Quote :

"Calling Mr. Clark's death an anecdote is pretty callous. "

you cant possibly be this dumb.

4/5/2007 1:14:10 AM

EarthDogg = Salisburyboy Lite

4/5/2007 3:13:22 AM

Bill and Geraldo go at it over this topic

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLPuGuaZTx8

4/6/2007 10:20:47 AM

^ wow... bringin' the heat

4/6/2007 10:39:09 AM

when you manage to make Geraldo look sane and reasoned you have hit rock bottom.

4/6/2007 9:24:35 PM

Quote :

" Calling Mr. Clark's death an anecdote is pretty callous. And It's already established that drunk-driving illegals is a wide-spread problem..it doesn't require any more 'proving'. "

Actually, RevoltNow's link seems to indicate otherwise. It doesn't seem to be a problem beyond their representation in society.

His data might be wrong, or yours might be wrong, but I don't care enough about this issue to dig further. At the least though, you're wrong about saying that it doesn't require any "proving".

4/7/2007 12:31:42 AM

Quote :

"And It's already established that drunk-driving illegals is a wide-spread problem..it doesn't require any more 'proving'."

Of course it's a problem, just like all drunk driving is a problem, but I still didn't see anywhere in that article -- or elsewhere in this thread, though maybe I just missed it -- where we were given numbers to compare DUI rates between illegals and others.

---

But everyone is dancing around what that article seems to really be saying. The title doesn't mention "legal" or "illegal," and nor do more than half of the individual cases it mentions in the body.

What it's saying isn't that illegals drive drunk, it's that Hispanics drive drunk.

So EarthDogg, if your goal was to make a big deal out of illegal vs. legal immigrants, you picked a hell of a bad article to lead off with.

4/7/2007 12:57:11 AM

[Edited on April 7, 2007 at 1:24 AM. Reason : ]

4/7/2007 1:24:17 AM

holy.

fucking.

shit.

Bill O'Reily is a goddamned lunatic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLPuGuaZTx8

4/7/2007 2:50:06 AM

^^^Come on, the reason it doesn't mention "illegals" is that's not pc. They use the code-word "immigrants" in the title.

The assumption being made is not that all Hispanics are drunks. Rather, the assumption being made is that more Hispanics are illegal immigrants vs. other ethnic groups.

and that's not an unreasonable assumption.

I really have no racial beef against any of the immigrant groups legal or not. My concern is simply that the government is selectively applying the laws. If you want illegal immigration to be legal then make it so, otherwise stop allowing certain folks to break the law just because they are not citizens. And good grief build the fence already, to stop drug smuggling and the abuse of the private land on the border. Also if it were done right it would discourage families like my neighbors from making a 2-day trek through the desert to get here. Laws and their fair enforcement can benefit everyone including the immigrants.

4/7/2007 6:06:05 AM

Quote :

"Come on, the reason it doesn't mention "illegals" is that's not pc. They use the code-word "immigrants" in the title."

immigrants isnt a bad word.....

this isnt about immigration. this is about earthdogg and the world net daily being racist and having nothing more than some random stories to "prove" their case.

4/7/2007 9:17:38 AM

Quote :

"Bill O'Reily is a goddamned lunatic."

I'm all for some open-border anarchy.

4/7/2007 9:32:15 AM

Quote :

"What it's saying isn't that illegals drive drunk, it's that Hispanics drive drunk."

Mathman gets it.

The article is dancing around the fact that "immigrants" most likely means "illegal alien". The N&O is hardly a bastion of protecting the borders.

As others have stated, I'm not against legal immigration. Our country constantly needs fresh minds. We just need to control who is coming in. That's all.

Unfortunately one of the really bad consequences of loose borders and easy licensing is llegal alien drunk drivers. And it seems pretty common sense how to fix it. Catch them driving drunk and deport them immediately.

