Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 21, 2014, 07:14:37 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
82950 Posts in 2255 Topics by 1067 Members
Latest Member: Shinobi Dog
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  Immigration issues
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 17 Print
Author Topic: Immigration issues  (Read 105295 times)
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31478


« Reply #400 on: August 14, 2010, 08:46:31 PM »

May I ask you to please post the JB pension piece in the California thread?
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #401 on: August 15, 2010, 09:51:31 AM »

Doug, illegal immigration these past two years is down compared to previous years.  Under Obama, our borders are tighter than they have ever been.  And the $600 million will further help.  That's good right?

And if you are realistic, some form of amnesty needs to be worked out.  Or are you going to lock up the 12million+ illegal aliens in left over Japanese WWII prisons still left in MN?  You can't just put your head
in the sand and ignore 12 million.  Or lock them all up.  A workable solution needs to be found.

For your reference Illegal aliens don't vote because they cannot vote (yes voter fraud exists but very little compared to the overall).  So their "vote" will have no impact on this year's democrat or republican races.  Further as I mentioned, even legal resident aliens cannot vote in federal elections.  You must be a citizen which takes 5+ years after you become a legal resident alien.  Don't worry, they are not going to help Obama.

As for Bush's ratings, they fell like a dead weight for various and good reasons, but frankly, I don't remember reading the the cause of this drop had much to do with his comprehensive immigration
reform.  Yet I'll bet many/most of the current illegals arrived on his watch.  And I also don't remember much republican outrage about this fact.

As for "frankly, I don't understand why the Republican party cannot appeal to Mexicans." I don't quite get your tirade.  I was merely pointing out that perhaps the republicans should learn to market to Mexicans. 
However, as you say, if the republicans are having a "hard enough time selling the outrageous idea of having a little freedom and security to Americans in 50 states." may respectfully suggest they find new leaders in their party, learn to communicate better, and perhaps reexamine their platform.  That's how it's done in a democracy.

As for your comments about China, etc. I don't get it.  I never said to not enforce the border; actually I commended Obama for doing just that.  I have stated I support a secure border.  Most Americans, republicans and democrats want our borders secure.  So your point about letting a billion or so Asians in was?  Or maybe you didn't have a point...

Better I think to look for solutions.  Secure our border and find a way to reasonably assimilate the 12 million illegal aliens already here.




Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5997


« Reply #402 on: August 15, 2010, 11:12:56 AM »

JDN, Thanks for the reply.  As CCP put it, I would also like to agree to disagree, just try to clarify my own view without too much repetition. 

Finding a workable solution does not equal blanket amnesty.  You are courageous to use that term amnesty as it doesn't poll well at all.  In the business of processing people who broke the law I would use the term plea bargain rather than amnesty.  If we process some of the undocumented onto a path toward citizenship, some into work visas with an end date and some out now, that might be a comprehensive solution that involves compromise, but how do you sort that out under equal protection?

You say give citizenship to Mexicans and Republicans need to adjust their views to attract Mexicans  sad  I assume you mean to refer to them as 'Americans', but as you again courageously admit, they are not.

Yes I was referring to the illegal vote of the illegals.  The 60th vote in the senate that enabled healthcare overhaul came from a state that does not verify citizenship.  I was there and watched it happen. You need nothing but a voter registered in a precinct to vouch for your ADDRESS, not your citizenship, or a STUDENT ID, or one of many other documents that DO NOT VERIFY CITIZENSHIP: http://www.sos.state.mn.us/index.aspx?page=204.  To vote, a non-citizen would have too check the box marked citizen, but that is well-known to be unverified and unverifiable. (Note that they are already breaking the law and wishing to vote.)

One interesting point of JDN is that border crossing is down.  With both the precise number of 12 million and the measured trend line, I wonder how we know and I wonder why that trend might be down. My guess is that double digit unemployment explains that far more than anything US border enforcement is doing.  Also it looks to me like border enforcement has shifted to the gangs in charge.  They require a high fee which most don't have, and they require you to use their service.  Free spirited individuals setting up to cross in their territory without paying the fee are likely killed or captured on one side of the border or the other - and dealt with accordingly.  I didn't eyewitness this but have other first hand knowledge about how gangs protect their economic interests.  Violence statistics on both sides of the border offer some corroboration of that theory.

Lastly, no I don't assume that 600M worth of public employee union members sent to vacation near the border (sorry for the cynicism) with rules of engagement that include don't ask don't tell will make a significant impact on anything except making possible a line in an upcoming campaign or state of the union speech of this administration stepping up border enforcement.  In other words, we would have to clarify the mission, commit to the mission and change the rules of engagement before sending more money will make a difference IMHO. 

Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #403 on: August 15, 2010, 11:47:48 AM »

Hi Doug,

I like your point about "plea bargain".  Admit they committed a crime (they did) but on a case by case basis (eliminate the bad apples; send them back to Mexico or wherever) find a path towards becoming a legal resident alien and later if they keep their nose clean, towards citizenship.  But let's do something!

And yes, I meant Mexican "Americans".   smiley    Also, Resident Aliens can vote in local local elections.  Along with Mexican Americans, legal aliens too need attention (I don't mean pandering) by Republicans.  Until Bush came along I was a life long Republican.  The Republican core ideals can and do apply to all ethnic groups.  I blame it on poor Republican leadership and vague or unrealistic platforms.  The core (good) story of the Republican party is just not getting out.  But then, a similar point can be made of Jews.  I agree with CCP; I don't understand why Jews overwhelmingly support democrats.  I'm missing something.

I can't speak for MN laws; but by voting in a Federal election and not being a citizen they broke the law.  Maybe MN should tighten up it's verification system?  Even CA (liberal that we are) requires proof of legal residency to obtain a driver's license.

I don't know about gangs requiring a fee to cross the border although if they do and it cuts down on illegal immigration, I suppose that is a residual benefit.  I do agree with you that double digit unemployment has a huge effect of migration.  I too don't give much credit to Obama although I suppose it is one good thing (only good thing?) you can say about his economic policies.   smiley

I disagree that being a border patrolman is a "vacation".  Frankly, I think it's a tough job, whether they are in a union or not.  Here in LA the police have a union too, yet I think they do a great job in difficult circumstances.  I do agree, we should "clarify the mission, commit to the mission and change the rules of engagement."



Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12069


« Reply #404 on: August 15, 2010, 01:35:15 PM »

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/08/15/california-gets-tough-on-illegal-border-crossings/

Priorities.
Logged
prentice crawford
Power User
***
Posts: 776


« Reply #405 on: August 15, 2010, 07:46:31 PM »

Woof,
 Here's the deal with Obama and the 600 million; we have something called elections coming up and many of these elections take place in less than liberal areas and in areas where Hispanics don't factor as a voting block. The political calculation is that what Obama giveth now, can be taken away at a later date. That is, after the elections. Besides, this plays into his getting movement on the comprehensive immigration reform bill he wants passed. He kills two birds with one stone. The 600 million isn't a long term commitment to seal the border and the deportations he's getting are mainly criminals already in the system. The rest are targeted in high crime, high unemployment, traditionally African American districts of certain cities and the occasional high profile chicken processing plant with 300 or so illegals working. This is all just one big dog and pony show for the gullible voters that keep sending these useless political hacks back to Washington. That includes some Republicans as well. Any voter in AZ that thinks that McCain is suddenly interested in sealing the border, needs to have their head examined! Enjoy! tongue
                                 P.C.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2010, 09:24:21 PM by prentice crawford » Logged

prentice crawford
Power User
***
Posts: 776


« Reply #406 on: August 17, 2010, 01:20:40 AM »

Woof,
 Yawn, who cares... I'm just blowing smoke up your skirt about there being any danger having an open border with criminals coming and going as they please. I mean what could possibly go wrong?

   http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/08/hezbollahs-mexican-cartel-connection

     http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/201134.php

     http://friday-lunch-club.blogspot.com/2010/08/stratfor-hezbollah-radical-but.html

    http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/08/02/mexico.cartels.al.qaeda/index.html

      http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052970203440104574400792835972018.html

        http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/04/026098.php
                                     
                                                  P.C.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2010, 03:14:04 AM by prentice crawford » Logged

G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12069


« Reply #407 on: August 17, 2010, 07:25:26 AM »

http://www.amazon.com/Homeland-Siege-Tactics-Police-Military/dp/0981865917/ref=pd_sim_b_1

Looks relevant.
Logged
lonelydog
Power User
***
Posts: 99


« Reply #408 on: August 17, 2010, 02:04:02 PM »

Would you please post the link in the Homeland Security thread as well?
Logged
prentice crawford
Power User
***
Posts: 776


« Reply #409 on: August 18, 2010, 02:10:12 AM »

Woof,
 Interesting resource's on illegal immigration and on drugs and illicit trafficking.

           http://www.unodc.org/pdf/technical_series_1998-01-01_1.pdf

http://www.populationenvironmentresearch.org/papers/Colemanmigration.pdf

 http://www.carryingcapacity.org/huddlenr.html    

         http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_1_the_illegal_alien.html

     http://www.numbersusa.com/content/issues.html                            

                    P.C.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2010, 02:35:04 AM by prentice crawford » Logged

JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #410 on: August 18, 2010, 05:52:07 PM »

Hey CCP; being in the medical field I thought of you today.   smiley

As I was getting a root canal  cry my Chinese doctor who barely speaks English
(but graduated from USC; a very good dental school) spent an hour+ telling
me about how great America is, but how soft we are, too much welfare, etc.
and the evils of illegal immigration.

I thought it was rather unfair; my mouth was in pain and I couldn't speak!   smiley

But I thought it was interesting coming from a first generation (legal) immigrant.
He had some good points!
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4135


« Reply #411 on: August 18, 2010, 07:32:17 PM »

Interesting....
My dentist is Chinese!

"spent an hour+ telling
me about how great America is..."

I would rather he be President.  Unlike the one we have now he at least appreciates this country.

JDN, let me know when you get carpal tunnel surgery.  Then I can post my opnions to you and you won't be able to post back.   grin
Logged
prentice crawford
Power User
***
Posts: 776


« Reply #412 on: August 18, 2010, 09:48:58 PM »

Woof,
 Coming to a town near you...

   http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100818/wl_nm/us_mexico_drugs_5


                         P.C.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2010, 09:59:01 PM by prentice crawford » Logged

ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4135


« Reply #413 on: September 03, 2010, 09:31:44 AM »

Yes, go after our own law enforcement for doing it's job and report to the UN. angry

Feds sue Arizona sheriff in civil rights probe
           DOJ Going After America's Toughest Sheriff? FOX News By AMANDA LEE MYERS and PAUL DAVENPORT, Associated Press Writer Amanda Lee Myers And Paul Davenport, Associated Press Writer – Thu Sep 2, 7:49 pm ET
PHOENIX – The Justice Department sued the nation's self-proclaimed "toughest sheriff" on Thursday, calling Joe Arpaio's defiance of an investigation into his office's alleged discrimination against Hispanics "unprecedented."

It's the first time in decades a lawman has refused to cooperate in one of the agency's probes, the department said.

The Arizona sheriff had been given until Aug. 17 to hand over documents the federal government first asked for 15 months ago, when it started investigating alleged discrimination, unconstitutional searches and seizures, and jail policies that discriminate against people with limited English skills.

Thomas Perez, assistant attorney general for the department's civil rights division, said it's unfortunate the department had to sue to get the documents, which neither the agency nor Arpaio would describe.

But Arpaio called the lawsuit "a ruse" and said the federal government is just trying to score a win against the state, which has found itself at the center of the nation's argument over illegal immigration since passing a law that mirrors many of the policies Arpaio has put into place in the greater Phoenix area.

"I think they know we have not been racial profiling, so what's the next step — camouflage the situation, go the courts, and make it look like I'm not cooperating," Arpaio said Thursday.

Arpaio said he provided "hundreds of thousands" of reports but hasn't turned over others because the department's request was too broad.

Kevin Ryan, former U.S. attorney for the Northern District of California and a law professor at the University of San Francisco, said he thought the department's characterization of Arpaio's behavior as unprecedented was overstating it.

He said the contentious relationship between the sheriff and the department is no secret.

"You really can't hold it against the sheriff and assume he's guilty because he's not rolling over for the Justice Department," he said.

But Rory Little, a law professor at the University of California Hastings College of the Law who formerly worked at the Justice Department, disagreed, called Arpaio's actions "pretty unusual" because the lawsuit says Arpaio's office signed agreements promising to cooperate with civil-rights investigations and other reviews when it accepted federal law enforcement grants.

Last year, the nearly $113 million that Maricopa County received from the federal government accounted for about 5 percent of the county's $2 billion budget. The lawsuit listed $16.5 million of funding provided Arpaio's office through several programs.

"Normally when you receive $113 million in grants you're going to cooperate and send over whatever they want to see," Little said. Otherwise, "it raises the level of suspicion pretty significantly."

He also said it's rare for a law enforcement agency to push the department all the way to a lawsuit.

"Cooperating with the Department of Justice is usually not a bad thing so long as you're not the target of a criminal investigation, and the federal government has a lot of power in terms of grants and you don't want to get on their bad side," he said.

Arpaio believes the department's inquiry is focused on his immigration sweeps, patrols where deputies flood an area of a city — in some cases heavily Latino areas — to seek out traffic violators and arrest other offenders.

Critics say the deputies pull people over for minor traffic infractions because of the color of their skin so they can ask them for their proof of citizenship.

Thursday's lawsuit is the latest action in a slew against Arizona by the federal government.

In 2009, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security stripped Arpaio's office of its special powers to enforce federal immigration laws, and in May, the Obama administration urged the U.S. Supreme Court to prevent Arizona from enforcing its employer sanctions law.

In July, the Justice Department filed a lawsuit to overturn portions of Arizona's strict new immigration law that would require police officers to question people about their immigration status if there is reason to suspect they are in the country illegally. A federal judge put that provision and most of the law on hold.

The continued attention on the state sends a clear political message that the federal government doesn't want Arizona enforcing federal immigration laws, said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates for strict immigration laws.

"It's surprising that the administration would focus on Arizona and go after it on such a high-profile and persistent way," he said.

In a separate investigation, a federal grand jury in Phoenix is examining allegations that Arpaio has abused his powers with actions such as intimidating county workers by showing up at their homes at nights and on weekends.

A Hispanic activist said a federal judge might have to threaten jail time to get Arpaio to cooperate in the lawsuit filed Thursday.

"It's going to take the hard hand of the judge to order some sanctions against the sheriff's office," said Lydia Guzman of the Phoenix-based civil rights group Somos America.

