U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-07-2011, 09:37 AM
 
4,628 posts, read 9,029,920 times
Reputation: 4225

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut View Post
Perhaps we should just stop enforcing any of our laws because afterall it costs money?
Of course not, but then don't complain about big government and higher taxes that would be coming your way. You're missing the point, it's not about money. The concern is handing more authority over to the Feds than they already have. Not such a good plan, imo. Especially when the states have the technical ability to use E-verify. Let the states pass the laws, not the Feds. I see giving the Feds more control over private concerns as dangerous, and you don't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut View Post
Visit some of the pro-illegals sites and you will see how the truth is twisted and how they lie all the time. Pot, kettle, black.
Why? I neither need nor want to, I'm having a discussion with you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut View Post
You are mixing apples with oranges here comparing the mandate usage of e-verify to states trying to protect their own borders. They are two totally different things.
I disagree. My point, that you can't be hollering for smaller gov't, lower taxes, keeping the Feds' out of state business when you want them (Fed gov't) to increase their authority over private businesses. You are the one who thinks private employers should be forced to use E-verify.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut View Post
Which laws in the Constitution are we not complying with? Wanting change is not ignoring laws or not complying with them until or if they are changed. Unlike the illegal alien advocates who think it ok for illegals to come here and granted stay before any so-called immigration reform has happened.
I meant in the general sense, like your comment "pot, kettle, black" with no substantive knowledge of what I believe. Your assumption is that anyone who disagrees with your on one particular point must therefore disagree on everything else. You think that's logical? Generalizing...you do it consistently in virtually every one of your posts (like your last sentence in this quote), so you should be able to recognize it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut View Post
I haven't twisted any of your words and we certainly DO know what your agenda is.
Fascinating. Who are "we"? You and your posse? And tell me what IS my agenda? That people should eat less meat and more vegetables ~ Oh no! You found me out!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-07-2011, 09:56 AM
 
216 posts, read 525,268 times
Reputation: 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by brushrunner View Post
Tell me this I've seen employees come in change their name once they became Legal.Why are they not let go for lying on their application?

brushrunner
We can only assume that in some ways it behooves the employer, who is gleaning financial gains from his/her illegal employment practices. The harm this does to the illegal workers, the citizens at large, and the economy is pretty substantial. In my mind, THESE PEOPLE are the criminals, because they prey on a population desparate for employment and their businesses grow while the rest of us lose.

This is the crux of this issue in my mind. Enforcement needs to be concentrated in the right place.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2011, 10:22 AM
 
14,307 posts, read 11,152,437 times
Reputation: 2130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wicked Felina View Post
Of course not, but then don't complain about big government and higher taxes that would be coming your way. You're missing the point, it's not about money. The concern is handing more authority over to the Feds than they already have. Not such a good plan, imo. Especially when the states have the technical ability to use E-verify. Let the states pass the laws, not the Feds. I see giving the Feds more control over private concerns as dangerous, and you don't.

Why? I neither need nor want to, I'm having a discussion with you.

I disagree. My point, that you can't be hollering for smaller gov't, lower taxes, keeping the Feds' out of state business when you want them (Fed gov't) to increase their authority over private businesses. You are the one who thinks private employers should be forced to use E-verify.

I meant in the general sense, like your comment "pot, kettle, black" with no substantive knowledge of what I believe. Your assumption is that anyone who disagrees with your on one particular point must therefore disagree on everything else. You think that's logical? Generalizing...you do it consistently in virtually every one of your posts (like your last sentence in this quote), so you should be able to recognize it.

Fascinating. Who are "we"? You and your posse? And tell me what IS my agenda? That people should eat less meat and more vegetables ~ Oh no! You found me out!
I really don't care who does it whether it be the feds or the states but e-verify must be mandated in every workplace. This has nothing to do with wanting bigger government anymore then enforcing our other laws does. I have no problem with my taxes going towards any kind of law enforcement.

You don't want to visit or admit that the pro-illegal sites are the bigger liars, that's why.

We disagree on putting a dent in our illegal immigration problem. That is the only discussion that we are having.

