Biden No Garden Variety Liberal (He's Cream of the Crop)

[Maxie the Taxi]

It's been well publicized that Barack Obama is the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate. Guess what. Joe Biden ranks #3.

Read the details here:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2008/08/19/remember-when-msm-calls-biden-moderate

From the above article, here's a small sampling of how various interest groups grade Biden or the % of times Biden agrees with their issues:


 NARAL - A [2006]
 Planned Parenthood - A [2006]
 National Right to Life Committee - 0% [2005-06]
 National Taxpayers Union - F [2007]
 Business-Industry Political Action Committee 8% [2007]
 ACLU - 75% [2007]
 NAACP - 100% [2005]
 National Council of La Raza - 100% [2005]
 Human Rights Campaign [gay rights] - 100% [2001-02]
 American Conservative Union - 0% [2007]
 National Education Association [teachers union] - A [2007]
 Environment America - 100% [2008]
 Family Research Council - 0% [2007]
 Children's Defense Fund [a Hillary fave] - 100% [2006]
 Gun Owners of America - F [2007]
 Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence - 95% [1988-2003]
 NRA - F [2002]
 English First - 0% [2007]
 American Immigration Lawyers Association - 100% [2006]
 AFL-CIO - 100% [2007]
 American Bar Association - 100% [2001-02]
 National Journal-Composite Liberal Score - 94.2% [2007] [Note: third most liberal senator, trailing only Whitehouse of RI and #1 . . . Barack Obama]
 NOW - 91% [2005-06]

[Harlan Huckleby]

The Senate is an incredibly centrist group. being relatively liberal in the Senate means nothing. Now, if somebody is on the far end of either spectrum in the House, you might have something to howl about.

[Maxie the Taxi]

The Senate is an incredibly centrist group. being relatively liberal in the Senate means nothing. Now, if somebody is on the far end of either spectrum in the House, you might have something to howl about.

Is this another debate technique of yours known to most of us as a bald-faced lie?

Besides, the special interests listed don't grade on a curve based on whether it's the Senate or the House. The numbers are what they are. There may be more liberals in the House, but few have more liberal credentials than Obama and Biden.

[Harlan Huckleby]

come on, if you know anything about the senate and the house, you know they are completely different in character.

representatives are chosen from districts, which can be highly polarized, especially with redistricting.

senators have to appeal to an entire state, leading to centrists

[mraynrand]

come on, if you know anything about the senate and the house, you know they are completely different in character.

representatives are chosen from districts, which can be highly polarized, especially with redistricting.

senators have to appeal to an entire state, leading to centrists

Boys and girls, this is what naive looks like. Now be careful and don't get too close.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Here is the entire roll call of Senate "Centrists:"
(Shown in ranked order. Most liberal on top; Least liberal on bottom. Numbers after name indicate liberal scores on legislation (perfectly liberal = 100.0): Economic Legislation; Social Legislation; Foreign Policy Legislation; COMPOSITE)

From: http://www.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib.htm


1. Obama, Barack, D-Ill. 94 94 92 95.5
2. Whitehouse, Sheldon, D-R.I. 94 88 94 94.3
3. Biden, Joseph, D-Del. 94 86 98 94.2
4. Sanders, Bernie, I-Vt. 90 88 98 93.7
5. Menendez, Robert, D-N.J. 94 92 85 92.8
6. Lautenberg, Frank, D-N.J. 94 94 79 91.7
7. Leahy, Patrick, D-Vt. 90 88 85 90.2
8. Boxer, Barbara, D-Calif. 88 87 93 89.8
9. Reid, Harry, D-Nev. 72 94 94 89.2
10. Feingold, Russell, D-Wis. 79 94 76 85.5
11. Harkin, Tom, D-Iowa 79 76 94 85.2
12. Murray, Patty, D-Wash. 66 94 85 84.5
13. Durbin, Richard, D-Ill. 79 88 78 83.8
14. Reed, Jack, D-R.I. 94 84 68 83.5
15. Schumer, Charles, D-N.Y. 89 78 79 83
16. Stabenow, Debbie, D-Mich. 72 85 85 82.8
17. Clinton, Hillary Rodham, D-N.Y. 87 77 83 82.8
18. Cantwell, Maria, D-Wash. 63 92 84 80.5
19. Cardin, Ben, D-Md. 79 81 74 80.2
20. Kerry, John, D-Mass. 72 75 85 79.5
21. Klobuchar, Amy, D-Minn. 79 66 79 77.3
22. Kohl, Herb, D-Wis. 72 81 74 77.3
23. Dodd, Christopher, D-Conn. 62 94 71 77
24. Mikulski, Barbara, D-Md. 90 72 65 77
25. Wyden, Ron, D-Ore. 59 81 85 76.8
26. Levin, Carl, D-Mich. 79 79 65 76.5
27. Brown, Sherrod, D-Ohio 71 79 77 76.3
28. Kennedy, Edward, D-Mass. 66 64 94 76.2
29. Akaka, Daniel, D-Hawaii 66 70 79 73.3
30. Bingaman, Jeff, D-N.M. 77 70 68 72.7
31. Inouye, Daniel, D-Hawaii 70 73 70 71.7
32. Casey, Bob, D-Pa. 90 63 57 71.2
33. Feinstein, Dianne, D-Calif. 77 61 73 71
34. Nelson, Bill, D-Fla. 79 73 52 69.8
35. Rockefeller, Jay, D-W.Va. 65 66 72 68.7
36. Byrd, Robert, D-W.Va. 51 52 85 64.3
37. Lincoln, Blanche, D-Ark. 66 62 56 62.3
38. Bayh, Evan, D-Ind. 56 66 59 62.2
39. Tester, Jon, D-Mont. 60 57 65 61.7
40. Carper, Thomas, D-Del. 58 60 59 60.2
41. Webb, Jim, D-Va. 53 66 57 60.2
42. Salazar, Ken, D-Colo. 56 65 54 59.2
43. Dorgan, Byron, D-N.D. 60 51 64 59
44. Lieberman, Joe, ID-Conn. 72 59 38 57.5
45. McCaskill, Claire, D-Mo. 51 58 59 57.3
46. Baucus, Max, D-Mont. 53 55 59 57.3
47. Conrad, Kent, D-N.D. 53 55 59 57.3
48. Pryor, Mark, D-Ark. 63 53 47 55
49. Landrieu, Mary, D-La. 49 54 54 53.2
50. Snowe, Olympia, R-Maine 46 49 46 47.8
51. Collins, Susan, R-Maine 48 47 45 47.2
52. Smith, Gordon, R-Ore. 44 43 53 47.2
53. Nelson, Ben, D-Neb. 46 44 48 46.7
54. Specter, Arlen, R-Pa. 45 48 42 45.5
55. Coleman, Norm, R-Minn. 43 39 44 42.5
56. Lugar, Richard, R-Ind. 39 46 39 41.8
57. Voinovich, George, R-Ohio 41 42 41 41.8
58. Warner, John, R-Va. 37 38 40 38.8
59. Hagel, Chuck, R-Neb. 18 45 51 38.7
60. Stevens, Ted, R-Alaska 38 37 30 36
61. Murkowski, Lisa, R-Alaska 40 41 21 35.3
62. Sununu, John, R-N.H. 32 25 43 34
63. Hatch, Orrin, R-Utah 34 30 34 33.5
64. Martinez, Mel, R-Fla. 28 34 30 31.8
65. Gregg, Judd, R-N.H. 26 31 30 30.2
66. Domenici, Pete, R-N.M. 34 29 21 29.5
67. Bennett, Robert, R-Utah 16 33 27 26
68. Alexander, Lamar, R-Tenn. 30 16 28 25.5
69. Hutchison, Kay Bailey, R-Texas 28 26 16 24.8
70. Corker, Bob, R-Tenn. 32 0 34 24.2
71. Brownback, Sam, R-Kan. 0 32 36 23.5
72. Cochran, Thad, R-Miss. 21 24 21 23.3
73. Grassley, Charles, R-Iowa 42 17 7 22.8
74. Graham, Lindsey, R-S.C. 18 35 13 22.7
75. Shelby, Richard, R-Ala. 24 22 16 22
76. Dole, Elizabeth, R-N.C. 22 0 37 21.5
77. Craig, Larry, R-Idaho 23 36 0 21.2
78. Roberts, Pat, R-Kan. 25 14 16 19.7
79. Bond, Christopher (Kit), R-Mo. 30 17 0 17.7
80. Kyl, Jon, R-Ariz. 0 26 21 17.5
81. Lott, Trent, R-Miss. † 15 28 8 17.5
82. Thune, John, R-S.D. 36 0 9 17.3
83. Chambliss, Saxby, R-Ga. 14 9 21 16.5
84. Crapo, Mike, R-Idaho 12 22 9 15.5
85. Vitter, David, R-La. 20 9 14 15.5
86. Ensign, John, R-Nev. 11 9 21 15.5
87. Coburn, Tom, R-Okla. 13 20 9 15
88. Sessions, Jeff, R-Ala. 26 0 9 14.2
89. McConnell, Mitch, R-Ky. 3 0 30 13.5
90. Inhofe, James, R-Okla. 6 0 28 13.3
91. Isakson, Johnny, R-Ga. 7 9 16 12.5
92. Bunning, Jim, R-Ky. 5 21 0 10.2
93. Enzi, Michael, R-Wyo. 7 0 14 9.2
94. Cornyn, John, R-Texas 9 13 0 8.8
95. Burr, Richard, R-N.C. 0 17 0 7.8
96. Allard, Wayne, R-Colo. 3 14 0 7.5
97. DeMint, Jim, R-S.C. 10 0 0 6.2