Arizona Republican Sen. Russell Pearce, author of the new Arizona law, called the Justice Department's actions against Arpaio a "witch hunt."

"This is the game that's played," he said. "They couldn't find any violations ... that's why they're very vague about what they want. It doesn't take a very high IQ to figure out what's going on with these folks."

___

Associated Press Writer Jacques Billeaud contributed to this report.

Logged
Rarick
Guest
« Reply #414 on: September 04, 2010, 06:33:27 AM »

Kill 2 birds with one stone?  Step on Arpaio for being conservative on law enforcement, and make a point with other county sheriffs that are nominally part of the OathKeepers ?

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/
« Last Edit: September 04, 2010, 06:36:01 AM by Rarick » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31478


« Reply #415 on: September 04, 2010, 12:44:10 PM »

Arizona colleges accused of immigrant discrimination

Before this year, Phoenix-area community colleges asked legal immigrants to show a green card before hiring them. The Justice Department calls the policy 'document abuse' and seeks damages.
David G. Savage, Tribune Washington Bureau
 
September 4, 2010


Employers who hire illegal immigrants can be fined, but the Obama administration warned this week that they also can be fined for asking legal immigrants to show their green cards before hiring them.

The Justice Department's civil rights division sued the Maricopa County Community Colleges in Arizona, seeking damages from schools for having "intentionally committed document abuse discrimination."

Prior to this year, the local colleges in the Phoenix area asked job applicants who were not U.S. citizens to show a driver's license, a Social Security card and their permanent resident card, commonly called a green card.

The Justice Department said a valid driver's license and a Social Security card are usually sufficient to show that a person is authorized to work. Requesting a green card amounts to "immigration-related employment discrimination," said Thomas E. Perez, the assistant attorney general for civil rights.

Federal law forbids treating "authorized workers differently during the hiring process based on their citizenship status," Perez said. He said the department's Office of Special Counsel would bring legal actions against employers who impose "unnecessary and discriminatory hurdles to employment for work-authorized noncitizens."

Amid the fierce controversy over immigration, the Obama administration has launched three lawsuits this summer to protect the rights of Latinos and legal immigrants — all three targeting Arizona.

In July, the administration successfully blocked Arizona's law that authorized state and local police to check the immigration status of persons who were arrested. On Thursday, it sued Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio seeking documents that could show he has illegally targeted Latinos in the course of his immigration sweeps.

The suit against the Maricopa community colleges, announced Monday, and could affect employers across the nation.

"Employers are getting very mixed messages from the government," said Jessica Vaughan, a policy analyst with the Center for Immigration Studies.

On one hand, employers have been told they need to do more to verify that their workers are legal and authorized to work in the United States. Federal immigration law says hiring "an unauthorized alien" can result in fines of up to $3,000 per worker. However, another provision of the same law bars employers from requesting "more or different documents" than are needed to prove a noncitizen's legal status.

In the Maricopa college case, the Justice Department said it wanted "full remedial relief" for 247 noncitizens who applied for jobs with the community college district between August 2008 and January of this year, plus a civil penalty of $1,100 for each of them.

"We are extremely disappointed by the Justice Department's action. We had no intent to discriminate against any foreign national, and we feel we have been singled out for the maximum penalty under the law," said Charles Reinebold, a spokesman for the community colleges. "There was no actual harm here. This was a paperwork error, and we revised it after it was brought to our attention."

Vaughan said she was "very surprised the administration would resort to a lawsuit. In the past, the emphasis has been on mediation to resolve these issues."

But others applauded the administration's move to enforce the anti-discrimination parts of the immigration law.

Gening Liao, a lawyer for the National Immigration Law Center in Los Angeles, said the law itself is clear.

"If you bring in a driver's license and a Social Security card, those documents are sufficient. Employers are prohibited from asking for extra documents or different documents," she said. "This is blatant discrimination, and we get calls about it all the time. We hope to see more lawsuits like this."

david.savage@latimes.com
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12069


« Reply #416 on: September 04, 2010, 05:08:00 PM »

Parts of Arizona are controlled by the cartels, yet this is what the DOJ wants to devote it's resources to.
Logged
prentice crawford
Power User
***
Posts: 776


« Reply #417 on: September 14, 2010, 08:58:45 PM »

Woof,
 While they still can they are going to try every backdoor way there is to get amnesty for illegals and whatever other lib agenda item they want to shove down our throats, passed.

www.thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/congress-blog/civil-rights/118745-defense-authorization-bill-will-address-the-dream-act-and-discrimination-in-the-military-sen-harry-reid

                            P.C.
Logged

JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #418 on: September 20, 2010, 08:39:05 AM »

A realistic take on the issues.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-allen-fourteenth-amendment-20100920,0,7944786.story
Logged
Body-by-Guinness
Power User
***
Posts: 2790


« Reply #419 on: September 24, 2010, 08:01:32 PM »

An U.N.-Conscionable Act
Published on September 22, 2010 by Edwin Feulner, Ph.D.

Thanks to a certain immigration law, the Obama administration isn’t very happy with Arizona these days. But did you know the White House has gone so far as to put Arizona “on report”? And to the United Nations, no less.
That’s right. Apparently the federal government can’t handle this dispute alone. It needs to elevate it to the world stage, encouraging international criticism of the offending state. So Arizona’s alleged transgression comes up in a report the administration submitted to the U.N. Human Rights Council:
“A recent Arizona law, S.B. 1070, has generated significant attention and debate at home and around the world. The issue is being addressed in a court action that argues that the federal government has the authority to set and enforce immigration law. That action is ongoing; parts of the law are currently enjoined.
“President Obama remains firmly committed to fixing our broken immigration system, because he recognizes that our ability to innovate, our ties to the world, and our economic prosperity depend on our capacity to welcome and assimilate immigrants. The Administration will continue its efforts to work with the U.S. Congress and affected communities toward this end.”
No wonder Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, in a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, called this “downright offensive.” If the administration felt compelled to mention an unsettled legal dispute in a report to an international body, it should have at least adopted a more neutral tone. Instead, it sounds like the administration is saying, “Don’t worry, world; we’re doing all we can to show this slow, backward child of ours the error of its ways.”
Here’s a larger question, one worth considering as the United Nations gathers for its annual General Assembly meeting: Should the United States even have joined the Human Rights Council, whose membership roll includes such blatant human-rights tramplers as China and Cuba?
The HRC was created in 2006 as a replacement for the U.N. Commission on Human Rights. For years, the commission had failed to hold governments accountable for violating basic human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Unfortunately, the HRC’s track record has been no better. In theory, it “offers an unprecedented opportunity to hold the human rights practices of every country open for public examination and criticism,” as Heritage Foundation experts Brett Schaefer and Steven Groves have noted. But in practice, the HRC “has proven to be a flawed process hijacked by countries seeking to shield themselves from criticism.”
Consider Cuba’s report to the HRC. It turns out its “democratic system is based on the principle of ‘government of the people, by the people and for the people’.” And guess what? Its citizens enjoy the right to “freedom of opinion, expression and the press.” I’m sure that will surprise the thousands of Cubans who have risked life and limb to escape the island nation, and the thousands more who remain locked in Castro’s jails for political “crimes.”
China made similarly laughable assertions in its report to the HRC. It even claimed its citizens enjoy a right to religious freedom. North Korea, too, is a downright utopia, judging from its report to the U.N.
It’s bad enough these countries lie. But it’s not unexpected. What’s worse is that the U.N. accepts these demonstrably false claims at face value. The majority of member states approve these reports.
To avoid becoming a party to this charade, the Bush administration wisely declined membership in the HRC. The Obama administration reversed that policy. So we have a situation where the U.S., just by being a member, lends legitimacy to a U.N. farce on human rights. And now the administration is compounding the error by offering up a state for criticism by a body that includes some of the world’s most egregious human-rights offenders.
Talk about “downright offensive.”
Dr. Edwin Feulner is president of The Heritage Foundation.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Commentary/2010/09/An-UN-Conscionable-Act
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31478


« Reply #420 on: September 27, 2010, 07:26:08 AM »

BUENOS AIRES NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE, Ariz. — In this remote, semidesert landscape along the United States-Mexico border, water is a precious commodity — and a contentious one, too.