"We" are those Americans who want our immigration laws enforced, that's who! No need for snide remarks. You were the first to accuse me of having an agenda so why don't you clarify what you think my agenda is? Yours in my opinion is to stop any attempts at immigration enforcement to help illegals to be able to remain here for some possible legalization at a later date and an advocate for more to be able to continue to come here for this same possible legalization.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2011, 10:24 AM
 
14,307 posts, read 11,152,437 times
Reputation: 2130
Quote:
Originally Posted by ykamom View Post
We can only assume that in some ways it behooves the employer, who is gleaning financial gains from his/her illegal employment practices. The harm this does to the illegal workers, the citizens at large, and the economy is pretty substantial. In my mind, THESE PEOPLE are the criminals, because they prey on a population desparate for employment and their businesses grow while the rest of us lose.

This is the crux of this issue in my mind. Enforcement needs to be concentrated in the right place.
Enforcement need to address all guilty parties. That is the employers and the illegal aliens themselves.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2011, 10:29 AM
 
Location: San Diego
32,799 posts, read 30,052,880 times
Reputation: 17689
I work for a large Company. Guess how many people we have executing E-verify, I-9s and the rest? Two, that's it, two people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2011, 10:32 AM
 
Location: Spokane via Sydney,Australia
6,611 posts, read 10,950,538 times
Reputation: 3083
The requirement for an I-9 was mandated for EVERY business, private or otherwise, so I fail to see why there is a distinction for E-verify being mandated for EVERY business, private or otherwise.

I also still haven't seen ANY rational argument given for E-verify ONLY being applied to new hires and not able to be used to ensure ALL employees are legally entitled to work in this country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2011, 10:57 AM
 
4,628 posts, read 9,029,920 times
Reputation: 4225
I really don't care who does it whether it be the feds or the states but e-verify must be mandated in every workplace. This has nothing to do with wanting bigger government anymore then enforcing our other laws does. I have no problem with my taxes going towards any kind of law enforcement.
As I've said several times making it mandatory should be left up to the individual states.

You don't want to visit or admit that the pro-illegal sites are the bigger liars, that's why. Bigger than whom, the RWNJs? Such a juvenile statement, and you know this how? Just more twisting of your generalizations used solely for trying to impugn people and make yet another snarky comment.

We disagree on putting a dent in our illegal immigration problem. That is the only discussion that we are having. Nonsense, it's just what you want to believe. You're focusing on an imaginary disagreement.

The object of this thread are the loopholes in E-verify. No matter how much you try and twist it into an argument on illegal immigration. Focus: Loopholes.

"We" are those Americans who want our immigration laws enforced, that's who! No need for snide remarks. You were the first to accuse me of having an agenda so why don't you clarify what you think my agenda is? Yours in my opinion is to stop any attempts at immigration enforcement to help illegals to be able to remain here for some possible legalization at a later date and an advocate for more to be able to continue to come here for this same possible legalization.

Oh, I'm certain I'm not the first to accuse you of having an agenda. Do you find that offensive? I refer you back to your own comment: pot, kettle, black.

Your last sentence is just so far off-the-wall, I don't think you're able to think clearly when you're on a rant. Calm down, reread the thread and perhaps you'd be able to focus in on the reality of what I wrote. And not just what you want it to be.


Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2011, 11:10 AM
 
14,307 posts, read 11,152,437 times
Reputation: 2130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wicked Felina View Post
I really don't care who does it whether it be the feds or the states but e-verify must be mandated in every workplace. This has nothing to do with wanting bigger government anymore then enforcing our other laws does. I have no problem with my taxes going towards any kind of law enforcement.
As I've said several times making it mandatory should be left up to the individual states.

You don't want to visit or admit that the pro-illegal sites are the bigger liars, that's why. Bigger than whom, the RWNJs? Such a juvenile statement, and you know this how? Just more twisting of your generalizations used solely for trying to impugn people and make yet another snarky comment.

