America the Free

The bottom line is that the government, and those in both parties who fund those who run for political office, don't really care to stop undocumented workers. First, business doesn't want it because they know that they need the labor. Look at what has happened in Alabama. After their xenophobic anti-immigrant legislation went into effect, crops were left rotting in the fields. And rich folks are the ones that fund politics. I can afford to give $5,000 to those running for Federal office. A working guy can't. Same with other small business owners. And frankly, other than just xenophobia and racism, there is no real argument for excluding undocumented workers.

There's a pretty good movie called A Day Without A Mexican whose promise is that California wakes up one morning all all it's Latino's are gone. The entire place grinds to a screeching halt. And it very accurately (and with great humor and humanity) shows how dependent our society is on immigrant labor.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0377744/

It's like Woody Allen's old job from Annie Hall:

This guy goes to a psychiatrist and says, "Doc, uh, my brother's crazy; he thinks he's a chicken."

And, uh, the doctor says, "Well, why don't you turn him in?"

The guy says, "I would, but I need the eggs."

Nobody wants to end the problem because there is no reason to (absent racism and xenophobia) and we need the eggs.

Show me one corporate officer who has gone to jail for hiring undocumented workers. If the government really wanted this practice to stop, they'd send company Presidents to jail. Then companies would stop hiring undocumented workers. But you know, and I know, that won't happen. (Nor do I think it should, for that matter.)

Porsche, when the Reconquista is complete, just be sure to remember which gringos were on your side, por favor!! We're not all pendejos. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Si Es la verdad. No somos pendejos. Cuidado con alguien que dicen otros son pendejos pero el no!

[http://www.ice.gov/news/releases/090...3baltimore.htm
/http://blog.whitecollar.wnj.com/?p=260
I know, thousands more get away with it than get caught.

Same with other small business owners. And frankly, other than just xenophobia and racism, there is no real argument for excluding undocumented workers. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Ah. And there it is.

Another liberal crock of shit.

To someone who makes a living based on laws, your stances amuses me.

MY stance is that this is a nation of laws. IF the laws need changed, we work towards getting people in office who will change and fix the laws.

IGNORING them is not an answer. How'd you like it if those laws that allow you to live your life style were simply ignored because to follow them was just too inconvenient for others?

My entire reason to be against the 12-20 MILLION illegals are because even if it is only 5% who are the problem, once you look at the prison population of California and the associated costs of locking up the illegals who do not want to work at jobs the progressives claim no citizen will want you see the deeper issue.

Yes, it IS throwing out the baby with the bathwater at this point because the as far as I'm concerned the baby from the illegals is a siphon on the economy because until that baby is old enough to work, he contributes nothing of value and lives off the tax payers.

Switching to the baby issue.

I heard someone recently suggest that to fix the anchor baby problem where illegal baby breeders come here and squirt out the off spring, there is a simple fix.

Make all delivery rooms Mexican soil and voila, no more Birthright babies. Of course, any US citizen having a baby on foreign soil is still a US citizen but the moment Parkland were to make the delivery rooms Mexican soil, voila, no more US birth certificates and poof the problem of anchor babies goes away and so do the illegal breeders and their spawn.

Back to the Alabama issue you have a problem with.

Alabama has 3% of the population illegal. I wish this country had been able to enact laws when we had only 3% illegals in many states and population centers and ended the issue.

Funny how you claim the average working person can't donate money to get people elected but you aren't seeing how things are changing. The grass roots ability of pissed off people who are looking for candidates who WILL change the status quo has been leading to shifts and surprises in elections since 2010 and there are results in states like NY where long held Democrat seats are now GOP to get things changed and those newly elected office holders have been charged with changing immigration and other failed progressive policies and laws.

Alabama isn't doing this via the old status quo they are doing it due to normal workers calling up and telling their state government to fix the problem and stop kicking it down the road OR they will kick those in office down the road and replace them.

Are you more upset with Alabama because they are doing soemthing or because the citizens there are tired of the same progressive bullshit and lies you try and spout in threads like this and elsewhere all over the board that ONLY the rich can influence votes?

No matter how much you make, your vote is one vote, just like mine and guess what, there are way more people making less than 75K per year than those making 250K per year so the numbers work for the workers to force change no matter how much the progressives spend to try and win just like in NY recently. Or how about Kennedy's seat in Mass?

LL, this issue doesn't effect me one bit. It's just a matter of simple human justice for me. I'm not upset with anything in particular about it other than racist crackers who get their panties in a wad over honest folks looking to improve their families lives. I've never had much tolerance for racists and xenophobes and I doubt you're going to convince me that they're OK.

And if you think that the dumb shits running as Tea Party Republicans are going to somehow get the big business Republicans to cut the throat of big business, I'll kiss every fat man's ass in Texas if you're right. But I'm not too worried, because the Republicans have been kissing big businesses ass since before I was born and will still be doing in long after I'm dead and gone.

TTH,

I'm just saying that before you critisize people about immigration how about you suggest a solution?