UNRATED*
McCain, John, R-Ariz. * 40 * *
Johnson, Tim, D-S.D. * * 49 *
Barrasso, John, R-Wyo. * 0 16 *
Thomas, Craig, R-Wyo. † * * * *

[*Three senators do not have scores for 2007 because they missed more than half of the rated votes in an issue area: John McCain, R-Ariz., who was running for president; Tim Johnson, D-S.D., who was recuperating from a brain hemorrhage and returned to work on September 5, 2007; Craig Thomas, R-Wyo., who died on June 4, 2007; and John Barrasso, R-Wyo., who was appointed to succeed Thomas on June 22, 2007. ]

Note: The Senate is so liberal that Ted Kennedy can do no better than 28th place!

[retailguy]

They both out rank BERNIE SANDERS? :shock: Bernie Sanders? Good Lord.

[Harlan Huckleby]

perfectly liberal = 100.0

now how dumb is that. "perfectly liberal" might mean "perfectly centrist". If you poll Americans on how THEY would vote on individual bills, it might be that a majority support 100% of positions described as "liberal".

And the truth is not so far from this.

I think these ratings by advocasy groups say very little about whether a Senator is extreme. And I said before, the extremists live in the House. You have to look at how they defend their positions to learn how "extreme" they are. The ratings do tell you whether the person is a party loyalist, and I suppose that is relevant, especially with a pol like Obama who claims to be ready to cross party lines.

[bobblehead]

This is a good list for one thing...if you have a republican senator ranking 50-68 we should vote him/her out. JMO.

Harlan you are high if you believe america as a whole supports liberal agenda. America wants to drill now, america wants lower taxes, america is largely anti ILLEGAL immigrant, america in general wants gov't out of their lives (unless you are one of the people living off the public dole).

[retailguy]

perfectly liberal = 100.0

now how dumb is that. "perfectly liberal" might mean "perfectly centrist". If you poll Americans on how THEY would vote on individual bills, it might be that a majority support 100% of positions described as "liberal".

And the truth is not so far from this.

I think these ratings by advocasy groups say very little about whether a Senator is extreme. And I said before, the extremists live in the House. You have to look at how they defend their positions to learn how "extreme" they are. The ratings do tell you whether the person is a party loyalist, and I suppose that is relevant, especially with a pol like Obama who claims to be ready to cross party lines.


You've been living in Madison far too long. It has permanently warped your brain. Give up political thoughts and just stare into your toilet.

[Harlan Huckleby]

This is a good list for one thing...if you have a republican senator ranking 50-68 we should vote him/her out. JMO.

Harlan you are high if you believe america as a whole supports liberal agenda. America wants to drill now, america wants lower taxes, america is largely anti ILLEGAL immigrant, america in general wants gov't out of their lives (unless you are one of the people living off the public dole).

You missed the point. If you believe voting solidly in the Senate with the Dem Party is an indication of extremism, then you are going to believe it, but that is just preaching to the choir. I'll leave it at that. And if you don't understand the centrist nature of the Senate, you don't follow politics.

But as to whether America supports liberal issues, obviously the country is divided, and it swings back and forth. But there can be no argument that the country is backing the platform of the democratic party this fall.

"america wants to drill now", ya, they want to drill as long as its not near their state. Immigrant policy - Americans were SOLIDLY behind the immigration reform bill that republicans managed to torpedo. "lower taxes" - the reality of the Bush tax cuts is not popular.

[bobblehead]

This is a good list for one thing...if you have a republican senator ranking 50-68 we should vote him/her out. JMO.

Harlan you are high if you believe america as a whole supports liberal agenda. America wants to drill now, america wants lower taxes, america is largely anti ILLEGAL immigrant, america in general wants gov't out of their lives (unless you are one of the people living off the public dole).

You missed the point. If you believe voting solidly in the Senate with the Dem Party is an indication of extremism, then you are going to believe it, but that is just preaching to the choir. I'll leave it at that. And if you don't understand the centrist nature of the Senate, you don't follow politics.