Two years ago, Daniel J. Millis was ticketed for littering after he was caught by a federal Fish and Wildlife officer placing gallon jugs of water for passing immigrants in the brush of this 118,000-acre preserve.
“I do extreme sports, and I know I couldn’t walk as far as they do,” said Mr. Millis, driving through the refuge recently. “It’s no surprise people are dying.”

Mr. Millis, 31, was not the only one to get a ticket. Fourteen other volunteers for Tucson-based organizations that provide aid to immigrants crossing from Mexico to the United States were similarly cited. Most of the cases were later dropped, but Mr. Millis and another volunteer for a religious group called No More Deaths were convicted of defacing the refuge with their water jug drops.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit weighed in on Mr. Millis’s appeal this month, ruling that it was “ambiguous as to whether purified water in a sealed bottle intended for human consumption meets the definition of ‘garbage.’ ” Voting 2-to-1, a three-judge panel overturned Mr. Millis’s conviction.

The issue remains far from settled, though. The court ruled that Mr. Millis probably could have been charged under a different statute, something other than littering. And the Fish and Wildlife Service continues to forbid anyone to leave gallon jugs of water in the refuge — a policy backed by this state’s immigration hardliners, who say comforting immigrants will only encourage them to cross.

From 2002 to 2009, 25 illegal immigrants died while passing through the refuge’s rolling hills, which are flanked by mountains and are home to pronghorns, coyotes, rattlesnakes and four different kinds of skunks. Throughout southern Arizona, the death toll totaled 1,715 from 2002 to 2009, with this year’s hot temperatures putting deaths at a record-breaking pace.

The Border Patrol has installed rescue beacons in remote areas along the border, including several in the Buenos Aires refuge, to allow immigrants in distress to call for help. Those who are injured and have been left behind by their guides are often so desperate they no longer fear deportation.

Still, the federal government has acknowledged that additional steps are needed to keep deaths down on its land. In 2001, it gave another aid group, Humane Borders, a permit to keep several large water drums on the refuge, each of them marked by a blue flag and featuring a spigot to allow immigrants to fill their water bottles for the long trek north.

Last year, the government considered but ultimately decided against allowing No More Deaths to tether gallon jugs to trees to allow immigrants in more remote areas to drink without taking the jugs on their way.

Right now, even after the court decision, there is what amounts to a standoff. This month, the federal government said it was willing to allow more 55-gallon drums on main pathways in the refuge. It said it would not permit any gallon jugs.

But the water jugs continue to appear.

Last week, Gene Lefebvre, a retired minister who co-founded No More Deaths, hiked along a path popular among immigrants until he reached a clearing where volunteers for his organization had recently left some jugs.

Each bottle had markings on it noting the date it was left and the exact location on the group’s GPS mapping software. There were also signs of encouragement for the immigrants: a heart and a cross on one bottle and the words, “Good luck, friends,” on another.

“We’d give water to anyone we found in the desert, even the Border Patrol,” Mr. Lefebvre said.

But opponents say the water drops are encouraging immigrants to continue to come across the border illegally. The critics say there ought to be Border Patrol agents stationed near the water stations to arrest those who are crossing illegally as soon as they finish drinking. So furious are some at the practice of aiding immigrants that they have slashed open the water jugs, crushed them with their vehicles or simply poured the water into the desert.

The Buenos Aires refuge is among the most troubled of the 551 refuge areas across the country, the federal government says. The reason is its location, adjacent to the border.

“Since its establishment in 1985, refuge staff have worked diligently to protect species such as the endangered masked bobwhite quail and pronghorn, as well as offer meaningful visitor recreational opportunities,” a recently released government report on the water controversy said. “However, over the past decade an increasing amount of refuge time and energy has been required to address the growing issue of illegal traffic entering the U.S. across refuge lands.”

In 2006 and 2007, an estimated 250,000 to 300,000 illegal immigrants crossed the refuge annually, along with Border Patrol agents pursing them, federal officials say. “As a result, refuge lands have been marred by illegal trails and roads, litter and degraded habitat,” said a government report on the problem.

The numbers have dropped in recent years, to 31,500 in 2008 and about 20,000 in 2009. “This still averages approximately 50 to 60 illegal immigrants traveling through the refuge daily,” the government report said.

Mr. Millis, a former high school Spanish teacher who now works for the Sierra Club, disputes the notion that leaving out water jugs is luring more immigrants. He said it was border enforcement efforts that had pushed those seeking to cross into dangerous desert areas.

As for spoiling the environment, he said he collected as many jugs as he left behind. He also recounts how he found the dead body of a 14-year-old Salvadoran girl near the refuge days before he was ticketed.

“People are part of the environment,” he said.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4135


« Reply #421 on: October 01, 2010, 11:34:30 AM »

Good audio of Marc Levin interviewing Gloria Allred the Democrat lawyer using the illegal alien for a hit on Whitman:

http://www.marklevinshow.com/Article.asp?id=1970739&spid=32364

Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #422 on: October 01, 2010, 12:10:25 PM »

I don't quite agree that this is a "good audio of Marc Levin; rather like typical talk radio
each party is yelling and interrupting each other and both saying nothing.

That said, and while I am not a Meg Whitman fan, I don't understand why this is a big deal.

It is my understanding that the woman forged documents to obtain employment.  Ms. Whitman
relied on those forged documents, the employee's false testimony, and the employment agency's incorrect information and therefore
hired the person.  All taxes, Social Security taxes, unemployment taxes, etc. were paid by Ms. Whitman in good faith.
Upon finding out that the employee was illegal (undocumented) Ms. Whitman fired said employee.
Seems appropriate to me.

I mean what was she suppose to do? 
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4135


« Reply #423 on: October 01, 2010, 12:40:12 PM »

"and interrupting each other and both saying nothing"

It seems you and I will never totally agree on anything.

Your conclusion that Whitman was justifed is same as mine.

Yet, if you don't think that Levin doesn't expose Allred for being full of BS than I can't help you.

Levin cannot get a straight answer from her about the facts.  That is clear.

"I don't understand why this is a big deal"

I don't undertand what you don't understand.  The big deal is Democrat operatives are using this illegal alien to whip up the hispanic vote.

We the people appear to have NO say as to come here, stays here, and any ability to do anything about it other than make noise while being labelled as bigots.

That IS the big deal.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #424 on: October 01, 2010, 12:52:50 PM »


It seems you and I will never totally agree on anything.

