kneejerk." Quite the opposite.

So what's the problem?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

It's simple. Throw ALL the illegals out - they have proven their inability to be good citizens or law abiding people just by being here illegally. The illegals should never be allowed back in. Second, close the damn borders. Illegals have as many rights as illegal invaders during war time. Perhaps a little more emphasis on not being law breakers or bleeding heart liberal fools who ignore those laws they don't agree with. Anchor babies shouldn't matter. Retro active to 1995, no such thing as anchor babies. Throw them out!

That's fine and certainly consistent. But how does the statement by the Labor Secretary undermine that? Isn't it perfectly compatible with that goal, as I explained before? The Labor Department, of course, does not have the authority to "throw all the illegals out."

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

...this kind of initiative by the Labor Department might actually contribute to the goal of decreasing illegal immigration, if it in fact makes it harder for companies to pay illegal immigrants crap wages, which is one of the motivations for hiring them.

It still hasn't dawned on you the absurdity of actually buying into this.

So you honestly believe there's some way to enforce prevention of companies paying illegal employees non-illegal wages? Right, so we'll ignore a whole host of laws being broken (immigration, labor, tax laws, etc), in order to PRETEND to enforce the wage laws? Cause you know, it's all just pick and choose, laws we like, laws we don't.

Dude, it's laughable. It's called BULLSHIT. It's just more of this corrupt admin pandering to illegal aliens that they're hoping to fast-track to citizenship with all of their 'reform' nonsense.

This would be akin the head of the DEA coming out with: "Hey, drug users, has your dealer lured you in by first giving you a little taste of the product for free, but not telling you how addicted and in debt you'll be later on? That's a bait and switch! You have a right -while engaging in a crime yourself- not to be victim of another lesser crime! We're gonna get tough on drug dealers that use the bait and switch with their customers!"

Shhyeaaah right. Because it's completely logical that the DEA is going to ignore the breach of the law at it's ORIGIN (IE: dealing in illicit drugs in the first place!) and go after drug dealers for bad consumer practices!

If you're really buying any speil about going after employers engaged in illegal hiring, for paying ]illegal wages, then you'd buy into the above as well.

And of course the ability to find jobs is one of the motivators for immigrants crossing the border illegally.

Yes, and another motivator is members of the administration falsely telling people they have a 'right' to a fair wage in a country other than their own, when they don't even have a 'right' to be working in the country in the first place. Now, I realize this is probably for you a VERY complicated concept- like that whole 'horse before cart' thing, but it's actually pretty basic.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

The Labor Department, of course, does not have the authority to "throw all the illegals out."

US labor laws require that companies hire only legally documented workers. So her message is: "We're ignoring one set of laws in order to pretend we're going to enforce another."

How transparent of an agenda is it that supposedly a person engaged in one crime -yes, covered under the department of labor- is supposed to be calling in a violation of someone else breaking another labor law? Good for the goose but not for the gander? OF COURSE! There's an agenda to push.

This is the kind of ridiculous pretzel-logic bullshit that gets created simply because people with an obvious agenda of promoting -not preventing- more illegal labor, (and with it shittier and shittier wages and conditions) simply want to ignore the rule of law.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Lets give 'em citizenship too!

Obama Labor Chief: Illegals Have a Right to Fair Wages | The FOX Nation

You're ranting in the wrong thread. *This* thread is about *legal* Hispanics.

(it may be a difficult concept to grasp, but not all Hispanics are illegal aliens)

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

What a screwed up system. A single candidate can't serve in all six positions, why should a single person be able to vote for them six times?

A screwed up system for sure. However, it's screwed up equally for all involved: *everyone*, from Hispanics to Caucasians, get 6 votes.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Huh?
Isn't it that a voter can vote for a single candidate six times for one position, or vote for six different candidates for six different positions, not vote for a single candidate one time for six different positions?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

It still hasn't dawned on you the absurdity of actually buying into this.

So you honestly believe there's some way to enforce prevention of companies paying illegal employees non-illegal wages? Right, so we'll ignore a whole host of laws being broken (immigration, labor, tax laws, etc), in order to PRETEND to enforce the wage laws? Cause you know, it's all just pick and choose, laws we like, laws we don't.

Dude, it's laughable. It's called BULLSHIT. It's just more of this corrupt admin pandering to illegal aliens that they're hoping to fast-track to citizenship with all of their 'reform' nonsense.