Quote :

"Shame On North Carolina’s DMV: What Are They Thinking? Joan Harrold Messner, Family Security Matters Marine Cpl. Brian Mathews, 21, of Columbia, N.C., was killed recently, not by a sniper in the Iraq war, from which he’d returned home in one piece, but by a drunk illegal alien who obtained his driving license in North Carolina. In North Carolina, one does not have to provide proof of legal status to obtain a legal driver’s license. In North Carolina, your family pet can get a driving license. Mathew’s squad leader remembered Mathews’ unflinching performance under fire when their unit walked into a sniper ambush in Iraq last year. According to the World Net Daily, Cpl. Robinson said, “he was beside me the whole time; he was giving his team commands. He was a perfectionist Marine, and it really showed. We didn’t have one casualty or one killed in action in the ambush”. To double the tragedy, Mathews’ date Jennifer Bower of Montgomery Village was also killed when the car, driven by illegal Eduardo Morales- Soriano, drunk at four times the legal blood-alcohol limit, slammed into them as they waited at a stop-light. North Carolina has become the east coast destination of choice for illegals who want driving licenses because the state’s requirements for documentation are sloppy and their verification of document legitimacy is nearly non-existent. According to WorldNet News, “Court officials in New Jersey…have complained that [North Carolina’s] requirements are so weak, busloads of illegal immigrants get on I-95...to North Carolina to obtain licenses fraudulently.” To deepen the crisis, once an illegal has a North Carolina license, he can take that “legitimate” license and use it in any other state to get another license. This process can be repeated ad infinitum until it is nearly impossible to get back to the source of the crime of using fraudulent documents to get the original license. In 2005 North Carolina police made drunk driving arrests of a staggering 76,000 Hispanic drivers; what percent were illegal aliens seems to be “unknown”. Could North Carolina DMV be covering its backside with the “unknowns” in the wake of three more deaths caused by illegal drivers in the last two weeks? Helen Hughes, 22, Jennifer Carter, 18, and Ben Leonard, 16, were killed by Pasto Rios Sanchez when he crossed the center line and hit Hughes’ car head-on. Sanchez had been arrested at least three times previously for driving infractions, so apparently North Carolina is lax with driving infraction arrests as well. In 2005 Scott Gardner of Mount Holly, North Carolina, was struck and killed by an illegal, Ramiro Gallegos, who had been charged with drunk driving three times previously, according to the Raleigh News-Observer. Had Gallegos been arrested and deported, Gardner would be alive today, and two children would not be growing up without their father. Why don’t the good citizens of North Carolina run those bureaucrats at the DMV right out of town and get some responsible people behind the DMV desks to protect their citizens? Why are the people not lobbying their state and local politicians to do the same? And let’s not forget that illegal aliens with North Carolina licenses are not forced to stay in North Carolina and drive only in North Carolina. They are free to cross state lines and take aim at any citizen who has the misfortune to turn up in the drunk’s headlights. Thus, all of us should complain to the North Carolina Division of Motor Vehicles, and this can be done right here: http://www.dmv.org/nc-north-carolina/department-motor-vehicles.php at their website. Tragically, in addition to North Carolina, ten other states do not require proof of legal status: Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, New Mexico, Oregon, Tennessee, Utah, Washington and Wisconsin. They all have websites on which you can register loud complaints. Many illegal aliens get their licenses in North Carolina but many illegals drive without any license at all. In addition to being unlicensed, they are uninsured. In areas with huge illegal alien populations, more drive without insurance than with insurance, For example, in San Jose, CA., 55 % of drivers are uninsured; in parts of Los Angeles the rate is as high as 90%! This is an out-of-control problem and it is another issue being swept under the rug for two reasons: first, political correctness, which has made cowards of us all, politicians and citizens alike; and second, politics, i.e. politicians ever on the make for a larger constituency. Among these politicians, there is no regard for the safety and lives of Americans who work hard to pay the taxes that enable the politicos to keep the cycle of tragic deaths inexorably turning. Although, in the next election cycle, this may result in a temporary surge of votes from the community supportive to illegal aliens, the price we Americans pay is indelible and forever, and is evident in precious, innocent lives extinguished and families devastated with loss. "

4/7/2007 10:39:12 AM

Quote :

"As others have stated, I'm not against legal immigration. Our country constantly needs fresh minds. We just need to control who is coming in. That's all."

If we had reasonable immigration laws, the vast majority of current illegals would instead be here legally. Some of them would still drive drunk and kill people.

4/7/2007 10:44:28 AM

Good point.

But what if, knowing about this cultural drinking thing, we told these new immigrants as they were coming in. "Welcome to America. Just remember: one drunk-driving incident and you're outta here"

4/7/2007 11:00:10 AM

Why not just apply the law equally?