Your conclusion that Whitman was justifed is same as mine.

huh  I think we do agree!    smiley

As for Allred she is always full of BS; I mean why does a bear shit in the woods?  It's just their nature.
But Levin doesn't give and take much but I guess that's talk radio....
and as an attorney he should understand Allred might
not confirm that her client is "illegal" on talk radio, etc.

As for it being "a big deal" I understand.  I just don't think it should be a big deal.
Whitman did nothing wrong.  Just bad luck.

Yet, that's politics.  It's not pretty...
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5997


« Reply #425 on: October 01, 2010, 01:00:14 PM »

JDN,  I did not listen to the clip but follow you on one point: how is an employer receiving forged documents supposed to know?  How did Gen. Colin Powell 'know' his contractor had illegals working in his house.  Did they look Hispanic and speak with an accent?

I have a family member who works with employers in the Human Resources field and is not in favor of putting more burdens on employers to solve this problem.  My thought is that the government can ask the employer to disclose who they hire and they could require documents or copies of identification for the new hires be faxed to them for enforcement, but not to require the business to do the federal government's job for them (when they won't even let the states do it).  If the business is in the conspiracy to produce or accept fake documents, that is another matter.

Why should a business have to be tougher than a police officer would be in a routine traffic stop?
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #426 on: October 01, 2010, 01:27:39 PM »

I think many employers are profiting by the relationship.  Perhaps if you apply penalties to employers and enforce those penalties,
we will have fewer illegal aliens working here.  Work on both the Supply and the Demand.

For example, here in CA in order to obtain a Driver's License you must show proof of citizenship or legal status.
Therefore I don't think it's onerous for employers to require a Driver's License at time of employment and to keep a copy thereof.

I'm not necessarily asking the employer to turn the person in to ICE, but the employer should understand that if he knowingly hires
an illegal employee he will suffer financial consequences.  That seems fair to me.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4135


« Reply #427 on: October 01, 2010, 01:38:22 PM »

JDN and Doug,
Yes I do agree on those points.
Getting ID verification from the employee by the employer requires some sort of enforcement and unfortunately, the gov. simply will not enforce ID fraud.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5997


« Reply #428 on: October 01, 2010, 02:01:09 PM »

"I think many employers are profiting by the relationship."

I know that is true, but you are missing the word knowingly.  Sort of knowing it because tens of millions of them are illegal is not knowing it.

"Perhaps if you apply penalties to employers and enforce those penalties,
we will have fewer illegal aliens working here."

Penalties without again using the word " knowingly"?  I don't mean should have guessed it by how they look or speak, but knowing with certainty in individual cases.  Should not the same penalty apply to anyone else who does business with the illegal and benefits from it like the grocer?

"I don't think it's onerous for employers to require a Driver's License at time of employment and to keep a copy thereof."

Require a DL for a non-driving job? To pick fruit or for heavy lifting or to work on a roof?  Or maybe only for Hispanics with a suspicious heavy accent?

"I'm not necessarily asking the employer to turn the person in to ICE..."

Which is someone else who will do nothing about it.

What about the welfare agencies.  They are an employer of sorts.  Same penalties, same requirements?  What about the public school?  They benefit.  Using local numbers, they get about 10k per year per student, legal or illegal.  What about the emergency rooms?  They benefit financially.  They do business and bill back (us) for their services.  We (the federal government suing Arizona) don't even let police officers do the type of scrutiny that we want to asking of business.  A police officer could stumble into an identity fraud racket and make a lasting difference.

"the employer should understand that if he knowingly hires an illegal employee he will suffer financial consequences"

 smiley  Okay, you came through for me with the word knowingly, but HOW?  All the employer can do it seems to me is require of the applicant what the government requires them to require and pass it to the government for a determination of authenticity.  These employers aren't receiving documents that certify someone is illegal and then going ahead with business.  Try turning people away for ethnicity based reasons and see how busy your legal department gets.

We aren't far apart here, the point is (like CCP says) that it doesn't make any sense until the government agrees to do their part FIRST and then require the rest of us to cooperate REASONABLY and comply.   

I can't get all fussy with someone who looks different or talks different than me in my business.  I have to treat everyone exactly the same under the strict laws that prohibit discrimination based on ethnicity and a host of other things.  If I would hire my brother without an ID and a background check then I have to give a Canadian looking person the same treatment.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31478


« Reply #429 on: October 01, 2010, 06:46:09 PM »

See my post #415 of 9/4/10.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5997


« Reply #430 on: October 01, 2010, 11:32:09 PM »

"See my post #415 of 9/4/10."

"Employers who hire illegal immigrants can be fined, but the Obama administration warned this week that they also can be fined for asking legal immigrants to show their green cards before hiring them."
----------------
Thank you.  Unbleepingbelievable.  We find a legitimate function for the federal government and they refuse to do it, refuse to let anyone else do it and then blame us back for the problem.  Time to throw the tea into the harbor and rattle their cages electorally until we get someone's attention.

If the Feds were all over the border security function and actively finding and deporting illegals and undocumented people, then requiring the reasonable cooperation of businesses would make perfect sense.

You can't scrutinize a non-English speaking Hispanic person, airport security can't target a young Muslim male with a one way cash ticket any more than they would your grandmother, and up here are we supposed to card check or ignore it when we catch someone finishing a question with... eh?
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12069


« Reply #431 on: October 02, 2010, 08:28:01 AM »



An Open Letter
September 24, 2010

Dear Stephen Colbert,

In preparing this open letter to you, I am literally fighting back the tears! It truly breaks my heart that so many people in positions of power and authority continue to make light of illegal immigration!

Are you aware of, and/or concerned with the fact, that American citizens and legal immigrants are murdered everyday by illegal aliens? Have you ever spent one second thinking about that?

In speaking to Congress today, do you think you would have prepared anything different if one of your love ones was murdered by an illegal alien? You think you would make fun of this illegal alien invasion if you lost a loved one to this crime?

What if your mother was shot in the head by an illegal alien? Do you think you could make that funny? What about your children? Would it be comical if your daughter or your son or your niece or nephew was lying in the street dead, shot in the head, by someone living in this country illegally?

Here’s a challenge for you Mr. Colbert. I challenge you to visit a Memorial Plaque in Los Angeles, California. The Plaque where my 17 year old nephew, Jamiel Andre’ Shaw II, was murdered on March 2, 2008, by a documented illegal alien gang member.

Minutes after Jamiel hung up the phone with his father Jamiel Sr., Jamiel was shot in the stomach and then shot in the head, three doors from our home.

Jamiel’s mother, U.S. Army Sergeant Anita Shaw was serving in Iraq when her son was murdered. Would you like to meet Anita, Mr. Colbert?

I challenge you to visit where Cheryl Green was murdered in Los Angeles. Cheryl Green was 14 years old when she was shot and left for dead by an illegal alien. She was riding her bike across an imaginary line that the illegal alien gang members told each other, “the next black person that crosses this line will die”.

Would you like to meet Cheryl’s mother, Charlene Lovett? I’m sure she could use a good laugh!

Maybe walking the streets of Los Angeles are not a challenge you would accept.

So, how about Arizona, Mr. Colbert? I challenge you to visit the place where Robert Krentz was murdered by an illegal alien. Robert Krentz was 58. He was a well-liked cattle rancher, working on his 34,000 acre ranch, when he and his dog were shot dead by an illegal alien.

These are just three of the American Citizens who I’m sure were not laughing when they were shot and murdered. Unfortunately, we have a long list of names of American citizens who were murdered by illegal aliens. Would you like to see their faces and meet their families?