But as to whether America supports liberal issues, obviously the country is divided, and it swings back and forth. But there can be no argument that the country is backing the platform of the democratic party this fall.

"america wants to drill now", ya, they want to drill as long as its not near their state. Immigrant policy - Americans were SOLIDLY behind the immigration reform bill that republicans managed to torpedo. "lower taxes" - the reality of the Bush tax cuts is not popular.

Dude, really....I think that immigration reform bill got quashed due to 7 million phone callls, faxes and letters to congress once word got out what they were trying to do. Americans were SOLIDLY in the dark is more like it.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Dude, really....I think that immigration reform bill got quashed due to 7 million phone callls, faxes and letters to congress once word got out what they were trying to do. Americans were SOLIDLY in the dark is more like it.

Bullshit. The majority of Americans wanted that compromise bill that included a path to citizenship for immigrants in this country. The support in polls was in the 60's. Most people accept that the immigrants who have come to this country in the past 20 years are not going anywhere.

A vocal and passionate minority of people who blame illegal immigrants, think they can be swept aside, killed the bill. They worked mostly by pressuring Republicans.

[bobblehead]

Dude, really....I think that immigration reform bill got quashed due to 7 million phone callls, faxes and letters to congress once word got out what they were trying to do. Americans were SOLIDLY in the dark is more like it.

Bullshit. The majority of Americans wanted that compromise bill that included a path to citizenship for immigrants in this country. The support in polls was in the 60's. Most people accept that the immigrants who have come to this country in the past 20 years are not going anywhere.

A vocal and passionate minority of people who blame illegal immigrants, think they can be swept aside, killed the bill. They worked mostly by pressuring Republicans.

I think you are reading too many madison papers my friend, I never saw any poll where the public wasn't 70% against it.

The ONLY reason I am against them staying is because I know too many good hard working asians with family members on a 9 year wait list because they are abiding by the law.

America is so against illegals right now (except the mexican base) that hillary herself had to come out and say she was against illegals having drivers liscences.

[bobblehead]

Poll Finds 77% Oppose Licenses For Illegals
Posted by: The Watchdog in Illegal Drivers Licenses
Washington Times

Voters oppose driver’s licenses for illegal aliens by a nearly five-to-one margin, a new Fox 5/Washington Times/Rasmussen Reports poll finds.

As immigration politics explode into the presidential race, polls show Americans are taking a hard line on benefits for illegal aliens, including opposing driver’s licenses and such taxpayer-funded benefits as scholarships at state colleges for illegal-alien students.

The new poll found 77 percent of the adults surveyed opposed making driver’s licenses available to illegal aliens, while just 16 percent supported the idea.

Licenses fared poorly across party lines, including near-blanket opposition among self-identified Republicans, at 88 percent. Among independents and Democrats, it was still overwhelmingly unpopular, drawing 75 percent and 68 percent opposition, respectively.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I think you are reading too many madison papers my friend, I never saw any poll where the public wasn't 70% against it.
I wonder what madison papers those would be, the only paper left in town is the Wisconsin State Journal, which leans republican.

But anyway, you're simply wrong about support for the bill, and you NEVER saw any poll that was against it.


The ONLY reason I am against them staying is because I know too many good hard working asians with family members on a 9 year wait list because they are abiding by the law.

The immigration reform bill did not given any priority to illegals over people waiting in lie.

And your notion that they are not going to stay is sticking your head in the sand.


America is so against illegals right now (except the mexican base) that hillary herself had to come out and say she was against illegals having drivers liscences.

That specific issue does not mean most Americans think illegals can be driven out of the country, as you do. Most Americans supported a compromise such as was proposed in the immigration reform bill.

[bobblehead]

Let me explain something to you my left leaning friend. I am all for glorified slave labor...it enhances my portfolio and keeps wages suppressed for those measly working folks...I'm just shocked that you are for it.

Seriously though, I cited one article above showing 77% against liscences, and you think most people are for them getting to stay? I don't buy it. And since the asians I talked about can't even get their brothers and sisters HERE to start with for 9 years, yes I would say that anyone who is here illegally and gets to stay legally is a slap in the face to anyone trying to do the just and moral thing.

Furthermore, I rent a condo...you know how many calls I get from illegals who actually somehow got a loan and now lost their house who are looking to rent? Its crazy, we need to get back to the fundamentals, if you learn english and apply we will let you in, no problem. But man, the statistics on sex crimes by illegals and emergency room births for illegals, and defaulted loans by illegals is off the charts, we gotta stop letting just anyone who can sneak across in.

The "compromise" you speak of is almost identical to the one ted kennedy wrote in 1986 (signed by reagan). At the time ole teddy said something like "now we won't have to ever address the problem of illegal immigration again". Yea, good call.

Oh yea, one more thing. Since the gov't started cracking down on employers there is an exodus going on, so I'll keep my head in the sand for now.

[MJZiggy]

Where the hell do you live that you see an exodus. I see more and more illegals every day.

Yes, there are emergency room births because these people can't get proper medical attention because they can't get normal jobs with insurance because they're illegal. They get desperate, they come here. If you can't secure the border or make conditions

And if you can come into this country on a student visa and get a scholarship, why can't someone who can scholastically earn a scholarship get one because their parents brought them here when they were 4?

And if an Asian wants to get into the country, there is a business visa, a passport and a job. You just have to find work and your employer can apply for permanent residence for you. Half the people I work with are from places other than America.

[Freak Out]

Poll Finds 77% Oppose Licenses For Illegals
Posted by: The Watchdog in Illegal Drivers Licenses
Washington Times

Voters oppose driver’s licenses for illegal aliens by a nearly five-to-one margin, a new Fox 5/Washington Times/Rasmussen Reports poll finds.

As immigration politics explode into the presidential race, polls show Americans are taking a hard line on benefits for illegal aliens, including opposing driver’s licenses and such taxpayer-funded benefits as scholarships at state colleges for illegal-alien students.

The new poll found 77 percent of the adults surveyed opposed making driver’s licenses available to illegal aliens, while just 16 percent supported the idea.

Licenses fared poorly across party lines, including near-blanket opposition among self-identified Republicans, at 88 percent. Among independents and Democrats, it was still overwhelmingly unpopular, drawing 75 percent and 68 percent opposition, respectively.

Did you post this in support of the argument that most Americans did not support some kind of path to citizenship for illegal aliens?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Bobble,

While there is no doubt that there is hostility towards illegal immigrants in this country, you are categorically wrong about what this country wants. Americans want a pathway.

Both the Bloomberg and the L.A. times poll reported 60 per cent of respondents support the proposal, which calls for undocumented workers to register, pay a fine, get fingerprinted, and learn English.

More to the point, only 15% were against a pathway, while 25% were unsure.

[mraynrand]

Bobble,

While there is no doubt that there is hostility towards illegal immigrants in this country, you are categorically wrong about what this country wants. Americans want a pathway.