Anyways, within a few decades, we'll probably have self-driving cars. It'll be a great boon for folks who love getting wasted.

4/7/2007 11:11:57 AM

^^ i thought you said we cant spend money on social programs.

4/7/2007 11:21:32 AM

you people are all about 'send them back!' but who's going to do the jobs that even the blacks don't touch?

4/7/2007 12:24:19 PM

white and black people used to do all those jobs

4/7/2007 1:02:25 PM

yeah but how will businesses flaunt minimum wage laws without illegal aliens?

4/7/2007 1:13:56 PM

Quote :

"Come on, the reason it doesn't mention "illegals" is that's not pc. They use the code-word "immigrants" in the title. "

Who the hell do you people think you're kidding? People love to talk shit about illegal immigrants, and it's making a big deal out of how "illegal" they are that allows most people to distance themselves from the fact that really what they don't like is Mexicans who tukk urr jerbs.

Quote :

"The article is dancing around the fact that "immigrants" most likely means "illegal alien". "

Then it's doing a piss-poor job, since, like I said, it specifies "illegal" in about half the cases it mentions.

4/7/2007 3:07:06 PM

Looks like Hector was one of those lonely drunk-driving illegal aliens after all....

Quote :

"Bob Clark's DUI Killer, Illegal Immigrant, Will Be Deported to Mexico On Wednesday, we brought you the sad news that filmmaker Bob Clark, known for directing such films as A Christmas Story and Porky's, was killed along with his 22-year-old son on the Pacific Coast Highway in a collision with a DUI driver. As is often the case, the drunk driver escaped the wreck with only minor injuries. Today there's an update on the situation -- IESB is reporting that the driver, a 24-year-old illegal immigrant without a license named Hector Velazquez-Nava, has had an immigration hold put on him by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, which means that once his legal proceedings are complete, he'll be placed directly into deportation proceedings. Velazquez-Nava was charged with vehicular manslaughter and investigation of DUI. If he posts, he'll be taken into federal custody."

Placed in Deportation proceedings? I hope the proceeding isn't similar to when they are caught crossing the border, are told to come back later for a hearing and then let go never to be seen again.

4/7/2007 8:46:54 PM

Quote :

" this is about earthdogg and the world net daily being racist and having nothing more than some random stories to "prove" their case."

4/7/2007 9:24:35 PM

Illegals are going to drive anyway, with or without a license. If an illegal immigrant gets a license, they have to maintain insurance or its revoked. it leaves someone to sue afterwards.

4/8/2007 9:14:28 AM

They've already broken a number of laws just getting to NC. They don'r want to pay for becoming a citizen. What leads us to believe they want to pay for insurance or a license?

You don't give them a license in the hope that they now start behaving legally, you deport them and tell them to follow the law next time if they want to come in.

If someone breaks into your house and refuses to leave, would you start doing things to make them more comfortable or less comfortable?

4/8/2007 10:40:50 AM

but they took our jobs!

4/8/2007 10:40:58 AM

^
I don't know about taking people's jobs.... but they are definitely taking people's lives on the roads.

"Remember folks, if you drink, don't drive... don't even putt" -Dean Martin

4/8/2007 7:22:48 PM

so are Americans.

New rule. if you are accused of committing a crime in America then you should be put in gitmo.

4/8/2007 8:27:27 PM

Quote :

" If someone breaks into your house and refuses to leave, would you start doing things to make them more comfortable or less comfortable?"

That's not really a good comparison.

4/8/2007 9:34:04 PM

Quote :

"They don'r want to pay for becoming a citizen."

YES

YES THEY DO

They pay money out the ass to get into the country illegally (waaaay more expensive than getting in legally, which we just won't let them do), they pay more money to get forged documents allowing them to participate in the American system (which, again, we just won't let them do legally). If it were possible for them to pay for insurance and the rest, they would do so at least as much -- if not more so -- than any other predominantly poor group of people.

Quote :

"tell them to follow the law next time if they want to come in."

Dammit all, EarthDogg, they can't get into the country by following the law. It's not like they just have to do certain things and we'll let them in legally. There's a quota. In short, they can follow the law to the T for fifty years and never get let in. So you can say, "They can never come in," but you and all the rest need to quit with this "Follow the law and you can come in" bullshit.