As a matter of fact, there are tens of thousands of Americans across the United States of America who were murdered and left for dead by people who were never supposed to be in the USA! Many of these criminals have never been caught!

If you decide to accept this challenge, why not invite about 40 families who lost love ones due to illegal immigration, to come to your studio? Then, you can tell us all about your experience working on this farm. You can even tell us, “how bad your back was hurting when you were working with illegal aliens”. I wonder how many families would laugh and think that’s funny.

To be honest with you, I’m having a very hard time trying to understand why Representative Zoe Lofgren invited you, to speak on this serious issue! Perhaps she too thinks illegal immigration is a laughing matter! She seriously needs to be replaced!!

Call me Mr. Colbert if you accept this challenge, because I know my family would love a good laugh!!

Sincerely,
Jamiel Shaw’s Angry Aunt!
Althea Rae Shaw
Los Angeles, CA
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4135


« Reply #432 on: October 02, 2010, 09:25:44 AM »

That is what I figure.

You can card someone, suspect they are not legal and then what?  Who are you going to tell?

And *you* may be the one in trouble.  Criminally and civily.

And whomever you notify will do nothing anyway!

It is like a couple of people who came into my office some years back at different times.  They had each swindled narcotic prescriptions out of me.  Their stories were not totally believable but I gave them the benefit of the doubt in case they were really in pain.  I called the State's department that handles this and the response was , "well you gave them the prescription doctor!"  They sent me some waste of time forms to fill out, which I did and sent back and naturally I never heard another word.

In short they could care less.

And that would be the result now with employers checking for job prospects' immigration status.

So while I do feel empolyers should have some obligation to make some sort of attempt at verification, No one will back them up anyway.

And that is why the Allred thing is such a big deal.  It is a blatant example of *in the faces* of rightful, legal residents and to think that this criminal illegal alien who is being used as a pawn could possible effect the outcome of an election of our biggest state.  JDN, you don't think that is a big deal?

It is a Democrat lawyer defending potential votes for the party they have bought and paid for.



Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #433 on: October 02, 2010, 10:25:56 AM »

"See my post #415 of 9/4/10."

"The Justice Department said a valid driver's license and a Social Security card are usually sufficient to show that a person is authorized to work. Requesting a green card amounts to "immigration-related employment discrimination," said Thomas E. Perez, the assistant attorney general for civil rights."

That's reasonable "eh"  smiley    (I was born in Wisconsin and am a Scandinavian/German)

To obtain a Driver's License in CA you must show proof of legal status.  And to obtain a SS# that is also true.  Given that, I too think that should be sufficient for employers.  Anything else probably is discrimination.  I happen to be blond (grey) so I have never in my life been asked for papers.  Why should someone else because they are brown?  Or are you in favor of a national ID card?

I want the employers to stop hiring illegal aliens (limit supply and demand), but it's not their job to enforce immigration laws.  Just obey them.

And CCP, yes it is a big deal that this matter might affect the outcome of CA's election.  However, I have already stated that while I personally think Whitman
did nothing wrong, she did in fact hire an illegal alien and continued to employ her even after receiving notice from the SS Administration that the employee's
number was invalid.  Whitman made a mistake and she may pay for it.  That's politics. 
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5997


« Reply #434 on: October 02, 2010, 11:14:03 AM »

Whitman has a hypocrisy problem, but she is running against Jerry Brown so will see what high standard voters hold her to, lol.

What I don't get in the Whitman maid case is if the Feds KNOW she is illegal and where to find her during the day, why are they putting law enforcement responsibility on the citizen or business?  What would it accomplish for Whitman to have chased her out of their employ.  Is the thought that she would then never again find work, starve and die or walk back toward her old home through the gang controlled border crossings?  Not when every welfare agency in the state would welcome her with open arms.  Point is there is no enforcement, no consistency, no consequence. 

This discussion tells me we need to hold public services and employment to the same standard.  Why we would stop someone from working and then let them stay in the US to use public services? That doesn't make sense. 

It points back to - secure the borders first and then deal with who is here.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4135


« Reply #435 on: October 02, 2010, 12:50:54 PM »

"Whitman has a hypocrisy problem"

I am not so sure.  She had copies of ID and SSN.  She/husband was notified there was a descrepancy and she let the empolyee know to check into it.

I am not clear she was notifed person was *illegal*; just that SSN didn't match or check out. 

She paid this person well for her duties.   She paid taxes etc and other obligations for this employee.  If someone knows they are hiring an illegal they pay them cash under the table.  They don't submit work papers to the Feds.  It sounds like Whitman and or husband was actually being quite kind to this person and gave her the benefit of the doubt.  Yet for political purposes they are being accused of lying, treating her poorly and I guess not turning her in to ICE??

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12069


« Reply #436 on: October 02, 2010, 05:29:56 PM »

**From the far from conservative SF Chron.**

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/09/30/MN931FME32.DTL

Lawyers said an employer's obligation upon receiving a no-match letter from the Social Security Administration is to check their own records for typographical or other errors, inform the employee that the records do not match and tell the employee to correct them.

"There is no additional legal obligation for an employer to follow up or respond to SSA with new information," said Gening Liao, a labor and employment attorney at the National Immigration Law Center in Los Angeles, which defends immigrants.

Liao added that it is "very important that the employer does not take adverse action against the employee" merely based on a letter from Social Security.

Nor was Diaz under any obligation to pursue the matter, Liao said. Correcting a mismatch is "primarily for the benefit of the employee," she said, to make sure they can collect all the benefits due them for their work.


Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/09/30/MN931FME32.DTL#ixzz11F97GpYN
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #437 on: October 02, 2010, 11:30:48 PM »

Knowingly or unknowingly Whitman hired, retained and subsequently fired an illegal employee who had been
"a member of the family" for a number of years.

The right says Whitman should have had her illegal maid arrested.
The left says she is not "compassionate" and should have fought for her maid.
Whitman can't win this one.

"Legal obligations"?  This is not a court of law; perception is what matters in politics.
The voters decide, not a Judge.

Bad luck, hypocrisy, call it what you want, but this has hurt Whitman.




 
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5997


« Reply #438 on: October 02, 2010, 11:58:11 PM »

"this has hurt Whitman"

I read but did not watch the 2nd debate so I cannot gauge the reaction.  Certainly this is a major, unwanted distraction. 

JDN, I don't get a vote in Calif. What is yours likely to be? and why.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31478


« Reply #439 on: October 03, 2010, 01:49:56 AM »

It is a giant game of "gotcha".
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #440 on: October 03, 2010, 09:22:04 AM »

"this has hurt Whitman"

I read but did not watch the 2nd debate so I cannot gauge the reaction.  Certainly this is a major, unwanted distraction. 

JDN, I don't get a vote in Calif. What is yours likely to be? and why.

I'm honestly not sure who I will vote for.  For the record, this matter has no influence on my decision. 

Whitman did a marvelous job at Ebay.  We need a good manager.  Yet I question someone who spends over 110 million dollars of their own money
to be elected.  And rumor has it she has problems getting along with others ($200,000 payout for "pushing" an employee).  This
matters since we will still have Democratic legislature even if she is elected.

People dump on Arnold Schwarzenegger, but frankly he has butted heads over and over (and lost) with the democratic legislature. I think if
he had had a neutral or republican legislature, he would have done an excellent job.
I don't see Whitman doing any better.  She seems more antagonistic than Arnold.