I might disagree with your idea or suggestion but at least it shows you have actually given thought to how to FIX the problem instead of slamming those who are screaming about it BEING a problem in the first place even if their ideas are not what you'd like to see done to fix the issue.

When MY relatives came here from Ireland, they didn't have to apply. They just showed up with a will to contribute. The line they were in was not an application line, it was a registration line. After registering, they were provided with food, shelter, clothing, and medical care. Then they were turned loose to make a living and pay taxes, and that's what they did. The same was probably true for your ancestors, LL.


L4L Originally Posted by Lust4xxxLife

When YOUR relatives came here from Ireland... they didn't have the welfare systems that exist today that allows those illegals to perpetuate the entitlement generation... that somehow because they ARE immigrants, it's ok for them to come up here and NOT work and NOT pay into the tax system.. but rather leech off it like a fucking siv.

Please don't point the race card in my direction, I'm not talking black, brown, blue or torqoise.. I'm simply stating "immigrant" as a broad term for anyone who wasn't born here and is here illegally.

Like LL says, get the fuck in line and do it right. I'm sorry your country is shitty, but don't turn my country into your shithole of a country.

Then there's the now very real terrorist threat, we can't just allow anyone in... and fuck being against profiling, profiling keeps you safe.

TTH,

I'm just saying that before you critisize people about immigration how about you suggest a solution?

I might disagree with your idea or suggestion but at least it shows you have actually given thought to how to FIX the problem instead of slamming those who are screaming about it BEING a problem in the first place even if their ideas are not what you'd like to see done to fix the issue. Originally Posted by LazurusLong

I don't see a problem to fix. I believe that labor, like capital, should be free to move across arbitrary lines like international borders. It's not your stereotypical liberal position, I know, but that is my belief. If I find a job I like in another country, I'd like to be able to enter into a contract with the guy who wants to hire me. Why should we deny other the same rights that I would seek for myself?

TTH,

That sounds good in practice in your mind but how would you feel if 100,000 lawyers who didn't have a degree that you paid dearly for set up shop to have the same time of work you do? In Texas and all other states, you have to pass the bar to work as an attorney for hire but in your world view it seems like the standards that are set by your profession to enforce certain standards mean little to nothing to you.

TTH,

That sounds good in practice in your mind but how would you feel if 100,000 lawyers who didn't have a degree that you paid dearly for set up shop to have the same time of work you do? In Texas and all other states, you have to pass the bar to work as an attorney for hire but in your world view it seems like the standards that are set by your profession to enforce certain standards mean little to nothing to you. Originally Posted by LazurusLong

Why should I be insulated from compensation? 2,000 new lawyers graduate from law school every year in Texas alone. If the system needs 100,000, and there is a demand for it, and they can get through an ABA accredited law school and pass the bar, then more power to them.

I don't make a living because just because I have a law license. They're are lawyers in Texas who have a license that are starving to death. I make a living because I've built a practice and have a fairly unique set of skills that the market place values.

Economic, legal, and sociological changes in the past 15 years have changed the market place for my skills, however. The type of trials that I used to do aren't as remunerative as they used to be. Attitudes and laws have changed and I've changed my practice along with them. I now do more corporate litigation. Patent litigation. Now patent ligation is slowly falling out of favor so I'm moving on and looking for the next field where my services will be highly valued. I deal with competition and a changing market place on a daily basis.

A market is a market. I'm no more insulated from competition than the next guy. The more rare your skills are, and the higher in demand your skills are, the more you make. The more common your skills are, and the lower the demand, the less you make. That's not rocket science. It's supply and demand. Why should we let something as artificial as a line drawn on a map by some government decide overrule the more efficient allocation of labor of the invisible hand of the market?

Yes, there are examples of market failure here and there where we need to nudge the market one way or the other, but generally not so much in the labor market. (Although there are a few examples of market failure in the labor market -- mismatches in skills and needs, which are usually short term; and stickiness of wages, again, which is short term, by definition). But not on movement of labor across borders.

Why should I be insulated from compensation? 2,000 new lawyers graduate from law school every year in Texas alone. If the system needs 100,000, and there is a demand for it, and they can get through an ABA accredited law school and pass the bar, then more power to them. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Who said anything about an ABA accredited school or passing the bar?

Given the interwebs, why can't trials be set up with video appearances and "lawyers" simply sitting in front of a camera and the Judge sitting in front of various TV monitors? Think about it, why have the cost, wasted time, energy and effort to actually physically go to a courtroom when you know as well as I do that the vast majority of the work in legal matters happens in offices and so why don't you imagine legal secretaries in 3rd world countries getting paid $10.00 per day or paralegals getting $15.00 per day and lawyers in other countries simply using the power of the interwebs to actually try cases instead of in person?

Juries are no longer simply 12 peers. Does the US Constitution stipulate how many are on the jury? Why not make it 12 home bound people, 1 from each country who has interwebs access? How's you like if a jury you were presenting to was not actually in a courtroom but was sitting in their E-Z Boy at home?

The legal profession has not had the same invasion of labor from countries like India as has technology firms because the culture over there does not have this "tort" system we do here. Given the population and the need for jobs, your 2000 graduates per year in Texas is nothing compared to a country where they could turn out 2000 a week if they wanted and easily could.