4/8/2007 9:49:16 PM

how fucked up is it that people who want to work have to illegally cross our border while people who want to blow us all up can get in with student visas?

our laws are absurd.

4/8/2007 10:30:58 PM

^
That is pretty screwed up, isn't it?

I agree, Grumpy, that the current system is crap. We need to find a better way to let in temporary immigrants who want to work and don't further burden our welfare state too much.

I like the idea of setting up special employment agencies in Mexico. Workers register with them (security checks etc) . A company in the states calls down for say 50 workers for a specified amount of work/time. The company arranges transportation, housing. After the work is done...the workers are returned to Mexico and paid down there by the agency.

Immigrants who want to actually become citizens should be run through some more scrutiny than temp. workers. They will eventually have more privilages. But yes, we need to find a way to make it easier to bring in people who want to work in a safe, secure and controlled way.

4/9/2007 2:13:54 AM

Quote :

"Who the hell do you people think you're kidding? People love to talk shit about illegal immigrants, and it's making a big deal out of how "illegal" they are that allows most people to distance themselves from the fact that really what they don't like is Mexicans who tukk urr jerbs."

No, what I don't like is the law being selectively applied. If Americans are too lazy to work those jobs then we ought to get pushed aside by better workers.

If I was going to get angry at someone for "tukking ur jerbs" then I would start with the robots then next I would complain to the globalists/safety Nazis/overegulating federal BS-artists.

Here in the US there are more than enough jobs to go around if you are willing to work.

What makes me angry about the situation as it stands is that the law punishes the buisness which
chooses to hire legal workers by imposing all sorts of regulations which are not levied on the illegals by virtue of their black-market status. If you think it has anything to do with race for me then you are sadly mistaken.

4/9/2007 2:33:44 AM

^ So why not just legalize the illegals then?

It's a lot easier than the logistics nightmare of deporting all of them, and more effective than the snake-oil border fence.

4/9/2007 2:41:05 AM

I find it funny, because EarthDogg's position is so bizarrely un-libertarian.

We'll even ignore for a moment the part where he wants immigrants to be made "safe, secure, and controlled" by the government, something he presumably would not say in general.

I mean more the fact that he sees a horribly unjust, ineffective, and economically damaging set of laws and says, "Well, I guess we'd better just run with them until we can convince Congress to change its mine," which is as opposed to my, "Fuck 'em, if the laws are that bad, we're just going to ignore them until we no longer have to."

Quote :

"I like the idea of setting up special employment agencies in Mexico. Workers register with them (security checks etc) . A company in the states calls down for say 50 workers for a specified amount of work/time. The company arranges transportation, housing. After the work is done...the workers are returned to Mexico and paid down there by the agency."

1) This system seems like it would require the creation of a whole new bureaucracy -- or are you just going to trust these companies to do effective screenings with no oversight?
2) Mexico is replete with corruption, having the system be largely set up on their end is asking for trouble.
3) We're not just talking about companies that need employees. There's a hell of a market for day laborers, and Richy von Richstein is not going to put in an order to some company in Mexico every time he wants his house shingled or lawn mowed.

4/9/2007 2:55:08 AM

Quote :

"I find it funny, because EarthDogg's position is so bizarrely un-libertarian"

yeah, i know right? He's much more like a Pat Buchananite. or some Ross Perot Reform Party ... but not quite. something a little less stable.

hey, I know what it is! You know those Lyndon LaRouche douchebags? I used to wonder where they all came from. Like, who could be that stupid and gulliable to get hooked up into that lunacy.

Now i understand.

you just take someone who has a fair amount of natural intelligence, but someone for whom something went wrong in the early years. some emotional trauma or something damaged their capability for rational judgement.

then you pump them up and tell them they're really super-geniuses, but unable to realize their potential because external forces are conspiring to oppress them.

Next thing you know, you've got them standing on street corners downtown for 8 hours at a stretch, passing out shitty fliers and brochures.

That's EarthDogg.





[Edited on April 9, 2007 at 4:35 AM. Reason : ]

4/9/2007 4:28:40 AM

Quote :

"so bizarrely un-libertarian."

How so?