I don't think Brown is that bad, he was an ok governor before and perhaps he can get some things accomplished to move this state forward. 
That said,  I don't like his position on immigration or spending. 

Maybe I will just go play golf on election day.
Logged
prentice crawford
Power User
***
Posts: 776


« Reply #441 on: October 03, 2010, 09:32:30 AM »

Woof,
 Yeah, this is dirty politics at its worse. This was planned and well timed by Gloria Allred who has worked on Jerry Brown's champaign's in the the past and contributed money to him. So let's look at the facts: A lady illegally came across our border, legally procured fake Id's, documents, and a social security number, that she used to deceive Ms. Whitman into hiring her and paying her $23 an hour to do house keeping. Ms. Whitman kept her gainfully employed for 9 years and treated her as family. At some point in 2003, Ms Whitman gets a letter saying there was a problem with the lady's SS number and that she might not be getting proper credit for her witholdings. The letter sternly warns that no action should be taken against the lady or be fired by Ms Whitman because that would be a violation of the lady's rights and this letter did not mean that the lady was here illegally. So Ms Whitman and her husband showed the letter to their employee and told her she needed to look into this to make sure she would have her money going into her SS account. Later on after nine years in early 2009 the illegal alien fessed up to being illegally here and Ms Whitman had no choice at that point but to fire her. Now suddenly over a year later and just before an election, boom! a avalanche of false accusations hits Ms Whitman.
 I think it is Ms Whitman that has the legal grounds for a lawsuit and if Jerry Brown gets elected because of this smear attack, I think he should be recalled.
              P.C.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2010, 09:49:00 AM by prentice crawford » Logged

ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4135


« Reply #442 on: October 03, 2010, 10:10:56 AM »

"And rumor has it she has problems getting along with others ($200,000 payout for "pushing" an employee)."

So?

Look at our President.  There are at least 150 million people in the US he cannot get along with. 
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #443 on: October 03, 2010, 10:14:16 AM »

"I think it is Ms Whitman that has the legal grounds for a lawsuit and if Jerry Brown gets elected because of this smear attack, I think he should be recalled".   huh
What smear?  It's true; she hired, albeit unknowingly an illegal alien.  Did she do something wrong?  I don't think so, but it just looks bad.  Appearance matters.
That's politics. 

As for the Social Security Letter,
"At some point in 2003, Ms Whitman gets a letter saying there was a problem with the lady's SS number and that she might not be getting proper credit for her witholdings. The letter sternly warns that no action should be taken against the lady or be fired by Ms Whitman because that would be a violation of the lady's rights and this letter did not mean that the lady was here illegally. So Ms Whitman and her husband showed the letter to their employee and told her she needed to look into this to make sure she would have her money going into her SS account."

Do you have a source?  My information shows that Whitman received a letter from Social Security Administration questioning the validity of the submitted social security number; period.  There is no mention or warning in the letter that "no action should be taken against the lady or be fired by Ms Whitman because that would be a violation of the lady's rights". 




Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12069


« Reply #444 on: October 03, 2010, 11:10:12 AM »



Do you have a source?  My information shows that Whitman received a letter from Social Security Administration questioning the validity of the submitted social security number; period.  There is no mention or warning in the letter that "no action should be taken against the lady or be fired by Ms Whitman because that would be a violation of the lady's rights". 

Lawyers said an employer's obligation upon receiving a no-match letter from the Social Security Administration is to check their own records for typographical or other errors, inform the employee that the records do not match and tell the employee to correct them.

"There is no additional legal obligation for an employer to follow up or respond to SSA with new information," said Gening Liao, a labor and employment attorney at the National Immigration Law Center in Los Angeles, which defends immigrants.

Liao added that it is "very important that the employer does not take adverse action against the employee" merely based on a letter from Social Security.

Nor was Diaz under any obligation to pursue the matter, Liao said. Correcting a mismatch is "primarily for the benefit of the employee," she said, to make sure they can collect all the benefits due them for their work.

The attorney for Diaz Santillan has not said whether the Whitmans' former housekeeper received a mismatch notice. Social Security's notice to employees says the letter "does not, in and of itself, allow your employer to change your job, lay you off, fire you or take other action against you."

Had Whitman questioned Diaz's legal status after Diaz presented documents when she was hired, Whitman again would have exposed herself to discrimination violations.

"Not only is (accepting the documents) all the law required her to do, but there's a counterbalancing anti-discrimination law that keeps her from probing further or demanding different documents," said Crystal Williams, executive director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association in Washington.


Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/09/30/MN931FME32.DTL#ixzz11JRw6iUg
Logged
prentice crawford
Power User
***
Posts: 776


« Reply #445 on: October 03, 2010, 11:40:04 AM »

"I think it is Ms Whitman that has the legal grounds for a lawsuit and if Jerry Brown gets elected because of this smear attack, I think he should be recalled".   huh
What smear?  It's true; she hired, albeit unknowingly an illegal alien.  Did she do something wrong?  I don't think so, but it just looks bad.  Appearance matters.
That's politics.  

As for the Social Security Letter,
"At some point in 2003, Ms Whitman gets a letter saying there was a problem with the lady's SS number and that she might not be getting proper credit for her witholdings. The letter sternly warns that no action should be taken against the lady or be fired by Ms Whitman because that would be a violation of the lady's rights and this letter did not mean that the lady was here illegally. So Ms Whitman and her husband showed the letter to their employee and told her she needed to look into this to make sure she would have her money going into her SS account."

Do you have a source?  My information shows that Whitman received a letter from Social Security Administration questioning the validity of the submitted social security number; period.  There is no mention or warning in the letter that "no action should be taken against the lady or be fired by Ms Whitman because that would be a violation of the lady's rights".  





Woof,
 The letter has the warning printed on it; and yes a smear; Allred accused Ms Whitman of hiring an illegal worker, receiving a letter that exposed her as an illegal and still retain her until Ms Whitman decided to run for Governor and then getting rid of the illegal because she was afraid she would get caught. She is also saying Ms Whitman abused the illegal. That is all a lie/smear to discredit Ms Whitman just before a Spanish language debate between Brown and Whitman. As for the source the media is finally catching up to the false allegations and any new report on it will have that information about the letter and you need to understand that the info you got was controlled by Allred and that is why you are in the dark about the facts.
                          P.C.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2010, 12:27:33 PM by prentice crawford » Logged

DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5997


« Reply #446 on: October 03, 2010, 12:07:32 PM »

"It is a giant game of "gotcha"."

True and too bad both ways.  I assume Calif has larger problems.  I'm not following the campaign, we have our own governor's race, but the choices in general are spend more / more of the same vs. spend less / control spending and I assume both campaigns work hard to blur the choices.  From the state budget point of view, illegal immigration puts a burden on state spending.  No one will say no to  public services for illegals, especially their children.  Even bringing up that budget burden offends legal, law abiding Hispanic voters.  From the federal point of view, either we have borders or we don't.  If not, then we have no nation, no way to plan, spend, or budget services for our citizens.  Either we are a nation of laws or we are not.  The good laws we need to enforce and the bad laws we need to repeal.

JDN, thanks for the candid reply. I didn't you are a golfer, maybe I can win back the money I might lose to you in squash...  Jerry Brown' previous experience as Governor, like Reagan's, like Brown's father, was in a different time.  California was leading the nation and the nation was leading the world all in a positive sense. Now the opposite.  I doubt if either of these people can fix it but I would vote for whoever I thought would stand up stronger to the legislature.  Probably not someone in the legislature's same party with the same donors and same power groups.