This would be akin the head of the DEA coming out with: "Hey, drug users, has your dealer lured you in by first giving you a little taste of the product for free, but not telling you how addicted and in debt you'll be later on? That's a bait and switch! You have a right -while engaging in a crime yourself- not to be victim of another lesser crime! We're gonna get tough on drug dealers that use the bait and switch with their customers!"

Shhyeaaah right. Because it's completely logical that the DEA is going to ignore the breach of the law at it's ORIGIN (IE: dealing in illicit drugs in the first place!) and go after drug dealers for bad consumer practices!

If you're really buying any speil about going after employers engaged in illegal hiring, for paying ]illegal wages, then you'd buy into the above as well.


Yes, and another motivator is members of the administration falsely telling people they have a 'right' to a fair wage in a country other than their own, when they don't even have a 'right' to be working in the country in the first place. Now, I realize this is probably for you a VERY complicated concept- like that whole 'horse before cart' thing, but it's actually pretty basic.

Seriously, take a chill pill. I can do without the personal attacks, so I'd appreciate the same courtesy. I'm not trying to convince you that the PSA put out by the Labor Dept. is the absolute best way to go about doing things, but I'm saying that it is one way, and that on its face it is compatible with the goal of seeking to curb illegal immigration. The proper analogy would not be your DEA analogy, because it is not in the DEA's mandate to regulate some sort of imagined "fair drug deal" law. Similarly, it is not in Labor's mandate to enforce employee eligibility. That's part of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services in the Department of Homeland Security (formerly INS within the Justice Dept.). Labor regulates working conditions. Is it possible that these two areas of the federal government are working at odds? Sure, but the separation of these functions can also help actually improve communities. This is the same distinction we addressed in the thread about the AZ immigration law, where I pointed out that several police chiefs questioned the law on the grounds that it would make it harder for local police, for whom immigration enforcement was not originally part of their primary functions, to productively interact with illegal aliens in the course of investigating other crimes.

This isn't "ignoring the rule of law" as you put it in your later post. It's actually hewing very specifically to the rule of law, in terms of due process.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Similarly, it is not in Labor's mandate to enforce employee eligibility.

Which just proves you don't know what you're talking about.

OF COURSE it's the USDL's job to enforce LABOR requirements!

All US companies must have approval from the Dept. of Labor before they can hire foreign citizens in the US- that's a separate requirement from INS approval of the workers.

Here you are actually trying to float the ridiculous idea that hiring illegal labor isn't a labor department issue! Go look it up- it's the labor department's job go enforce age and citizenship eligibility in the US workforce- only a nitwit would think otherwise. Next you'll argue that hiring child labor isn't a labor department issue!

That's part of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services in the Department of Homeland Security (formerly INS within the Justice Dept.).

The immigration violations themselves are their jobs, not strictly the labor violations. Yes, these things dovetail, but to try and float that the labor department itself has no role in LABOR laws, is just goofy. Of course, why would I put that past you?

Labor regulates working conditions.

Among other things.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Which just proves you don't know what you're talking about.

OF COURSE it's the USDL's job to enforce LABOR requirements!

All US companies must have approval from the Dept. of Labor before they can hire foreign citizens in the US- that's a separate requirement from INS approval of the workers.

Here you are actually trying to float the ridiculous idea that hiring illegal labor isn't a labor department issue! Go look it up- it's the labor department's job go enforce age and citizenship eligibility in the US workforce- only a nitwit would think otherwise. Next you'll argue that hiring child labor isn't a labor department issue!

The immigration violations themselves are their jobs, not strictly the labor violations. Yes, these things dovetail, but to try and float that the labor department itself has no role in LABOR laws, is just goofy. Of course, why would I put that past you?

No, you are being very imprecise and you appear to be misinformed. In the process of hiring foreign nationals, USDL certifies the eligibility of the position being offered, so as to try to ensure that filling this position with a foreigner will not adversely affect the job opportunities, wages, and working conditions of U.S. workers. Separately, the worker must secure a visa and establish his/her admissibility to the United States, which is handled by the State Dept. and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services in DHS. At time of employment, paperwork verifying this person's identity and legal status to be in the U.S. is reviewed by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. If there is a problem, USDL would investigate the employer's role in misrepresentation or violation of visa employment program requirements. DHS would investigate the immigrant.

See: Compliance Assistance By Audience - Foreign Workers and USCIS Home Page

USDL does enforce child labor laws, in the context of its overall mandate to regulate safe working environments.

Again, I do not appreciate your invective responses.