Both the Bloomberg and the L.A. times poll reported 60 per cent of respondents support the proposal, which calls for undocumented workers to register, pay a fine, get fingerprinted, and learn English.

More to the point, only 15% were against a pathway, while 25% were unsure.

I think the hostility is not towards the immigrants generally, but towards those who perpetuate the problem - The Mexican government, Americans who place empathy above the law, employers who take advantage of the workers, pols who use immigrants to their advantage. From what I hear, there are a lot of Americans who DO want a path to citizenship (knowing that deporting 12+ mil immigrants is impossible), but they don't want to guarantee a path if the borders aren't secure and if legalization will mean 30 mil more pouring over the border.

Specific hostility is directed towards immigrant gang members and immigrant workers who are undercutting the job market. And people are frustrated with the overload to the system from illegals in border states. You know this well in AZ - public services are stretched to the limit, esp. in healthcare, not in small part due to illegals.

[Harlan Huckleby]

immigrants are a great deal for the economy. Children are a cost, they have to be educated, they get sick, and they smear their popsicle sticks all over everything. They don't work, they are an investment.

MOST illegal immigrants come here as working adults. Fully grown givers, not takers.

[Harlan Huckleby]

... double shot power

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Bobble,

While there is no doubt that there is hostility towards illegal immigrants in this country, you are categorically wrong about what this country wants. Americans want a pathway.

Both the Bloomberg and the L.A. times poll reported 60 per cent of respondents support the proposal, which calls for undocumented workers to register, pay a fine, get fingerprinted, and learn English.

More to the point, only 15% were against a pathway, while 25% were unsure.

I think the hostility is not towards the immigrants generally, but towards those who perpetuate the problem - The Mexican government, Americans who place empathy above the law, employers who take advantage of the workers, pols who use immigrants to their advantage. From what I hear, there are a lot of Americans who DO want a path to citizenship (knowing that deporting 12+ mil immigrants is impossible), but they don't want to guarantee a path if the borders aren't secure and if legalization will mean 30 mil more pouring over the border.

Specific hostility is directed towards immigrant gang members and immigrant workers who are undercutting the job market. And people are frustrated with the overload to the system from illegals in border states. You know this well in AZ - public services are stretched to the limit, esp. in healthcare, not in small part due to illegals.

I can't speak for your part of the country, but here in AZ you are dead wrong. There is a strong hate the immigrants faction. Local state legislators are pandering to that crowd..and have had numerous meetings in which white power/storm front members are there. This ain't a joke.

Sheriff Joe is now being investigated for civil rights violations...people over drivers essentially because they are brown.

Very few people are sophisticated enough to blame mexico...and only a small few are blaming the employers..and those are the liberals. :oops:

Here in AZ..."what part of illegal don't you understand?" Shootem, they have no rights, they are here illegally, send them back, their exceptional student children...send'em back, etc.

[mraynrand]

Sheriff Joe is now being investigated for civil rights violations...people over drivers essentially because they are brown.


Whose civil rights did he violate? Who is prosecuting him?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Sheriff Joe is now being investigated for civil rights violations...people over drivers essentially because they are brown.


Whose civil rights did he violate? Who is prosecuting him?

American citizens. Racial profiling and illegal detainment of u.s. citizens. but, i guess if you are a brown skinned american it is ok.

The feds/justice dept.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/04/13/20080413gordonarpaio0413.html

[mraynrand]

Sheriff Joe is now being investigated for civil rights violations...people over drivers essentially because they are brown.


Whose civil rights did he violate? Who is prosecuting him?

American citizens. Racial profiling and illegal detainment of u.s. citizens. but, i guess if you are a brown skinned american it is ok.

The feds/justice dept.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/04/13/20080413gordonarpaio0413.html

Oh, 'pulling over drivers' - now I get it. Gosh, what the hell is wrong with Bush and his justees department, goin' after a good 'ole boy who jus' wants ta teach them brownies a lessin.'

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Sheriff Joe is now being investigated for civil rights violations...people over drivers essentially because they are brown.


Whose civil rights did he violate? Who is prosecuting him?

American citizens. Racial profiling and illegal detainment of u.s. citizens. but, i guess if you are a brown skinned american it is ok.

The feds/justice dept.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/04/13/20080413gordonarpaio0413.html

Oh, 'pulling over drivers' - now I get it. Gosh, what the hell is wrong with Bush and his justees department, goin' after a good 'ole boy who jus' wants ta teach them brownies a lessin.'

His crime suppression is a joke. He is a publicity hound...never cared about illegals till he realized it was good for his reelection. Furthermore, we have real criminals out there he isn't apprehending..30k of warrants not being served.

His jail is a joke..unless as a taxpayer you don't mind the 30-40 million we have to pay due to lawsuits lost.

His sweep of Guadalupe..a town founded by Yaquis...hmm, you think a bunch of brown skinned people might live there? On a sunday..pulling over citizens off to church.

[mraynrand]

Sheriff Joe sounds like a total jackass.

[bobblehead]

Where the hell do you live that you see an exodus. I see more and more illegals every day.

Yes, there are emergency room births because these people can't get proper medical attention because they can't get normal jobs with insurance because they're illegal. They get desperate, they come here. If you can't secure the border or make conditions


I see an exodus in states that have cracked down on employers, ask ty, I think he might concur. I read a lot of articles in our paper about an exodus in AZ.

I realize they are desperate, I don't blame them one bit, I would jump the fence too. That doesn't make it good policy for america.
edit: Crack addicts are desperate too, should we forgive them for mugging old ladies?




And if you can come into this country on a student visa and get a scholarship, why can't someone who can scholastically earn a scholarship get one because their parents brought them here when they were 4?

And if an Asian wants to get into the country, there is a business visa, a passport and a job. You just have to find work and your employer can apply for permanent residence for you. Half the people I work with are from places other than America.

I agree 100%, its not quite as easy as you make it sound..trust me, I've been trying to help people, but why does an asian have to go through all that, but others merely sneak in, get an illegal job and then get to stay??

The statistics are damning, the illegals who are sneaking in have no respect for rule of law since they are illegal anyway. Am I for helping them stay....no, they need to go back, and come in the right way just like everyone else.

[MJZiggy]

Am I for helping them stay....no, they need to go back, and come in the right way just like everyone else.

Precisely how are you figuring we're going to get them all out? Should we then ship out all of the Vietnamese refugees we brought into the country during the war? They didn't get here the right way and wait like everyone else. Careful with your answer, as my office mate is a Vietnamese refugee and if you give her crap, she will have opinions for you (actually the mere mention of Vietnam brings forth opinions).

This is just something I'm curious about, but I wonder if it was as difficult to enter the country in the past when all the Irish, Italians and other Europeans were flooding into the country. Would you live here if your ancestors had to do more than save up for passage?