If you look a few posts up, I clip-pasted some quotes from the National Libertarian Party, Cato Institute and Ron Paul that demonstrate that libertarians aren't for open borders without any type of control.

Most libertarians recognize the need for some gov't. I am not for anarchy at all. I think one of the roles of the federal gov't is to control our borders from invasion. It also has a role to have some type of sane temporary worker system in place.

Your approach, if I have it correctly, is to ignore those laws that you feel are unjust or "bad". While this militant approach might be admirable in theory, it would result in anarchy in practice. If everyone chose to ignore those laws they didn't like, the country would soon no longer be a country. We have ways to change our laws in a mannered way, although even that could be improved.

Instead of ignoring laws, people should get off their butts and become more involved in controlling their gov't.

Now to address your hit points on the immigration agency idea....

1) The system would be run by private agencies which have to follow certain guidelines. Gov't would not run the system.

2) Yes there will be corruption. But that doesn't stop all the other programs we have that also suffer from some amount of corruption. There would be stiff penalties for any business hiring outside the system. We would have to have the will to put some teeth into enforcement. I would hold the company owners/managers personally responsible with massive fines and jail time.

3) I would set up a temporary day-laborer company. We always have temp. day laborers ready and waitng to clean Richie's house or cut his lawn. I could rotate workers in and out every few months. I have faith that the private market can answer the call.

[Edited on April 9, 2007 at 11:01 AM. Reason : .]

4/9/2007 10:58:59 AM

^ Who would pay for the transportation? You realize the cost of doing what you say is very prohibitive, if you make the agency or the employer pay those costs. And you're neglecting the low-margin businesses like landscape service who might only need 1 or 2 immigrants to work for them, and won't care to jump through bureaucratic hoops to get them. And thirdly, if this type of system were set up, the biggest problem is that the businesses would have to pay the employees more and possibly give them benefits removing any incentive for hiring the illegals in the first place. If the immigration quotas aren't adjusted accordingly, we'd still have a massive problem with under-the-radar illegals.

4/9/2007 11:20:55 AM

^
Valid points yes.

Costs would go up for employers. Immigrant workers should be paid market wages. The way you make money in low margin businesses is with volume. That's why my temp company hires a bunch of workers who can be slipped into these types of jobs. Just like a temp agency.

If you need just a cuple of guys for a few days, I send them over. These guys would work for you a couple of days and then for someone else for a couple of days. I would charge market rates for their labor and make up for the margin in increased number of daily jobs.

The temp worker would jump through the bureaucratic hoops because my firm is guaranteeing him so many weeks/months of steady work.

Hopefully the temptation to go around this system and hire illegals would be dampened by harsh penalties on owners of companies who hire them, and the willpower to control the border effectively. You will still get some illegal immigration, but it would no longer be on the massive scale of today.

4/9/2007 11:38:07 AM

this is ridiculous if i was driving around mexico killing mexicans you know they wouldn't be just deporting me back to the US

4/9/2007 11:47:07 AM

^^ You clearly value freedom very highly.

4/9/2007 12:54:16 PM

Quote :

"I think it's trying to help find a rational solution to a new problem."

You have to be a legal citizen to legally operate a motor vehicle? Sounds rational. And simple.

4/9/2007 2:57:19 PM

Quote :

"Hopefully the temptation to go around this system and hire illegals would be dampened by harsh penalties on owners of companies who hire them, and the willpower to control the border effectively. You will still get some illegal immigration, but it would no longer be on the massive scale of today. "

This is the flaw in your system. These penalties exist now, but are not enforced, and they are not enforced because in some areas of the country, the only available labor market is illegal migrant workers. You would be punishing many American family farms (go to Duplin county for example) with that type of set up for capitalizing on the available labor market.

It would require draconian labor laws regarding illegals, as well as draconian illegal immigrant policing to make your plan work, both of which are un-American (and un-Libertarian), all of which would increase the size and bureaucracy of the gov.

^ You mean legal resident? What about foreign tourists?

[Edited on April 9, 2007 at 3:22 PM. Reason : ]

4/9/2007 3:21:07 PM

Quote :

"libertarians aren't for open borders without any type of control. "

Sure, but that's not exactly what you're advocating here, which seems to be for closed borders where you might not get in no matter how much scrutiny is thrown your way.