Oh, one last thing.

I think any attorney who makes more than 100,000 a year shiuld have every dollar above 100,00 earned taxed at the old Carter rate of 79% with zero exceptions/deductions.

Do you have a problem with paying that?

When YOUR relatives came here from Ireland... they didn't have the welfare systems that exist today that allows those illegals to perpetuate the entitlement generation... that somehow because they ARE immigrants, it's ok for them to come up here and NOT work and NOT pay into the tax system.. but rather leech off it like a fucking siv. Originally Posted by argus256

As I said, I believe the vast majority of illegals would prefer to work and pay into the tax system and medicare, but we won't let them. That's dumb. Farmers here in the south are losing crops this year because they can't find local American workers who will take the jobs. It's fair to complain about the broken process, but you can't complain that illegals won't work and won't contribute if you won't let them.

don't point the race card in my direction, I'm not talking black, brown, blue or torqoise.. I'm simply stating "immigrant" as a broad term for anyone who wasn't born here and is here illegally.

Like LL says, get the fuck in line and do it right. I'm sorry your country is shitty, but don't turn my country into your shithole of a country. Originally Posted by argus256

I didn't point the race card in anyone's direction. I think bigotry and xenophobia is a big part of the root cause of why the problem isn't being solved, but my point was meant to be generic. Most of the illegals risk their lives and split up their families to come here. They don't do that because they want to shop at Wal-Mart, they do it to survive, just like my ancestors who came here because they were starving. BTW, we're turning our country into a shit-hole all by ourselves. We need a lower minimum wage here so that companies, businesses, and farms can afford to hire more people. I think that having more people working for a lower wage is better than having a huge number of people not working. If we were smart, we would figure out a way to leverage these hard-working immigrants to bring jobs back to America instead of forcing them to be a costly burden, just like they did when my ancestors arrived. Just thinking out loud...

there's the now very real terrorist threat, we can't just allow anyone in... and fuck being against profiling, profiling keeps you safe. Originally Posted by argus256

Profiling is different. I'm all for security-based profiling. If you're a member of a profile that's being screened and you don't like it, be outraged with the terrorists who make the profiling necessary, not with the people who are trying to keep us safe.

And for those of you who are somehow offended by thorough pat-downs at the airport, get over yourselves. Take a bus or stop your whining and be glad that your flight is safer because of it. These things have been common in places like the UK that have had to deal with real terrorist problems for decades.

Happy Friday,

L4L

Lazurus, you have a poor concept of how jury trials work. How would you ensure jurors at home paid attention to the evidence? What about the Constitutional right to confront witnesses against, which Courts have held requires physical presence? What about the ability of jurors to observe the demeanor of various trail participants when they are not on camera? What about physically examining pieces of evidence, which happens frequently in products liability trials and criminal cases? What about lawyers handing witnesses various exhibits? Are you going to make all witnesses come to where the exhibits are, but not have the lawyers in the same place? Do the lawyers not need to examine the exhibits? I could probably come up with a hundred more problems, each as serious as those listed above if I had the time or inclination. A beyond foolish notion.

As for capping the amount of a lawyer's salary that is subject to normal tax rates at $100,000, you might want to read the Equal Protection Clause. But assuming you repealed that and did so, you would see successful lawyers leave the profession and go into other lucrative fields dispossessing some in those fields from their jobs. And you would e left with the types of mediocre to poor lawyers that would willing to work, or could only make $100,000.

Another effect of your defacto earnings cap would be that prices for goods manufactured by corporations would eventually go up. I can't imagine that anyone who can make only $100,000 can successfully negotiate the difficult areas of statutory and regulatory law like corporate tax law, international corporate tax law, patent law, and mergers and acquisitions. The guys that do that sort of work pay first year associates $175,000 and partners $750,000 and up.

As for capping the amount of a lawyer's salary that is subject to normal tax rates at $100,000, you might want to read the Equal Protection Clause. But assuming you repealed that and did so, you would see successful lawyers leave the profession and go into other lucrative fields dispossessing some in those fields from their jobs. And you would e left with the types of mediocre to poor lawyers that would willing to work, or could only make $100,000. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

TTH,

Equal Protection clause?

Just how does that work when we have a progressive tax rate that taxes people based on their incomes right now?

Not sure why you, such a progressive, has any problem with me, a conservative, stating that I feel a lawyer should have a much higher tax rate above 100K earning with no deduction at all when the entire progressive movement right now is screaming to tax the rich.

To my parents who were factory workers, rich was anyone making more than 100K so I grew up believing that (even after I passed that earnings point myself).

As an attorney bringing up the Equal Protection clause, explain to the rest of us just how that Clause does not strike down the current tax code?

I mean, obviously, you must know it pretty well to be citing it.

Yo TTH,

Ever visit around this part of town? Dinner? I'm certain there are plenty of Mexican food places nearby.
http://www.wfaa.com/news/crime/Eight...131389523.html

Anyone want to guess what percentage of patrons at that place were legal US citizens?