We disagree on putting a dent in our illegal immigration problem. That is the only discussion that we are having. Nonsense, it's just what you want to believe. You're focusing on an imaginary disagreement.

The object of this thread are the loopholes in E-verify. No matter how much you try and twist it into an argument on illegal immigration. Focus: Loopholes.

"We" are those Americans who want our immigration laws enforced, that's who! No need for snide remarks. You were the first to accuse me of having an agenda so why don't you clarify what you think my agenda is? Yours in my opinion is to stop any attempts at immigration enforcement to help illegals to be able to remain here for some possible legalization at a later date and an advocate for more to be able to continue to come here for this same possible legalization.

Oh, I'm certain I'm not the first to accuse you of having an agenda. Do you find that offensive? I refer you back to your own comment: pot, kettle, black.

Your last sentence is just so far off-the-wall, I don't think you're able to think clearly when you're on a rant. Calm down, reread the thread and perhaps you'd be able to focus in on the reality of what I wrote. And not just what you want it to be.

E-verify is not perfect. I think we can all agree on that. However, why throw the baby out with the bathwater just because you have an agenda to protect illegal aliens?

What is juvenile is not admitting that the pro-illegals call anyone who advocates enforcement of our immigration laws as being xenophobic, racist, a Nazi, a white supremist, Mexican hater, etc. The list goes on and on and they are all lies.

Yes, I find it offensive if you or anyone else is implying that any of the labels above fit me. I am sure I was right on in summarizing your agenda, however. You certainly haven't denied it.

How about you just ignore my posts and I will ignore yours? I don't wish to break the rules of civil debate in this forum but one can only tolerate so many snide remarks before retaliating. Buh, bye.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2011, 11:22 AM
 
Location: Spokane via Sydney,Australia
6,611 posts, read 10,950,538 times
Reputation: 3083
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wicked Felina View Post
As I've said several times making it mandatory should be left up to the individual states.



The object of this thread are the loopholes in E-verify. No matter how much you try and twist it into an argument on illegal immigration. Focus: Loopholes.

Why should it be up to states to make it mandatory when it concerns enforcement of immigration law, which like the requirement for the I-9 is mandated by the feds?

The subject of this thread (as the OP I should know) is why there is this loophole regarding the use of E-verify to screen EXISTING employees as well as new hires, which IS an illegal immigration issue, as it is about whether said employees are LEGALLY able to work in this country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2011, 02:17 PM
 
4,628 posts, read 9,029,920 times
Reputation: 4225
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut View Post
What is juvenile is not admitting that the pro-illegals call anyone who advocates enforcement of our immigration laws as being xenophobic, racist, a Nazi, a white supremist, Mexican hater, etc. The list goes on and on and they are all lies.
Do you have any idea what the word generalization means? You shouldn't take things so personally. You certainly don't know every single person who is anti-illegal immigration. Therefore you cannot say that those words used to describe them are "all lies."

Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut View Post
Yes, I find it offensive if you or anyone else is implying that any of the labels above fit me. I am sure I was right on in summarizing your agenda, however. You certainly haven't denied it.
No one is implying any such thing. Neither I not anyone else in this thread said that those terms you used describe are your beliefs. Those are terms that you made up.

Secondly, I will never justify myself, my actions or words to someone like you. But that's only because you have a distinct talent to ignore what other people say and just make your wild assumptions up as fact. And by your comments in this thread, I am now equally certain that you rarely, if ever, do anything other than make things up to suit your needs. [/quote]

Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut View Post
How about you just ignore my posts and I will ignore yours? I don't wish to break the rules of civil debate in this forum but one can only tolerate so many snide remarks before retaliating. Buh, bye.
Buh, bye? Very mature. Do you see a pattern here? How about the next thread you attempt to turn into an antagonistic soap-box for yourself, you try sticking to its subject.

Do you honestly think that your posts exemplify reason, logic, sound discourse and the ability to remove personal prejudice and emotion from "civil" debate? Please tell me you must be kidding.

If you continue to say outlandish things, make up facts as to what another person feels or knows or believes, I most certainly will respond if I choose to. That's the nature of an open forum.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top