Obviously we should run a check on anyone coming into the country for any extended period. We agree there. We differ in that I say, "If you pass that check and don't fuck up too bad, you can stay."

Quote :

"While this militant approach might be admirable in theory, it would result in anarchy in practice."

1) Read the declaration of independence.
2)...
3) Profit.

I'm not saying anybody should ignore laws because they're inconvenient or occasionally oppressive, I'm talking about rejecting them -- within certain bounds of reason -- whenever they represent a long history of abuse of freedom.

I don't seem to recall that the country descended into anarchy when black people started trying to use white water fountains, bathrooms, and restaurants.

Quote :

"Instead of ignoring laws, people should get off their butts and become more involved in controlling their gov't."

I'm doing that, but I don't intend to sit around with my dick in my hand in the meantime, and I damn sure don't trust anybody else to get involved.

Now onto your enumerated points:

1) I didn't say it would be run by the government, but if there are guidelines someone will have to design and enforce them, largely across the border in another country and in a fashion heretofore untested.

2) I'm not talking about "some amount of corruption." I'm talking about Mexican corruption, which is truly a model for the entire world on how to run a country by bribes and graft. And remember that we will have very limited control over what happens across the border in a sovereign country. And we hold drug traffickers responsible with massive fines and jail time, but I can still get drugs pretty easily. Illegal immigration is big, big business on both sides of the border, and it's hard to dissuade people from taking advantage of that kind of money flow.

3) You have faith but I don't. For one thing, there are mechanisms for a comparable company to exist nowadays, and they don't. It would be much easier for a company to obtain the necessary paperwork than for individuals to do so. Aside from that, the sheer costs make this idea untenable. No company is going to pay the legitimate labor agency trumped up prices if they can help it -- and since plenty of semilegal/illegal labor will still most definitely be around, they will be able to help it.

Quote :

"The temp worker would jump through the bureaucratic hoops because my firm is guaranteeing him so many weeks/months of steady work."

And how long does he have to be dirt poor before he gets that? Given the choice between maybe/probably fast money and definite slow money, a lot -- maybe most, especially the very poor -- will take the fast.

4/9/2007 6:48:45 PM

I think we agree, Grumpy, more than disagree.

My bottom line is if people want to come to our country to work, not break the law, not demand special treatment, and not abuse our welfare state- I say check 'em out and let 'em in. I have no problem with letting them stay if they stay out of major trouble (Drunk driving is major in my book).

Like I said, America needs immigrants. Right now, the bulk are coming from Mexico. We need to find a way to control the flow in a humane way for both the immigrants and the people already here.

4/10/2007 12:24:02 AM

you say "check em out and let em in" but there is no way in hell you would actually be willing to pay the price tag associated with checking them out.

4/10/2007 8:22:38 AM

^
Why do you say that?

Would it be that expensive? In true libertarian approach, you could even let private companies set up a number of mini-Ellis Islands along the border.

4/10/2007 10:52:15 AM

and that is why libertarians dont affect public policy. a bunch of mini ellis islands, where the market controls things. lets assume you eradicate corruption in these places, and you spend a ton of government money ensuring there is no other way to enter the country.

after that, what is the incentive for the companies to have tough restrictions? there is a market incentive for them to have easy restrictions. people trying to come into the country are going to reward companies for letting in lots and lots of people with little to no background checks.

if you dont have a problem with that then fine, but its obvious you do.

4/10/2007 9:04:31 PM

^

Quote :

" lets assume you eradicate corruption in these places"

You will never eradicate corruption. But that isn't a reason to try it. The congress is ripe with corruption, but many people still look to that congress to fix all their problems in life.

Quote :

"what is the incentive for the companies to have tough restrictions? "

Well let's say that if so many criminal acts per year are carried out by immigrants that you passed, you lose your charter. It might be true that some immigrants are going to bribe these gate-keeper companies to let them in. If I was the ceo of the company, I would put my employees through some major background checking to preserve my charter. Like in Vegas casinos, I would have people watching the people who are watching the people.

4/11/2007 12:38:28 AM

so you advocate a system for monitoring the constant whereabouts of people who are here legally? or just that the government keep records of what they do, when they entered the country etc?

4/11/2007 11:28:28 AM