[retailguy]

Am I for helping them stay....no, they need to go back, and come in the right way just like everyone else.

Precisely how are you figuring we're going to get them all out? Should we then ship out all of the Vietnamese refugees we brought into the country during the war? They didn't get here the right way and wait like everyone else. Careful with your answer, as my office mate is a Vietnamese refugee and if you give her crap, she will have opinions for you (actually the mere mention of Vietnam brings forth opinions).

This is just something I'm curious about, but I wonder if it was as difficult to enter the country in the past when all the Irish, Italians and other Europeans were flooding into the country. Would you live here if your ancestors had to do more than save up for passage?

Ziggy, circumstances shouldn't circumvent the rule of law. Ever. We prosecute the guy who steals bread to feed his family. As heartless as it seems, there is NO justification for not following the law.

Do I understand why people hop the fence? Yes. I have done taxes for HUNDREDS of them. HUNDREDS. Yes, they can file, they are expected to file and they do file, using a TIN number.

Do I think they should become citizens? NO. They broke the law. There is a process to follow, and they CHOSE not to follow it. Desperation or not, they made a choice, and they must live up to the consequences of that choice.

The practicality of sending them back or not sending them back is irrelevant. Eventually we'll have to have some sort of amnesty. It CANNOT include citizenship. They broke the law. You cannot reward someone who broke the law. Letting them stay is a different argument than letting them become citizens.

[Sparkey]

This is a good list for one thing...if you have a republican senator ranking 50-68 we should vote him/her out. JMO.

Harlan you are high if you believe america as a whole supports liberal agenda. America wants to drill now, america wants lower taxes, america is largely anti ILLEGAL immigrant, america in general wants gov't out of their lives (unless you are one of the people living off the public dole).

You missed the point. If you believe voting solidly in the Senate with the Dem Party is an indication of extremism, then you are going to believe it, but that is just preaching to the choir. I'll leave it at that. And if you don't understand the centrist nature of the Senate, you don't follow politics.

But as to whether America supports liberal issues, obviously the country is divided, and it swings back and forth. But there can be no argument that the country is backing the platform of the democratic party this fall.

"america wants to drill now", ya, they want to drill as long as its not near their state. Immigrant policy - Americans were SOLIDLY behind the immigration reform bill that republicans managed to torpedo. "lower taxes" - the reality of the Bush tax cuts is not popular.

Except in Alaska where the majority want expanded drilling. Hmmm, but how could that be :?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Sheriff Joe sounds like a total jackass.

For most thinking individuals yes. But, he appeals to the white power, we are under siege crowd, the get tough on criminals crowd (they like to forget innocent until proven guilty), and the elderly.

Unfortunately Sheriff is an elected official..not like police chief.

There are many fascinating articles on him in the phoenix new times: locking up editors of newspapers, 40 mill in lawsuits due to deaths in jails, attacking political opponents (he smeared his sheriff opponent by following a lead that he raped his mother), he just asked for all the emails of Mayor Gordon after he asked for an investigation into the civil rights..every email, etc.

[mraynrand]

Sheriff Joe sounds like a total jackass.
But, he appeals to the white power, we are under siege crowd, the get tough on criminals crowd (they like to forget innocent until proven guilty), and the elderly.


Just a comment - these groups are not necessarily linked. I know folks in Tucson who fit into the elderly, under seige and get tough crowd (with innocent until proven guilty intact) and folks in the 'under seige' and 'get tough' crowds. I can't see them voting for a Sheriff Joe type, unless they were hoodwinked. but I can't say I know who is in charge in Tucson. People can't be majority extreme there if they could torpedo congressmen like Hayworth and Graf, and reelect Napolitano.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Sheriff Joe sounds like a total jackass.
But, he appeals to the white power, we are under siege crowd, the get tough on criminals crowd (they like to forget innocent until proven guilty), and the elderly.


Just a comment - these groups are not necessarily linked. I know folks in Tucson who fit into the elderly, under seige and get tough crowd (with innocent until proven guilty intact) and folks in the 'under seige' and 'get tough' crowds. I can't see them voting for a Sheriff Joe type, unless they were hoodwinked. but I can't say I know who is in charge in Tucson. People can't be majority extreme there if they could torpedo congressmen like Hayworth and Graf, and reelect Napolitano.

Sheriff Joe just recently latched on to the immigration thing...he is astute politically. He realizes that it adds to his base. I wasn't saying that all those groups are linked.

The innocent things is the worst...being kept in substandard jail..the feds have come down on him for this..and yet nothing has changed. He constantly loses lawsuits over deaths.

Hayworth: He torpedoed himself..his wife, abramoff (he kept the donations)..and his personality, prominent repubs crossed over because of him. The registered voter...favored repubs..60 to 40. He killed himself. The AZ Republic even pulled their endorsement.

He looked even more stupid waiting out results when in 96 he was exactly the opposite.

Graf: Not in my area.

Napolitano: Dino. Similar to Mayor Gordon.

[bobblehead]

Am I for helping them stay....no, they need to go back, and come in the right way just like everyone else.

Precisely how are you figuring we're going to get them all out? Should we then ship out all of the Vietnamese refugees we brought into the country during the war? They didn't get here the right way and wait like everyone else. Careful with your answer, as my office mate is a Vietnamese refugee and if you give her crap, she will have opinions for you (actually the mere mention of Vietnam brings forth opinions).

This is just something I'm curious about, but I wonder if it was as difficult to enter the country in the past when all the Irish, Italians and other Europeans were flooding into the country. Would you live here if your ancestors had to do more than save up for passage?

Don't worry about how I answer, I could be vietnamese for all you know, it would explain my poor spelling anyway. Is your office mate cute?? See the key in your response was WE BROUGHT IN.

So because it is hard to get them out we should just give in and give them a path to citizenship..that is your answer?? Its really hard to catch con artists too, especially when they flee a jurisdiction, no need to capture them and put them in jail either. And single mothers, they shouldn't be prosecuted for crimes either cuz they are desperate, we should actually reward them by giving them something of value (like a green card).

As a matter of fact fighting crime in general is naive, we can't stop crime, no need to try, time to simply accept it and not punish criminals in general.

[MJZiggy]

My point is that when we had the influx of Irish in the 1800's, they didn't have to wait to get into the country. They wrote their names down at Staten Island and that was about the end of it until they applied for citizenship. I have a cousin married to a man from Ireland. He didn't wait decades to come here. My office mate is a 60-year old married woman (to answer your question). I think a lot of this started when they took the policy that all a Cuban had to do was to set foot on American soil and they were allowed to stay. So why is it ok for Cubans and not anyone else. You seem to suggest that just because people are here when they aren't supposed to be, they are all automatically criminals because they are desperate. If that's the case, then why were the crime rates in NYC so much higher in the 80's before this became such a big problem?