Logged
prentice crawford
Power User
***
Posts: 776


« Reply #447 on: October 03, 2010, 01:12:32 PM »

Woof,
 This is back firing on old Gloria:

 www.mediaite.com/online/greta-van-susteren-to-gloria-allred-youre-blackmailing-meg-whitman/

                                 P.C.
Logged

JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #448 on: October 03, 2010, 01:58:33 PM »

"It is a giant game of "gotcha"."

True and too bad both ways.  I assume Calif has larger problems.  I'm not following the campaign, we have our own governor's race, but the choices in general are spend more / more of the same vs. spend less / control spending and I assume both campaigns work hard to blur the choices.  From the state budget point of view, illegal immigration puts a burden on state spending.  No one will say no to  public services for illegals, especially their children.  Even bringing up that budget burden offends legal, law abiding Hispanic voters.  From the federal point of view, either we have borders or we don't.  If not, then we have no nation, no way to plan, spend, or budget services for our citizens.  Either we are a nation of laws or we are not.  The good laws we need to enforce and the bad laws we need to repeal.

JDN, thanks for the candid reply. I didn't you are a golfer, maybe I can win back the money I might lose to you in squash...  Jerry Brown' previous experience as Governor, like Reagan's, like Brown's father, was in a different time.  California was leading the nation and the nation was leading the world all in a positive sense. Now the opposite.  I doubt if either of these people can fix it but I would vote for whoever I thought would stand up stronger to the legislature.  Probably not someone in the legislature's same party with the same donors and same power groups.


"I assume Calif has larger problems." 
Now that's an understatement!!!

I'm not sure "standing up to the legislature" is the answer.  Rather, convincing them to work together for the greater good is the answer.
Reagan got a lot accomplished behind closed doors after midterm elections because he was able to communicate and persuade, not only because
he "stood up".  And I think back then both sides were willing to work together for the greater good.  It seems partisan politics rules the day now.
Both parties are guilty.

As for getting together I think you overestimate my squash game lately!   smiley
But golf sounds good.  They have built some fabulous courses in Wisconsin, unfortunately I left the state before they were built.
Perhaps one day I will return and we can play a round?
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12069


« Reply #449 on: October 03, 2010, 02:07:55 PM »

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2010/10/03/mexican-mayors-stop-deporting-all-these-mexicans-theyre-too-violent-and-dangerous/

Mexican Mayors: Stop Deporting All These Mexicans, They’re Too Violent and Dangerous!
posted at 10:38 am on October 3, 2010 by Cassy Fiano

In what may be the most snort-worthy post I’ve read recently, Mexican mayors are actually complaining about Mexicans being deported back to Mexico… because they’re too dangerous and violent.

Well, yeah. That’s why we don’t want them here. Because they’re criminals.

    conference in which the mayors of four Mexican border cities and one U.S. mayor, San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders, gathered to discuss cross-border issues.

    Ciudad Juarez Mayor Jose Reyes blamed U.S. deportation policy for contributing to his city’s violence, saying that of the 80,000 people deported to Juarez in the past three years, 28,000 had U.S. criminal records — including 7,000 convicted rapists and 2,000 convicted murderers.

    Those criminal deportees, he said, have contributed to the violence in Juarez, which has reported more than 2,200 murders this year. Reyes and the other Mexican mayors said that when the U.S. deports criminals back to Mexico, it should fly them to their hometowns, not just bus them to the border.

    But critics in America say the Mexican lawmakers are simply trying to pass the buck to the U.S. and its taxpayers. They say the Mexicans should take responsibility for their criminals, who are putting both Mexican and American lives in danger.

It’s especially snort-worthy considering that open-borders extremists have recently been spouting ridiculous drivel about how calling illegal immigrants illegal is leading to loads of anti-immigrant violence. Reality, of course, is that violent crimes committed by the poor, sweet, victimized illegal immigrants far outweighs any anti-Latino violence imagined by the amnesty advocates.

And this is, of course, Mexican officials trying to put the blame on the United States instead of taking responsibility for their own citizens. Yes, a large number of these Mexican illegal immigrants are, in fact, criminals, and oftentimes violent criminals at that. That’s why we don’t want them here. That’s why so many Americans want to get tough on immigration — starting with securing the border. You’d think Mexican officials would understand this, considering Mexico’s own strict immigration laws. Could this have anything to do with the Reconquista mindset encouraged by Mexico’s own president?

Speaking of violent Mexicans, Green Room blogger Director Blue reports on another tragic American death at the hands of Mexicans. David and Tiffany Hartley were jet skiing on Falcon Lake, and rode over to the Mexican side to take pictures of a Spanish mission. They were chased by Mexican boats, where Tiffany’s husband David was shot in the head and fell into the water. When she went back to retrieve his body, the thugs held a gun to her head.

    Tiffany Hartley told deputies she and her husband David were jet skiing near the town of Old Guerrrero. Hartley told investigators her husband was shot in the head and killed. She says she was forced to leave his body behind as the gunmen fired more bullets at her.

    … Hartley did tell authorities after the shooting she got help from a man on shore. The Good Samaritan told deputies he saw the Mexican boats chasing her into US waters. CHANNEL 5 NEWS spoke to the man who stepped up to help Tiffany in those first terrifying moments after her husbands murder.

    The Good Samaritan wants to remain anonymous because he fears for his life. He was on the west side of the lake. He goes there once a week, but for some reason he went twice this week.

    For him it was just another day on Falcon Lake. The sky was clear, and there were people out having fun. Then, out of the blue he saw a jetski being chased by a boat. Everything would change for the Good Samaritan when he heard Tiffany Hartley rushing toward him. As she sobbed she told him her husband had been shot.

    “She could see the gunshots wounds to his head. His brains were falling and he was not breathing,” he said. The man tried to console her. She told him she and her husband David had gone to old Guerrro on the Mexico side of the lake to take pictures of a Spanish mission.

    “Three boats approached them, waving guns talking in Spanish,” he said. “They got scared, spooked then they heard the gunshots going on. She could see they were hitting the water and the water was coming up at them. [A]ll of a sudden she sees her husband flying off.”

    Tiffany told him she turned around to go take care of her husband, but two pirates went after her jetski. One pirate held a gun to her head. Once he left she tried to pull her husband body onto her jetski but she didn’t have the strength.

    She told the Good Samaritan she made an agonizing decision. She left her husband behind because she could see a pirate charging towards her. Her story is forever imprinted in his head.

Authorities believe this was the work of pirates working for a drug cartel, who have often been robbing boaters at gunpoint. This is the fifth violent incident at Falcon Lake in five months, with the worst obviously being David Hartley’s murder.

Why would we want to keep these kind of violent criminals in United States territory? The stance of the Mexican mayors would be understandable if we were abandoning violent American criminals in Mexico. But we aren’t. These are Mexican citizens, meaning they were Mexico’s problem. Americans are already shouldering the burden of harboring Mexico’s worst criminals. These violent criminals are Mexico’s responsibility.

Of course, knowing our current leadership, these Mexican loons will probably get time to complain in front of Congress, where Obama will promptly apologize for the United States selfishness in expecting Mexico to take responsibility for its own citizens.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 17 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!