I have a friend who blew in from Argentina on a work visa. His visa expired. He has 20 years experience repairing medical equipment, but you lump him in as a crime problem, but he came here legally and has no criminal record. He is working right now fixing laptops. Why is he such a threat to you? Were he legal he would most certainly be working at a good job with benefits...

[HowardRoark]

My office mate is a 60-year old married woman (to answer your question).
But is she cute?


I think a lot of this started when they took the policy that all a Cuban had to do was to set foot on American soil and they were allowed to stay. So why is it ok for Cubans and not anyone else.
Well, maybe not ALL Cubans........

http://cayankee.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/08/28/elian.jpg

[mraynrand]

I have a friend who blew in from Argentina on a work visa. His visa expired. He has 20 years experience repairing medical equipment, but you lump him in as a crime problem, but he came here legally and has no criminal record. He is working right now fixing laptops. Why is he such a threat to you? Were he legal he would most certainly be working at a good job with benefits...

Good grief, how do you argue with nonsense like this.

[retailguy]

I have a friend who blew in from Argentina on a work visa. His visa expired. He has 20 years experience repairing medical equipment, but you lump him in as a crime problem, but he came here legally and has no criminal record. He is working right now fixing laptops. Why is he such a threat to you? Were he legal he would most certainly be working at a good job with benefits...

He came legally, BUT his work visa expired. At that point, he was supposed to leave. By not leaving, he broke the law. He is now ILLEGAL. Why do circumstances determine whether he is guilty or not to you? The legality is simple.

Is it sad? Sure. But we're missing information. Why did his visa expire? Why didn't he get renewed? Did he follow procedures? Why didn't he go home like he was supposed to and follow the rules to come back?

You cannot let your emotions decide these things. EVERYONE has an excuse as to why they couldn't follow the rules. When they do, they work through the paperwork, become legal, and live happy productive lives as examples of the American dream. Let's champion a few more of those guys, ok?

[MJZiggy]

I have a friend who blew in from Argentina on a work visa. His visa expired. He has 20 years experience repairing medical equipment, but you lump him in as a crime problem, but he came here legally and has no criminal record. He is working right now fixing laptops. Why is he such a threat to you? Were he legal he would most certainly be working at a good job with benefits...

Good grief, how do you argue with nonsense like this.

I'm curious as to why you believe this is nonsense. Dude entered the country legally even though he isn't legal now...why is a Cuban with no means to be self-sufficient more welcome than someone who can contribute to society? I mean you guys are talking about rounding them up and shipping them off, that argument makes no more sense than arbitrarily deciding which group of people can just show up and stay and which can't? Is a high-tech Korean more valuable than a migrant Mexican? What if last time Tarlam were in town, he decided not to go back?

By the way, once you round up these millions of people (and collapse the agriculture industry in our country) and get them out of the country, how exactly are you intending to KEEP them out? Are you just going to round up the same 15 million people over and over again? Are MY tax dollars paying for this? Wait, I can no longer afford to pay taxes as I have to spend all my money on food because there is no underclass to exploit as cheap farm labor...

[HarveyWallbangers]

By the way, once you round up these millions of people (and collapse the agriculture industry in our country)

Wouldn't they let more people in legally on work visas?

[retailguy]

I'm curious as to why you believe this is nonsense.
because it's total emotion. No facts. You give the guy a total pass because of the circumstances he created. He's to blame, not the USA.



Dude entered the country legally even though he isn't legal now...

This is key to the situation. Do you understand that this makes him a criminal? Even if he's a "nice" criminal?


why is a Cuban with no means to be self-sufficient more welcome than someone who can contribute to society?

Since Cuba is a communist country who will not legally allow their residents to immigrate here, we must have a different policy, even if it isn't fair. Notice that other countries that are not communist with formal relations with the US follow the same policy? they get deported. Can you really not see the differences?




I mean you guys are talking about rounding them up and shipping them off, that argument makes no more sense than arbitrarily deciding which group of people can just show up and stay and which can't?

I'm not talking about that. I'd rather see employers gain incentives to follow the rules. And get punished when they don't. Deporting 15 million people as a mass effort won't work. Make it advantageous for them to go home.



Is a high-tech Korean more valuable than a migrant Mexican?


Only if he follows the rules of law. Otherwise, NO.


What if last time Tarlam were in town, he decided not to go back?

Then he would be a criminal.



By the way, once you round up these millions of people (and collapse the agriculture industry in our country) and get them out of the country, how exactly are you intending to KEEP them out?

By making it so they cannot find work, unless they are legal.



Are you just going to round up the same 15 million people over and over again?

No. that's pointless. When they can't work, they'll go where they can.



Are MY tax dollars paying for this?

You don't pay taxes. You're buying food, remember?




Wait, I can no longer afford to pay taxes as I have to spend all my money on food because there is no underclass to exploit as cheap farm labor...

Then let those of us who have figured out how to pay taxes and buy food figure it out. You have more pressing problems that need your attention.

[MJZiggy]

By the way, once you round up these millions of people (and collapse the agriculture industry in our country)

Wouldn't they let more people in legally on work visas?

Then what's the point of spending all that money to get rid of them? Why not just grant them work visas?

[MJZiggy]

RG, It is a crime to hire an illegal. That is a disincentive, yet people do it anyway. Why? Because it's a cheap way to get things done. You cannot make it cheaper to hire a legal worker than to hire an illegal one. The sheer number of companies doing it make the odds of getting caught worth the risk. Think about the costs of trying to raid every company out there that could possibly be hiring an illegal worker. They used to try and do that and that is the enforcement policy that landed us where we are today. Frankly, I'd rather think outside the box to solve the problem and spend the money on something a little more worthwhile than paying people to run through the kitchens of every office, restaurant, farm and other organization that exists in the country looking for people who don't have the right papers.

And don't be snide about my taxes. If you're talking about a mandate, you should speak to how you think it should be funded.

And as to your parting shot, there's no reason to be an ass.

[retailguy]

RG, It is a crime to hire an illegal.

Yes, it is. But like deportation, overstaying a visa, sneaking into the country, or failing to leave when your visa expires, it isn't enforced with the regularity that it should be.



That is a disincentive, yet people do it anyway. Why? Because it's a cheap way to get things done.

That's one answer, and yes this happens. However, there are others. You mentioned migrants earlier. Let's use that example. There are jobs in this country that Americans do not want to perform. Sometimes it isn't a question of money, but, a question of not filling jobs. I used to live in California, where they pick a fair amount of strawberries. It's hot exhaustive work, and not for the faint hearted. People would rather stay home on welfare than work for what strawberry farmers pay. Some farmers hire illegals, because that's what they can find, who are willing to both work for what they pay, and willing to actually do the back breaking work.




You cannot make it cheaper to hire a legal worker than to hire an illegal one.

It doesn't need to be cheaper. You need to make the risk of hiring an illegal too great to take the chance. I don't pretend to have all the answers to that one, but I've got some theories that I think are better than what goes on today.

Your whole point about "rising" food costs won't happen. Too many foreign countries are shipping product here and are able to keep prices low. Farmers MUST find a way to compete. There is no other alternative.

There must be some kind of tax incentive, coupled with a national Social Security Database check, that would make it "attractive" for companies to participate. Maybe couple that with a guest worker program? Again, I don't have formulated answers, but I know that what BOTH SIDES are doing isn't working. At all.



The sheer number of companies doing it make the odds of getting caught worth the risk.

Yes and no. See above. I don't believe that there are this many "evil" companies, or rather companies run by "evil" people. Quite honestly, in California there are many people who believe as you do, and hire illegals as a matter of "principle".

I know a contractor in Washington State that is illegal. He's been here 20 years. Hires ONLY illegals. He thinks that he's in a position to help. I think he's making the problem worse. He disagrees.



Think about the costs of trying to raid every company out there that could possibly be hiring an illegal worker. They used to try and do that and that is the enforcement policy that landed us where we are today.

I'm not advocating raiding every company. I have seen firsthand that it doesn't work.

I would argue with you, that your policy of "looking the other way" or legalizing illegals has more to do with where we are than the enforcement. Quite honestly, those illegals that I've done taxes for, didn't file because they believed they needed to pay their fair share, they filed because they believe there will be an amnesty one day, and they want clear and convincing proof that they've been here and qualify.



Frankly, I'd rather think outside the box to solve the problem and spend the money on something a little more worthwhile than paying people to run through the kitchens of every office, restaurant, farm and other organization that exists in the country looking for people who don't have the right papers.

What you're proposing isn't out of the box. It's the same old hand wringing exercise that liberals have been doing for years. Just open the borders... Just give them licenses. Let them vote. buy houses. get free education. Basically reward them for breaking the law. I don't support that, even if we do a crappy job enforcing those laws.



And don't be snide about my taxes.

Look. You brought them up. I didn't. You "exaggerated" the impact of your taxes by being snide. If you don't want to open yourself up to those comments, don't make them. Reality - We ALL need to pay our fair share, whether we agree with policy or not. I have no idea what you make. You have no idea what I make. But you were griping about it, so I commented on it.



If you're talking about a mandate, you should speak to how you think it should be funded.

I don't think we need to spend any more money on ANY facet of Government then we already spend, including Border Patrol. I do believe that we need to spend that money differently.

Here is the most "liberal" thing I'll ever say - (listen close). How about a law, that says if the Border Patrol raids you and finds illegal workers, the business reimburses the Border Patrol the cost of the investigation? Of course, the Government needs to provide a database that the company can use to check legality for this to work, but why not? We pay every other kind of God Damned fee imaginable. You think that wouldn't cause some companies to think twice?



And as to your parting shot, there's no reason to be an ass.

Zig, I happen to think your comment was designed to be the same. You got very sarcastic, and quite honestly trotted out an idea that I could've bashed you over the head with and chose not to do so. You were talking about how you'd be "inconvenienced" if you had to pay more for food, tacitly agreeing that we need illegal workers to keep food prices down. I let that go.

I merely responded to what you said, and the argument you put forth. I didn't say you couldn't afford to pay taxes, YOU did. If that's the case, you should be focused on getting a better job, and not worrying about global policy...

In the end, I don't think I was any more of an ass than you were.

[MJZiggy]

RG, you seem to be putting words in my mouth as I didn't suggest DOING anything. Find where I advocated opening the borders. You won't. I didn't. I further didn't suggest that they be able to vote, but if they can get licenses, at least we know who they are and have some ID on them.

I suggested that the things that you're coming up with to be punitive because people aren't following the letter of the law are going to be expensive and difficult to enforce. What I'm suggesting is to find a less vitriolic way of dealing with the issue. Perhaps one that is favorable to all involved. We've got people complaining in other threads that inheritance taxes are killing the farmers, yet you figure that they will find SOME way to compete in a global market using legal workers who as you yourself just admitted aren't willing to do the work required to compete. Where are the farmers going to get the revenue to stay competitive? From government subsidies, of course. Seems to me you don't like those, but it's what it's going to take to keep our farmers afloat, unless you're suggesting that we import all of our food, thus increasing our dependence on other countries. I'd rather not do that.

You've also just taught me something interesting. See? I always thought that illegals did not contribute to our tax revenue. So these people are working AND paying taxes and you want to get rid of them. Why exactly? Because they didn't do the right paperwork? I think I'd rather deport the crackhead who's collecting whatever form of welfare is left and neglecting their kids, I think.

I further get the feeling that if you make penalties so stiff for hiring illegals, you're going to have people screaming about punishment that does not fit the crime. You also won't be able to use the SS system for tracking it because you can go downtown and buy a SS# for a couple hundred bucks. Doesn't do you much good down the line, but it gets you working right now.

[bobblehead]

You cannot make it cheaper to hire a legal worker than to hire an illegal one.

Actually you most certainly can. for instance, If I hire an illegal to save...say $1 an hour it benefits me 2000 a year. If the chance of getting caught in any given year is 20% it will take 5 years to catch me, saving me 10k. If the fine for hiring said illegal is 100k it is far cheaper to simply hire the legal. Its called cost analysis and companies do it all the time.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

You cannot make it cheaper to hire a legal worker than to hire an illegal one.

Actually you most certainly can. for instance, If I hire an illegal to save...say $1 an hour it benefits me 2000 a year. If the chance of getting caught in any given year is 20% it will take 5 years to catch me, saving me 10k. If the fine for hiring said illegal is 100k it is far cheaper to simply hire the legal. Its called cost analysis and companies do it all the time.

Your example is hilarious. Let me know when it gets anywhere near 20% and business starts getting those kind of fines.

That will be the day the republican party loses the business crowd.

BRING IT ON!

[bobblehead]

You cannot make it cheaper to hire a legal worker than to hire an illegal one.

Actually you most certainly can. for instance, If I hire an illegal to save...say $1 an hour it benefits me 2000 a year. If the chance of getting caught in any given year is 20% it will take 5 years to catch me, saving me 10k. If the fine for hiring said illegal is 100k it is far cheaper to simply hire the legal. Its called cost analysis and companies do it all the time.

Your example is hilarious. Let me know when it gets anywhere near 20% and business starts getting those kind of fines.

That will be the day the republican party loses the business crowd.

BRING IT ON!
I thought it was clear I was pulling numbers out of the air to make a point. You put the real numbers out there (doing my research as I'm lazy) and i will calculate the appropriate fine. My point was that you can indeed make it cheaper to follow the law by making the consequences sufficient. You are a sharp guy, I'm surprised you could miss my point that badly.

Let me try again so you get it. Say I can hire an illegal for $7 less an hour so its 14k a year and I have a 2% chance of getting caught. I save 700k and the fine is 1 million it is cheaper to hire the legal...better?? you can use any numbers, if the penalty is more than the benefit the behavior will change.

How about the libs constituent....trial lawyers. If ford can settle exploding gas tanks on pintos for 5 million, but it costs 11 million to fix the problem they will leave it as is. But if a trial lawyer can win a 100 million verdict then ford will fix the problem. Its really quite simple.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

You cannot make it cheaper to hire a legal worker than to hire an illegal one.

Actually you most certainly can. for instance, If I hire an illegal to save...say $1 an hour it benefits me 2000 a year. If the chance of getting caught in any given year is 20% it will take 5 years to catch me, saving me 10k. If the fine for hiring said illegal is 100k it is far cheaper to simply hire the legal. Its called cost analysis and companies do it all the time.

Your example is hilarious. Let me know when it gets anywhere near 20% and business starts getting those kind of fines.

That will be the day the republican party loses the business crowd.

BRING IT ON!
I thought it was clear I was pulling numbers out of the air to make a point. You put the real numbers out there (doing my research as I'm lazy) and i will calculate the appropriate fine. My point was that you can indeed make it cheaper to follow the law by making the consequences sufficient. You are a sharp guy, I'm surprised you could miss my point that badly.

Let me try again so you get it. Say I can hire an illegal for $7 less an hour so its 14k a year and I have a 2% chance of getting caught. I save 700k and the fine is 1 million it is cheaper to hire the legal...better?? you can use any numbers, if the penalty is more than the benefit the behavior will change.

How about the libs constituent....trial lawyers. If ford can settle exploding gas tanks on pintos for 5 million, but it costs 11 million to fix the problem they will leave it as is. But if a trial lawyer can win a 100 million verdict then ford will fix the problem. Its really quite simple.

I didn't miss the point...you missed the point that your argument is ridiculous. If we were to do this in reverse..i could say that if we spent 10 mill on every student we could wipe out illiteracy....we have to make our examples and points in the real world.

Your example is again flawed. No one hires one illegal..so multiply that by lets say 5-10 at the minimum (i realize that yes, there are single hirees, but, let's talk about the majority).

No, fine of a million is going to deter someone who saves 3.5...and, again, there is no fine ever going to be put at a million.

Like i said..that will be the day business leaves the republican party.

But, again, your example is so far from reality that you are talking basically out of your ass. Zirkle was fined a mill under the Rico statute and they don't employ just one person. :oops:


Under the plan, which becomes effective March 27, the minimum penalty for willingly hiring an unauthorized worker would go from $275 to $375. The maximum penalty will jump from $2,200 to $3,200, and the maximum for multiple violations will increase from $11,000 to $16,000.

You really think business is going to support increasing fines? LOL The dems won't be in favor of it..and business won't....buhbye republican party.

It is funny to hear you argue this..and then watch you guys argue against raising the minimum wage. If the wage increase is going to hurt businesses..isnt' that same gonna be true?

[bobblehead]

You again mistake me for being someone who is loyal to the republican party. I am loyal to what is smart/right. The fines indeed should be put at levels that persuade people to follow the law....anything else is just stupid. If the consequence for murder were $2200 guess what...a lot of people would be murdered.

We have proven that spending a ton of money on education doesn't necessarily equate success, but I will concede it helps. What you are talking about though is SPENDING money, or positive reinforcement...I am talking fines...negative reinforcement so your comparison isn't valid in the least. I am talking punishment, you are talking benefit...see the problem. I'm not sure how to put it any other way.

My example is flawed only in that our political system is flawed. It shouldn't matter that doing the right thing by the american people will cost a party big business money. I am arguing the way things should be, not the way they are.

Finally, this has nothing to do with a mandated minimum wage...an arbitrary number. It is supply of the work force. If you allow 20 million illegals to be employed you are deflating wages plain and simple. I have NEVER said a minimum wage increase will hurt business, it hurts people working on the low end...part time summer employees ect. I have said over and over again that the way to increase the lower wages is to strain the work force...drop unemployment to 2.5%, stop business from hiring 20 million illegals. Its supply and demand, when you get the supply of responsible workers down, the employer will sacrifice more of his bottom line to employ a good worker (ie...pay more).

[bobblehead]

[
Your example is again flawed. No one hires one illegal..so multiply that by lets say 5-10 at the minimum (i realize that yes, there are single hirees, but, let's talk about the majority).



Again, arbitrary numbers....make the fine a multiple of the violations. You said you do get my point but then you say this...i'm frustrated, I'm gonna go kick my dog.

[texaspackerbacker]

BHead, I don't confuse you for somebody who is loyal to the Republican Party.

What I do see you as, though, is somebody who, similar to the Libertarians you seem to fancy, doesn't like the idea of the government "making" anything happen.

The government doesn't "make' hiring illegals cheaper than hiring legal workers. The MARKET does that--the MARKET being something I would think you and the Libertarians would cherish over any government "making" of anything to happen.

True, illegals have broken the law. So have a lot of other people in a lot of situations. Limited resources make rounding up/punishing/whatever all of the various kinds of lawbreakers unfeasible. Therefore it comes down to prioritizing.

Illegals committing secondary crimes should be dealt with swiftly and severely, taking advantage of the fact that OUR civil rights and Constitutional protections don't apply to them. However, the great majority of illegals aren't hurting anybody, and are, in many cases, doing the jobs other people don't want to do for cheaper wages than others will do them, which is a benefit to all of us. I say leave them alone.

[bobblehead]

Limited resources make rounding up/punishing/whatever all of the various kinds of lawbreakers unfeasible.

couldn't we just print the money necessary to pay some people to round them up and then let the multiplier turn it into a positive for the economy??

[mraynrand]

Limited resources make rounding up/punishing/whatever all of the various kinds of lawbreakers unfeasible.

couldn't we just print the money necessary to pay some people to round them up and then let the multiplier turn it into a positive for the economy??

Better yet, let's go break some windows - the repair work will stimulate the economy.

[bobblehead]

Limited resources make rounding up/punishing/whatever all of the various kinds of lawbreakers unfeasible.

couldn't we just print the money necessary to pay some people to round them up and then let the multiplier turn it into a positive for the economy??

Better yet, let's go break some windows - the repair work will stimulate the economy.

Yea, cops get OT tracking down the vandels...carpenters get some work fixing them. Guys in factories have to manufacture more glass. Vandalism is good mmmkayy.

[Zool]

TI apparently endorsed Biden.

http://joe-biden.ytmnd.com/

[mraynrand]

TI apparently endorsed Biden.

http://joe-biden.ytmnd.com/

Well, that changes everything for me. I'm votin' for Obama now!!!

[texaspackerbacker]

Excuse my ignorance, but WHO is TI?

[Zool]

He's a rapper. Its a spoof. A line in a song of his says I wancho body, but it really sounds like I want Joe Biden.